4.6 Review

Progress in clinical trials of stem cell therapy for cerebral palsy

Journal

NEURAL REGENERATION RESEARCH
Volume 16, Issue 7, Pages 1377-1382

Publisher

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/1673-5374.300979

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81471308]
  2. Stem Cell Clinical Research Project of China [CMR-20161129-1003]
  3. Dalian Innovation Technology Funding of China [2018J11CY025]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review summarizes the design schemes and results of clinical trials of stem cell therapy for cerebral palsy, showing significant differences in population characteristics, stem cell types and doses, administration methods, and evaluation methods among the included trials. The review also evaluates the safety and efficacy of these trials, aiming to advance rational development of stem cell therapy for cerebral palsy and contribute to the clinical application of stem cells.
Cerebral palsy is the most common disease in children associated with lifelong disability in many countries. Clinical research has demonstrated that traditional physiotherapy and rehabilitation therapies cannot alone cure cerebral palsy. Stem cell transplantation is an emerging therapy that has been applied in clinical trials for a variety of neurological diseases because of the regenerative and unlimited proliferative capacity of stem cells. In this review, we summarize the design schemes and results of these clinical trials. Our findings reveal great differences in population characteristics, stem cell types and doses, administration methods, and evaluation methods among the included clinical trials. Furthermore, we also assess the safety and efficacy of these clinical trials. We anticipate that our findings will advance the rational development of clinical trials of stem cell therapy for cerebral palsy and contribute to the clinical application of stem cells.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available