4.5 Article

Clinical analysis of the treatment of spinocerebellar ataxia and multiple system atrophy-cerebellar type with umbilical cord mesenchymal stromal cells

期刊

CYTOTHERAPY
卷 13, 期 8, 页码 913-917

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.3109/14653249.2011.579958

关键词

mesenchymal stromal cells; multiple system atrophy; spinocerebellar ataxia; umbilical cord

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background aims. The aims of this study were to observe the safety and effectiveness of umbilical cord mesenchymal stromal cells (UC-MSC) in the treatment of spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA) and multiple system atrophy-cerebellar type (MSA-C). Methods. From October 2009 to September 2010, 14 cases of SCA and 10 cases of MSA-C were given UC-MSC by weekly intrathecal injection, at a dose of 1 x 10(6)/kg four times as one course. All the patients received one course of treatment, except three patients who received two courses. The movement ability and quality of daily life were evaluated with the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) and Activity of Daily Living Scale (ADL) and the scores compared with those before cell therapy. A follow-up of 6-15 months was carried out for all of the patients. Results. The results showed that the ICARS and ADL scores were significantly decreased 1 month after treatment (P < 0.01). The symptoms, including unstable walking and standing, slow movement, fine motor disorders of the upper limbs, writing difficulties and dysarthria, were greatly improved except for one patient, who had no response. The observed side-effects included dizziness (four patients), back pain (two cases) and headache (one case), which disappeared within 1-3 days. During the follow-up, 10 cases remained stable for half a year or longer, while 14 cases had regressed to the status prior to the treatment within 1-14 months (an average of 3 months). Conclusions. Intrathecal injection of UC-MSC is safe and can delay the progression of neurologic deficits for SCA and MSA-C patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据