One year later, spinal cord therapy still looks promising

Jake Javier – participant in the SCIStar study

The beginning of a clinical trial, particularly the first time a new therapy is being tested in people, is often a time of equal parts anticipation and nervousness. Anticipation, because you have been working to this point for many years. Nervousness, because you have never tested this in people before and even though you have done years of study to show it is probably safe, until you try it in people you never really know.

That’s why the latest results from the CIRM-funded SCiStar Study, a clinical trial for spinal cord injury, are so encouraging. The results show that, one year after being treated, all the patients are doing well, none have experienced any serious side effects, and most have experienced impressive gains in movement, mobility and strength.

Ed Wirth, Chief Medical Officer at BioTime

In a news release Ed Wirth,  BioTIme’s Chief Medical Officer, said they were encouraged by what they saw:

“We believe the primary goals of the SCiStar Study, which were to observe the safety of OPC1 in cervical spinal cord injury patients as well as other important metrics including related to the optimal timing of OPC1 injection, tolerability of the immunosuppression regimen, engraftment of OPC1 cells, and rates of motor recovery observed among different study subpopulations, have all been successfully achieved.”

The study involved transplanting what the researchers called AST-OPC1 cells into patients who have suffered recent injuries that have left them paralyzed from the neck down.  AST-OPC1 are oligodendrocyte progenitor cells, which develop into cells that support and protect nerve cells in the central nervous system, the area damaged in spinal cord injury. It’s hoped the treatment will restore connections at the injury site, allowing patients to regain some movement and feeling.

Altogether 25 patients were involved. Three, in Cohort 1, were given injections of just two million OPC1 cells. This was to ensure the approach was safe and wouldn’t endanger patients. The remaining 22, in Cohorts 2-5, were given between 10 and 20 million cells. One year after the last patient was treated the results show:

  • MRI scans show no evidence of adverse changes in any of the 25 SCiStar study subjects.
    • No SCiStar study subjects had worsening of neurological function post-injection
    • At 12 months, 95% (21/22) of patients in Cohorts 2-5 recovered at least one motor level on at least one side and 32% (7/22) of these subjects recovered two or more motor levels on at least one side. 
    • No patient saw decreased motor function following administration of OPC1 and all either retained for 12 months the motor function recovery seen through 6 months or experienced further motor function recovery from 6 to 12 months.
    • All three subjects in Cohort 1 and 95% (21/22) of those in Cohorts 2 to 5 have MRI scans at 12 months consistent with the formation of a tissue matrix at the injury site. This is encouraging evidence the OPC1 cells have engrafted at the injury site and helped to prevent cavitation, a destructive process that occurs within the spinal cord following spinal cord injuries, and typically results in permanent loss of motor and sensory function.

“We appreciate the support of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the world’s largest institution dedicated to bringing the future of cellular medicine closer to reality, whose generous grant funding to date of $14.3 million has helped advance the clinical development of our OPC1 program and generate these encouraging clinical results in patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries.”

BioTime is now planning to meet with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) later this year to discuss next steps for the therapy. Soon as we know the outcome of those talks, we’ll share them with you.

One thought on “One year later, spinal cord therapy still looks promising

  1. I have trouble believing the above ‘optimistic’ comments 12 months after implantation. What does it mean that patients gained 1-2 levels of motor function and how was it assessed ? MRI will not assess this.
    Were needle EMG muscle studies performed pre and post cell implantation ? This is the only way one could determine objectively any recovery of a segmental muscle myotome loss and any improvement.
    Once an axon is severed it dies back to the motor neurone cell body and takes months to travel from the LMN to the segmental region where the injury has occurred and then has to negotiate and penetrate collagen repair ‘infill tissue’ let alone hook-up with the damaged distal end of a motor axon which will not be the one it was originally attached to !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s