#ECTRIMS2019 — Promises and Warnings About Stem Cell Therapy

#ECTRIMS2019 — Promises and Warnings About Stem Cell Therapy

Stem cell therapy, or stem cell transplant, is an emerging yet controversial treatment approach for multiple sclerosis (MS). While some data uphold it as one of the most efficacious MS treatments, to date there have been no controlled studies comparing it to conventional medicines and providing more robust evidence regarding its safety and clinical benefit.

Under the topic “HSCT and stem cell treatment in MS,” a group of researchers discussed the promise and current challenges of stem cell transplant at the 35th Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS), being held Sept. 11–13 in Stockholm.

Several lines of research have bolstered hope for the use of adult stem cells to slow MS progression and help repair damage to the nervous system. There has been particular interest in the transplantation of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) — adult stem cells found in the bone marrow and blood that are capable of forming all of the cells that make up the blood and the immune system.

Research on the potential of other stem cells for MS is also underway, including mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), and neural stem cells (NSCs).

To date, the only proven stem cell treatment for MS is autologous HSC transplant (AHSCT),  particularly in people with highly active relapsing disease.

AHSCT basically consists of a bone marrow transplant where HSCs are collected from the patient (aka autologous) and given back after the immune system is partially or completely wiped out by a conditioning treatment, usually chemotherapy.

Stem cells are then expected to grow a new immune system “from scratch.” The idea is to “reprogram” the immune system in order to restore its normal function, and slow or stop the attacks to the nervous system.

Greater expectations for AHSCT have been raised after recent studies indicated that the therapy might be more successful if done in the earlier (inflammatory) stages of MS.

Despite these results, most clinicians are reluctant about the risks and the lack of data regarding AHSCT in MS patients.

On top of that, an emergent problem is worrying the medical community — some clinics around the world are selling unproven transplant therapies as a potential cure for MS, sometimes with negative health and/or financial consequences.


Growing hope for AHSCT

Joachim Burman, MD, PhD, a researcher at Uppsala University, in Sweden, made the case as to why AHSCT may be the most efficacious MS treatment so far, and why it should be made widely available. His talk was titled “HSCT for MS — we are ready for prime time.

According to Burman, AHSCT was first used for MS in 1995, and since then more than 2,500 patients have undergone the procedure in Europe. Initially explored for hard-to-treat, progressive forms of MS, interest in AHSCT has shifted toward its use in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), where it has been yielding the most encouraging results.

Advantages of AHSCT include the fact that a single administration can yield prolonged benefits, with no need for alternative treatments. In addition, the majority of patients (68–70%) achieve “no evidence of disease activity” (NEDA) — no relapses, no increase in disability (as measured by EDSS), and no new or active lesions on MRI — at five years after treatment, suggesting a superior efficacy compared to conventional disease-modifying therapies (DMTs).

Yet such evidence is weakened by the lack of control groups (e.g. a comparison group with patients on routine care with DMTs) in these studies.

Safety also has been a major concern with AHSCT, particularly the fact that the intensive immunosuppressive treatment patients have to receive might be too dangerous. But, according to Burman, advances have been made in recent years to improve the safety of these procedures.

Interestingly, recent results from the trial MIST (NCT00273364) confirmed earlier promising data regarding the use of AHSCT versus DMTs in people with highly active RRMS.

Results showed that at five years of treatment, 78.5% of patients who underwent AHSCT remained in a NEDA status, while only 2.97% of those who were on DMTs achieved it. In addition, half of the patients (one in two) treated with AHSCT reduced their disability level (as measured by EDSS), whereas only one in 13 improved with DMTs.

No deaths or life-threatening adverse events occurred in the MIST study, supporting AHSCT as a safe procedure if done at accredited and experienced centers.

“At this point, it is justified to say that AHSCT is superior to standard [DMT] treatment in terms of efficacy, and it seems to be on par with other advanced therapies in terms of safety. Current evidence supports a more widespread use of this procedure,” Burman concluded.


Minding the risks

A more cautious look was upheld by Stephen Hauser, MD, professor at UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco.

In his presentation, titled “Hold your horses — HSCT is still an experimental treatment,” Hauser noted the promise of AHSCT, but also the potential disadvantages and risks that need to be taken into account.

He agreed with Burman that HSCT indeed offers some advantages, namely “high effectiveness against relapsing disease” and the fact that “a single administration only can yield a prolonged benefit lasting years,” which is “an appealing prospect for patients and payers.”

Furthermore, some studies indicate that HSCT provides some degree of “reprogramming” of the immune system, which can be important in the context of autoimmune diseases.

However, serious safety concerns, especially with more intensive conditioning (immunosuppressive) regimens, a lack of reliable long-term follow-up data, and little evidence supporting effectiveness in advanced MS cases must be considered, Hauser said.

Also, there is still uncertainty as to whether self-attacking immune T or B cells are permanently deleted with HSCT.

“We are entering an era where relapses are well-controlled in the vast majority of patients. Looking ahead, the relative value of treatment options will likely be based primarily on their effect against progression, which occurs throughout the disease course and in all forms of MS,” Hauser said.

For him, a demonstration of long-term protection against the degenerative component of MS progression will be key. Furthermore, Hauser stated that a MS cure would mean elimination of all evidence of immune autoreactivity and inflammation in the central nervous system (CNS), which, he noted, “has not yet been convincingly demonstrated with any MS therapeutic agent.”

The researcher also presented a case study of a young patient with MS, and used it to emphasize that “in a situation of clinical equipoise” between choosing a DMT or HSCT, clinicians should “subject patients to the least possible risk!”

“I think we have the obligation of exposing our patients to less possible risk — so in this case I would choose highly effective DMT,” Hauser said.

When asked what would he consider compelling evidence for the use of HSCT in routine clinical practice, Hauser said: “First, I think that the conditioning regimens used would need to be safe … even one percent of death rate is unacceptable.”


Mesenchymal stem cell therapy

In addition to AHSCT, other stem cell therapies are being studied for MS, including mesenchymal stem cell therapy (MSCT). This was the focus of the oral presentation “Mesenchymal stem cell treatment in MS“, given by Antonio Uccelli, MD, professor at the University of Genova, Italy.

MSCs are adult stem cells found in several places in the body, including the bone marrow, skin, and fat tissue. MSCs have been studied for their potential benefit in neurodegenerative diseases, because of their ability to reduce inflammation and make the immune system less active. Scientists hope these properties can tune down the auto-reactive attacks against nerve cells and boost myelin repair in MS.

Similar to AHSCT, a transplant of MSCs involves isolating these cells from the patient, multiplying them in the lab, and infusing them back into the blood or fluid surrounding the patient’s spinal cord (intrathecal injection).

Early animal studies suggested that MSCs are able to enhance tissue repair, ameliorate EAE (experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis; a disease in a mouse model mimicking MS), promote neural repair, and influence the immune response.

A few small clinical studies in MS patients have provided early evidence that this type of transplant is safe and might be effective.

As more robust data is needed, researchers are conducting a Phase 1/2 trial called MESEMS (mesenchymal stem cells for multiple sclerosis) in MS patients to assess the safety and efficacy of MSC treatment compared to placebo. The trial is mainly focused on patients ages 18–50 with very active disease.

According to Uccelli, the team recently got preliminary data (in the end of July 2019) of the trial. Unfortunately, data showed that the trial did not meet its primary endpoint — there were no differences between MSC-treated patients and those receiving placebo at week 24 in terms of number of active lesions.

Regarding safety, “adverse events were equally distributed between groups,” Uccelli said, but “serious adverse events tended to be more common in the placebo group.”

As for the secondary endpoint  — number of relapses — Uccelli said the team observed “a strong signal of a reduction of the relapse rate of about 36%” with MSC therapy, although statistical analyses are still needed to confirm the statistical significance of this result, compared to placebo.

Overall, Uccelli concluded that, although the trial did not meet its primary endpoint, it “demonstrated an important trend toward decreasing the annualized relapse rate over 24 weeks” with MSC treatment, and suggested that “analysis of secondary and exploratory outcomes will reveal whether MSC are effective on other MRI and/or clinical parameters in MS, as well as on any defined metrics suggesting repair.”

Uccelli believes that “clinical exploitation of MSC for MS may lead to novel strategies aimed at blocking uncontrolled inflammation, protecting neurons and promoting repair, but not at restoring deranged neural network responsible for irreversible disability.”

Ana is a molecular biologist with a passion for discovery and communication. As a science writer she looks for connecting the public, in particular patient and healthcare communities, with clear and quality information about the latest medical advances. Ana holds a PhD in Biomedical Sciences from the University of Lisbon, Portugal, where she specialized in genetics, molecular biology, and infectious diseases
Total Posts: 1,053
Patrícia holds her PhD in Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases from the Leiden University Medical Center in Leiden, The Netherlands. She has studied Applied Biology at Universidade do Minho and was a postdoctoral research fellow at Instituto de Medicina Molecular in Lisbon, Portugal. Her work has been focused on molecular genetic traits of infectious agents such as viruses and parasites.
Ana is a molecular biologist with a passion for discovery and communication. As a science writer she looks for connecting the public, in particular patient and healthcare communities, with clear and quality information about the latest medical advances. Ana holds a PhD in Biomedical Sciences from the University of Lisbon, Portugal, where she specialized in genetics, molecular biology, and infectious diseases
Latest Posts
  • Acthar Gel study
  • NfL blood test
  • Lemtrada and safety risks
  • vision loss and mutations
Average Rating
0 out of 5 stars. 0 votes.
My Rating:


  1. Christopher says:

    When researchers comment on results, they really need to explain better that these are all therapies with positive results for early disease and ‘active’ phase of disease. The results are dismal in the progressive phase of disease–i.e. none of the therapies work because damage is irreversible. It should be more than just a sidenote.

  2. Jeanine says:

    The MIST trials inclusion criteria was failure if two DMARDS. My daughter was treated off study with a nonmyeloblative regimen. I have to admit I was afraid and did not want her to do it. I supported her choice and explained to her the possible longterm side effects. However it is usually a one time deal and as long as you are very careful and follow everything you are told you will get through. With that I believe long term use of DMARDs may have more side effects. She has no progression after two years. Since she had significant disability that has not got better. The earlier the better. If you are not that disabled you may think why HSCT. If I knew what I know now I would have found a facility sooner.

  3. HUD says:

    Active or inactive disease? Who really knows? No one yet. Everyone should of course be informed of the data and relative success rates and risks of treatment but surely there are no certainties. Everyone healthy enough deserves a chance and has the right to make their own decisions.

  4. LuAnn Sullivan says:

    If AHSCT was first tested in 1995 by the Swedish physician and he has obtained good results why has there not been any clinical trials to prove if this treatment is superior to DMT. What is getting in the way of proving or disproving the success and safety of stem cell transplant?

    • Loralyn Conover says:

      The drug companies of course! They don’t want a cure or long times between taking drugs for this disease. The only people who want cures are the people who have it and their families. There is no money to be made by drug companies if you don’t have to take their drug for the rest of your life. If there is ever a cure for MS it will not be in America. IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!

      • LuAnn Sullivan says:

        I agree with you. It is clear what is going on. They should be ashamed how they have used those of us with MS for their own personal gain while we continue to struggle along with this disease and the horrific side effects of the DMTs.

  5. Sue says:

    The decision for whether the benefits of AHSCT outweigh the risks should be left up to the MS patient. I disagree with Hauser where he indicates: “First, I think that the conditioning regimens used would need to be safe … even one percent of death rate is unacceptable.” I think if he had MS, he would want to weigh the risks and make the decision himself. Of course we want safe treatments, but there are risks with any treatment. As we all know, there is no cure and with all DMTs available now, they just slow the progression whereas AHSCT can stop it even if just for 5 years…

  6. MJ says:

    If you listen to Dr. Stephen Hauser’s ‘Hold Your Horses’ presentation, he essentially shows his cards and says he’s forced to play devil’s advocate. He is not fervently against HSCT and was only asked to do so. You think they could have found one neurologist (like that goober that runs Barts Blog) that would be passionate about being anti-HSCT (although when interviewed and asked if he would have HSCT if he was stricken with MS, he gives a resounding ‘yes’).

    Some fun facts:
    Current mortality of treatment is .3% (Lower than the rate of PML and terminal cancers from many DMDs).
    DMD risk accumulates over time. HSCT risk is front loaded and decreases.
    There are people that had HSCT in the mid 1990’s and early 2000’s with no disease progression (24+ years). There are also large cohorts in International studies that are 10+ years.
    This is the only treatment that can stop PPMS. Approximately 40% with no disease activity after 5 years. What DMD can do that? None.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This