Randomized trial evaluates long-term safety of intra-arterial cell therapy in acute ischemic stroke, indicating no adverse outcomes.
Background and aims Bone marrow mononuclear cell (BM-MNC) intra-arterial transplantation has emerged as a promising stroke therapy. While short-term safety and potential neurorestorative effects have been reported, evidence regarding long-term functional outcomes remains limited. Our aim was to evaluate the effect of BM-MNC therapy on long-term functional outcome. Methods The IBIS trial was a multicentre phase IIb, randomized, controlled, investigator-initiated, assessor-blinded, clinical trial, in four stroke centres in Spain. Patients were randomized 2:1:1 to control group or intra-arterial BM-MNC transplantation (2x106 per kilogram or 5x106 per kilogram). In the present analysis, long-term safety was evaluated using the odds of achieving good functional outcome at 2 years, defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0–2 and a Barthel Index (BI) score >90. Longitudinal mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to estimate treatment effects over time while accounting for within-subject correlation. Results At two years follow-up, from the primary cohort (n=77 patients), data were available for 67 and 60 patients for mRS and BI, respectively. The odds of achieving good functional outcome were similar between groups (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.23–1.92; OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.37-2.83, for mRS and BI, respectively). Mixed-effects models showed no significant treatment-by-time interaction, indicating no evidence of delayed functional deterioration associated with cell therapy. Results were consistent across intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. Conclusions In this longitudinal substudy of BIS trial, intra-arterial BM-MNC therapy was not associated with delayed functional deterioration up to 2 years after AIS. These findings support the long-term safety of intra-arterial cell therapy. Conflict of interest All authors declare that we have no conflicts of interest.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rodríguez et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: