A new study on cell therapy for cerebral palsy has, for the first time, directly compared the efficacy of two different treatments. Although more research is needed, the study’s results offer valuable insights for future clinical trials tackling this challenging disorder.

The challenges of cell therapy for cerebral palsy 

Over the past two decades, cell therapy has emerged as a promising treatment for cerebral palsy. In particular, mononuclear cells from cord blood (UCB-MNCs) and mesenchymal stem cells from cord tissue (UCT-MSCs) have proven to be a safe and effective therapy. Many clinical trials have obtained results showing improvements in patients’ motor function through these cells’ anti-inflammatory, neuroprotective and regenerative properties.

However, efforts to pinpoint the best treatment method have been stymied by significant variations in trial parameters. Differences from study to study can include the type and severity of cerebral palsy, the age of the patients, the cell type, dose and delivery method, whether the study is open-label or blinded, and even the methods and time periods used to monitor improvement. Consequently, no two studies are alike, and results cannot be directly compared.[1][2]

Study methods and goal

The new study, conducted in Iran, is a pooled analysis of the results of two studies, one on UCB-MNTs and one on UCT-MSCs. Both studies were conducted in the same research centre; moreover, to aid in the comparison, the research methodology and other variables were kept the same as much as possible.[3][4][5]

The study patients were aged 4-14 and had spastic cerebral palsy with white matter lesions. After eligibility screening, 108 patients were randomly assigned to the two treatment arms or a control group. Treatment was done via intrathecal (into the spinal fluid) injection, with the control group receiving a sham procedure instead. Researchers then assessed patients’ motor function, quality of life, disability and spasticity after 1, 3, 6 and 12 months.

Both individual studies were double-blinded. Furthermore, all statistical analysis, both for individual studies and for the final pooled comparison, was performed by a blinded statistician.

The individual studies aimed to confirm that UCB-MNCs and UCT-MSCs are a safe and effective treatment for cerebral palsy. Following that, the pooled study analysis compared the effects of the UCB-MNC treatment to those of the UCT-MSC treatment across the study period.

Study results

Both the UCB-MNC treatment and the UCT-MSC treatment reported positive results over time when compared to the control group. Patients in both groups showed improvement in gross motor function and quality of life, as well as reduction in disability and spasticity.[4][5]

Figure 1. A comparison graph of the two different treatment groups and the control group.[3]

As the figure above shows, researchers found that the UCB-MNC treatment group showed stronger improvements in motor function early on. However, both the UCB-MNC and UCT-MSC groups achieved the same level of improvement at 6 months post treatment. At twelve months after treatment, there was some gradual deterioration of the improvements; however, researchers noted that UCT-MSCs did seem to result in more sustainable changes, with patients seeing less deterioration compared to the UCB-MNC group.[3]

Due to this deterioration, researchers posit that repeated doses at regular intervals may be the best route to continued improvement.[1] They also suggest that future trials should investigate treatments combining both UCB-MNCs and UCT-MSCs, as it may prove more effective than individual ones.[3]

The future of medicine

Researchers stress that this study is only a start, and further comparative trials and research are needed. Although both UCB-MNCs and UCT-MSCs offer positive results, there is still no certainty on which cell type and source will prove most effective treatment. This is true not only for cerebral palsy, but also for other illnesses and diseases for which an effective treatment is still being sought.

This uncertainty highlights the importance of comprehensive stem cell banking. By storing as many stem cell sources as possible, you could equip your baby and family with the broadest range of options for future regenerative therapies.

To find out how you could preserve both cord blood and tissue, along with amnion and placenta, for your baby’s potential future use, fill in the form below to request your free guide.

References

[1] Parent’s Guide to Cord Blood. (2025). Cerebral Palsy Response to Cell Therapy as a Function of Time. https://parentsguidecordblood.org/en/news/cerebral-palsy-response-cell-therapy-function-time

[2] Qu, J., et al. (2022). Efficacy and safety of stem cell therapy in cerebral palsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 10. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.1006845

[3] Nouri, M., et al. (2025). Cell-Based Therapy for Cerebral Palsy: A Puzzle in Progress. PubMed, 26(9), pp.569–574. doi:https://doi.org/10.22074/cellj.2024.2032098.1600

[4] Amanat, M., et al. (2021). Clinical and imaging outcomes after intrathecal injection of umbilical cord tissue mesenchymal stem cells in cerebral palsy: a randomized double-blind sham-controlled clinical trial. Stem Cell Research & Therapy, 12(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-021-02513-4.

[5] Zarrabi, M., et al. (2022). The safety and efficacy of umbilical cord blood mononuclear cells in individuals with spastic cerebral palsy: a randomized double-blind sham-controlled clinical trial. BMC Neurology, 22(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-022-02636-y.