Advertisement

Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 252–256 | Cite as

Autologous Muscle-Derived Cells for Urinary Sphincter Regeneration: Where are we now?

  • Melissa R. Kaufman
Stress Incontinence and Prolapse (S Reynolds, Section Editor)
  • 22 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Stress Incontinence and Prolapse

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) remains a strikingly common condition faced by women with substantial economic and quality of life impact. Embarking upon treatment for incontinence often culminates with invasive surgical procedures with recognized complication profiles. Innovative directions for SUI therapeutics are on the horizon, including the utilization of adult autologous muscle-derived cells for urinary sphincter regeneration (AMDC-USR).

Recent Findings

Current published literature presents safety and efficacy data regarding AMDC-USR injection in 80 patients at 12-month follow-up. No adverse events attributed to the cellular product were reported. Compared to lower dose groups, the higher dose groups demonstrated enhanced percentages of patients with at least 50% reduction in stress leaks and pad weight at 12-month follow-up. All dose groups had statistically significant improvement in patient-reported incontinence-specific quality of life scores at 12-month follow-up. Conclusions from the pooled analyses indicate that injection of AMDC-USR across a range of dosages appears safe. Efficacy data suggests a dose response with more patients responsive to the higher doses of AMDC-USR.

Summary

Promising technologies for utilization of autologous cellular therapies for treatment of SUI, and conceivably multiple additional indications, are approaching fruition. Multiple phase III randomized, placebo-controlled studies for AMDC-USR are ongoing to bring this regenerative option forth for the millions of patients who may ultimately benefit.

Keywords

Stress urinary incontinence Regenerative therapy Autologous muscle-derived cells 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Kaufman serves as the Global Principal Investigator for Cook Myosite.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major Importance

  1. 1.
    • Reynolds WS, Dmochowski RR, Penson DF. Epidemiology of stress urinary incontinence in women. Current Urology Reports. 2011;12(5):370–6. Historically significant manuscript detailing current concepts of SUI etiology. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Petros PE, Woodman PJ. The integral theory of continence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(1):35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gill BC, Damaser MS, Vasavada SP, Goldman HB. Stress incontinence in the era of regenerative medicine: reviewing the importance of the pudendal nerve. J Urol. 2013;190(1):22–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    •• Thompson IM, Kaufman MR. Nonsurgical interventions for incontinence: where is the evidence? Curr Blad Dysfn Rep. 2010;5(3):163–7. Critical guidelines for utilization of surgical therapies for SUI. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kobashi KC, Albo ME, Dmochowski RR, Ginsberg DA, Goldman HB, Gomelsky A, et al. Surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: AUA/SUFU guideline. J Urol. 2017;198(4):875–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wood LN, Anger JT. Urinary incontinence in women. BMJ. 2014;349:g4531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Koski ME, Chamberlain J, Rosoff J, Vaughan T, Kaufman MR, Winters JC, et al. Patient perception of transvaginal mesh and the media. Urology. 2014;84(3):575–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Athanasopoulos A, Gyftopoulos K, McGuire EJ. Efficacy and preoperative prognostic factors of autologous fascia rectus sling for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Urology. 2011;78(5):1034–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williams JK, Dean A, Badlani G, Andersson KE. Regenerative medicine therapies for stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2016;196(6):1619–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hwang K, Lewis S, Lamb DJ. Stem cell research: implications for urology. AUA Update Series. 2010;29(8):77–84.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vinarov A, Atala A, Yoo J, Slusarenco R, Zhumataev M, Zhito A, et al. Cell therapy for stress urinary incontinence: present-day frontiers. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2018;12(2):e1108–e21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang HJ, Chuang YC, Chancellor MB. Development of cellular therapy for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(9):1075–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chancellor MB, Yokoyama T, Tirney S, Mattes CE, Ozawa H, Yoshimura N, et al. Preliminary results of myoblast injection into the urethra and bladder wall: a possible method for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence and impaired detrusor contractility. Neurourol Urodyn. 2000;19(3):279–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yokoyama T, Yoshimura N, Dhir R, Qu Z, Fraser MO, Kumon H, et al. Persistence and survival of autologous muscle derived cells versus bovine collagen as potential treatment of stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2001;165(1):271–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Furuta A, Jankowski RJ, Pruchnic R, Yoshimura N, Chancellor MB. The promise of stem cell therapy to restore urethral sphincter function. Curr Urol Rep. 2007;8(5):373–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kwon D, Kim Y, Pruchnic R, Jankowski R, Usiene I, de Miguel F, et al. Periurethral cellular injection: comparison of muscle-derived progenitor cells and fibroblasts with regard to efficacy and tissue contractility in an animal model of stress urinary incontinence. Urology. 2006;68(2):449–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yiou R, Yoo JJ, Atala A. Restoration of functional motor units in a rat model of sphincter injury by muscle precursor cell autografts. Transplantation. 2003;76(7):1053–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yokoyama T, Pruchnic R, Lee JY, Chuang YC, Jumon H, Yoshimura N, et al. Autologous primary muscle-derived cells transfer into the lower urinary tract. Tissue Eng. 2001;7(4):395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chermansky CJ, Tarin T, Kwon DD, Jankowski RJ, Cannon TW, de Groat WC, et al. Intraurethral muscle-derived cell injections increase leak point pressure in a rat model of intrinsic sphincter deficiency. Urology. 2004;63(4):780–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cannon TW, Lee JY, Somogyi G, Pruchnic R, Smith CP, Huard J, et al. Improved sphincter contractility after allogenic muscle-derived progenitor cell injection into the denervated rat urethra. Urology. 2003;62(5):958–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee JY, Cannon TW, Pruchnic R, Fraser MO, Huard J, Chancellor MB. The effects of periurethral muscle-derived stem cell injection on leak point pressure in a rat model of stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2003;14(1):31–37; discussion 7.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kleinert S, Horton R. Retraction--autologous myoblasts and fibroblasts versus collagen [corrected] for treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women: a [corrected] randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;372(9641):789–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carr LK, Steele D, Steele S, Wagner D, Pruchnic R, Jankowski R, et al. 1-year follow-up of autologous muscle-derived stem cell injection pilot study to treat stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(6):881–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    • Carr LK, Robert M, Kultgen PL, Herschorn S, Birch C, Murphy M, et al. Autologous muscle derived cell therapy for stress urinary incontinence: a prospective, dose ranging study. J Urol. 2013;189(2):595–601. Pooled data from phase I/II studies on safety and efficacy of AMDS-USR. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Peters KM, Dmochowski RR, Carr LK, Robert M, Kaufman MR, Sirls LT, et al. Autologous muscle derived cells for treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. J Urol. 2014;192(2):469–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carr L, Tu LM, Robert M, Quinlan D, Carlson K, Herschorn S, Dmochowski R, Peters K, Kaufman M, Jankowski R, Chancellor M. Autologous muscle derived cells for urinary sphincter repair for recurrent or persistent stress urinary incontinence after continence surgery. AUA Annual Meeting; 2017; Boston.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pruchnic R, Jankowski R and Kaufman MR. Lessons learned from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study of autologous muscle derived cells for urinary sphincter repair. International Continence Society Annual Meeting. 2017; Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Quinlan D, Carr L, Tu LM, Robert M, Carlson K, Herschorn S, Dmochowski R, Peters K, Kaufman M, Jankowski R and Chancellor M. Autologous muscle derived cells for urinary sphincter repair for recurrent or persistent stress urinary incontinence after continence surgery. IUGA. 2017; Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Blaganje M, Lukanovic A. Intrasphincteric autologous myoblast injections with electrical stimulation for stress urinary incontinence. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;117(2):164–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Blaganje M, Lukanovic A. Ultrasound-guided autologous myoblast injections into the extrinsic urethral sphincter: tissue engineering for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(4):533–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sebe P, Doucet C, Cornu JN, Ciofu C, Costa P, de Medina SG, et al. Intrasphincteric injections of autologous muscular cells in women with refractory stress urinary incontinence: a prospective study. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(2):183–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Elmi A, Kajbafzadeh AM, Tourchi A, Talab SS, Esfahani SA. Safety, efficacy and health related quality of life of autologous myoblast transplantation for treatment of urinary incontinence in children with bladder exstrophy-epispadias complex. J Urol. 2011;186(5):2021–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stangel-Wojcikiewicz K, Jarocha D, Piwowar M, Jach R, Uhl T, Basta A, et al. Autologous muscle-derived cells for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: a 2-year follow-up of a Polish investigation. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014;33(3):324–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gras S, Klarskov N, Lose G. Intraurethral injection of autologous minced skeletal muscle: a simple surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2014;192(3):850–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gerullis H, Eimer C, Georgas E, Homburger M, El-Baz AG, Wishahi M, et al. Muscle-derived cells for treatment of iatrogenic sphincter damage and urinary incontinence in men. ScientificWorldJournal. 2012;2012:898535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Levanovich PE, Diokno A, Hasenau DL, Lajiness M, Pruchnic R, Chancellor MB. Intradetrusor injection of adult muscle-derived cells for the treatment of underactive bladder: pilot study. Int Urol Nephrol. 2015;47(3):465–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyVanderbilt Medical CenterNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations