Clinical efficacy of membrane-free stem cell extracts for the treatment of canine atopic dermatitis
Kim YS., Ha SE., Bae H., Lee D., Yu D., Kim GS.
Laboratory Study with a reported sample of 10, published in Vet Med (Praha) (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Laboratory Study
- Journal
- Vet Med (Praha) (2022)
- Reported sample size
- 10
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 38715969
- PMCID
- PMC11071137
- DOI
- 10.17221/136/2021-vetmed
- Citations
- 1
Abstract (original English)
Despite various treatment options for canine atopic dermatitis (cAD), therapeutic limitations still exist, including adverse effects and low absorption ratios. This study evaluated the effects of a membrane-free stem cell extract (MFSCE) on the clinical signs of atopic dogs. Thirty client-owned dogs previously diagnosed with cAD were separated into placebo ( n = 10) and MFSCE-treated groups ( n = 20). The dogs were treated with a cream (MFSCE and placebo) via dermal administration twice daily for 14 days, and the clinical response was recorded on days 0, 7, and 14. The MFSCE-treated group showed significantly decreased severity of pruritus on day 14 compared to that on day 0. In addition, the erythema, pigmentation, skin dryness, and thickness were remarkably decreased in the MFSCE-treated group on day 14 compared to those on day 0 whereas no significant changes were observed in the placebo-treated group. No general clinical signs or adverse effects were observed in this study. These results suggest that MFSCE could be a surrogate treatment option for cAD.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.