Clinical Efficacy of Stem Cell Therapy for Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• 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

Abstract (original English)

Background Stem cell therapy is a promising therapeutic modality for advanced diabetes mellitus (DM). This study presents a meta-analysis of relevant clinical trials to determine the efficacy of stem cell therapy in DM. We aim to critically evaluate and synthesize clinical evidence on the safety and efficiency of different types of stem cell therapy for both T1DM and T2DM. Methods and findings We pooled participant-level data from twenty-two eligible clinical trials that satisfied our inclusion criteria, with a total of 524 patients. There were significant differences in the outcome based on the type and source of the infused cells. Out of all T1DM patients who received CD34+ hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) infusion, 58.9% became insulin independent for a mean period of 16 months, whereas the results were uniformly negative in patients who received umbilical cord blood (UCB). Infusion of umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (UC-MSCs) provided significantly beneficial outcome in T1DM, when compared to bone-marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs) (P Conclusions Stem cell transplantation can represent a safe and effective treatment for selected patients with DM. In this cohort of trials, the best therapeutic outcome was achieved with CD34+ HSC therapy for T1DM, while the poorest outcome was observed with HUCB for T1DM. Diabetic ketoacidosis impedes therapeutic efficacy.

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.