Concise review: workshop review: understanding and assessing the risks of stem cell-based therapies
Heslop JA., Hammond TG., Santeramo I., Tort Piella A., Hopp I., Zhou J.
Narrative Review, published in Stem Cells Transl Med (2015) — 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
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Stem Cells Transl Med (2015)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 25722427
- PMCID
- PMC4367503
- DOI
- 10.5966/sctm.2014-0110
- Citations
- 87
Abstract (original English)
The field of stem cell therapeutics is moving ever closer to widespread application in the clinic. However, despite the undoubted potential held by these therapies, the balance between risk and benefit remains difficult to predict. As in any new field, a lack of previous application in man and gaps in the underlying science mean that regulators and investigators continue to look for a balance between minimizing potential risk and ensuring therapies are not needlessly kept from patients. Here, we attempt to identify the important safety issues, assessing the current advances in scientific knowledge and how they may translate to clinical therapeutic strategies in the identification and management of these risks. We also investigate the tools and techniques currently available to researchers during preclinical and clinical development of stem cell products, their utility and limitations, and how these tools may be strategically used in the development of these therapies. We conclude that ensuring safety through cutting-edge science and robust assays, coupled with regular and open discussions between regulators and academic/industrial investigators, is likely to prove the most fruitful route to ensuring the safest possible development of new products.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
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.