Extracellular vesicles as standard-of-care therapy: will fast-tracking the regulatory processes help achieve the goal?
Kale V.
Clinical Trial, published in Regen Med (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.
- 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
- Clinical Trial
- Journal
- Regen Med (2024)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 39688586
- PMCID
- PMC11730413
- DOI
- 10.1080/17460751.2024.2442847
Abstract (original English)
Extracellular Vesicles (EVs) became a focus of clinical research when experimental and pre-clinical studies showed that they mimic their parent cells' regenerative and therapeutic effects and their cargo carries disease-specific diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. Since the publication of data forms an endpoint of the study, this review specifically focused on the published clinical trials done with EVs. For brevity, this review was restricted to the last 10 years. Unexpectedly, the literature search showed that very few clinical trials assessing the therapeutic applications of EVs were published in this period indicating that they have not reached their desired endpoint. Conversely, most studies showed the potential of EVs present in various biofluids as a promising source of diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for various diseases, and predictive markers to assess the effectiveness of therapy. This stark difference in the numbers could perhaps be due to the time-consuming regulatory processes involved in the clinical-grade preparation and characterization of EVs, and the determination of their safety and effective dose regimens. One wonders whether fast-tracking regulatory affairs could help accelerate the therapeutic use of EVs. This aspect needs urgent attention.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.