Mesenchymal stem cell based therapies for uveitis: a systematic review of preclinical studies
Kanda P., Gupta A., Dhillon J., Kundapur D., Gottlieb CC.
Systematic Review with a reported sample of 12, published in Eye (Lond) (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Eye (Lond) (2024)
- Reported sample size
- 12
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 38600361
- PMCID
- PMC11226430
- DOI
- 10.1038/s41433-024-03057-6
- Citations
- 2
Abstract (original English)
Cell therapy has shown promising results for treating uveitis in preclinical studies. As the field continues to grow towards clinical translation, it is important to review and critically appraise existing studies. Herein, we analysed and critically appraised all preclinical studies using cell therapy or cell derived extracellular vesicles (EVs) for uveitis, and provided insight into mechanisms regulating ocular inflammation. We used PubMed, Medline, and Embase to search for preclinical studies examining stem cell therapy (e.g., mesenchymal stem cells [MSC]) and secreted EVs. All included studies were assessed for quality using the SYstematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) checklist. Sixteen preclinical studies from 2011 to 2022 were analysed and included in this review of which 75% (n = 12) focused only on cell therapy, 18.7% (n = 3) studies focused on EVs, and 6.3% (n = 1) study focused on both cells and EVs. MSCs were the most common type of cells used in preclinical studies (n = 15) and EVs were commonly isolated from MSCs (n = 3). Overall, both MSCs and EVs showed improvements in ocular inflammation (seen on fundoscopy/slit lamp and histology) and electroretinogram outcomes. Overall, MSC and MSC-derived EVs shown great potential as therapeutic agents for treating uveitis. Unfortunately, small sample size, risk of selection/performance bias, an
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
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.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.