Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Mesenchymal stromal cell therapy in epidermolysis bullosa: current perspectives and future directions

Sia T., Primavera R., Johnson MR., Dukkipati HS., Teng JMC., Thakor AS.

Narrative Review on Systemic / IV, published in Front Cell Dev Biol (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
Front Cell Dev Biol (2025)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
41332985
PMCID
PMC12666079
DOI
10.3389/fcell.2025.1703109

Abstract (original English)

Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a group of inherited mucocutaneous disorders. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) are non-hematopoietic self-renewing, multipotent cells that are a promising therapeutic avenue for EB, given their ability to home to injury, low immunogenicity, and demonstrated wound-healing, anti-fibrotic, and pro-collagen effects. This review article synthesizes the current literature and advancement on MSC therapy in EB, and highlights the potential to optimize their use, including exploring MSC-derived extracellular vesicles as a potential cell-free therapy. Innovative delivery methods can also improve the accessibility and effectiveness of MSC therapies by providing localized treatment, minimizing systemic side effects, and increasing patient comfort.

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 evidence

Browse all related research

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

Related research