The Potential Role of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Human Clinical Trials.
Cevallos-Cueva M., Ghanem L., Novis T., Arora S., Kirmani N., Aktaş S.
Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 236, published in Stem Cells Dev (2026) — 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
- Meta-analysis
- Journal
- Stem Cells Dev (2026)
- Country
- United States
- Reported sample size
- 236
- Source database
- PubMed
- PMID
- 42596527
- DOI
- 10.1177/15473287261475857
Abstract (original English)
Despite currently available treatment options for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), some patients fail to achieve adequate disease control. Emerging evidence suggests that mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) may represent a promising therapeutic option. This systematic review and meta-analysis included four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-randomized clinical trial. Eligible studies evaluated patients with moderate-to-severe AD treated with MSCs derived from human umbilical cord blood, autologous adipose tissue, and allogeneic bone marrow. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched from inception to December 2025. Primary outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving ≥50% and ≥75% improvement from baseline in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and safety outcomes. The meta-analysis included 236 participants. The pooled EASI-50 response rate at week 12 was 46.76% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 32.36% to 61.72%). EASI-75 response rates were 17.41% (95% CI: 5.56% to 43.03%) at week 12 and 23.97% (95% CI: 16.48% to 33.50%) at week 16. The pooled incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 26.86% (95% CI: 19.56% to 35.68%), with infections and infestations 7.97% (95% CI: 4.11% to 14.88%) and gastrointestinal disorders 3.52% (95% CI: 1.33% to 9.01%) being the most frequently reported. MSC-based therapy shows early promise as a potential treatm
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.