Red Blood Cell Extracellular Vesicle-Based Drug Delivery: Challenges and Opportunities
Chiangjong W., Netsirisawan P., Hongeng S., Chutipongtanate S.
Narrative Review, published in Front Med (Lausanne) (2021) — 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
- Front Med (Lausanne) (2021)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 35004730
- PMCID
- PMC8739511
- DOI
- 10.3389/fmed.2021.761362
- Citations
- 58
Abstract (original English)
Recently, red blood cell-derived extracellular vesicles (RBCEVs) have attracted attention for clinical applications because of their safety and biocompatibility. RBCEVs can escape macrophages through the binding of CD47 to inhibitory receptor signal regulatory protein α. Furthermore, genetic materials such as siRNA, miRNA, mRNA, or single-stranded RNA can be encapsulated within RBCEVs and then released into target cells for precise treatment. However, their side effects, half-lives, target cell specificity, and limited large-scale production under good manufacturing practice remain challenging. In this review, we summarized the biogenesis and composition of RBCEVs, discussed the advantages and disadvantages of RBCEVs for drug delivery compared with synthetic nanovesicles and non-red blood cell-derived EVs, and provided perspectives for overcoming current limitations to the use of RBCEVs for clinical applications.
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.