Regenerative medicine in Obstetrics & Gynecology: Current status under the Act on the Safety of Regenerative Medicine in Japan
Hosoya S., Awano-Kim S., Yokomizo R., Ukon Y., Morita K., Kasahara Y.
Narrative Review, published in Regen Ther (2024) — 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
- Regen Ther (2024)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 39228904
- PMCID
- PMC11369503
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.reth.2024.08.003
- Citations
- 8
Abstract (original English)
Introduction While the provision of unapproved regenerative medicine has been problematic worldwide, few studies have examined the implementation status of regenerative medicine (RM) in the specific field. This study aimed to determine the current status of therapy and clinical research in the obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) in Japan under the Act on the Safety of Regenerative Medicine (RM Act). Methods Detailed data were extracted from publicly available websites provided by the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare. We extracted descriptive details, including risk classification of the RM Act, modality, target disease, locality, institution, and administration route. For therapy, the price for each modality was evaluated. Results The total number of therapeutic provision plans in OBGYN (1.9% of RM in Japan) are classified as Class II (moderate) risk. Most were administered in clinics in urban areas for treating endometrial or ovarian infertility by locally administering platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or autologous mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). The price using MSCs is approximately eight times more expensive that of those involving PRP (1832.1 ± 1139.8 vs 240.8 ± 106.5 thousand yen, p Conclusion The RM Act permits knowledge of the current status of regenerative medicine even for unapproved uses in a specific clinical field. The study findings shall prompt a worldwide discussi
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.