Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

Safety and efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells therapy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

Mesa LE., López JG., López Quiceno L., Barrios Arroyave F., Halpert K., Camacho JC.

Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 358 on Cardiovascular Disease, Autoimmune Research, published in PLoS One (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

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
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
Meta-analysis
Journal
PLoS One (2023)
Reported sample size
358
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
37498842
PMCID
PMC10374120
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0284828
Citations
9

Abstract (original English)

Background and objectives Some patients have insufficient treatment response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARD); although biologics have proven to be an effective treatment for RA, the effects that bDMARDs have on integumentary, cardiac, and immune systems and the high costs associated with these treatments, make that mesenchymal stem cell-based therapies (MSCs) for RA are being considered potential treatment methods. This work analyses the performance in safety and efficacy terms of MSCs techniques. Methods and finding A literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Open Grey databases from inception to October 28, 2022. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-randomized controlled trial (non-RCTs), including 358 patients met our inclusion criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis; only RCTs were eligible for quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). Meta-analysis of adverse events (AE) in RCTs showed no significant differences in the incidence of AE in the MSCs group compared to the control group (Risk ratio: 2.35; 95% CI, 0.58 to 9.58; I2 = 58.80%). The pooled Risk ratio for non-serious and serious adverse events showed no statistical difference between intervention and control groups concerning the incidence of non-serious and serious adverse events (Risk ratio: 2.35; 95% CI, 0.58 t

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 evidence
HumansArthritis, RheumatoidMethotrexateAntirheumatic AgentsTreatment OutcomeControlled Clinical Trials as Topic

Browse all related research

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

Related research