Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsClinical TrialPubMed

Safety and Tolerability of Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cell (ADR-001) Therapy for IgA Nephropathy.

Tanaka A., Furuhashi K., Fujieda K., Horinouchi A., Maeda K., Saito S.

Clinical Trial on Chronic Kidney Disease, Immune Modulation, published in Kidney360 (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsEvidence level of this study

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

  • 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
Clinical Trial
Journal
Kidney360 (2024)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
39186380
DOI
10.34067/KID.0000000000000563
NCT
NCT04342325

Abstract (original English)

IgA nephropathy often requires KRT. Mesenchymal stem cells offer clinical benefits. Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells are safe and tolerable. IgA nephropathy (IgAN) often requires KRT because of its refractoriness and because corticosteroids pose infection risks. However, mesenchymal stem cells offer clinical benefits because of their regenerative and immunomodulatory properties. This prospective clinical trial assessed the safety and tolerability of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cell (ASC) therapy and evaluated its therapeutic efficacy. This phase 1 study included adult patients with refractory IgAN that was difficult to treat with traditional therapies. ASC therapy comprising one intravenous dose of 1×10 8 cells was administered to three to six patients in Cohort 1. The same intravenous dose was administered twice with a 2-week interval to six patients in Cohort 2. Heparin was administered simultaneously. This study continued for 52 weeks, and the primary end points were safety and tolerability during the 6-week period after treatment administration. Secondary end points included adverse events and efficacy measures such as clinical remission, partial remission, urine protein remission, hematuria remission, time to remission, changes in the urine protein and hematuria levels, and changes in the eGFR. The three patients in Cohort 1 and six patients in Cohort 2 who rece

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

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

Related research