Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsClinical TrialEurope PMCOpen access

Trends in mesenchymal stem cell clinical trials 2004-2018: Is efficacy optimal in a narrow dose range?

Kabat M., Bobkov I., Kumar S., Grumet M.

Clinical Trial on Systemic / IV, published in Stem Cells Transl Med (2020) — 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
Stem Cells Transl Med (2020)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
31804767
PMCID
PMC6954709
DOI
10.1002/sctm.19-0202
Citations
342

Abstract (original English)

The number of clinical trials using mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) has increased since 2008, but this trend slowed in the past several years and dropped precipitously in 2018. Previous reports have analyzed MSC clinical trials by disease, phase, cell source, country of origin, and trial initiation date, all of which can be downloaded directly from ClinicalTrials.gov. We have extended analyses to a larger group of 914 MSC trials reported through 2018. To search for potential factors that may influence the design of new trials, we extracted data on routes of administration and dosing from individual ClinicalTrials.gov records as this information cannot be downloaded directly from the database. Intravenous (IV) injection is the most common, least invasive and most reproducible method, accounting for 43% of all trials. The median dose for IV delivery is 100 million MSCs/patient/dose. Analysis of all trials using IV injection that reported positive outcomes indicated minimal effective doses (MEDs) ranging from 70 to 190 million MSCs/patient/dose in 14/16 trials with the other two trials administering much higher doses of at least 900 million cells. Dose-response data showing differential efficacy for improved outcomes were reported in only four trials, which indicated a narrower MED range of 100-150 million MSCs/patient with lower and higher IV doses being less effective. The results

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
HumansMesenchymal Stem Cell TransplantationHistory, 21st CenturyClinical Trials as Topic

Browse all related research

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

Related research