Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38958077›Full record

SynthesisJournal of extracellular vesicles2024

A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials assessing safety and efficacy of human extracellular vesicle-based therapy.

Mats Van Delen, Judith Derdelinckx, Kristien Wouters, Inge Nelissen, Nathalie Cools

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of extracellular vesicles, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 100 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
100citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

100 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

40 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mats Van DelenLaboratory of Experimental Hematology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute (Vaxinfectio), University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9779-1130
Judith DerdelinckxLaboratory of Experimental Hematology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute (Vaxinfectio), University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium.
Kristien WoutersDepartment of Neurology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium.
Inge NelissenHealth Department, Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Mol, Belgium.
Nathalie CoolsLaboratory of Experimental Hematology, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Institute (Vaxinfectio), University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium.

Funding

Fondation CharcotUniversiteit AntwerpenVlaamse Instelling voor Technologisch Onderzoek
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nowadays, it has become clear that extracellular vesicles (EVs) are not a cellular waste disposal vesicle but are an essential part of an intercellular communication system. Besides the use of EVs in biomarker studies and diagnostics, the potential of EV-therapeutics has been seen by many. They provide unique properties for disease therapy, including strong immune-modulatory actions, the possibility of engineering, low immunogenicity, and the capability of crossing biological barriers. Proof-of-concept of EV-therapeutics for various pathologies has been achieved in preclinical studies. However, clinical trials with EVs have only been emerging slowly. Here, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state-of-the-art concerning clinical studies using EVs in human therapy. By approaching the current knowledge in a systematic manner, we were able to include 21 reports for meta-analysis of safety and evaluation of efficacy outcomes. Overall, we have shown that EV-based therapy is safe with a low incidence of serious adverse events (SAE; 0.7% (95%-CI: 0.1-5.2%), and adverse events (AE; 4.4% (95%-CI: 0.7-22.2%). Subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in SAE when comparing autologous versus allogeneic administration, as well as engineered versus non-engineered EV products. A significantly higher number of AE was seen in autologous versus allogeneic administration. However, the clinical relevance remains questionable. Evaluation of the clinical outcomes of immunostimulatory, immunosuppressive or regenerative EV-therapies indicated improvement in the majority of treated patients. Despite these promising results, data need to be approached with caution due to a high heterogeneity in the EVs manufacturing methods, study design, and reporting of (S)AE. Overall, we conclude that EV-based therapy is safe and presents a promising opportunity in therapy. More efforts are needed in the standardization and harmonization of reporting of EV isolation and characterization data as well as in the reporting of (S)AE to allow inter-study comparison.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicExtracellular VesiclesHumansclinical studiesexosomeextracellular vesiclesmeta‐analysissafetysystematic reviewtherapy

Identifiers

PMID38958077
PMCPMC11220457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.