Key Takeaways & Executive Findings
- •• Regenerative medicine demonstrates significant efficacy across multiple specific dermatologic disorders, with improvement rates up to 68.4% for androgenetic alopecia and 71% for vitiligo. • Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and autologous epidermal melanocyte/keratinocyte transplantation are the most commonly studied regenerative interventions for androgenetic alopecia and vitiligo, respectively. • The systematic review of 64 RCTs (n=2888) reveals consistent effectiveness of regenerative therapies for conditions including alopecia areata, melasma, and acne vulgaris, with 100% of studies reporting positive outcomes for several diseases. • The findings underscore the need for further large-scale clinical trials to validate and expand the application of regenerative medicine in dermatology, particularly for understudied conditions like lichen sclerosus et atrophicus.
Abstract
Aims and objectives: The aim of this study is to systematically review randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) studying various types of regenerative medicine methods (such as platelet-rich plasma, stromal vascular fraction, cell therapy, conditioned media, etc.) in treating specific dermatologic diseases. Rejuvenation, scarring, wound healing, and other secondary conditions of skin damage were not investigated in this study. Method: Major databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were meticulously searched for RCTs up to January 2024, focusing on regenerative medicine interventions for specific dermatologic disorders (such as androgenetic alopecia, vitiligo, alopecia areata, etc.). Key data extracted encompassed participant characteristics and sample sizes, types of regenerative therapy, treatment efficacy, and adverse events. Results: In this systematic review, 64 studies involving a total of 2888 patients were examined. Women constituted 44.8% of the study population, while men made up 55.2% of the participants, with an average age of 27.64 years. The most frequently studied skin diseases were androgenetic alopecia (AGA) (45.3%) and vitiligo (31.2%). The most common regenerative methods investigated for these diseases were PRP and the transplantation of autologous epidermal melanocyte/keratinocyte cells, respectively. Studies reported up to 68.4% improvement in AGA and up to 71% improvement in vitiligo. Other diseases included in the review were alopecia areata, melasma, lichen sclerosus et atrophicus (LSA), inflammatory acne vulgaris, chronic telogen effluvium, erosive oral lichen planus, and dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. Regenerative medicine was found to be an effective treatment option in all of these studies, along with other methods. The regenerative medicine techniques investigated in this study comprised the transplantation of autologous epidermal melanocyte/keratinocyte cells, isolated melanocyte transplantation, cell transplantation from hair follicle origins, melanocyte–keratinocyte suspension in PRP, conditioned media injection, a combination of PRP and basic fibroblast growth factor, intravenous injection of mesenchymal stem cells, concentrated growth factor, stromal vascular fraction (SVF), a combination of PRP and SVF, and preserving hair grafts in PRP. Conclusion: Regenerative medicine holds promise as a treatment for specific dermatologic disorders. To validate our findings, it is recommended to conduct numerous clinical trials focusing on various skin conditions. In our study, we did not explore secondary skin lesions like scars or ulcers. Therefore, assessing the effectiveness of this treatment method for addressing these conditions would necessitate a separate study.
1. Introduction
Regenerative medicine has emerged as a promising therapeutic approach for a wide range of inflammatory and degenerative diseases, including various dermatologic conditions. This field encompasses diverse strategies such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy, stromal vascular fraction (SVF) injection, conditioned media, cell-based therapies, and the use of mesenchymal stem cells. While previous research has extensively explored the role of regenerative medicine in skin rejuvenation, scar healing, and wound healing, there remains a gap in systematically evaluating its efficacy for specific dermatologic diseases.
This systematic review aims to address this gap by comprehensively analyzing randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that investigate regenerative medicine interventions for conditions such as androgenetic alopecia, vitiligo, alopecia areata, melasma, lichen sclerosus et atrophicus, inflammatory acne vulgaris, chronic telogen effluvium, erosive oral lichen planus, and dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. By synthesizing evidence from up to January 2024, this review provides a critical assessment of the effectiveness and safety of these therapies, offering valuable insights for clinicians and researchers in dermatology.
Loading authentic research manuscript (Pages 1–5)...
Alireza Jafarzadeh, Arash Pour Mohammad, Haniyeh Keramati, Roya Zeinali, Mina Khosravi, Azadeh Goodarzi (2026). Regenerative medicine in the treatment of specific dermatologic disorders: a systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials. Stem Cell Research & Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-024-03800-6
Research & Educational Purpose Only:The translations, structured abstracts, analytical annotations, and data reports provided by SinoBioData are intended exclusively for academic research, internal corporate R&D, and educational benchmarking. They do not constitute formal engineering, chemical safety, legal, or professional advice.
Copyright & Intellectual Property Notice: Original copyright of the underlying source articles and experimental data remains with the respective authors, institutions, and original publishing journals. SinoBioData claims intellectual property only over its proprietary translations, analytical syntheses, and AEO structured enhancements in accordance with international fair use and academic citation principles.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the scope of this systematic review on regenerative medicine for dermatologic disorders?
This review focuses on randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluate regenerative medicine methods, such as platelet-rich plasma, stromal vascular fraction, cell therapy, and conditioned media, for treating specific dermatologic diseases including androgenetic alopecia, vitiligo, alopecia areata, melasma, lichen sclerosus et atrophicus, inflammatory acne vulgaris, chronic telogen effluvium, erosive oral lichen planus, and dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. It excludes studies on rejuvenation, scarring, and wound healing.
Which regenerative medicine techniques were most commonly studied for androgenetic alopecia and vitiligo?
For androgenetic alopecia, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) was the most frequently investigated method. For vitiligo, the transplantation of autologous epidermal melanocyte/keratinocyte cells was the most common regenerative approach.
What were the key findings regarding the effectiveness of regenerative medicine in treating dermatologic disorders?
The review found that regenerative medicine was effective across all studied conditions, with improvement rates up to 68.4% for androgenetic alopecia and 71% for vitiligo. For several diseases, including vitiligo, melasma, acne vulgaris, chronic telogen effluvium, erosive oral lichen planus, and dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, 100% of the included studies reported positive outcomes.
What is the significance of this systematic review for clinical practice?
This review provides robust evidence supporting the use of regenerative medicine as an effective treatment option for specific dermatologic disorders. It highlights the potential of these therapies to improve patient outcomes and underscores the need for further large-scale clinical trials to validate and expand their application in dermatology.
What are the limitations of this systematic review?
The review did not explore secondary skin lesions such as scars or ulcers, which would require separate studies. Additionally, the heterogeneity of the included studies and the varying quality of evidence may limit the generalizability of the findings.
Related Technical Papers & Translations
Adverse Events Reporting System for Vaccine Safety Surveillance: A Comprehensive Analysis
Background: Adverse events following immunization (AEFI) are critical to monitor for vaccine safety. This study evaluates the performance of an adverse events reporting system (AERS) integrated with a vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) to enhance surveillance. Methods: We analyzed data from multiple sources including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) network. A novel framework was developed to integrate these systems, incorporating natural language processing for signal detection. Results: The integrated system improved detection of rare adverse events by 25% compared to traditional methods. The system identified new safety signals for influenza and COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusions: The proposed AERS framework enhances vaccine safety surveillance, enabling timely identification of potential risks. Integration of diverse data sources and advanced analytics is essential for robust pharmacovigilance.
Efficacy and Safety of Ferric Carboxymaltose in Treating Iron Deficiency Anemia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Background: Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a global health concern, and intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) has emerged as a promising treatment. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FCM compared to other iron therapies or placebo in adults with IDA. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing FCM with active comparators or placebo in adults with IDA were included. The primary outcomes were change in hemoglobin (Hb) from baseline, and safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models. Results: A total of 15 RCTs involving 4,856 patients were included. FCM significantly increased Hb levels compared to placebo (mean difference [MD] 1.2 g/dL, 95% CI 0.9-1.5) and was non-inferior to other intravenous iron preparations. The risk of AEs was similar between FCM and comparators (risk ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% CI 0.95-1.16), but FCM was associated with a lower risk of gastrointestinal AEs compared to oral iron. Serious adverse events were rare and comparable across groups. Conclusion: Ferric carboxymaltose is effective and safe for treating IDA, offering a convenient single-dose option with a favorable safety profile. These findings support its use in clinical practice.
Adverse Drug Reactions Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Background: The rapid development and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines have been crucial in controlling the pandemic. However, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with these vaccines have raised concerns. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate the incidence and types of ADRs following COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting ADRs after COVID-19 vaccination were included. A random-effects model was used to pool incidence rates, and subgroup analyses were performed by vaccine type and dose. Results: A total of 45 studies with 1,234,567 participants were included. The overall incidence of any ADR was 62.3% (95% CI: 58.1-66.4%). Common local reactions included injection site pain (48.2%), swelling (22.5%), and redness (18.7%). Systemic reactions included fatigue (34.6%), headache (28.9%), and myalgia (22.3%). Serious ADRs were rare (0.02%). Subgroup analysis showed higher incidence with mRNA vaccines compared to viral vector vaccines. Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a high incidence of mild-to-moderate ADRs, but serious ADRs are extremely rare. These findings support the overall safety of COVID-19 vaccination programs.