Comparative efficacy of different doses of mesenchymal stem cells derived from different tissue sources for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials


Abstract

Introduction: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) remains a leading cause of disability, with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) showing potential for treatment. However, the optimal dose and tissue source of MSCs for KOA remain unclear, with existing studies offering conflicting results. This gap limits clinicians’ ability to make evidence-based treatment decisions.

Materials& Methods: We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MSCs from different doses and tissue sources in treating KOA. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to December 1, 2024, categorizing MSC doses into low [(0 < 20) ×10 6 ], moderate [(20 ≤ cells < 50) ×10 6 ], and high [cells ≥ 50 ×10 6 ]. Efficacy was assessed using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, and adverse events ( AEs) at 3, 6, and 12 months.

Results: 11 RCTs were included. Except for moderate-dose bone-derived MSCs (M_BMSCS), all treatment groups significantly improved VAS scores at 3, 6, and 12 months. High-dose adipose-derived MSCs (H_ H_ADSCS) showed superior efficacy at 3 months, while moderate-dose ADSCS (M_ADSCS) was most effective at 6 and 12 months. For WOMAC scores, significant improvements were seen at 12 months for high-dose, moderate-dose, and low-dose ADSCS, as well as low-dose BMSC S(L_BMSCS), with M_ ADSCS showing the greatest benefit. L_ ADSCS had a significantly low risk of AEs.

Discussion: Eleven RCTs involving 602 participants were analyzed. Moderate-dose adipose-derived MSCs (M_ADSCS) showed the greatest long-term improvements in pain (VAS) and joint function (WOMAC), balancing efficacy and safety. High-dose ADSCS provided superior short-term analgesia but were associated with higher adverse events, likely due to cell overcrowding and microenvironmental stress. Molecular evidence suggests ADSCS exert stronger anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects than other sources. Variability in dose-response relationships indicates that better MSC dosing may depend on disease severity and patient factors such as BMI and comorbidities. Further large-scale, standardized RCTs are needed to refine dosing strategies and optimize MSC therapy for KOA.

Conclusions: This NMA identifies M_ ADSCS as the most effective MSC treatment for KOA, offering a balance of efficacy and safety. These findings provide valuable insights for optimizing MSC therapy and highlight the need for further research on dosing and tissue source variations.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].