Evidence Hub

Intranasal administration of stem cell derivatives for the treatment of AD animal models: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Z. Hua, Nan Zhou, Zijing Zhou, Zewei Fu, Rui-Yun Guo, Herman Yao Akogo, Jiayi Yang, Mei-Xuan Yu et al.

Stem cell research & therapeutics, 2025

12 citations

Abstract

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder with increasing prevalence and limited efficacy of current therapies. Stem cell-derived therapies have attracted attention for their potential neurodegenerative and reparative effects. Intranasal administration provides a non-invasive route that bypasses the blood-brain barrier and delivers stem cell derivatives directly to the brain. Although studies have shown that the intranasal administration of stem cell derivatives alleviates symptoms in animal models of AD, a comprehensive meta-analysis evaluating their therapeutic efficacy is yet to be conducted. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of intranasal stem cell derivatives therapies in AD animal models and provide a foundation for clinical translation. We conducted a systematic literature search across four databases (Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library) using subject terms and complementary keywords. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, data were extracted using Origin 2024 software and analysed using Review Mange 5.4. The SYRCLE tool was applied to assess study quality and evaluate the potential risk of bias systematically. This meta-analysis of 14 studies investigated the efficacy of intranasal stem cell-derived therapies in animal models of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Using predominantly mouse and rat models from diverse geographical locations and employing various stem cell types (bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, adipose tissue,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free