Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which clinical trials have evaluated Memoblast and what were their results?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows no clinical trials of a product named “Memoblast” or “MemoBlast”; instead the search results center on Mesoblast — an established cellular-therapy company whose trials of mesenchymal stromal/precursor cells (e.g., remestemcel‑L, rexlemestrocel‑L, MPC products) are well documented [1] [2]. Online supplement reviews claim “no robust clinical trials” for MemoBlast’s proprietary nootropic formulation [3].
1. No direct trial record for “Memoblast” — supplement reviews vs. mesenchymal‑cell trials
Consumer‑facing reviews of a nootropic called MemoBlast (sometimes spelled MemoBlast/Memoblast in marketplace listings) conclude the product lacks transparent dosing and that “no robust clinical trials or peer‑reviewed evidence” support its specific formulation [3]. The formal clinical research in the provided results relates to Mesoblast’s cell therapies — not a dietary nootropic product — and includes Phase II/III work on remestemcel‑L/rexlemestrocel‑L and MPCs [1] [2].
2. What Mesoblast’s clinical program covers — scope and indications
Mesoblast’s publicly reported trials evaluate allogeneic mesenchymal stromal/precursor cell products across indications such as steroid‑refractory graft‑versus‑host disease (GvHD), chronic discogenic low back pain/degenerative disc disease, heart‑failure/LVAD patients and osteoarthritis [1] [4] [5] [6]. These trials include Phase II and Phase III programs [2] [4] and regulatory interactions with the FDA around remestemcel‑L [7] [8].
3. Results reported — where sources give specifics
Mesoblast has reported Phase III data for remestemcel‑L showing a long‑term survival benefit in treated children with steroid‑refractory acute GvHD according to company reporting and regulatory filings [7] [8]. For chronic low back pain tied to moderate degenerative disc disease, a 36‑month randomized, double‑blind study of allogeneic MPCs (with and without hyaluronic acid) concluded the therapy "appears to be safe and may provide durable pain relief and improvement in function and QOL," particularly in patients with lower back‑pain duration under 68 months; the paper calls for a confirmatory prospective randomized trial [4]. Mesoblast has also described potential mortality benefit signals for MPC therapy in LVAD patients that the FDA indicated “may support a reasonable likelihood of clinical benefit” [6].
4. Regulatory status and ongoing development — approvals and next steps
Mesoblast resubmitted a BLA for remestemcel‑L and engaged with the FDA; the company reported data that supported pediatric benefit and was pursuing adult registration trials with cooperative networks [7] [9] [8]. The International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy noted renewed enthusiasm for MSC investigational products after an FDA approval in late 2024 and stressed the need to clarify patient heterogeneity and manufacturing/CMC issues — signaling both progress and remaining hurdles for commercial rollout [1].
5. Gaps and caveats when mapping “Memoblast” to these trials
The available sources do not mention any clinical trial named “Memoblast” or trials of the MemoBlast supplement product; assertions equating MemoBlast with Mesoblast’s cell‑therapy trials are unsupported by the provided material [3] [1]. Consumer reviews of MemoBlast stress lack of peer‑reviewed evidence for that supplement specifically [3]. Conversely, Mesoblast’s trials are centered on biologic cell therapies with published Phase II/III results and regulatory filings [2] [4] [7].
6. How to verify further — recommended documentary checks
To resolve whether any clinical work exists under the “Memoblast” name, consult ClinicalTrials.gov and the company or product pages of the manufacturer/marketer of MemoBlast, plus peer‑reviewed journals; ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers and Mesoblast’s own trial result pages are cited in the reporting above [10] [2] [4]. The current set of sources shows Mesoblast trial identifiers (e.g., NCT numbers referenced in related articles) but does not link them to a dietary nootropic called MemoBlast [10] [4].
7. Bottom line for readers seeking evidence
If you are asking which clinical trials have evaluated “Memoblast” (or MemoBlast the nootropic), available reporting finds none and explicitly notes no robust clinical trials for that product [3]. If you meant Mesoblast’s mesenchymal cell therapies — remestemcel‑L, rexlemestrocel‑L, MPC products — those have entered Phase II/III testing with reported safety and efficacy signals in GvHD and chronic discogenic low back pain and active regulatory engagement with the FDA [7] [4] [6].