Table 4.

Advantages and disadvantages of the MC‐SeC approach to DMD

Approach	Advantages	Disadvantages	References
Intraperitoneal injection of MC‐SeC	Independent from DMD gene mutation	Need for xenogeneic source of SeC	94, 95
	All muscles interested thanks to the systemic release of SeC‐derived factors	Caution for PERV presence in pig‐derived SeC, especially in immunosuppressed patients	[108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113]
	Combinatorial approach (ie, anti‐inflammatory effect, induction of utrophin expression and release of trophic factors)	‐	94, 95
	No need for immunosuppression	‐	15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 94, 95, 106
	Single ip injection not requiring incision of the abdominal wall	‐	15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 94, 95, 106
	No undesired effects reported in several pre‐clinical settings (including non‐human primates)	‐	[15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 94, 95, 102]
	SeC (non‐encapsulated) already used in clinical trials; no undesired effects reported	‐	[106, 107]
	Alginate‐based microcapsules (containing cells other than SeC) already used in clinical trials; no undesired effects reported		[99, 100, 101]

MC‐SeC, microencapsulated Sertoli cells; PERVs, porcine endogenous retroviruses; SeC, Sertoli cells.