Regulatory Loophole Enables Unproven Autologous Cell Therapies to Thrive in Australia

Critical considerations for public engagement in stem cell-related research

Public engagement is increasingly recognized as being integral to basic and translational research. Public engagement involves effective communication about research along with the mutual exchange of views and opinions among a wide variety of members in society. As such, public engagement can help to identify issues that must be addressed in order for research to be ethically sound and trustworthy. It is especially critical in research that potentially raises ethical concerns, for example research involving embryos, germline genome editing, stigmatized conditions, and marginalized communities. Therefore, it is not surprising that there have been prominent recent calls for public engagement in the emerging sciences. However, given that there is arguably little agreement about how this should be done and the best ways of doing so, those involved with planning and implementing public engagement can benefit from understanding a broad range of prior experiences on related issues.

Navigating the cartographies of trust: how patients and carers establish the credibility of online treatment claims

Digital media offer citizens novel ways of 'enacting' health and illness, and treatment and care. However, while digital media may so 'empower' citizens, those searching for credible information will be confronted with various, often-conflicting claims that may have 'disempowering' effects. This article uses Gieryn's concept of the 'cultural cartography' to explore the criteria that patients and carers employ in establishing the credibility of information on alleged treatments. Drawing on data from interviews with Australian patients and carers who have travelled or considered travelling abroad for unproven commercial stem cell treatments, the article examines how individuals assess rival sources of epistemic authority - science-based and non-science-based - as they search for credible information. As we argue, in a context where conventional treatment options are perceived to be limited or non-existent - which is likely to be the case with those suffering severe, life-limiting conditions - and the credibility of sources uncertain, matters of opinion and belief are prone to being interpreted as matters of fact, with potentially far-reaching implications for citizens' health. Revealing the mechanisms by which individuals ascribe credibility to health information, we conclude, has become crucial as digital media assume a growing role in health and healthcare and governments encourage citizens to become 'digitally literate'.

Ethical development of stem-cell-based interventions

The process of developing new and complex stem-cell-based therapeutics is incremental and requires decades of sustained collaboration among different stakeholders. In this Perspective, we address key ethical and policy challenges confronting the clinical translation of stem-cell-based interventions (SCBIs), including premature diffusion of SCBIs to clinical practice, assessment of risk in trials, obtaining valid informed consent for research participants, balanced and complete scientific reporting and public communications, regulation, and equitable access to treatment. We propose a way forward for translating these therapies with the above challenges in mind.

Stem cell/cellular interventions in human spinal cord injury: Is it time to move from guidelines to regulations and legislations? Literature review and Spinal Cord Society position statement

PURPOSE

In preclinical studies, many stem cell/cellular interventions demonstrated robust regeneration and/or repair in case of SCI and were considered a promising therapeutic candidate. However, data from clinical studies are not robust. Despite lack of substantial evidence for the efficacy of these interventions in spinal cord injury (SCI), many clinics around the world offer them as "therapy." These "clinics" claim efficacy through patient testimonials and self-advertisement without any scientific evidence to validate their claims. Thus, SCS established a panel of experts to review published preclinical studies, clinical studies and current global guidelines/regulations on usage of cellular transplants and make recommendations for their clinical use.

METHODS

The literature review and draft position statement was compiled and circulated among the panel and relevant suggestions incorporated to reach consensus. This was discussed and finalized in an open forum during the SCS Annual Meeting, ISSICON.

RESULTS

Preclinical evidence suggests safety and clinical potency of cellular interventions after SCI. However, evidence from clinical studies consisted of mostly case reports or uncontrolled case series/studies. Data from animal studies cannot be generalized to human SCI with regard to toxicity prediction after auto/allograft transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, cellular/stem cell transplantation for human SCI is experimental and needs to be tested through a valid clinical trial program. It is not ethical to provide unproven transplantation as therapy with commercial implications. To stop the malpractice of marketing such "unproven therapies" to a vulnerable population, it is crucial that all countries unite to form common, well-defined regulations/legislation on their use in SCI. These slides can be retrieved from Electronic Supplementary Material.

From the margins to mainstream: How providers of autologous ‘stem cell treatments’ legitimise their practice in Australia

This article examines how Australian providers of unproven autologous ‘stem cell treatments’ legitimise these products and their practices. We focus on the strategies employed by providers in their efforts to create and sustain a market for procedures that have yet to be proven safe and clinically efficacious. Drawing on the work of Thomas Gieryn and Pierre Bourdieu and the findings of research involving an analysis of direct-to-consumer online advertising of clinics that sell purported ‘stem cell treatments’ and interviews with clinicians who provide them, we examine the mechanisms by which medical legitimacy for these products is established and defended. We argue that Australian providers employ a number of strategies in order to create medical legitimacy for the use and sale of scientifically unproven therapies. A key strategy employed by providers of stem cell treatments is to use markers of social distinction, drawing strongly on the symbols of science, to confirm their legitimacy and differentiate their own practices from those of other providers, who are posited as operating outside the boundary of accepted practice and hence illegitimate. We argue there is a paradox at the heart of the autologous stem cell treatment market. Providers aim to create legitimacy for their work by emphasising the potential benefits of their ‘treatments’, their expertise and the professionalisation of their practices in an environment where regulators are yet to take a firm stance; they are also required to undertake the challenging task of managing patients’ hopes and expectations that both enable and potentially jeopardise their operations and revenue. We conclude by suggesting that providers’ creation of symbolic capital to establish medical legitimacy is a crucial means by which they seek to bring unproven ‘stem cell treatments’ from the margins of medicine into the mainstream and to portray themselves as medical pioneers rather than medical cowboys who exploit vulnerable patients.

The current state of stem cell therapy for ocular disease

Herein, we review the safety, efficacy, regulatory standards and ethical implications of the use of stem cells in ocular disease. A literature review was conducted, registered clinical trials reviewed, and expert opinions sought. Guidelines and codes of conduct from international societies and professional bodies were also reviewed. Collated data is presented on current progress in the field of ocular regenerative medicine, future challenges, the clinical trial process and ethical considerations in stem cell therapy. A greater understanding of the function and location of ocular stem cells has led to rapid advances in possible therapeutic applications. However, in the context of significant technical challenges and potential long-term complications, it is imperative that stem cell practices operate within formal clinical trial frameworks. While there remains broad scope for innovation, ongoing evidence-based review of potential interventions and the development of standardized protocols are necessary to ensure patient safety and best practice in ophthalmic care.

The limited application of stem cells in medicine: a review

The history of stem cell therapies is one of a limited number of clinical applications despite a vast therapeutic potential. Major breakthroughs in stem cell research have not yet enjoyed clinical success—all stem cell therapies bar hematopoietic stem cell transplantations remain experimental. With the increased risk of organ failure and neurodegenerative disease associated with our ability to push the boundaries of life expectancy comes an increased pressure to pioneer novel stem cell-based therapeutic approaches. We conclude that the failure of such therapies to achieve clinical translation stems from the polarising effect of the ethical debate around their use. The intractability of the ethical debate is double edged: legislators not only have placed tighter restrictions on certain stem cell therapies, but do so in favour of less controversial cells which will have worse outcomes for patients. It is by considering this relationship between the politics, ethics and science of stem cells that the reasons for the currently limited clinical significance of stem cell therapies be realised.

Stem cell therapy clinical research: A regulatory conundrum for academia

The encouraging pace of discovery and development in the field of regenerative medicine holds tremendous potential for bringing therapies to the clinic that may offer meaningful benefit to patients, particularly in diseases with no or suboptimal therapeutic options. Academic researchers will continue to play a critical role in developing concepts and therapies, thus determining whether regenerative medicine will be able to live up to this potential that clearly excites clinicians, researchers and patients alike. This review summarises recent developments in regulatory frameworks across different countries that aim to ensure adequate oversight of the development of regenerative medicine products, which are unique in structural and functional complexity when compared to traditional chemical drugs and fully characterised biological drugs. It discusses the implications of these developments for researchers aiming to make the challenging transition from laboratory to clinical development of these therapies and considers possible pragmatic solutions that could accelerate this process that is essential to maintain research credibility and ensure patient safety.

Open for business: a comparative study of websites selling autologous stem cells in Australia and Japan

Aim: This article examines online marketing practices of Japanese and Australian clinics offering putative autologous stem cell treatments. Materials & methods: We conducted google searches for keywords related to stem cell therapy and stem cell clinics in English and Japanese. Results: We identified websites promoting 88 point-of-sale clinics in Japan and 70 in Australia. Conclusion: Our findings provide further evidence of the rapid global growth in clinics offering unproven stem cell interventions. We also show that these clinics adopt strategies to promote their services as though they are consistent with evidentiary and ethical standards of science, research and medicine. Unless addressed, these practices risk harming not only vulnerable patients but also undermining public trust in science and medicine.

Regulating the advertising and promotion of stem cell therapies

There are widespread concerns with the ways in which 'unproven' stem cell therapies are advertised to patients. This article explores the potential and limits of using laws that regulate advertising and promotion as a tool to address these concerns. It examines general consumer protection laws and laws and policies on advertising medical products and services, focusing on the USA, Canada and Australia. The content of existing laws and policies covers most of the marketing practices that cause concern, but several systemic factors are likely to limit enforcement efforts. Potential reforms in Australia that would prevent direct-to-consumer advertising of autologous cell therapies are justified in principle and should be considered by other jurisdictions, but again face important practical limits to their effectiveness.

‘No one here's helping me, what do you do?’: addressing patient need for support and advice about stem cell treatments

Aim: This article examines how those who contemplate purported stem cell treatments (SCTs) negotiate available information sources and the adequacy of current approaches to guidance and support. Materials & methods: Qualitative interviews undertaken with people who had contemplated or undergone purported SCTs for a range of conditions (n = 24 and n = 27, respectively), as well as professionals who are frequently asked about SCTs (n = 20) were analyzed. Results: Our findings reveal the difficulties for individuals in discriminating between different sources of information on SCTs and the limitations of current responses. Conclusion: In the context of contending information about SCTs informal (‘accidental’) advisors potentially play a crucial role in supporting patients. Additional approaches are also required to better address patients’ needs.

Ethical and Regulatory Challenges with Autologous Adult Stem Cells: A Comparative Review of International Regulations

Cell and tissue-based products, such as autologous adult stem cells, are being prescribed by physicians across the world for diseases and illnesses that they have neither been approved for or been demonstrated as safe and effective in formal clinical trials. These doctors often form part of informal transnational networks that exploit differences and similarities in the regulatory systems across geographical contexts. In this paper, we examine the regulatory infrastructure of five geographically diverse but socio-economically comparable countries with the aim of identifying similarities and differences in how these products are regulated and governed within clinical contexts. We find that while there are many subtle technical differences in how these regulations are implemented, they are sufficiently similar that it is difficult to explain why these practices appear more prevalent in some countries and not in others. We conclude with suggestions for how international governance frameworks might be improved to discourage the exploitation of vulnerable patient populations while enabling innovation in the clinical application of cellular therapies.

Spatial and temporal structure of the clinical research based on mesenchymal stromal cells: A network analysis

BACKGROUND AIMS

Using innovative tools derived from social network analysis, the aims of this study were (i) to decipher the spatial and temporal structure of the research centers network dedicated to the therapeutic uses of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) and (ii) to measure the influence of fields of applications, cellular sources and industry funding on network topography.

METHODS

From each trial using MSCs reported on ClinicalTrials.gov, all research centers were extracted. Networks were generated using Cytoscape 3.2.2, where each center was assimilated to a node, and one trial to an edge connecting two nodes.

RESULTS

The analysis included 563 studies. An independent segregation was obvious between continents. Asian, South American and African centers were significantly more isolated than other centers. Isolated centers had fewer advanced phases (P <0.001), completed studies (P = 0.01) and industry-supported studies (P <0.001). Various thematic priorities among continents were identified: the cardiovascular, digestive and nervous system diseases were strongly studied by North America, Europe and Asia, respectively. The choice of cellular sources also affected the network topography; North America was primarily involved in bone-marrow-derived MSC research, whereas Europe and Asia dominated the use of adipose-derived MSCs. Industrial funding was the highest for North American centers (90.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Strengthening of international standards and statements with institutional, federal and industrial partners is necessary. More connections would facilitate the transfer of knowledge, sharing of resources, mobility of researchers and advancement of trials. Developing partnerships between industry and academic centers seems beneficial to the advancement of trials across different phases and would facilitate the translation of research discoveries.