Advertisement

Regulation of Stem Cell Therapy Travel

  • I. Glenn Cohen
  • Shelly Simana
Ethics in Stem/Progenitor Cell Therapeutics (S Latham, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Ethics in Stem/Progenitor Cell Therapeutics

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Stem cell therapies (hereinafter: SCT) hold tremendous promise for the treatment of a variety of diseases. Yet, alongside the medical potential, they pose significant risks. This article focuses on the phenomenon of “SCT travel” and the regulatory challenges associated with it.

Recent Findings

Internet websites for clinics all around the world offer SCT for different medical conditions, such as degenerative and immunological conditions, as well as cosmetic indications. The demand for SCT is growing, despite their experimental nature, and an effective regulatory framework is urgently needed at both national and international levels.

Summary

A new regulatory framework aimed at reducing the risks associated with SCT travel and the provision of unproven SCT should be implemented. It should include professional guidelines, an accreditation system that would evaluate SCT being offered by clinics, enforcement mechanisms against fraud, reimbursement by insurers for approved SCT, and residency requirements.

Keywords

Direct-to-consumer Hype Internet Regulation Stem cell therapy Stem cell tourism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Leigh Turner and Amy Zarzeczny for providing helpful feedback on this manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major Importance

  1. 1.
    Rinaldi A. To hype, or not to(o) hype: communication of science is often tarnished by sensationalization, for which both scientists and the media are responsible. EMBO Rep. 2012;13(4):303–7.  https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2012.39. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    • Caulfield T. Confronting stem cell hype. Science. 2016;352(6287):776–7.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf4620. This article concerns the issue of science “hype” in the stem cell research field. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Green AJ, Kamel H, Josephson AS. Combating the spread of ineffective medical procedures: a lesson learned from multiple sclerosis. JAMA Neurol. 2017;75(1):15–7.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.3066. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hyun I. Allowing innovative stem cell-based therapies outside of clinical trials: ethical and policy challenges. J Law Med Ethics. 2010;38(2):277–85.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00488.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Taylor-Weiner H, Zivin JG. Medicine’s wild west—unlicensed stem-cell clinics in the USA. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(11):985–7.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1504560. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McLean AK, Stewart C, Kerridge I. Untested, unproven, and unethical: the promotion and provision of autologous stem cell therapies in Australia. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2015;6(1):12.  https://doi.org/10.1186/scrt543. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    •• Sipp D, et al. Marketing of unproven stem cell-based interventions: a call to action. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9(397):eaag0426.  https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aag0426. This article provides an analysis of the direct-to-consumer stem cell market. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robyn M, et al. Q fever outbreak among travelers to Germany who received live cell therapy—United States and Canada, 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64(38):1071–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amariglio N, Hirshberg A, Scheithauer BW, Cohen Y, Loewenthal R, Trakhtenbrot L, et al. Donor-derived brain tumor following neural stem cell transplantation in an ataxia telangiectasia patient. PLoS Med. 2009;6(2):e1000029.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000029.
  10. 10.
    DeRenzo L. Stem cell tourism: the challenge and promise of international regulation of embryonic stem cell-based therapies. Case W Res J Int’l L. 2011;43(3):877–918.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Servick K. The stem cell skeptic. Science. 2017;357(6350):441–3.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.357.6350.441.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lysaght T, et al. The deadly business of an unregulated global stem cell industry. J Med Ethics. 2017;0:1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-104046.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Connolly R, O’Brien T, Flaherty G. Stem cell tourism: a web-based analysis of clinical services available to international travelers. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2014;12(6):695–701.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2014.09.008. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    •• Berger I, et al. Global distribution of businesses marketing stem cell-based interventions. Cell Stem Cell. 2016;19(2):158–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2016.07.015. This study explores the representation of SCT available online. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    •• Turner L, Knoepfler P. Selling stem cells in the USA: assessing the direct-to-consumer industry. Cell Stem Cell. 2016;19(2):154–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2016.06.007. This study explores the representation of SCT available online. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lau D, Ogbogu U, Taylor B, Stafinski T, Menon D, Caulfield T. Stem cell clinics online: the direct-to-consumer portrayal of stem cell medicine. Cell Stem Cell. 2008;3(6):591–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2008.11.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Regenberg AC, Hutchinson LA, Schanker B, Mathews DJH. Medicine on the fringe: stem cell-based interventions in advance of evidence. Stem Cells. 2009;27(9):2312–9.  https://doi.org/10.1002/stem.132.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    •• O’Donnell L, Turner L, Levine AD. The role of communication in better understanding unproven cellular therapies. Cytotherapy. 2016;18(1):143–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcyt.2015.11.002. This article touches on the commercial use of SCT and the different strategies companies use to convince patients of the benefits of such therapies. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ogbogu U, Rachul C, Caulfield T. Reassessing direct-to-consumer portrayals of unproven stem cell therapies: is it getting better? Regen Med. 2013;8(3):361–9.  https://doi.org/10.2217/rme.13.15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    • von Tigerstrom B. Regulating the advertising and promotion of stem cell therapies. Regen Med. 2017;12(7):815–26.  https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2017-0057. This article discusses the potential and limits of using consumer protection laws and advertising laws in order to prevent the provision of unproved SCT. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee TL, Lysaght T, Lipworth W, Hendl T, Kerridge I, Munsie M, et al. Regulating the stem cell industry: needs and responsibilities. Bull World Health Organ. 2017;95(9):663–4.  https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.16.189977.
  22. 22.
    Cohen G. Patients with passports: medical tourism, law, and ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. on the FDA’s new policy steps and enforcement efforts to ensure proper oversight of stem cell therapies and Regen Med 2017 Aug 28. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm573443.htm.
  24. 24.
    • Knoepfler P. From bench to FDA to bedside: US regulatory trends for new stem cell therapies. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2015;82-83:192–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2014.12.001. This article addresses core issues and emerging trends regarding the regulatory oversight of SCT in the USA. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Charo RA. On the road (to a cure?)—stem-cell tourism and lessons for gene editing. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(10):901–3.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1600891.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Deasy BM, Anderson JE, Zelina S. Regulatory issues in the therapeutic use of stem cells. In: Anderson JE, editor. Regenerative medicine and tissue engineering. Rijeka: InTech; 2013.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Regulatory considerations for human cell, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products: minimal manipulation and homologous use: guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff. 2017 Nov. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/CellularandGeneTherapy/UCM585403.pdf.
  28. 28.
    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA announces comprehensive regenerative medicine policy framework: framework aims to spur innovation, efficient access to potentially transformative products, while ensuring safety and efficacy. 2017 Nov 16. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm585345.htm.
  29. 29.
    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Same surgical procedure exception under 21 CFR 1271.15(b): questions and answers regarding the scope of the exception: guidance for industry. 2017 Nov. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/Tissue/UCM419926.pdf.
  30. 30.
    • Turner L. US stem cell clinics, patient safety, and the FDA. Trends Mol Med. 2015;21(5):271–3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2015.02.008. This article discusses the proliferation of clinics providing unapproved and noncompliant SCT across the USA. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products and amending Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (Text with EEA relevance).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Regulation (EC) no 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the council of 31 march 2004 laying down community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European medicines agency (Text with EEA relevance).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Blasimme A, Rial-Sebbag E. Regulation of cell-based therapies in Europe: current challenges and emerging issues. Stem Cells Dev. 2013;22(1):14–9.  https://doi.org/10.1089/scd.2013.0352.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    United States v Regenerative Sciences, 741 F3d 1314 (2014).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA warns US stem cell clinic of significant deviations. 2017 Aug 28. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm573431.htm.
  36. 36.
    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA acts to remove unproven, potentially harmful treatment used in “stem cell” centers targeting vulnerable patients. 2017 Aug 28. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm573427.htm.
  37. 37.
    Rial-Sebbag E, Blasimme A. The European court of human rights’ ruling on unproven stem cell therapies: a missed opportunity? Stem Cells Dev. 2014;23(1):39–43.  https://doi.org/10.1089/scd.2014.0361.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bianco P, Sipp D. Regulation: sell help not hope. Nature. 2014;510(7505):336–7.  https://doi.org/10.1038/510336a.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sipp D. Conditional approval: Japan lowers the bar for regenerative medicine products. Cell Stem. 2015;16(4):353–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2015.03.013.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fujita M, Hatta T, Ozeki R, Akabayashi A. The current status of clinics providing private practice cell therapy in Japan. Regen Med. 2016;11(1):23–32.  https://doi.org/10.2217/rme.15.64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Azuma K. Regulatory landscape of regenerative medicine in Japan. Curr Stem Cell Rep. 2015;1(2):118–28.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40778-015-0012-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    •• Tigerstrom BV. Revising the regulation of stem cell-based therapies: critical assessment of potential models. Food Drug Law J. 2015;70(2):315–37. This article examines recent attempts to craft a more flexible regulatory framework of SCT. Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tretyakov K, Cohen G. Medical assistance in dying and “suicide tourism” to Canada: bill C-14 from a comparative perspective. JEMH. 2016;Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pettitt D, Brindley D. The commercialization of cell and gene therapies: regulatory challenges. RegMedNet 2017 May 2. Available from: https://www.regmednet.com/users/3641-regmednet/posts/16428-the-commercialization-of-cell-and-gene-therapies-regulatory-challenges.
  45. 45.
    The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR). Guidelines for stem cell research and clinical translation 2016 Available from: http://www.isscr.org/docs/default-source/all-isscr-guidelines/guidelines-2016/isscr-guidelines-for-stem-cell-research-and-clinical-translation.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
  46. 46.
    Servick K. Under 21st century cures legislation, stem cell advocates expect regulatory shortcuts. Science 2016 Dec 12. Available from: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/under-21st-century-cures-legislation-stem-cell-advocates-expect-regulatory-shortcuts-0.
  47. 47.
    Right to Try Act, 2014 Ariz Legis Serv H Con Res 2005 (codified at ARIZ REV STAT ANN §§ 36–1311 to −1314 (West Supp 2015)); Right to Try Act, 2014 Colo Legis Serv Ch 220 (HB 14–1281) (codified at COLO REV STAT §§ 25–45-101 to −108 (2015)).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Servick K. Texas has sanctioned unapproved stem cell therapies. Will it change anything?. Science 2017 June 15. Available from: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/texas-has-sanctioned-unapproved-stem-cell-therapies-will-it-change-anything.
  49. 49.
    Servick K. Texas signals support for unproven stem cell therapies. Science. 2017;356(6344):1219.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.356.6344.1219.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    EuroStemCell. Patient access to unproven stem cell treatments: a human rights issue?. Available from: https://www.eurostemcell.org/considering-stem-cell-treatment-offer.
  51. 51.
    EuroStemCell. Scientists raise alarm as Italian Government rules on unproven stem cell therapy. Available from: https://www.eurostemcell.org/scientists-raise-alarm-italian-government-rules-unproven-stem-cell-therapy.
  52. 52.
    •• Matthews KRW, Iltis AS. Unproven stem cell-based interventions and achieving a compromise policy among the multiple stakeholders. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16(75):1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0069-x. This article elaborates on the negative consequences of unproven SCT and advocates for a more appropriate model for addressing SCT tourism. Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    • Gharaibeh B, Anderson JE, Deasy BM. Combating the threat of stem cell tourism through patient education and government regulation. Innov Entrep Health. 2016;2016(3):15–24.  https://doi.org/10.2147/IEH.S56239. This article focuses on patients’ needs for educational resources on SCT. Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Scott CT. The case for stem cell counselors. Stem Cell Reports. 2015;4(1):1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2014.10.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zarzeczny A, Caulfield T, Ogbogu U, Bell P, Crooks VA, Kamenova K, et al. Professional regulation: a potentially valuable tool in responding to “stem cell tourism”. Stem Cell Reports. 2014;3(3):379–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2014.06.016.
  56. 56.
    ISSCR. Patients beware: commercialized stem cell treatments on the web. Cell Stem Cell. 2010;7(1):43–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2010.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    • Ogbogu U. Combating unlicensed stem cell interventions through truthful advertising law: a survey of regulatory trends. McGill JL Health. 2015–2016;9(2):311–35. This article advocates for the use of truthful advertising laws and enforcement strategies in order to combat the provision of unproven SCT. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard Law SchoolCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations