Medical societies, patient education initiatives, public debate and marketing of unproven stem cell interventions

Polish regulatory system regarding ATMP hospital exemptions

Introduction

This article explains the current regulatory system in Poland regarding Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products given under Hospital Exemptions (ATMP-HE).

Methods

The relevant sections of Polish legislation are translated into English and their interaction is described.

Results

We analyze the impact of these regulations from the perspective of three stakeholder groups: manufacturers, physicians, and patients. Amendments enacted between 2018 and 2023 have substantially changed Polish implementation of the ATMP-HE pathway. In Poland, most ATMP-HE treatments have been therapies employing Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (MSC).

Discussion

Comparison to other European countries shows that Poland is within the mainstream of EU practices regarding ATMP-HE implementation. One notable issue is that Poland has relatively low per capita spending on healthcare, and ATMP-HE in Poland must be funded from outside the government healthcare system. Conclusions. The original intention of the legislation that created ATMP-HE was to allow access to experimental therapies for patients with unmet needs. It remains to be seen if that mission can be fulfilled amidst conflicting pressures from various stakeholder groups.

Survey of genetic counselors identifies a knowledge gap discerning properly regulated cell and gene therapy trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

As cell and gene therapy (CGT) has grown in availability and scope, more unapproved regenerative medicine is being marketed to the public. It is essential that health care providers have sufficient knowledge and comfort to determine whether treatments are properly regulated and address these topics with patients. Due to the applicability of CGT to genetic disease, genetic counselors could be key in providing education and answering patients' questions about these topics. However, previous studies have focused only on physicians' knowledge and comfort with CGT and unapproved regenerative medicine. The purpose of this study was to assess genetic counselors' self-reported knowledge and comfort discussing these topics with patients and to explore what factors predict increased knowledge and comfort.

METHODS

The authors designed an online survey distributed to genetic counselors who were part of the National Society of Genetic Counselors Student Research Program e-mail list. The survey addressed genetic counselors' demographics, practice experience with CGT, education about CGT, knowledge and comfort.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 144 genetic counselors. The best predictor of increased knowledge and comfort was experience discussing CGT in practice. In addition, those who worked at an institution at which CGT trials were offered had greater knowledge and comfort. However, most genetic counselors reported their knowledge was not sufficient to address questions from patients, and most had little-to-no knowledge or comfort determining whether a trial was properly regulated. There was no correlation between education and either knowledge or comfort; however, most participants desired more education about these topics.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that genetic counselors who (i) have experience with CGT in practice or (ii) work at institutions at which CGT trials are offered may have better knowledge regarding CGT. These results may help identify individuals and/or institutions in whom increasing knowledge regarding CGT could be beneficial. This is crucial as CGT becomes mainstream, leading to more widely marketed unapproved regenerative medicine. Several gaps in knowledge and comfort were identified, including participants' ability to determine whether a treatment is properly regulated. Further research is needed to better characterize the educational needs of genetic counselors surrounding these topics to address these gaps.

International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy Position Paper: Key considerations to support evidence-based cell and gene therapies and oppose marketing of unproven products

The field of regenerative medicine, including cellular immunotherapies, is on a remarkable growth trajectory. Dozens of cell-, tissue- and gene-based products have received marketing authorization worldwide while hundreds-to-thousands are either in preclinical development or under clinical investigation in phased clinical trials. However, the promise of regenerative therapies has also given rise to a global industry of direct-to-consumer offerings of prematurely commercialized cell and cell-based products with unknown safety and efficacy profiles. Since its inception, the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy Committee on the Ethics of Cell and Gene Therapy has opposed the premature commercialization of unproven cell- and gene-based interventions and supported the development of evidence-based advanced therapy products. In the present Guide, targeted at International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy members, we analyze this industry, focusing in particular on distinctive features of unproven cell and cell-based products and the use of tokens of scientific legitimacy as persuasive marketing devices. We also provide an overview of reporting mechanisms for patients who believe they have been harmed by administration of unapproved and unproven products and suggest practical strategies to address the direct-to-consumer marketing of such products. Development of this Guide epitomizes our continued support for the ethical and rigorous development of cell and cell-based products with patient safety and therapeutic benefit as guiding principles.

Academic Physician Specialists' Approaches to Counseling Patients Interested in Unproven Stem Cell and Regenerative Therapies-A Qualitative Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore the experiences, approaches, and challenges of physicians consulting patients about experimental stem cell and regenerative medicine interventions (SCRIs).

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

From August 21, 2018, through July 30, 2019, semistructured interviews of 25 specialists in cardiology, ophthalmology, orthopedics, pulmonology, and neurology were conducted and qualitatively analyzed using modified grounded theory.

RESULTS

All specialists used informational approaches to counsel patients, especially orthopedists. Informational approaches included explaining stem cell science, sharing risks, and providing principles. Several specialists also used relational counseling approaches including emphasizing that physicians want what is best for patients, acknowledging suffering, reassuring continued care, empathizing with patients and families, and underscoring that patients have the final decision. Many specialists reported being comfortable with the conversation, although some were less comfortable and several noted challenges in the consultation including wanting to support a patient's decision but worrying about harms from unproven SCRIs, navigating family pressure, and addressing stem cell hype and unrealistic expectations. Specialists also desired that additional resources be available for them and patients.

CONCLUSION

Physicians relied more heavily on providing patients with information about SCRIs than using relational counseling approaches. Efforts should be directed at helping physicians address the informational and relational needs of patients, including providing tools and resources that inform physicians about the unproven SCRI industry, building skills in empathic communication, and the creation and dissemination of evidence-based resources to offer patients.

Ethical issues and public communication in the development of cell-based treatments for COVID-19: Lessons from the pandemic

The significant morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) prompted a global race to develop new therapies. These include interventions using cell- or cell-derived products, several of which are being tested in well-designed, properly controlled clinical trials. Yet, the search for cell-based COVID-19 treatments has also been fraught with hyperbolic claims; flouting of crucial regulatory, scientific, and ethical norms; and distorted communication of research findings. In this paper, we critically examine ethical issues and public communication challenges related to the development of cell-based therapeutics for COVID-19. Drawing on the lessons learned from this ongoing process, we argue against the rushed development of cell-based interventions. We conclude by outlining ways to improve the ethical conduct of cell-based clinical investigations and public communication of therapeutic claims.

Education can improve clinician confidence in information sharing and willingness to refer to stem cell clinical trials for cerebral palsy

To progress stem cell therapies for cerebral palsy, clinicians need to openly engage with patients about emerging evidence and be willing to refer to relevant clinical trials, if and when appropriate. To assess whether education can change clinicians' confidence in information sharing and willingness to refer to relevant clinical trials, an online questionnaire was distributed at a scientific conference before and after a professional workshop on cell therapies for cerebral palsy. Of the 42 participants who completed the survey, 26 self-identified as clinicians. Of these, 81% had had patients ask about stem cells, yet in the pre-workshop questionnaire indicated they were not confident answering questions about cell therapies. Clinicians were most commonly asked about stem cell treatments provided by private clinics, stem cell research and current evidence. Post-workshop, knowledge and confidence regarding stem cells, as well as likelihood to refer to clinical trials using therapies with a strong evidence base (eg, umbilical cord blood/placental cells), significantly increased (p<0.001). This study highlights that by offering resources and education, clinician confidence and willingness to refer to cell therapy trials can improve; this may help drive the stem cell research landscape and support patient decision-making.

Academic physician specialists' views toward the unproven stem cell intervention industry: areas of common ground and divergence

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Premature commercialization of unproven stem cell interventions (SCIs) has received significant attention within the regenerative medicine community. Patients considering SCIs may encounter misinformation and seek out guidance from their physicians who are trusted brokers of health information. However, little is known about the perspectives of academic physician specialists toward the SCI industry. The purpose of this study was to capture the attitudes of physician specialists with experience addressing patient questions about unproven SCIs.

METHODS

The authors undertook 25 semi-structured interviews with academic physicians in cardiology, ophthalmology, orthopedics, pulmonology and neurology primarily from one academic center.

RESULTS

The authors identified two major themes: concerns and mediators of appropriateness of offering SCIs as therapies to patients. Specialists were generally aware of the industry and reported scientific and commercial concerns, including the scientific uncertainty of SCIs, medical harms to patients, misleading marketing and its impact on patient informed consent and economic harms due to large out-of-pocket costs for patients. All specialists outside of orthopedics voiced that it was inappropriate to be offering SCIs to patients today. These views were informed by previously expressed concerns surrounding safety and properly informing patients, levels of evidence needed prior to offering SCIs therapeutically and desired qualifications for clinicians. Among the specialties, orthopedists reported that under certain conditions, SCIs may be appropriate for patients with limited clinical options but only when safety is adequate, expectations are managed and patients are well informed about the risks and chances of benefit. Most participants expressed a desire for phase 3 studies and Food and Drug Administration approval prior to marketing SCIs, but some also shared the challenges associated with upholding these thresholds of evidence, especially when caring for out-of-option patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' results suggest that medical specialists are aware of the industry and express several concerns surrounding SCIs but differ in their views on the appropriateness and clinical evidence necessary for offering SCIs currently to patients. Additional educational tools may help physicians with patient engagement and expectation management surrounding SCIs.

Crowdfunding, stem cell interventions and autism spectrum disorder: comparing campaigns related to an international "stem cell clinic" and US academic medical center

BACKGROUND AIMS

Studies examining crowdfunding campaigns for stem cell interventions have typically focused on campaigns seeking funds to send individuals to businesses marketing unlicensed and unproven stem cell products. However, some crowdfunding campaigns identify academic medical centers as destinations for individuals seeking access to stem cell products provided either in clinical studies or on an expanded access basis. This study examines crowdfunding campaigns seeking funds to enable children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder access to stem cell interventions.

METHODS

This study compares and contrasts crowdfunding campaigns, identifying an international stem cell clinic marketing a purported umbilical cord blood-derived stem cell treatment for autism spectrum disorder, with campaigns soliciting donations intended to help children with autism spectrum disorder either participate in clinical studies or obtain expanded access to stem cell products provided at an academic medical center in the US.

RESULTS

Campaigns connected to both sites contained inaccurate claims. However, campaigns identifying the international clinic as the intended destination site made stronger claims about efficacy and were more reliant upon testimonials than campaigns listing the US-based academic medical center as the planned clinical site. Acknowledging these important distinctions, clinical studies and press releases associated with the academic medical center played an important role in lending the perception of credibility to the putative stem cell treatments marketed by the international clinic.

CONCLUSIONS

The study's findings emphasize how important it is for researchers at academic medical centers and comparable research facilities to avoid engaging in stem cell hyperbole; highlight the preliminary nature of early clinical studies; ensure that any claims about safety and efficacy are based upon robust and reliable evidence; and promote responsible science communication by exercising restraint when crafting press releases, conducting media interviews and otherwise publicizing clinical research findings.

Translating Basic Research into Safe and Effective Cell-based Treatments for Respiratory Diseases

Respiratory diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pulmonary fibrosis, result in severely impaired quality of life and impose significant burdens on healthcare systems worldwide. Current disease management involves pharmacologic interventions, oxygen administration, reduction of infections, and lung transplantation in advanced disease stages. An increasing understanding of mechanisms of respiratory epithelial and pulmonary vascular endothelial maintenance and repair and the underlying stem/progenitor cell populations, including but not limited to airway basal cells and type II alveolar epithelial cells, has opened the possibility of cell replacement-based regenerative approaches for treatment of lung diseases. Further potential for personalized therapies, including in vitro drug screening, has been underscored by the recent derivation of various lung epithelial, endothelial, and immune cell types from human induced pluripotent stem cells. In parallel, immunomodulatory treatments using allogeneic or autologous mesenchymal stromal cells have shown a good safety profile in clinical investigations for acute inflammatory conditions, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome and septic shock. However, as yet, no cell-based therapy has been shown to be both safe and effective for any lung disease. Despite the investigational status of cell-based interventions for lung diseases, businesses that market unproven, unlicensed and potentially harmful cell-based interventions for respiratory diseases have proliferated in the United States and worldwide. The current status of various cell-based regenerative approaches for lung disease as well as the effect of the regulatory environment on clinical translation of such approaches are presented and critically discussed in this review.

Are patient educational resources effective at deterring stroke survivors from considering experimental stem cell treatments? A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether online resources developed to educate people about the risks associated with experimental stem cell (SC) treatments influence stroke survivors' attitudes about the safety and effectiveness of these treatments.

METHODS

Adult stroke survivors who had not previously received SC treatments (N = 112) were recruited from international stroke advocacy/support groups for a prospective, parallel-group randomized controlled trial. Participants indicated whether they were considering SC treatments (yes/no) prior to, immediately following, and 30-days after reading/viewing the International Society for Stem Cell Research booklet or Stem Cell Network video. Participant attitudes regarding the safety, effectiveness, accessibility and affordability of SC treatments were examined on each occasion, and compared to those of a waitlist control group.

RESULTS

Significantly fewer participants were considering SC treatments immediately after reading the SC research booklet (p =.031), although neither intervention had any impact after 30-days (p >.05). Waitlist and intervention groups reported positive attitudes toward SC treatments at each assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Stroke survivor attitudes toward SC treatments were initially influenced by the patient booklet, however these changes were not maintained.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians are encouraged to initiate discussions about experimental SC treatments during inpatient rehabilitation and to reinforce the risks throughout subsequent care.

Cell Therapy for Lung Disease: Current Status and Future Prospects

Purpose of Review

Mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC)–based therapies provide a platform for new therapeutic strategies in lung diseases. This review provides an overview of the current status of the field, along with some of the challenges ahead including better understanding of MSC actions in different lung diseases, personalized approaches to select patients most likely to benefit, and the growing problem of stem cell tourism.

Recent Findings

A newly evolving concept suggests that MSCs shape their immunomodulatory actions depending on the environment they encounter. Furthermore, in some models, it appears that dying or dead cells may contribute to the therapeutic efficacy by activating the host response.

Summary

Despite many pre-clinical studies demonstrating that MSCs can be used to treat lung disorders, clinical trials have failed to show improved outcome. Understanding the complex interaction between MSCs and the host microenvironment is likely to be an important area for enhancing the efficacy of MSC-based cell therapies.

Clinical Application of Stem/Stromal Cells in COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive life-threatening disease that is significantly increasing in prevalence and is predicted to become the third leading cause of death worldwide by 2030. At present, there are no true curative treatments that can stop the progression of the disease, and new therapeutic strategies are desperately needed. Advances in cell-based therapies provide a platform for the development of new therapeutic approaches in severe lung diseases such as COPD. At present, a lot of focus is on mesenchymal stem (stromal) cell (MSC)-based therapies, mainly due to their immunomodulatory properties. Despite increasing number of preclinical studies demonstrating that systemic MSC administration can prevent or treat experimental COPD and emphysema, clinical studies have not been able to reproduce the preclinical results and to date no efficacy or significantly improved lung function or quality of life has been observed in COPD patients. Importantly, the completed appropriately conducted clinical trials uniformly demonstrate that MSC treatment in COPD patients is well tolerated and no toxicities have been observed. All clinical trials performed so far, have been phase I/II studies, underpowered for the detection of potential efficacy. There are several challenges ahead for this field such as standardized isolation and culture procedures to obtain a cell product with high quality and reproducibility, administration strategies, improvement of methods to measure outcomes, and development of potency assays. Moreover, COPD is a complex pathology with a diverse spectrum of clinical phenotypes, and therefore it is essential to develop methods to select the subpopulation of patients that is most likely to potentially respond to MSC administration. In this chapter, we will discuss the current state of the art of MSC-based cell therapy for COPD and the hurdles that need to be overcome.

Mapping and driving the stem cell ecosystem

The stem cell and regenerative medicine arena has become increasingly complicated in recent years with thousands of people involved. There are as many as a dozen or more main groups of stakeholders, who together may be viewed as one ecosystem that is now rapidly evolving. The nature of the ecosystem and its evolution have major implications for not just those within it, but also for medicine and society at large. Here, I describe this ecosystem and its evolution, as well as the negative impacts within the ecosystem of a constellation of hundreds of unproven for-profit clinics and related businesses. Finally, I propose approaches for how to positively influence and drive the future of the global stem cell ecosystem.

Concise Review: A Comprehensive Analysis of Reported Adverse Events in Patients Receiving Unproven Stem Cell-Based Interventions

The promise of stem cell (SC) therapies to restore functions of damaged tissues and organs brings enormous hope to patients, their families, loved ones, and caregivers. However, limits may exist for which indications SC therapies might be useful, efficacious, and safe. Applications of innovative therapies within regulatory boundaries and within the framework of controlled clinical trials are the norm in the scientific and medical community; such a system minimizes patient risk by setting a clear and acceptable safety and efficacy profile for new therapeutics before marketing authorization. This careful clinical validation approach often takes time, which patients suffering from terminal or debilitating diseases do not have. Not validated, unproven stem cell interventions (SCI) that promise a working treatment or cure for severe diseases have therefore found their way into the patient community, and providers of such treatments often take advantage of the public's willingness to pay large amounts of money for the misguided hope of a reliable recovery from their illnesses. We conducted a review of scientific publications, clinical case reports, and mass media publications to assess the reported cases and safety incidents associated with unproven SCI. The review also analyzes the main factors that were identified as contributing to the emergence and global rise of the “stem cell tourism” phenomenon. stemcellstranslationalmedicine2018;1–10

Selling stem cell ‘treatments’ as research: prospective customer perspectives from crowdfunding campaigns

Aim: To better understand how prospective customers interpret claims of businesses marketing unproven stem cell products that they are engaging in research activities. Materials & methods: The authors examined 408 crowdfunding campaigns for unproven stem cell interventions for references to research activities. Results: The authors identified three overarching themes: research as a signifier of scientific credibility; the experimental nature of stem cells as a rationale for noncoverage by insurers; and contributing to the advancement of science by engaging in research. Conclusion: The NIH, US FDA and others should be concerned about being co-opted to misrepresent the nature of these businesses’ activities. Efforts are also needed to better inform those considering purchasing unproven stem cell interventions about their relationship to legitimate research.

The involvement of Canadian physicians in promoting and providing unproven and unapproved stem cell interventions

Background

Direct to consumer offerings of unproven stem cell interventions (SCIs) is a pressing scientific and policy issue. According to media reports, providers of SCIs have emerged in Canada. This study provides the first systematic scan of Canadian providers and associated trends and claims.

Methods

The study sample consisted of 15 websites retrieved from a Google™ keyword search. The websites were assessed by a rater using a peer-reviewed coding frame that queried treatment location, stem cell offerings, treatment claims, supporting evidence, and legal and regulatory compliance. A second rater reviewed a subset of the websites for purposes of inter-rater reliability. Disagreements between raters were resolved by consensus. Data collected by the raters was analyzed in SPSS.

Results

Physicians are the dominant treatment providers in Canada. Providers operate in urban and semi-urban areas in the most populous provinces. SCIs provided are mainly autologous adult stem cells for multiple conditions including musculoskeletal disorders, spinal cord injury (SCI) and diabetes. Efficacy and benefits of treatment are prominently and positively portrayed, while risks are not mentioned or portrayed as trivial. Regulatory concerns are not discussed.

Conclusions

The involvement of physicians in promoting and providing unproven and unapproved SCIs raises significant ethical, legal and regulatory concerns. Treatment claims and trends appear to contravene applicable professional standards, statutory obligations, and consumer protection laws. While the number of providers observed is still marginal, urgent and proactive regulatory response is needed to prevent proliferation of a potentially exploitative and harmful market for unproven SCIs in Canada.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12910-018-0273-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.