A question of ethics: selling autologous stem cell therapies flaunts professional standards

A transcriptomic analysis of dental pulp stem cell senescence in vitro

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The use of human dental pulp stem cells (hDPSCs) as autologous stem cells for tissue repair and regenerative techniques is a significant area of global research. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of long-term in vitro culture on the multidifferentiation potential of hDPSCs and the potential molecular mechanisms involved.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The tissue block method was used to extract hDPSCs from orthodontic-minus-extraction patients, which were then expanded and cultured in vitro for 12 generations. Stem cells from passages three, six, nine, and twelve were selected. Flow cytometry was used to detect the expression of stem cell surface markers, and CCK-8 was used to assess cell proliferation. β-Galactosidase staining was employed to detect cellular senescence, Alizarin Red S staining to assess osteogenic potential, and Oil Red O staining to evaluate lipogenic capacity. RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) was conducted to identify differentially expressed genes in DPSCs and investigate their potential mechanisms.

RESULTS

With increasing passage numbers, pulp stem cells showed an increase in senescence and a decrease in proliferative capacity and osteogenic-lipogenic multidifferentiation potential. The expression of stem cell surface markers CD34 and CD45 was stable, whereas the expression of CD73, CD90, and CD105 decreased with increasing passages. According to the RNA-seq analysis, the differentially expressed genes CFH, WNT16, HSD17B2, IDI1, and COL5A3 may be associated with stem cell senescence.

CONCLUSION

Increased in vitro expansion induced cellular senescence in pulp stem cells, which resulted in a reduction in their proliferative capacity and osteogenic-lipogenic differentiation potential. The differential expression of genes such as CFH, WNT16, HSD17B2, IDI1, and COL5A3 may represent a potential mechanism for the induction of cellular senescence in pulp stem cells.

The Direct to Consumer Stem Cell Market and the Role of Primary Care Providers in Correcting Misinformation

INTRODUCTION

Direct to consumer stem cell and regenerative interventions (SCRIs) for various medical conditions have increased in popularity due to unmet medical needs and the promise of SCRIs to meet those needs. These interventions may have varying levels of safety and efficacy data and many lack sufficient scientific data to be marketed. The direct to consumer SCRI industry has received significant attention due to potential physical, economic, and emotional harms to patients. Patients may seek the counsel of their primary care providers when considering stem cell therapy for their condition.

METHODS

Here we describe strategies primary care providers can utilize when counseling patients.

RESULTS

Although we recommend constructing these discussions around individual patients' needs, one can utilize a general approach consisting of 4 parts. First, providers should recognize what information the patient is seeking and what is their understanding of stem cell and regenerative medicine. Next, providers should convey evidence-based information at the level of patients understanding so that they are aware of the risks, benefits, and descriptions of possible procedures. Throughout the conversations, attempts should be made to guide patients to a trusted resource that can provide additional information. Finally, providers should make an effort to address misinformation in a way that is nonjudgmental and patient-centered to make the patient feel safe and comfortable.

CONCLUSION

Effectively communicating risk information by primary care providers to patients is important given the harms reported from direct-to-consumer SCRIs. Correcting misinformation remains a priority when discussing SCRI's. Providers should strive to offer patients with additional resources such as the opportunity for consultation with a specialist or a consultation service dedicated to informing patients about regenerative medicine.

Stem-cell clinics in the UK: a web-based study

Aim: Explore the nature and extent of web-based promotion of stem cell treatments marketed by clinics in the UK. Materials & methods: Web-based analysis of clinics in the UK using predefined variables, with analysis of eligible clinics according to preset criteria of ethical relevance. Results: A majority (79%) of UK clinics were judged to be problematic. Information was found to be lacking, misleading or otherwise problematic in several respects, including a lack of information on risks of adverse effects, unjustifiably optimistic depictions of therapeutic effectiveness, and questionable presentational approaches such as the use of celebrity patient testimonials. Conclusion: In a majority of cases, commercial clinics in the UK portray stem-cell therapies on their websites in ethically questionable ways.

Different kinds of stem cells in the development of SARS-CoV-2 treatments

On February 11, 2020, the World Health Organization officially announced the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), as an emerging recent pandemic illness, which currently has approximately taken the life of two million persons in more than 200 countries. Medical, clinical, and scientific efforts have focused on searching for new prevention and treatment strategies. Regenerative medicine and tissue engineering focused on using stem cells (SCs) have become a promising tool, and the regenerative and immunoregulatory capabilities of mesenchymal SCs (MSCs) and their exosomes have been demonstrated. Moreover, it has been essential to establishing models to reproduce the viral life cycle and mimic the pathology of COVID-19 to understand the virus's behavior. The fields of pluripotent SCs (PSCs), induced PSCs (iPSCs), and artificial iPSCs have been used for this purpose in the development of infection models or organoids. Nevertheless, some inconveniences have been declared in SC use; for example, it has been reported that SARS-CoV-2 enters human cells through the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor, which is highly expressed in MSCs, so it is important to continue investigating the employment of SCs in COVID-19, taking into consideration their advantages and disadvantages. In this review, we expose the use of different kinds of SCs and their derivatives for studying the SARS-CoV-2 behavior and develop treatments to counter COVID-19.

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.

Guidelines for establishing a 3-D printing biofabrication laboratory

Advanced manufacturing and 3D printing are transformative technologies currently undergoing rapid adoption in healthcare, a traditionally non-manufacturing sector. Recent development in this field, largely enabled by merging different disciplines, has led to important clinical applications from anatomical models to regenerative bioscaffolding and devices. Although much research to-date has focussed on materials, designs, processes, and products, little attention has been given to the design and requirements of facilities for enabling clinically relevant biofabrication solutions. These facilities are critical to overcoming the major hurdles to clinical translation, including solving important issues such as reproducibility, quality control, regulations, and commercialization. To improve process uniformity and ensure consistent development and production, large-scale manufacturing of engineered tissues and organs will require standardized facilities, equipment, qualification processes, automation, and information systems. This review presents current and forward-thinking guidelines to help design biofabrication laboratories engaged in engineering model and tissue constructs for therapeutic and non-therapeutic applications.

Challenging misinformation and engaging patients: characterizing a regenerative medicine consult service

Aim: To address the unmet needs of patients interested in regenerative medicine, Mayo Clinic created a Regenerative Medicine Consult Service (RMCS). We describe the service and patient satisfaction. Materials & methods: We analyzed RMCS databases through retrospective chart analysis and performed qualitative interviews with patients. Results: The average patient was older to elderly and seeking information about regenerative options for their condition. Patients reported various conditions with osteoarthritis being most common. Over a third of consults included discussions about unproven interventions. About a third of patients received a clinical or research referral. Patients reported the RMCS as useful and the consultant as knowledgeable. Conclusion: An institutional RMCS can meet patients' informational needs and support the responsible translation of regenerative medicine.

The direct-to-consumer market for stem cell-based interventions in Australia: exploring the experiences of patients

The prevalence of businesses selling autologous stem cell-based interventions to patients in Australia has raised serious concerns about how weaknesses in regulation have enabled the emergence of an industry that engages in aggressive marketing of unproven treatments to patients. Little is known about how patients experience this marketing and their subsequent interactions with practitioners. This paper reports results from 15 semistructured interviews with patients and carers, and also draws upon discussion conducted with patients, carers and family members (22 participants) in a workshop setting. We explore how Australian patients and carers understand and experience these interventions, and how their presumptions about the ethics of medical practice, and the regulatory environment in Australia have conditioned their preparedness to undergo unproven treatments.

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.

How far have biological therapies come in regenerative sports medicine?

INTRODUCTION

Regular engagement in sports produces many health benefits, but also exposes to increased injury risk. The quality of medical care available is crucial not only for sports trauma but also to avoid overuse syndromes and post-traumatic degenerative conditions.

AREAS COVERED

We provide background information on some clinical needs in sport injuries and describe the main families of biological products used in clinical practice. We also discuss limitations of the current clinical experience.

EXPERT OPINION

Sport and exercise impairment affects different segments of the population with different needs. The exceptional demands of elite athletes and subsequent media coverage have created hype around regenerative therapies. Statistical evidence, whether weak (cell products) or moderate (PRPs), is not enough to drive medical decisions because of the heterogeneity of the biological products available and their application procedures. Moreover, the specific needs of the different segments of the population along with the available clinical evidence for each musculoskeletal condition should be considered in the decision-making process. There is urgent need to develop regenerative protocols combined with post-intervention rehabilitation, and gather meaningful clinical data on the safety and efficacy of these interventions in the different populations segments.

Biological Therapies in Regenerative Sports Medicine

Regenerative medicine seeks to harness the potential of cell biology for tissue replacement therapies, which will restore lost tissue functionality. Controlling and enhancing tissue healing is not just a matter of cells, but also of molecules and mechanical forces. We first describe the main biological technologies to boost musculoskeletal healing, including bone marrow and subcutaneous fat-derived regenerative products, as well as platelet-rich plasma and conditioned media. We provide some information describing possible mechanisms of action. We performed a literature search up to January 2016 searching for clinical outcomes following the use of cell therapies for sports conditions, tendons, and joints. The safety and efficacy of cell therapies for tendon conditions was examined in nine studies involving undifferentiated and differentiated (skin fibroblasts, tenocytes) cells. A total of 54 studies investigated the effects of mesenchymal stem-cell (MSC) products for joint conditions including anterior cruciate ligament, meniscus, and chondral lesions as well as osteoarthritis. In 22 studies, cellular products were injected intra-articularly, whereas in 32 studies MSC products were implanted during surgical/arthroscopic procedures. The heterogeneity of clinical conditions, cellular products, and approaches for delivery/implantation make comparability difficult. MSC products appear safe in the short- and mid-term, but studies with a long follow-up are scarce. Although the current number of randomized clinical studies is low, stem-cell products may have therapeutic potential. However, these regenerative technologies still need to be optimized.

Print Me an Organ? Ethical and Regulatory Issues Emerging from 3D Bioprinting in Medicine

Recent developments of three-dimensional printing of biomaterials (3D bioprinting) in medicine have been portrayed as demonstrating the potential to transform some medical treatments, including providing new responses to organ damage or organ failure. However, beyond the hype and before 3D bioprinted organs are ready to be transplanted into humans, several important ethical concerns and regulatory questions need to be addressed. This article starts by raising general ethical concerns associated with the use of bioprinting in medicine, then it focuses on more particular ethical issues related to experimental testing on humans, and the lack of current international regulatory directives to guide these experiments. Accordingly, this article (1) considers whether there is a limit as to what should be bioprinted in medicine; (2) examines key risks of significant harm associated with testing 3D bioprinting for humans; (3) investigates the clinical trial paradigm used to test 3D bioprinting; (4) analyses ethical questions of irreversibility, loss of treatment opportunity and replicability; (5) explores the current lack of a specific framework for the regulation and testing of 3D bioprinting treatments.

The Importance of an Evidence-based Workup for Recurrent Pregnancy Loss

Choosing an evidence-based workup and treatment for recurrent pregnancy loss is imperative to provide best patient care and create a culture that permits rigorous research into potential (not yet evidence-based) tests and therapeutics. As health sciences technologies become more sophisticated, more precise, and less expensive, new tools may be developed that allow better evaluation and treatment of couples with recurrent pregnancy loss. The goal must remain optimizing value and adhering to evidence-based care.

Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor-γ Coactivator-1α (PGC-1α) Regulates the Expression of B-Cell Lymphoma/Leukemia-2 (Bcl-2) and Promotes the Survival of Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs) via PGC-1α/ERRα Interaction in the Absence of Serum, Hypoxia, and High Glucose Conditions

BACKGROUND To study the effect of estrogen-related receptor α (ERRα) and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ coactivator-1α (PGC-1α) on mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) apoptosis, and further investigated its detailed molecular mechanisms in the absence of serum, hypoxia, and high glucose conditions. MATERIAL AND METHODS In our study, we first evaluated the expression rates of CD14, CD34, CD45, CD44, CD29, and Sca-1 surface markers on MSCs by flow cytometry. Then, the ability of osteogenic and fatty differentiation of MSCs was determined by osteogenic differentiation and adipogenesis reagent kit. Next, Annexin V-APC/7-AAD apoptosis kit was used for detecting the apoptosis rate of MSCs. RT-PCR and Western blotting were used for detection of mRNA expression and proteins expression, respectively. RESULTS Our data showed that the MSCs used in our study were capable of self-renewal and differentiating into many cell lineages, such as osteogenic differentiation and adipogenesis. Our results further showed that over-expression of PGC-1α could protect MSCs from apoptosis induced by rotenone. We also found that PGC-1α over-expression could enhance the expression of anti-apoptotic gene Bcl-2, and inhibit the expression of pro-apoptotic gene Bax in MSCs. In addition, our data demonstrated that PGC-1α could induce upregulation of Bcl-2 and further promote the survival of MSCs by interacting with ERRα. CONCLUSIONS In the absence of serum, hypoxia and high glucose conditions, PGC-1α can regulate the expression of Bcl-2 and promote the survival of MSCs via PGC-1α/ERRα interaction.

Cranioplasty with Adipose-Derived Stem Cells, Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate Granules and Supporting Mesh: Six-Year Clinical Follow-Up Results

Several alternative techniques exist to reconstruct skull defects. The complication rate of the cranioplasty procedure is high and the search for optimal materials and techniques continues. To report long-term results of patients who have received a cranioplasty using autologous adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs) seeded on beta-tricalcium phosphate (betaTCP) granules. Between 10/2008 and 3/2010, five cranioplasties were performed (four females, one male; average age 62.0 years) using ASCs, betaTCP granules and titanium or resorbable meshes. The average defect size was 8.1 × 6.7 cm² . Patients were followed both clinically and radiologically. The initial results were promising, with no serious complications. Nevertheless, in the long-term follow-up, three of the five patients were re-operated due to graft related problems. Two patients showed marked resorption of the graft, which led to revision surgery. One patient developed a late infection (7.3 years post-operative) that required revision surgery and removal of the graft. One patient had a successfully ossified graft, but was re-operated due to recurrence of the meningioma 2.2 years post-operatively. One patient had an uneventful clinical follow-up, and the cosmetic result is satisfactory, even though skull x-rays show hypodensity in the borders of the graft. Albeit no serious adverse events occurred, the 6-year follow-up results of the five cases are unsatisfactory. The clinical results are not superior to results achieved by conventional cranial repair methods. The use of stem cells in combination with betaTCP granules and supporting meshes in cranial defect reconstruction need to be studied further before continuing with clinical trials. Stem Cells Translational Medicine 2017;6:1576-1582.

Ethical clinical translation of stem cell interventions for neurologic disease

The application of stem cell transplants in clinical practice has increased in frequency in recent years. Many of the stem cell transplants in neurologic diseases, including stroke, Parkinson disease, spinal cord injury, and demyelinating diseases, are unproven-they have not been tested in prospective, controlled clinical trials and have not become accepted therapies. Stem cell transplant procedures currently being carried out have therapeutic aims, but are frequently experimental and unregulated, and could potentially put patients at risk. In some cases, patients undergoing such operations are not included in a clinical trial, and do not provide genuinely informed consent. For these reasons and others, some current stem cell interventions for neurologic diseases are ethically dubious and could jeopardize progress in the field. We provide discussion points for the evaluation of new stem cell interventions for neurologic disease, based primarily on the new Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation released by the International Society for Stem Cell Research in May 2016. Important considerations in the ethical translation of stem cells to clinical practice include regulatory oversight, conflicts of interest, data sharing, the nature of investigation (e.g., within vs outside of a clinical trial), informed consent, risk-benefit ratios, the therapeutic misconception, and patient vulnerability. To help guide the translation of stem cells from the laboratory into the neurosurgical clinic in an ethically sound manner, we present an ethical discussion of these major issues at stake in the field of stem cell clinical research for neurologic disease.

Science, ethics and communication remain essential for the success of cell-based therapies

Cell-based therapeutics, such as marrow or peripheral blood stem cell transplantation, are a standard of care for certain malignancies. More recently, a wider variety of cell-based therapeutics including the use of mesenchymal stromal/stem cells, T-cells, and others show great promise in a wider range of diseases. With increased efforts to expand cell-based treatments to several clinical settings, many institutions around the world have developed programs to explore cellular therapy's potential for safe and effective applications. In legitimate investigations, usually conducted through academic centers or biotechnology industry-sponsored efforts, these studies are regulated and peer-reviewed to ensure safety and clear determination of potential efficacy. However, in some cases, the use of cell-based approaches is conducted with insufficient preclinical data, scientific rationale, and/or study plan for the diseases claimed to be treated, with patients being charged for these services without clear evidence of clinical benefit. In this context, patients may not be properly informed regarding the exact treatment they are receiving within a consenting process that may not be completely valid or ethical. Here, the authors emphasize the importance of distinguishing "proven cell-based therapies" from "unproven" and unauthorized cell-based therapies. This publication also addresses the necessity for improved communication between the different stakeholders in the field, patient associations, and advocacy groups in particular, to favor medical innovation and provide legitimate benefits to patients. Considering the progressive growth of cell-based treatments, their increasing therapeutic value and the expectation that society has about these therapies, it is critically important to protect patients and ensure that the risk/benefit ratio is favorable. This paper is a review article. Literature referred to in this paper has been listed in the references section. The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are available online by searching PubMed. Some original points in this article come from the laboratory practice in our research centers and the authors' experiences.

Ethics and policy issues for stem cell research and pulmonary medicine

Stem cell research and related initiatives in regenerative medicine, cell-based therapy, and tissue engineering have generated considerable scientific and public interest. Researchers are applying stem cell technologies to chest medicine in a variety of ways: using stem cells as models for drug discovery, testing stem cell-based therapies for conditions as diverse as COPD and cystic fibrosis, and producing functional lung and tracheal tissue for physiologic modeling and potential transplantation. Although significant scientific obstacles remain, it is likely that stem cell-based regenerative medicine will have a significant clinical impact in chest medicine. However, stem cell research has also generated substantial controversy, posing a variety of ethical and regulatory challenges for research and clinical practice. Some of the most prominent ethical questions related to the use of stem cell technologies in chest medicine include (1) implications for donors, (2) scientific prerequisites for clinical testing and use, (3) stem cell tourism, (4) innovation and clinical use of emerging stem cell-based interventions, (5) responsible translation of stem cell-based therapies to clinical use, and (6) appropriate and equitable access to emerging therapies. Having a sense of these issues should help to put emerging scientific advances into appropriate context and to ensure the responsible clinical translation of promising therapeutics.

Untested, unproven, and unethical: the promotion and provision of autologous stem cell therapies in Australia

An increasing number of private clinics in Australia are marketing and providing autologous stem cell therapies to patients. Although advocates point to the importance of medical innovation and the primacy of patient choice, these arguments are unconvincing. First, it is a stark truth that these clinics are flourishing while the efficacy and safety of autologous stem cell therapies, outside of established indications for hematopioetic stem cell transplantation, are yet to be shown. Second, few of these therapies are offered within clinical trials. Third, patients with chronic and debilitating illnesses, who are often the ones who take up these therapies, incur significant financial burdens in the expectation of benefiting from these treatments. Finally, the provision of these stem cell therapies does not follow the established pathways for legitimate medical advancement. We argue that greater regulatory oversight and professional action are necessary to protect vulnerable patients and that at this time the provision of unproven stem cell therapies outside of clinical trials is unethical.

Untested, unproven, and unethical: the promotion and provision of autologous stem cell therapies in Australia

An increasing number of private clinics in Australia are marketing and providing autologous stem cell therapies to patients. Although advocates point to the importance of medical innovation and the primacy of patient choice, these arguments are unconvincing. First, it is a stark truth that these clinics are flourishing while the efficacy and safety of autologous stem cell therapies, outside of established indications for hematopioetic stem cell transplantation, are yet to be shown. Second, few of these therapies are offered within clinical trials. Third, patients with chronic and debilitating illnesses, who are often the ones who take up these therapies, incur significant financial burdens in the expectation of benefiting from these treatments. Finally, the provision of these stem cell therapies does not follow the established pathways for legitimate medical advancement. We argue that greater regulatory oversight and professional action are necessary to protect vulnerable patients and that at this time the provision of unproven stem cell therapies outside of clinical trials is unethical.

U.S. National Football League athletes seeking unproven stem cell treatments

From professionals to weekend warriors, many athletes seek unproven stem cell (SC) treatments in an effort to heal injuries nonsurgically and/or to accelerate recovery times after surgery. Among the elite athletes opting for these treatments are high-profile U.S. National Football League (NFL) players. Over the past 5 years, several NFL players have publicly advocated for SC types of treatments and credit them as a major reason they could continue their careers after injuries. In this article, we describe the current problems associated with unproven SC treatments, focusing on treatments without U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval undertaken by NFL players in the past 5 years. Specifically, we highlight the types of treatments obtained and how the clinics advertise specifically to athletes. We also review the intended and unintended consequences of high-profile players receiving and advocating for these types of therapies. Our findings suggest that NFL players increasingly seek out unproven SC therapies to help accelerate recoveries from injuries. While most seem to receive treatment within the United States, several have traveled abroad for therapies unavailable domestically.

Unproven stem cell-based interventions & physicians' professional obligations; a qualitative study with medical regulatory authorities in Canada

Background

The pursuit of unproven stem cell-based interventions (“stem cell tourism”) is an emerging issue that raises various concerns. Physicians play different roles in this market, many of which engage their legal, ethical and professional obligations. In Canada, physicians are members of a self-regulated profession and their professional regulatory bodies are responsible for regulating the practice of medicine and protecting the public interest. They also provide policy guidance to their members and discipline members for unprofessional conduct.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with representatives from six different provincial Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons in Canada to discuss their experiences and perspectives regarding stem cell tourism. Our focus was on exploring how different types of physician involvement in this market would be viewed by physicians’ professional regulatory bodies in Canada.

Results

When considering physicians’ professional obligations, participants drew analogies between stem cell tourism and other areas of medical tourism as well as with some aspects of complementary alternative medicine where existing policies, codes of ethics and regulations provide some guidance. Canadian physicians are required to act in the best interests of their patients, respect patient autonomy, avoid conflicts of interest and pursue evidence-based practice in accordance with accepted standards of care. Physicians who provide unproven treatments falling outside the standard of care, not in the context of an approved research protocol, could be subject to professional discipline. Other types of problematic conduct include referrals involving financial conflict of interest and failure to provide urgent medically necessary care. Areas of ambiguity include physicians’ obligations when asked for information and advice about seeking unproven medical treatments, in terms of providing non-urgent follow-up care, and when asked to support efforts to go abroad by providing tests or procedures in advance that would not otherwise be medically indicated.

Conclusions

Specific policy guidance regarding the identified areas of tension or ambiguity may prove helpful for physicians struggling with these issues. Further consideration of the complex interplay of factors at issue in how physicians may (should) respond to patient demands related to unproven medical interventions while meeting their professional, legal and ethical obligations, is warranted.

Professional regulation: a potentially valuable tool in responding to "stem cell tourism"

The growing international market for unproven stem cell-based interventions advertised on a direct-to-consumer basis over the internet (“stem cell tourism”) is a source of concern because of the risks it presents to patients as well as their supporters, domestic health care systems, and the stem cell research field. Emerging responses such as public and health provider-focused education and national regulatory efforts are encouraging, but the market continues to grow. Physicians play a number of roles in the stem cell tourism market and, in many jurisdictions, are members of a regulated profession. In this article, we consider the use of professional regulation to address physician involvement in stem cell tourism. Although it is not without its limitations, professional regulation is a potentially valuable tool that can be employed in response to problematic types of physician involvement in the stem cell tourism market.

•

Stem cell tourism is a complex and growing phenomenon that raises various concerns

•

Physicians play important roles in this market and are often professionally regulated

•

Key features of professional regulation make it well placed to respond

•

It is appropriate to use available tools to mitigate risks of stem cell tourism