Tackling Ethical Challenges of Premature Delivery of Stem Cell-Based Therapies: ISSCR 2018 Annual Meeting Focus Session Report

US state laws on medical freedom and investigational stem cell procedures: a call to focus on state-based legislation

The premature marketing of investigational stem cell interventions (SCIs) is a growing market in the US. Several US states have passed legislation to permit and promote unproven and experimental SCIs for individuals with terminal or chronic diseases. These SCI medical freedom laws, which are largely based on right-to-try legislation, increase access to experimental SCIs with little to no oversight. They undermine federal regulatory authority and can compromise patient safety and informed decision-making. SCI medical freedom laws have gone largely unnoticed by scientific societies interested in the responsible translation of stem cell medicine. In this article, we analyze state SCI medical freedom laws and describe their detrimental impact on patients and society. We contend that scientific and medical societies are uniquely poised to advocate against state-based policy promoting unproven SCIs but recognize resource and other constraints to advocate for or against legislation in 50 states. We recommend societies establish coalitions and share resources to address state-based SCI medical freedom laws and other legislation surrounding unproven SCIs.

Unproven cell interventions in Poland and the exploitation of European Union law on advanced therapy medicinal products

The global threat of unproven "stem cell therapies" develops despite the repeated statements of scientific organizations and regulatory agencies warning about the improper rationale, lack of effectiveness, and potential health risks of such commercial activities. Here, this problem is discussed from Poland's perspective, where unjustified "stem cell medical experiments" have raised the concern of responsible scientists and physicians. The paper describes how the European Union law on advanced therapy medicinal products and the hospital exemption rule have been used improperly and unlawfully on a mass scale. The article indicates serious scientific, medical, legal, and social issues of these activities.

Current status of cell-based interventions in Japan

The Act on the Safety of Regenerative Medicine regulates cell-based interventions in Japan. Recent revisions to the law require disclosure of explanatory and consent materials for interventions seeking approval. In this Forum, we present an updated analysis of the status and challenges facing the Japanese regulatory framework.

An Infodemic of Misinformation on Stem Cell Therapy Among the Population of Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study

In recent years, the industry of unproven stem cell-based therapies has been on the rise around the globe, putting patients at great risk of potential harm. In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to assess the level of knowledge and awareness of the general public, including patients and/or their relatives, in Saudi Arabia on stem cell therapy and to assess the degree of willingness to try stem cell-based treatment options, should it be offered to them.

ISSCR's Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation: Supporting development of safe and efficacious stem cell-based interventions

The ISSCR’s revised Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation reflect the organization’s commitment to opposing premature commercialization of stem cell-based interventions and supporting the development of products that meet stringent ethical, scientific, and regulatory standards. The Guidelines contain five important new recommendations concerning clinical translation of stem cell products.

Bringing Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) for Parkinson's Disease to the Clinic: The Investigator's Perspective

There is much excitement around the use of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), including cell and gene treatments, in Parkinson's disease (PD). However, taking an ATMP to clinical trials in patients with PD is complex. As such it is important from an investigator's perspective that they ask themselves two key questions before embarking on such work: firstly, why are you doing it, and, secondly, do you understand what is needed to conduct a clinical trial with that product. In this article, we briefly discuss these two questions.

Regenerative Medicine of Epithelia: Lessons From the Past and Future Goals

This article explores examples of successful and unsuccessful regenerative medicine on human epithelia. To evaluate the applications of the first regenerated tissues, the analysis of the past successes and failures addresses some pending issues and lay the groundwork for developing new therapies. Research should still be encouraged to fill the gap between pathologies, clinical applications and what regenerative medicine can attain with current knowledge.

Identification of the risks in CAR T-cell therapy clinical trials in China: a Delphi study

Aims:

Within the past few years, there has been tremendous growth in clinical trials of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies. Unlike those of many small-molecule pharmaceuticals, CAR T-cell therapy clinical trials are fraught with risks due to the use of live cell products. The aim of this study is to reach a consensus with experts on the most relevant set of risks that practically occur in CAR T-cell therapy clinical trials.

Methods:

A Delphi method of consensus development was used to identify the risks in CAR T-cell therapy clinical trials, comprising three survey rounds. The expert panel consisted of principal investigators, clinical research physicians, members of institutional ethics committees, and Good Clinical Practice managers.

Results:

Of the 24 experts invited to participate in this Delphi study, 20 participants completed Round 1, Round 2, and Round 3. Finally, consensus (defined as >80% agreement) was achieved for 54 risks relating to CAR T-cell clinical trials. Effective interventions related to these risks are needed to ensure the proper protection of subject health and safety.

Conclusion:

The Delphi method was successful in gaining a consensus on risks relevant to CAR T-cell clinical trials in a geographically diverse expert association. It is hoped that this work can benefit future risk-based quality management in clinical trials and can potentially promote the better development of CAR T-cell therapy products.

Access to stem cell data and registration of pluripotent cell lines: The Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Registry (hPSCreg)

The value of human pluripotent stem cells (hPSC) in regenerative medicine has yet to reach its full potential. The road from basic research tool to clinically validated PSC-derived cell therapy products is a long and winding one, leading researchers, clinicians, industry and regulators alike into undiscovered territory. All stakeholders must work together to ensure the development of safe and effective cell therapies. Similarly, utilization of hPSC in meaningful and controlled disease modeling and drug screening applications requires information on the quality and suitability of the applied cell lines. Central to these common goals is the complete documentation of hPSC data, including the ethical provenance of the source material, the hPSC line derivation, culture conditions and genetic constitution of the lines. Data surrounding hPSC is scattered amongst diverse sources, including publications, supplemental data, researcher lab books, accredited lab reports, certificates of analyses and public data repositories. Not all of these data sources are publicly accessible nor associated with metadata nor stored in a standard manner, such that data can be easily found and retrieved. The Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Registry (hPSCreg; https://hpscreg.eu/) was started in 2007 to impart provenance and transparency towards hPSC research by registering and collecting standard properties of hPSC lines. In this chapter, we present a short primer on the history of stem cell-based products, summarize the ethical and regulatory issues introduced in the course of working with hPSC-derived products and their associated data, and finally present the Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Registry as a valuable resource for all stakeholders in therapies and disease modeling based on hPSC-derived cells.

Regulatory and policy tools to address unproven stem cell interventions in Canada: the need for action

Background

The marketing of unproven direct-to-consumer stem cell interventions is becoming widespread in Canada. There is little evidence supporting their use and they have been associated with a range of harms. Canada has been slower to act against clinics offering these interventions than other jurisdictions, including the United States. Here, we outline the regulatory and policy tools available in Canada to address this growing problem.

Main body

Health Canada’s regulations governing cell therapies are complex, but recent statements make it clear that Health Canada believes it has jurisdiction over many of the currently marketed stem cell interventions. Still, further regulatory clarity is needed from Health Canada, as are increased directed enforcement efforts on interventions that fall within their scope. The Competition Bureau, via the Competition Act, prohibits advertisers from making materially false or misleading promotional representations. The Competition Bureau could collaborate with the scientific community to analyze the claims of existing clinics in Canada, and impose sanctions upon those who breach the established standard. Professional regulators, including provincial colleges of physicians and surgeons, have considerable power over what products and services their members can offer. Every college of physicians in Canada requires, via policy and codes of ethics, that doctors maintain evidence-based practices. This requirement is incompatible with offering many unproven stem cell interventions. Litigation may be another tool, including the use of fraud, misrepresentation and/or negligence claims for failing to meet the required standard of care. Finally, political pressure on federal and provincial lawmakers could encourage changes to marketing, cell therapy and professional regulations that would allow a more comprehensive response.

Conclusions

In sum, there are many existing tools that can be used to protect the public from unproven stem cell interventions. Increased bureaucratic will and grassroots efforts are needed in order to effect a positive policy response.