Regulation of cellular therapy in Australia

Application of Platelet-Rich Plasma as a Stem Cell Treatment - an Attempt to Clarify a Common Public Misconception

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the practice of regenerative medicine by health practitioners and direct-to-consumer businesses globally. Among different tools of regenerative medicine, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and stem cell-based therapies have received considerable attention. The use of PRP, in particular, has gained popularity due to its easy access, simple processing techniques, and regenerative potential. However, it is important to address a common misconception amongst the general public equating to PRP and stem cells due to the demonstrated efficacy of PRP in treating musculoskeletal and dermatological disorders. Notably, PRP promotes regeneration by providing growth factors or other paracrine factors only. Therefore, it cannot replenish or replace the lost cells in conditions where a large number of cells are required to regenerate tissues and/or organs. In such cases, cellbased therapies are the preferred option. Additionally, other tools of regenerative medicine, such as bioprinting, organoids, and mechanobiology also rely on stem cells for their success. Hence, healthcare and commercial entities offering direct-to-customer regenerative therapies should not mislead the public by claiming that the application of PRP is a stem cell-based therapy. Furthermore, it is important for regulatory bodies to strictly monitor these profit-driven entities to prevent them from providing unregulated regenerative treatments and services that claim a broad variety of benefits with little proof of efficacy, safety concerns, and obscure scientific justification.

Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cell-based treatments legislation in Latin America: The need for standardization in a medical tourism context

Medicinal Signaling Cells (MSCs) secrete bioactive molecules with paracrine effects. These cells are widely used in basic and clinical research to treat several human diseases and medically relevant conditions. Although there are promising results, only a few treatments are approved of its administration, and clinicians should not underestimate the potential risks of its application without proper authorization. However, some treatments advertised mainly through the internet are not supported by solid or rigorous scientific evidence, legal consent, or the assurance of safety and efficacy, especially in the cell therapy tourism space. This practice allows patients to travel from stringently regulated countries to less restricted ones and increases the flourishing of non-endorsed therapies in these regions. Clinical applications of MSC-based treatments are subject to health legislation, and regulatory agencies are responsible for supervising their manufacture, quality control, and marketing approval. Consensus is needed to homologize and strengthen health legislation regarding those therapies, particularly in regions where medical tourism is frequent. Latin America and the Caribbean, an overlooked region with very heterogeneous legislation regarding cell therapy, is a popular medical tourism destination. Brazil and Argentina created regulations to supervise cell-based treatments manufacture, quality, and marketing. While Mexico, considered the second-largest drug market in Latin America, does not recognize nor authorize any cells as therapy. Also, some regulatory bodies miss the importance of several critical GMP processes to ensure reproducible, reliable, safe, and potentially more favorable results and do not consider them in their legislation. These inconsistencies make the region vulnerable to unproven or unethical treatments, potentially becoming a public health problem involving people from countries worldwide. This review attempts to generate awareness for the legal status of cell therapies in Latin America and the need for standardization as this region is a significant medical tourism destination.

Regenerative medicine regulatory policies: A systematic review and international comparison

BACKGROUND

A small number of regenerative medicines (RMs) have received market authorization (MA) worldwide, relative to the large number of clinical trials currently being conducted. Regulatory issues constitute one major challenge for the MA of RMs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically review the regulation of RMs internationally, to identify the regulatory pathways for approved RMs, and to detail expedited programs to stimulate MA process.

METHODS

Official websites of regulatory authorities in 9 countries (United States (US), Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, China, and India) and the European Union (EU) were systematically browsed, and was complemented by a systematic literature review in Medline and Embase database.

RESULTS

Specific RM legislation/frameworks were available in the EU, US, Japan, South Korea and Australia. A risk-based approach exempting eligible RMs from MA regulations were adopted in the EU and 6 countries. All investigated regions have established accelerated review or approval programs to facilitate the MA of RMs. 55 RMs have received MA in 9 countries and the EU. Twenty-three RMs received Priority Medicine designation, 32 RMs received Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation, and 11 RMs received SAKIGAKE (fore-runner initiative) designation.

CONCLUSION

Regulators have adopted proactive strategies to facilitate RM approval. However, addressing the discrepancies in regulatory requirements internationally remains challenging.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The idea that the body's own stem cells could act as a repair kit for many conditions, including cardiac repair, underpins regenerative medicine. While progress is being made, with hundreds of clinical trials underway to evaluate possible autologous cell-based therapies, some patients and physicians are not prepared to wait and are pursuing treatments without evidence that the proposed treatments are effective, or even safe. This article explores the inherent tension between patients, practitioners and the need to regulate the development and commercialization of new cellular therapies--even when the cells come from the patient.