Unproven Stem Cell Treatments for Lung Disease-An Emerging Public Health Problem

Stem cells, cell therapies, and bioengineering in lung biology and disease 2021

The 9th biennial conference titled "Stem Cells, Cell Therapies, and Bioengineering in Lung Biology and Diseases" was hosted virtually, due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, in collaboration with the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the Alpha-1 Foundation, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy. The event was held from July 12th through 15th, 2021 with a pre-conference workshop held on July 9th. As in previous years, the objectives remained to review and discuss the status of active research areas involving stem cells (SCs), cellular therapeutics, and bioengineering as they relate to the human lung. Topics included 1) technological advancements in the in situ analysis of lung tissues, 2) new insights into stem cell signaling and plasticity in lung remodeling and regeneration, 3) the impact of extracellular matrix in stem cell regulation and airway engineering in lung regeneration, 4) differentiating and delivering stem cell therapeutics to the lung, 5) regeneration in response to viral infection, and 6) ethical development of cell-based treatments for lung diseases. This selection of topics represents some of the most dynamic and current research areas in lung biology. The virtual workshop included active discussion on state-of-the-art methods relating to the core features of the 2021 conference, including in situ proteomics, lung-on-chip, induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-airway differentiation, and light sheet microscopy. The conference concluded with an open discussion to suggest funding priorities and recommendations for future research directions in basic and translational lung biology.

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.

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.

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.

Governmental Regulations and Increasing Food and Drug Administration Oversight of Regenerative Medicine Products: What's New in 2020?

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through rules and regulations. Over the past few years, the field of regenerative medicine and cell therapy have garnered significant interest, and this evolving new biology is changing fast and challenging regulatory bodies. The FDA has published a series of guidance documents outlining steps to protect consumers against potentially dangerous and unproven treatments. The agency has offered a grace period for "stem cell clinics" until November 2020 to come into compliance by obtaining Investigational New Drug applications and working to secure premarket approval of their products. With the documentation of hundreds of "stem cell clinics," the FDA needs to enforce the adherence to their outlined standards to protect patients. The aim of this review was to provide an overview of these FDA regulations and some current issues within the industry. The purpose is to educate and inform the musculoskeletal community about the current government regulations of this new expanding biology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

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.

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.

Cell-based Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Rebuilding the Lung

As the prevalence and impact of lung diseases continue to increase worldwide, new therapeutic strategies are desperately needed. Advances in lung-regenerative medicine, a broad field encompassing stem cells, cell-based therapies, and a range of bioengineering approaches, offer new insights into and new techniques for studying lung physiology and pathophysiology. This provides a platform for the development of novel therapeutic approaches. Applicability to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease of recent advances and applications in cell-based therapies, predominantly those with mesenchymal stromal cell-based approaches, and bioengineering approaches for lung diseases are reviewed.

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.

Mesenchymal Stem Cells for the Treatment of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is an inexorably progressive lung disease of unknown origin. Prognosis is poor, with limited treatment options available, and the median survival remains just 3-5 years. Despite the use of pirfenidone and nintedanib for the treatment of IPF, curative therapies remain elusive and mortality remains high. Regenerative medicine and the use of cell-based therapies has recently emerged as a potential option for various diseases. Promising results of preclinical studies using mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) suggest that they may represent a potential therapeutic option for the treatment of chronic lung diseases including IPF. Encouraging results of Phase 1 studies of MSCs various have reduced safety concerns. Nonetheless, there is still a pressing need for exploratory biomarkers and interval end-points in the context of MSCs investigation. This review intends to summarize the current state of knowledge for stem cells in the experimental and clinical setting of IPF, present important safety and efficacy issues, highlight future challenges and address the need for large, multicenter clinical trials coupled with realistic end-points, including biomarkers, to assess treatment efficacy.

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

Businesses marketing unproven stem cell interventions proliferate within the U.S. and in the larger global marketplace. There have been global efforts by scientists, patient advocacy groups, bioethicists, and public policy experts to counteract the uncontrolled and premature commercialization of stem cell interventions. In this commentary, we posit that medical societies and associations of health care professionals have a particular responsibility to be an active partner in such efforts. We review the role medical societies can and should play in this area through patient advocacy and awareness initiatives.

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic, progressive lung disease characterized by progressive lung scarring and the histological picture of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP). It is associated with increasing cough and dyspnoea and impaired quality of life. IPF affects ∼3 million people worldwide, with incidence increasing dramatically with age. The diagnostic approach includes the exclusion of other interstitial lung diseases or overlapping conditions and depends on the identification of the UIP pattern, usually with high-resolution CT; lung biopsy might be required in some patients. The UIP pattern is predominantly bilateral, peripheral and with a basal distribution of reticular changes associated with traction bronchiectasis and clusters of subpleural cystic airspaces. The biological processes underlying IPF are thought to reflect an aberrant reparative response to repetitive alveolar epithelial injury in a genetically susceptible ageing individual, although many questions remain on how to define susceptibility. Substantial progress has been made in the understanding of the clinical management of IPF, with the availability of two pharmacotherapeutic agents, pirfenidone and nintedanib, that decrease physiological progression and likely improve progression-free survival. Current efforts are directed at identifying IPF early, potentially relying on combinations of biomarkers that include circulating factors, demographics and imaging data.