Current and emerging global themes in the bioethics of regenerative medicine: the tangled web of stem cell translation

The evolution and ongoing challenge of unproven cell-based interventions

Unproven cell-based interventions (CBIs) emerged early in the 2000s as a particularly problematic form of unproven therapy and remain a vexing policy problem to this day. These unproven interventions can harm patients both physically and financially and can complicate the process of developing a rigorous evidence base to support the translation of novel stem cell or other cell therapies. In this concise review, we examine the emergence of unproven CBIs and the various policy approaches that have been pursued or proposed to address this problem. We review the evolution of this field over the last 2 decades and explore why these policy efforts have proven challenging. We conclude by highlighting potential directions that the field could evolve and urging continued attention to both current and future forms of unproven CBIs to minimize future risks to patients and the field and to promote the development of evidence-based cell therapies.

How Smart are Smart Materials? A Conceptual and Ethical Analysis of Smart Lifelike Materials for the Design of Regenerative Valve Implants

It may soon become possible not just to replace, but to re-grow healthy tissues after injury or disease, because of innovations in the field of Regenerative Medicine. One particularly promising innovation is a regenerative valve implant to treat people with heart valve disease. These implants are fabricated from so-called 'smart', 'lifelike' materials. Implanted inside a heart, these implants stimulate re-growth of a healthy, living heart valve. While the technological development advances, the ethical implications of this new technology are still unclear and a clear conceptual understanding of the notions 'smart' and 'lifelike' is currently lacking. In this paper, we explore the conceptual and ethical implications of the development of smart lifelike materials for the design of regenerative implants, by analysing heart valve implants as a showcase. In our conceptual analysis, we show that the materials are considered 'smart' because they can communicate with human tissues, and 'lifelike' because they are structurally similar to these tissues. This shows that regenerative valve implants become intimately integrated in the living tissues of the human body. As such, they manifest the ontological entanglement of body and technology. In our ethical analysis, we argue this is ethically significant in at least two ways: It exacerbates the irreversibility of the implantation procedure, and it might affect the embodied experience of the implant recipient. With our conceptual and ethical analysis, we aim to contribute to responsible development of smart lifelike materials and regenerative implants.

The Ethical Implications of Tissue Engineering for Regenerative Purposes: A Systematic Review

Tissue Engineering (TE) is a branch of Regenerative Medicine (RM) that combines stem cells and biomaterial scaffolds to create living tissue constructs to restore patients' organs after injury or disease. Over the last decade, emerging technologies such as 3D bioprinting, biofabrication, supramolecular materials, induced pluripotent stem cells, and organoids have entered the field. While this rapidly evolving field is expected to have great therapeutic potential, its development from bench to bedside presents several ethical and societal challenges. To make sure TE will reach its ultimate goal of improving patient welfare, these challenges should be mapped out and evaluated. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of the ethical implications of the development and application of TE for regenerative purposes, as mentioned in the academic literature. A search query in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and PhilPapers yielded 2451 unique articles. After systematic screening, 237 relevant ethical and biomedical articles published between 2008 and 2021 were included in our review. We identified a broad range of ethical implications that could be categorized under 10 themes. Seven themes trace the development from bench to bedside: (1) animal experimentation, (2) handling human tissue, (3) informed consent, (4) therapeutic potential, (5) risk and safety, (6) clinical translation, and (7) societal impact. Three themes represent ethical safeguards relevant to all developmental phases: (8) scientific integrity, (9) regulation, and (10) patient and public involvement. This review reveals that since 2008 a significant body of literature has emerged on how to design clinical trials for TE in a responsible manner. However, several topics remain in need of more attention. These include the acceptability of alternative translational pathways outside clinical trials, soft impacts on society and questions of ownership over engineered tissues. Overall, this overview of the ethical and societal implications of the field will help promote responsible development of new interventions in TE and RM. It can also serve as a valuable resource and educational tool for scientists, engineers, and clinicians in the field by providing an overview of the ethical considerations relevant to their work. Impact statement To our knowledge, this is the first time that the ethical implications of Tissue Engineering (TE) have been reviewed systematically. By gathering existing scholarly work and identifying knowledge gaps, this review facilitates further research into the ethical and societal implications of TE and Regenerative Medicine (RM) and other emerging biomedical technologies. Moreover, it will serve as a valuable resource and educational tool for scientists, engineers, and clinicians in the field by providing an overview of the ethical considerations relevant to their work. As such, our review may promote successful and responsible development of new strategies in TE and RM.

Acceptability of donor funding for clinical trials in the UK: a qualitative empirical ethics study using focus groups to elicit the views of research patient public involvement group members, research ethics committee chairs and clinical researchers

OBJECTIVES

The Plutocratic Proposal is a novel method of funding early phase clinical trials where a single donor funds the entire trial and in so doing secures a place on it. The aim of this study was to identify and explore concerns that may be raised by UK research ethics committees (RECs) when reviewing clinical trials funded in this way.

DESIGN

Empirical ethics combining ethical analysis and qualitative data from three focus groups held online using Frith's symbiotic approach. Data were analysed using inductive thematic approach informed by the study aims and ethical analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

22 participants were recruited: 8 research patient public involvement group members, 7 REC chairs and 7 clinical researchers. All were based in the UK.

RESULTS

With one exception, participants thought the Plutocratic Proposal may be 'all things considered' acceptable, providing their concerns were met, primary of which was upholding scientific integrity. Other concerns discussed related to the acceptability of the donor securing a place on the trial including: whether this was an unfair distribution of benefits, disclosing the identity of the donor as the funder, protecting the donor from exploitation and funding a single study with multiple donors on the same terms. Some misgivings fell outside the usual REC purview: detrimental impact of donors of bad character, establishing the trustworthiness of the matching agency and its processes and optimising research funding and resources. Despite their concerns, participants recognised that because the donor funds the whole trial, others would also potentially benefit from participating.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified concerns about the Plutocratic Proposal. UK RECs may be open to approving studies if these can be addressed. Existing governance processes will do some of this work, but additional REC guidance, particularly in relation to donors securing a place on the trial, may be necessary to help RECs navigate ethical concerns consistently.

Roles and responsibilities in stem cell research: a focus group study with stem cell researchers and patients

Background: The perspectives of researchers and patients regarding roles and responsibilities in stem cell research are rarely studied, but these could offer insights about responsible research conduct. Method: We have conducted a qualitative study consisting of focus groups with both early- (n = 7) and late-career stem cell researchers (n = 11) that are primarily based in Europe, and with Dutch patients with chronic lower back pain (n = 9). These focus groups have been analyzed thematically. Results: Four themes were identified: 1) roles and responsibilities in the laboratory, 2) responsibilities of and toward patients and the public, 3) the role of regulation and 4) structural hurdles for responsibility. Discussion: The results suggest that responsible research conduct could be improved by addressing grant application procedures, publication pressure and by providing support of dissemination activities for researchers. Conclusion: Responsibility in stem cell research could be enhanced by embracing open science initiatives and targeted training.

International stem cell tourism: a critical literature review and evidence-based recommendations

Stem cell tourism is an emerging area of medical tourism activity. Frustrated by the slow translation of stem cell research into clinical practice, patients with debilitating conditions often seek therapeutic options that are not appropriately regulated. This review summarises recent developments in the field of stem cell tourism and provides clinicians with the information necessary to provide basic pretravel health advice to stem cell tourists. PubMed and Scopus databases were consulted for relevant publications, using combinations of the terms 'stem cell', 'tourism', 'regenerative medicine', 'international', 'travel medicine' and 'environmental health'. The leading countries in the international stem cell tourism market are the USA, China, India, Thailand and Mexico. As the majority of clinics offering stem cell therapies are based in low- and-middle-income countries, stem cell tourists place themselves at risk of receiving an unproven treatment, coupled with the risk of travel-related illnesses. These clinics do not generally provide even basic travel health information on their websites. In addition to often being ineffective, stem cell therapies are associated with complications such as infection, rejection and tumorigenesis. Physicians, researchers, regulatory bodies, advocacy groups and medical educators are encouraged to work together to improve patient and physician education and address current legislative deficiencies.

Unproven stem cell interventions: A global public health problem requiring global deliberation

The unproven stem cell intervention (SCI) industry is a global health problem. Despite efforts of some nations, the industry continues to flourish. In this paper, we call for a global approach and the establishment of a World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Advisory Committee on Regenerative Medicine to tackle this issue and provide guidance. The WHO committee can harmonize national regulations; promote regulatory approaches responsive to unmet patient needs; and formulate an education campaign against misinformation. Fostering an international dialog and developing recommendations that can be adopted by member states would effectively address the global market of unproven SCIs.

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.

The Fate of Transplanted Olfactory Progenitors Is Conditioned by the Cell Phenotypes of the Receiver Brain Tissue in Cocultures

Among the numerous candidates for cell therapy of the central nervous system (CNS), olfactory progenitors (OPs) represent an interesting alternative because they are free of ethical concerns, are easy to collect, and allow autologous transplantation. In the present study, we focused on the optimization of neuron production and maturation. It is known that plated OPs respond to various trophic factors, and we also showed that the use of Nerve Growth Factor (NGF) allowed switching from a 60/40 neuron/glia ratio to an 80/20 one. Nevertheless, in order to focus on the integration of OPs in mature neural circuits, we cocultured OPs in primary cultures obtained from the cortex and hippocampus of newborn mice. When dissociated OPs were plated, they differentiated into both glial and neuronal phenotypes, but we obtained a 1.5-fold higher viability in cortex/OP cocultures than in hippocampus/OP ones. The fate of OPs in cocultures was characterized with different markers such as BrdU, Map-2, and Synapsin, indicating a healthy integration. These results suggest that the integration of transplanted OPs might by affected by trophic factors and the environmental conditions/cell phenotypes of the host tissue. Thus, a model of coculture could provide useful information on key cell events for the use of progenitors in cell therapy.

Uniting Drug and Delivery: Metal Oxide Hybrid Nanotherapeutics for Skin Wound Care

Wound care and soft tissue repair have been a major human concern for millennia. Despite considerable advancements in standards of living and medical abilities, difficult-to-heal wounds remain a major burden for patients, clinicians and the healthcare system alike. Due to an aging population, the rise in chronic diseases such as vascular disease and diabetes, and the increased incidence of antibiotic resistance, the problem is set to worsen. The global wound care market is constantly evolving and expanding, and has yielded a plethora of potential solutions to treat poorly healing wounds. In ancient times, before such a market existed, metals and their ions were frequently used in wound care. In combination with plant extracts, they were used to accelerate the healing of burns, cuts and combat wounds. With the rise of organic chemistry and small molecule drugs and ointments, researchers lost their interest in inorganic materials. Only recently, the advent of nano-engineering has given us a toolbox to develop inorganic materials on a length-scale that is relevant to wound healing processes. The robustness of synthesis, as well as the stability and versatility of inorganic nanotherapeutics gives them potential advantages over small molecule drugs. Both bottom-up and top-down approaches have yielded functional inorganic nanomaterials, some of which unite the wound healing properties of two or more materials. Furthermore, these nanomaterials do not only serve as the active agent, but also as the delivery vehicle, and sometimes as a scaffold. This review article provides an overview of inorganic hybrid nanotherapeutics with promising properties for the wound care field. These therapeutics include combinations of different metals, metal oxides and metal ions. Their production, mechanism of action and applicability will be discussed in comparison to conventional wound healing products.

Advanced therapy medicinal products: value judgement and ethical evaluation in health technology assessment

Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are a heterogeneous class of medicinal products that by offering the potential of cure represent a paradigm shift in the approach of many life-threatening diseases. Although a common regulatory framework for ATMPs has been established in the EU, the health technology assessment (HTA) and financing decisions remain local. The aim of this article is to present an integrated analysis of the current status of the value judgment of ATMPs and the integration of ethical evaluation in the HTA process. It has been identified that approaching the specificities of ATMPs in terms of market access will require a broadening of the definition of value to be able to systematically capture elements of value not traditionally considered. Outcomes modelling will play an important role in the pricing and reimbursement of ATMPs, providing a way to bridge the gap caused by the absence of data from clinical studies or real-world data. Given the nature and disruptive consequences of ATMPs the assessment and adoption of these medicinal products raises important ethical questions, both at a policy and at society level that should be properly addressed. HTA can be made more transparent and reliable, and simultaneously promote robust and accountable decision making, by turning explicit the value judgments implicit in HTA. Ultimately, there should be no core conflict between ethical requirements and HTA in a scenario where the goal is to promote equity and access of patients to truly innovative therapies such as ATMPs, while assuring the sustainability of healthcare systems.

Regenerative Cell-Based Therapies: Cutting Edge, Bleeding Edge, and Off the Edge

With the emergence of cell-based therapies as viable treatment options readily accessible to patients, the scientific community and public have raised concerns regarding consumer accessibility and regulation enforcement. Opposing viewpoints regarding regulation have emerged, and efforts to maintain the balance between promoting scientific innovation and ensuring public safety has proved challenging. To further complicate matters, there is contradictory information regarding the clinical safety and efficacy of cell-based treatments. Herein, we outline the FDA's regulatory framework for cell-based therapies and describe what we term the cutting edge, bleeding edge, and off the edge interventions. We conclude with a new classification system for regenerative cell-based therapies intended to further aid in delineating between the clinically and scientifically sound therapies to those that compel further scientific investigation.

Navigating the cartographies of trust: how patients and carers establish the credibility of online treatment claims

Digital media offer citizens novel ways of 'enacting' health and illness, and treatment and care. However, while digital media may so 'empower' citizens, those searching for credible information will be confronted with various, often-conflicting claims that may have 'disempowering' effects. This article uses Gieryn's concept of the 'cultural cartography' to explore the criteria that patients and carers employ in establishing the credibility of information on alleged treatments. Drawing on data from interviews with Australian patients and carers who have travelled or considered travelling abroad for unproven commercial stem cell treatments, the article examines how individuals assess rival sources of epistemic authority - science-based and non-science-based - as they search for credible information. As we argue, in a context where conventional treatment options are perceived to be limited or non-existent - which is likely to be the case with those suffering severe, life-limiting conditions - and the credibility of sources uncertain, matters of opinion and belief are prone to being interpreted as matters of fact, with potentially far-reaching implications for citizens' health. Revealing the mechanisms by which individuals ascribe credibility to health information, we conclude, has become crucial as digital media assume a growing role in health and healthcare and governments encourage citizens to become 'digitally literate'.

Patienthood and participation in the digital era

The 'digital era' of informatics and knowledge integration has changed the roles and experiences of patients, research participants and health consumers. No longer figured (merely) as passive recipients of healthcare services or as beneficiaries of top-down biomedical information, individuals are increasingly seen as active contributors in healthcare and research. They are positioned into multiple roles that are experienced simultaneously by those who access and co-produce digital content that can easily be transformed into data. This is contextualised by 'big data' technologies that have altered biomedicine, enabling collation and analysis of myriad data from digitised records to personal mobile data. Social media facilitate new formations of communities and knowledge enacted online, while novel kinds of commercial value emerge from digital networks that enable health data commodification. In this paper, we draw from exemplary digital era shifts towards participatory medicine to cast light on the rapprochements between patienthood, participation and consumption, and we explore how these rapprochements are mediated by, and materialise through, the use of participatory digital technologies and big data. We argue that there is a need to use new conceptual tools that account for the multiple roles and experiences of patient-participant-consumers that co-emerge through digital technologies. We must also ethically re-assess the rights and responsibilities of individuals in the digital era, and the implications of digital era changes for the future of biomedicine and healthcare.