Defeating stem cell tourism

‘No one here's helping me, what do you do?’: addressing patient need for support and advice about stem cell treatments

Aim: This article examines how those who contemplate purported stem cell treatments (SCTs) negotiate available information sources and the adequacy of current approaches to guidance and support. Materials & methods: Qualitative interviews undertaken with people who had contemplated or undergone purported SCTs for a range of conditions (n = 24 and n = 27, respectively), as well as professionals who are frequently asked about SCTs (n = 20) were analyzed. Results: Our findings reveal the difficulties for individuals in discriminating between different sources of information on SCTs and the limitations of current responses. Conclusion: In the context of contending information about SCTs informal (‘accidental’) advisors potentially play a crucial role in supporting patients. Additional approaches are also required to better address patients’ needs.

Unproven stem cell-based interventions and achieving a compromise policy among the multiple stakeholders

BACKGROUND

In 2004, patient advocate groups were major players in helping pass and implement significant public policy and funding initiatives in stem cells and regenerative medicine. In the following years, advocates were also actively engaged in Washington DC, encouraging policy makers to broaden embryonic stem cell research funding, which was ultimately passed after President Barack Obama came into office. Many advocates did this because they were told stem cell research would lead to cures. After waiting more than 10 years, many of these same patients are now approaching clinics around the world offering experimental stem cell-based interventions instead of waiting for scientists in the US to complete clinical trials. How did the same groups who were once (and often still are) the strongest supporters of stem cell research become stem cell tourists? And how can scientists, clinicians, and regulators work to bring stem cell patients back home to the US and into the clinical trial process?

DISCUSSION

In this paper, we argue that the continued marketing and use of experimental stem cell-based interventions is problematic and unsustainable. Central problems include the lack of patient protection, US liability standards, regulation of clinical sites, and clinician licensing. These interventions have insufficient evidence of safety and efficacy; patients may be wasting money and time, and they may be forgoing other opportunities for an intervention that has not been shown to be safe and effective. Current practices do not contribute to scientific progress because the data from the procedures are unsuitable for follow-up research to measure outcomes. In addition, there is no assurance for patients that they are receiving the interventions promised or of what dosage they are receiving. Furthermore, there is inconsistent or non-existent follow-up care. Public policy should be developed to correct the current situation.

CONCLUSION

The current landscape of stem cell tourism should prompt a re-evaluation of current approaches to study cell-based interventions with respect to the design, initiation, and conduct of US clinical trials. Stakeholders, including scientists, clinicians, regulators and patient advocates, need to work together to find a compromise to keep patients in the US and within the clinical trial process. Using HIV/AIDS and breast cancer advocate cases as examples, we identify key priorities and goals for this policy effort.

The translation of cell-based therapies: clinical landscape and manufacturing challenges

Cell-based therapies have the potential to make a large contribution toward currently unmet patient need and thus effective manufacture of these products is essential. Many challenges must be overcome before this can become a reality and a better definition of the manufacturing requirements for cell-based products must be obtained. The aim of this study is to inform industry and academia of current cell-based therapy clinical development and to identify gaps in their manufacturing requirements. A total of 1342 active cell-based therapy clinical trials have been identified and characterized based on cell type, target indication and trial phase. Multiple technologies have been assessed for the manufacture of these cell types in order to facilitate product translation and future process development.

Stem cell tourism--a web-based analysis of clinical services available to international travellers

BACKGROUND

Stem cell therapies are advertised through online resources which describe a range of treatments with diverse clinical indications. Stem cell tourists may not be aware of the information they should seek when consulting these clinics, or of the potential risks involved. The aim of this study was to characterise the therapies offered by online stem cell clinics.

METHODS

A web based search utilising five search terms was employed. The first twenty pages of each search result were screened against 340 variables.

RESULTS

224 out of 1091 websites advertised stem cell clinics. 68 eligible sites covering 21 countries were evaluated. The top five clinical indications for stem cell therapy were multiple sclerosis, anti-ageing, Parkinson's disease, stroke and spinal cord injury. Adult, autologous stem cells were the most commonly utilised stem cell, and these were frequently sourced from bone marrow and adipose tissue and administered intravenously. Thirty-four per cent of sites mentioned the number of patients treated while one quarter of clinics provided outcome data. Twenty-nine per cent of clinics had an internationally recognised accreditation. Fifteen per cent of clinics stated that their therapies posed no risk. Eighty-eight per cent of clinics claimed treatment effectiveness, with 16% describing their curative potential. Over 40% of sites did not specify the number or duration of treatments. Fifty-three per cent of clinics requested access to patients' medical records, and 12% recommended patients discuss the proposed therapy with their doctor. No clinic recommended that travellers consult a travel medicine specialist or receive vaccinations prior to their intended travel. One quarter of sites discussed contraindications to treatment, with 41% of sites detailing follow up patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

There is potential for stem cell tourists to receive misleading or deficient information from online stem cell clinics. Both the stem cell tourist and travel medicine practitioner should be educated on the potential risks associated with stem cell clinical services advertised online.

Hegemony in the marketplace of biomedical innovation: consumer demand and stem cell science

The global political economy of stem cell therapies is characterised by an established biomedical hegemony of expertise, governance and values in collision with an increasingly informed health consumer demand able to define and pursue its own interest. How does the hegemony then deal with the challenge from the consumer market and what does this tell us about its modus operandi? In developing a theoretical framework to answer these questions, the paper begins with an analysis of the nature of the hegemony of biomedical innovation in general, its close relationship with the research funding market, the current political modes of consumer incorporation, and the ideological role performed by bioethics as legitimating agency. Secondly, taking the case of stem cell innovation, it explores the hegemonic challenge posed by consumer demand working through the global practice based market of medical innovation, the response of the national and international institutions of science and their reassertion of the values of the orthodox model, and the supporting contribution of bioethics. Finally, the paper addresses the tensions within the hegemonic model of stem cell innovation between the key roles and values of scientist and clinician, the exacerbation of these tensions by the increasingly visible demands of health consumers, and the emergence of political compromise.

Health consumers and stem cell therapy innovation: markets, models and regulation

Global health consumer demand for stem cell therapies is vibrant, but the supply of treatments from the conventional science-based model of innovation is small and unlikely to increase in the near future. At the same time, several models of medical innovation have emerged that can respond to the demand, often employing a transnational value chain to deliver the product. Much of the commentary has approached the issue from a supply side perspective, demonstrating the extent to which national and transnational regulation fails to impose what are regarded as appropriate standards on the 'illicit' supply of stem cell therapies characterized by little data and poor outcomes. By contrast, this article presents a political economic analysis with a strong demand side perspective, arguing that the problem of what is termed 'stem cell tourism' is embedded in the demand-supply relationship of the health consumer market and its engagement with different types of stem cell therapy innovation. To be meaningful, discussions of regulation must recognize that analysis or risk being sidelined by a market, which ignores their often wishful thinking.

Key action items for the stem cell field: looking ahead to 2014

The stem cell field is at a critical juncture in late 2013. We find ourselves buoyed by building momentum for both transformative basic science discoveries and clinical translation of stem cells. Cellular reprogramming has given the field exciting new avenues as well. The overall prospect of novel stem cell-based therapies becoming a reality for patients in the coming years has never seemed higher. At the same time, we face serious challenges. Some of these challenges, such as stem cell tourism, are familiar to us, although even those are evolving in ways that require adaptability and action by the stem cell field. Other new challenges are also emerging, including an urgent need for formal physician training in stem cells, regulatory compliance balanced with innovation and U.S. Food and Drug Administration reform, and savvy educational outreach. Looking ahead to 2014, both the challenges and opportunities for the stem cell field require a proactive, thoughtful approach to maximize the potential for a positive impact from stem cell advances. In this study, I discuss the key action items for the field as we look ahead to the coming year and beyond.

Regenerative medicine primer

The pandemic of chronic diseases, compounded by the scarcity of usable donor organs, mandates radical innovation to address the growing unmet needs of individuals and populations. Beyond life-extending measures that are often the last available option, regenerative strategies offer transformative solutions in treating degenerative conditions. By leveraging newfound knowledge of the intimate processes fundamental to organogenesis and healing, the emerging regenerative armamentarium aims to boost the aptitude of human tissues for self-renewal. Regenerative technologies strive to promote, augment, and reestablish native repair processes, restituting organ structure and function. Multimodal regenerative approaches incorporate transplant of healthy tissues into damaged environments, prompt the body to enact a regenerative response in damaged tissues, and use tissue engineering to manufacture new tissue. Stem cells and their products have a unique aptitude to form specialized tissues and promote repair signaling, providing active ingredients of regenerative regimens. Concomitantly, advances in materials science and biotechnology have unlocked additional prospects for growing tissue grafts and engineering organs. Translation of regenerative principles into practice is feasible and safe in the clinical setting. Regenerative medicine and surgery are, thus, poised to transit from proof-of-principle studies toward clinical validation and, ultimately, standardization, paving the way for next-generation individualized management algorithms.

Mesenchymal stem cells for the treatment of multiple sclerosis and other neurological diseases

The rationale for use of adult stem cells as a treatment for neurological diseases such as multiple sclerosis arose from the hope that they had the capacity to foster repair of the CNS through tissue integration and differentiation into neural cells. Evidence from preclinical studies suggested that mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), a subset of adult progenitor cells, are an effective therapy in preclinical animal models of neurological diseases such as experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, a model for multiple sclerosis, and stroke. In experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, intravenous injection of MSCs ameliorates clinical course and decreases demyelination, immune infiltrates, and axonal loss. Surprisingly, these effects do not require full CNS engraftment by MSCs, but rely on the capacity of MSCs to inhibit pathogenic immune responses and release neuroprotective and pro-oligodendrogenic molecules favouring tissue repair. These results led to the conclusion that therapeutic use of MSCs should initially focus on individuals with multiple sclerosis and persistent inflammation. Small clinical studies in different neurological diseases have suggested that MSCs are safe, paving the road for larger phase 2 studies addressing the effect of MSCs on clinical outcomes and markers of disease activity.