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

BMC Medical Ethics

Ana S. Iltis¹  Kirstin R. W. Matthews² 

[1] Department of Philosophy and Center for Bioethics, Health and Society, Wake Forest University, 1834 Wake Forest Road, Winston-Salem 27106, NC, USA;Center for Health and Biosciences at the Baker Institute for Public Policy, 6100 Main Street MS40, Houston 77005, TX, USA

关键词: Stem cell tourism;    Stem cell-based interventions;    Expanded access;    Patient advocacy;    Clinical trials;    Stem cells;   

Others  :  1231071
DOI  :  10.1186/s12910-015-0069-x

 received in 2015-08-07, accepted in 2015-10-25,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

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.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Matthews and Iltis.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Wadman M. Ethicists urge funding for extraction of embryo cells. Nature. 1999; 399:292.
• [2]Liu H, Priest S. Understanding public support for stem cell research: media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors. Public Underst Sci. 2009; 18(6):704-18.
• [3]Lau D, Ogbogu U, Taylor B, Stanfiniski T, Menon D, Caulfield T. Stem cell clinics online: the direct-to-consumer portrayal of stem cell medicine. Cell Stem Cell. 2008; 3:591-4.
• [4]Kiatpongsan S, Sipp D.Offshore stem cell treatments [INTERNET]. http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2008/0812/081203/full/stemcells.2008.151.html. Accessed 3 Aug 2015. Available from: [http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2008/0812/081203/full/stemcells.2008.151.html] webcite Nature report stem cells.
• [5]Regenberg A, Hutchinson L, Schanker B, Mathews D. Medicine on the fringe: stem cell-based interventions in advance of evidence. Stem Cells. 2009; 27(9):2312-9.
• [6]Caplan A, Levine B. Hype, hope and help: ethically assessing the growing market in stem cell therapies. Am J Bioeth. 2010; 10:24-5.
• [7]Levine A. Insights from patients’ blogs and the need for systematic data on stem cell tourism. Am J Bioeth. 2010; 10:28-9.
• [8]Ryan KA, Sanders AN, Wang DD, Levine AD. Tracking the rise of stem cell tourism. Regen Med. 2010; 5:27-33.
• [9]Petersen A, Seear K, Munsie M. Therapeutic journeys: the hopeful travails of stem cell tourists. Sociol Health Illn. 2013.
• [10]Li MD, Atkins H, Bubela T. The global landscape of stem cell clinical trials. Regen Med. 2014; 9:27-39.
• [11]Regulators must step up stem cell oversight. Nat Med. 2010; 16: 492. http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v16/n5/full/nm0510-492.html. Accessed 3 Aug 2015.
• [12]Mason C, Manzotti E. Defeating stem cell tourism. Regen Med. 2010; 5(5):681-6.
• [13]Saenz A.Exclusive: doctors skirt FDA to provide human stem cell therapy [INTERNET]. http://singularityhub.com/2010/03/09/colorado-doctors-skirt-fda-jurisdiction-to-provide-human-stem-cell-therapies-video/. Accessed 3 Aug 2015. Available from: [http:/ / singularityhub.com/ 2010/ 03/ 09/ colorado-doctors-skirt-fda-jurisdic tion-to-provide-human-stem-cell-the rapies-video/ ] webcite Singularity Hub.
• [14]Aboody K, Capela A, Niazi N, Stern J, Temple S. Translating stem cell studies to the clinic for CNS repair: current state of the art and the need for a Rosetta stone. Neuron. 2011; 70:597-613.
• [15]Ogbogu U, Rachul C, Caulfield T. Reassessing direct-to-consumer portrayals of unproven stem cell therapies: is it getting better? Regen Med. 2013; 8:361-9.
• [16]Guidelines for the clinical translation of stem cells [INTERNET]. http://www.isscr.org/home/publications/ClinTransGuide. Accessed 3 Aug 2015. Available from: [http://www.isscr.org/home/publications/ClinTransGuide] webcite International society for stem cell research.
• [17]Caulfield T, Zarzeczny A. Stem cell tourism and Canadian family physicians. Can Fam Physician. 2012; 58:365-8.
• [18]Lindvall O, Hyun I. Medical innovation versus stem cell tourism. Science. 2009; 324:1664-5.
• [19]Australian Stem Cell Centre (ASCC). Stem cell therapies: Now and in the future. 2009. http://www.msnz.org.nz/Document.Doc?id=23. Accessed 20 Feb 2015.
• [20]Zarzeczny A, Rachul C, Nisbet M, Caulfield T. Stem cell clinics in the news. Nat Biotechnol. 2010; 28:1243-6.
• [21]Turner L. ‘Medical tourism’ and the global marketplace for stem cell tourism: US patients, international hospital and the search for affordable healthcare. Int J Health Serv. 2010; 40(3):443-67.
• [22]Bianco P, Sipp D. Regulation: sell help not hope. Nature. 2014; 510:336-7.
• [23]Hyun I. Allowing innovative stem cell-based therapies outside of clinical trials: ethical and policy challenges. J Law Med Ethics. 2010; 38(2):277-85.
• [24]Sipp D. Pay-to-participate funding schemes in human cell and tissue clinical studies. Regen Med. 2012; 7(6 Suppl):105-11.
• [25]Downey R, Geransar R. Stem cell research, public’s and stakeholder views. Health Law Rev. 2008; 16:69-85.
• [26]Master Z, Robertson K, Frederick D, Rachul C, Caulfield T. Stem cell tourism and public education: the missing elements. Cell Stem Cell. 2014; 15(3):267-70.
• [27]Murdoch CE, Thomas TS. Stem cell tourism and the power of hope. Am J Bioeth. 2010; 10(5):16-23.
• [28]Matthews KR, Cuchiara ML. US national football league athletes seeking unproven stem cell treatments. Stem Cells Dev. 2014.
• [29]Amariglio N, Hirshberg A, Scheithauer BW, Cohen Y, Loewenthal R, Trakhtenbrot L et al.. Donor-derived brain tumor following neural stem cell transplantation in an ataxia telangiectasia patient. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(2): Article ID e1000029
• [30]Alderazi YJ, Coons SW, Chapman K. Catastrophic demyelinating encephalomyelitis after intrathecal and intravenous stem cell transplantation in patient with multiple sclerosis. J Child Neurol. 2012; 27(5):632-5.
• [31]Coghlan A.Death revives warnings about rogue stem cell clinics [INTERNET]. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19056-death-revives-warnings-about-rogue-stem-cell-clinics.html#.VMEhIWTF-5I. Accessed 3 Aug 2015. Available from: [http:/ / www.newscientist.com/ article/ dn19056-death-revives-warnings-abou t-rogue-stem-cell-clinics.html#.VME hIWTF-5I] webcite New scientist.
• [32]Mendick R, Hall A. Europe’s largest stem cell clinic shut down after death of baby. The telegraph. 2011.
• [33]Darrow JJ, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS. New FDA breakthrough-drug category - implications for patients. New Engl J Med. 2014; 371(13):1252-8.
• [34]Guidelines for the stem cell science and clinical translation [INTERNET]. http://www.isscr.org/home/publications/2015-guidelines-draft. Accessed 3 Aug 2015. Available from: [http://www.isscr.org/home/publications/2015-guidelines-draft] webcite International society for stem cell research.
• [35]Kleffman S. Stem cell scientists warn against fraudulent treatments. Contra Costa Times. 2010: http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15422777?nclick_check = 1. Accessed 21 Sep 2015.
• [36]Check E, Cyranoski D. Korean scandal will have global fallout. Nature. 2005; 438(7071):1056-7.
• [37]Fink DW. FDA regulation of stem cell-based products. Science. 2009; 324:1662-3.
• [38]Lysaght T, Alastair AV. Regulating autologous adult stem cells: the FDA steps up. Cell Stem Cell. 2011; 9:393-6.
• [39]United States v. Regenerative Sciences. In: US Court of Appeals. 2014. http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/947528CDDA0B9A5A85257C7500533DF4/$file/12-5254-1478137.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2015.
• [40]Cyranoski D. FDA’s claims over stem cells upheld. Nature. 2012; 488:14.
• [41]Quinn TC. Global burden of the HIV pandemic. Lancet. 1996; 348(9020):99-106.
• [42]FDA. Investigational new drug, antibiotic and biological drug product regulations: treatment use and sale. Federal Register. 1987;52:19476.
• [43]FDA. Expanded availability of investigational new drugs through a parallel track mechanism for people with AIDS and HIV-related disease. Federal Register. 1990;55:20857.
• [44]Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med. 1998;8(4):431–40.
• [45]Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: are we being mislead? Ann Intern Med. 1996;125(7):605–13.
• [46]Booth W. An underground drug for AIDS. Science. 1988; 241:1279-81.
• [47]Leventhal H, Nerenz D, Leventhal E, Love R, Bendena L. The behavioral dynamics of clinical trials. Prev Med. 1991; 20(1):132-46.
• [48]Schmoor C, Schumacher M. Methodological arguments for the necessity of randomized trials in high-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 1999; 54:31-8.
• [49]Rettig RA, Jacobson PD, Farquhar CM, Aubry WM. False hope: bone marrow transplantation for breast cancer. Oxford Press, Oxford; 2007.
• [50]Jacobson PD, Rettig RA, Aubry WM. Litigating the science of breast cancer treatment. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2007; 32(5):785-818.
• [51]Fox v. Health Net (No. 219692 [Cal. Super. Ct. Riverside Cty. December 28, 1993].
• [52]Mello M, Brennan T. The controversy over high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplant for breast cancer. Health Affair. 2001; 20(5):101-17.
• [53]Welch HG, Mogielnicki J. Presumed benefit: lessons from the American experience with marrow transplantation for breast cancer. BMJ. 2002; 324:1088-92.
• [54]Stadtmauer EA, O’Neil A, Goldstein LJ, Crilley PA, Mangan KF, Ingle JN et al.. Convention-dose chemotherapy compared with high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for metastatic breast cancer. New Engl J Med. 2000; 342:1069-76.
• [55]Hortobagyi GN, Buzdar AU, Theriault RL, Valero V, Frye D, Booser DJ et al.. Randomized trial of high-dose chemotherapy and blood cell autografts for high-risk primary breast carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92(3):225-33.
• [56]Peto T. Surrogate markers in HIV disease. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1996; 37(supplB):161-70.
• [57]Fleming TR. Evaluating therapeutic interventions: some issues and experiences. Stat Sci. 1992;428–441.
• [58]Sharf B. Out of the closet and into the legislature: breast cancer stories. Health Aff. 2001; 20:213-8.
• [59]Johnson SH, Iltis AS. Risk, responsibility and litigation. In: Innovation and the pharmaceutical industry. Engelhardt HT, editor. M&M Scrivener Press, Salem; 2008: p.193-230.
• [60]Government Accounting Office (GAO). Health insurance: coverage of autologous bone marrow transplantation for breast cancer (GAO/HEHS-96-83). http://www.gao.gov/products/HEHS-96-83. Accessed 3 Aug 2015.
• [61]Nyhan B, Reifler J, Richey S, Freed GL. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2014; 133:e835-42.
• [62]Schuklenk U. Access to unapproved medical interventions in cases of catastrophic illness. Am J Bioeth. 2014; 14(11):20-2.
• [63]Konomi K, Morikuni T, Kimura K, Daisaku S. New Japanese initiatives on stem cell therapies. Cell Stem Cell. 2015; 16(4):350-2.
• [64]Adebamowo C, Bah-Sow O, Binka F, Bruzzone R, Caplan A, Delfraissy JF et al.. Randomized controlled trials for Ebola: practical and ethical issues. Lancet. 2014; 384(9952):1423.
• [65]Cohen J, Kipferschmidt K. Ebola vaccine trials raise ethical issues. Science. 2014; 346(62017):289-90.
• [66]Rid A, Emanuel EJ. Ethical considerations of experimental interventions in Ebola outbreak. Lancet. 2014; 384(9957):1896-9.
• [67]Cox E, Borio L, Temple R. Evaluating Ebola therapies—the case for RCTs. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(25):2350-1.
• [68]Hayden EC. Ethical dilemma for Ebola trials. Nature. 2014; 515(7526):177-8.
• [69]Emanuel E, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000; 283(20):2701-11.
• [70]Menikoff J.Beyond Abigail Alliance: the reality behind the right to get experimental drugs [INTERNET]. https://law.ku.edu/sites/law.drupal.ku.edu/files/docs/law_review/v56/02-Menikoff_Final.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2015. Available from: [https:/ / law.ku.edu/ sites/ law.drupal.ku.edu/ files/ docs/ law_review/ v56/ 02-Menikoff_Final.pdf] webcite Kansas law review.
• [71]Zettler PJ, Greely HT. The strange allure of state “right to try” laws. JAMA Intern Med. 2014; 174(12):1885-6.
• [72]Epstein R. The erosion of individual autonomy in medical decisionmaking: of the FDA and IRBs. Georgetown Law J. 2007; 96:559-82.
• [73]Greenberg MD. Information, paternalism, and rational decision-making: the balance of FDA new drug approval. Alb L J Sci Tech. 2003; 13:663-80.
• [74]Currie PM. Restricting access to unapproved drugs: a compelling government interest. J Law Health. 2007; 20:309-23.
• [75]Hall MA. The importance of trust for ethics, law, and public policy. Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics. 2005.
• [76]Klasmeier C, Redish MH. Off-label prescription advertising, the FDA and the first amendment: a study in the values of commercial speech protection. Am J Law Med. 2011; 37:315-57.
• [77]Korownyk C, Kolber MR, McCormack J, Lam V, Overbo K, Cotton C et al.. Televised medical talk shows—what they recommend and the evidence to support their recommendations: a prospective observational study. BMJ. 2014; 349:g7346.
• [78]Dr.Oz grilled in Congress, admits weight loss products he touts don’t pass “scientific muster”. The Huffington Post. 17 Jun 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/dr-oz-congress_n_5504209.html. Accessed 21 Sep 2015.
• [79]London A. A non-paternalistic model of research ethics and oversight: assessing the benefits of prospective review. J Law Med Ethics. 2012; 40(4):930-44.
• [80]Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Humans. In: Tri-Council Policy Statement. 2010. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2015.
• [81]Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subject of biomedical and behavioral research. US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC; 1979.
• [82]Neal H, Smith T, McCormick J. Science policy defined. In: Beyond Sputnik: US science policy in the 21st century. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor; 2008: p.1-16.
• [83]Sanchez R, Silberstein L, Lindblad R, Welniak L, Mondoro T, Wagner J. Strategies for more rapid translation of cellular therapies for children: a US perspective. Pediatrics. 2013.
• [84]Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). http://www.pcori.org/funding-opportunities/what-we-mean-engagement. Accessed 3 Aug 2015.
• [85]Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Community Engagement Resource Guide. 2012 http://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2012/05/the-robert-wood-johnson-foundation-center-to-prevent-childhood-o/community-engagement-resource-guide0.html. Accessed 3 Aug 2015.
• [86]Bob Woodruff Foundation. High impact collaboration series. 2015 http://bobwoodrufffoundation.org/high-impact-collaboration-convenings/. Accessed 3 Aug 2015.
• [87]Keeney S, McKenna H, Hasson F. The Delphi technique in nursing and health research. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford; 2011.
• [88]Cuchiara ML, Olive JK, Matthews KR. Regulating the therapeutic translation of regenerative medicine. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2015; 15:1-4.
• [89]Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Paving the way for personalized medicine: FDA’s role in a new era of medical product development. 2013. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/PersonalizedMedicine/UCM372421.pdf. Accessed 3 Aug 2015.
• [90]von Tigerstrom B. The food and drug administration, regenerative sciences, and the regulation of autologous stem cell therapies. Food Drug L J. 2011; 66:479-506.