Search

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., (Copyright © 2021 International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The growing international market for unproven stem cell-based interventions advertised on a direct-to-consumer basis over the internet ("stem cell tourism") is a source of concern because of the risks it presents to patients as well as their supporters, domestic health care systems, and the stem cell research field. Emerging responses such as public and health provider-focused education and national regulatory efforts are encouraging, but the market continues to grow. Physicians play a number of roles in the stem cell tourism market and, in many jurisdictions, are members of a regulated profession. In this article, we consider the use of professional regulation to address physician involvement in stem cell tourism. Although it is not without its limitations, professional regulation is a potentially valuable tool that can be employed in response to problematic types of physician involvement in the stem cell tourism market., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The federal Right-to-Try (RTT) Act created an alternate regulatory pathway for preapproval access to investigational drugs. A few studies have examined the experiences of physicians with the Food and Drug Administration's Expanded Access Programs, but to our knowledge, no study has yet to examine their attitudes and experiences toward RTT.Methods: This study explored the views of 21 oncologists at a major cancer center with 3 main sites across the United States using semi-structured interviews and qualitative analysis. Participants were selected to have experience with Expanded Access Programs.Results: Most oncologists had limited familiarity with RTT, and several reported confusion about the legislation, including whether patients have a right to investigational drugs and an obligation for companies to provide them. Although oncologists were interested in decreased regulatory burdens, 3 areas of concern were articulated: lack of safety and oversight, unclear structure and no provision for data collection, and potential heightening of patient expectations. Only 4 oncologists had experience discussing RTT, and none formally attempted to obtain the drug through this mechanism. Participants questioned the practicality of RTT legislation and suggested alternative ways to improve access.Conclusions: The study provides foundational empirical data underlying challenging ambiguities by experienced oncologists familiar with off-trial use of investigational therapeutics and reaffirms the role of physicians and regulatory bodies in mitigating the risks of investigational drugs. Our findings highlight the need for medical centers to inform oncologists about RTT and other preapproval pathways so that they are able to address questions from patients interested in nontrial investigational drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regenerative medicine has attracted the interest of scientists, physicians, and patient communities, and as well as policy-makers and the broader public given related ethical, legal, and social implications. Here we examine past initiatives in the ethical, legal and social implications arena in regenerative medicine, and offer our views on actionable priorities for the future in six key areas: capacity building, policy, engagement with industry, resaerch ethics, communication, and community building. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]