Online seminars as an information source for direct-to-consumer stem cell therapy-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Online seminars as an information source for direct-to-consumer stem cell therapy

Published:2022-02 Issue:2 Volume:17 Page:81-90
ISSN:1746-0751
Container-title:Regenerative Medicine
language:en
Short-container-title:Regenerative Medicine

Author:

Hassoun Mirna¹,Golub Sidney²³,Greenfield Sheldon¹⁴,Grill Joshua D⁵⁶⁷,Cummings Brian J⁸⁹⁷³^ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Master of Science in Biomedical & Translational Science (MS-BATS) Program, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA

2. Microbiology & Molecular Genetics, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA

3. Sue & Bill Gross Stem Cell Research Center, Room 2026, 845 Health Sciences Road, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA

4. Health Policy Research Institute, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA

5. Psychiatry & Human Behavior, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA

6. Neurobiology & Behavior, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA

7. Institute for Memory Impairments & Neurological Disorders, Irvine, CA 92697, USA

8. Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA

9. Anatomy & Neurobiology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA

Abstract

Aim: To attend stem cell (SC) seminars hosted by US-based direct-to-consumer SC businesses either in person or via online ‘webinars’ to determine accuracy and regulatory oversight of the advertised SC therapies. Methods: The therapeutic claims, costs, risks, scientific evidence in support of a therapy and any regulatory oversight were collated using pre-established checklists. Participation consisted of one live attendance of a seminar, and following COVID-19 restrictions, review of seven recorded presentations available on the internet from SC businesses. Results & conclusion: None of the SC therapies advertised by direct-to-consumer clinics reviewed were supported by proper clinical evidence nor substantiated by peer reviewed literature.

Funder

California Institute for Regenerative Medicine

Publisher

Future Medicine Ltd

Subject

Embryology,Biomedical Engineering

Link

https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/rme-2021-0070

Reference30 articles.

1. United States Code. Licensing of biological products and clinical laboratories. Subpart 1 – biological products (2017). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2017-title42/html/USCODE-2017-title42-chap6A-subchapII-partF-subpart1-sec262.htm

2. Achieving Informed Consent for Cellular Therapies: A Preclinical Translational Research Perspective on Regulations versus a Dose of Reality

3. Preclinical Efficacy Failure of Human CNS-Derived Stem Cells for Use in the Pathway Study of Cervical Spinal Cord Injury

4. Food and Drug Administration. Approved cellular and gene therapy products (2021). https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellular-gene-therapy-products/approved-cellular-and-gene-therapy-products

5. Food and Drug Administration. FDA 101: clinical trials and institutional review boards (2021). https://www.einpresswire.com/article/547854896/fda-101-clinical-trials-and-institutional-review-boards

Cited by 5 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. US businesses engaged in direct-to-consumer marketing of perinatal stem cell interventions following the Food and Drug Administration's enforcement discretion era;Cytotherapy;2024-04

2. Regulatory claims made by US businesses engaged in direct-to-consumer marketing of purported stem cell treatments and exosome therapies;Regenerative Medicine;2023-10-23

3. Safety and efficacy claims made by US businesses marketing purported stem cell treatments and exosome therapies;Regenerative Medicine;2023-10

4. Morphological feature recognition of different differentiation stages of induced ADSCs based on deep learning;Computers in Biology and Medicine;2023-06

5. Ready, set, regenerate! A retrospect of 2022;Regenerative Medicine;2023-01