Two voices, one message, watch out for predatory stem cell clinics

Last week two new papers came out echoing each other about the dangers of bogus “therapies” being offered by predatory stem cell clinics and the risks they pose to patients.

The first was from the Pew Charitable Trusts entitled: ‘Harms Linked to Unapproved Stem Cell Interventions Highlight Need for Greater FDA Enforcement’ with a subtitle: Unproven regenerative medical products have led to infections, disabilities, and deaths.’

That pretty much says everything you need to know about the report, and in pretty stark terms; need for greater FDA enforcement and infections, disabilities and deaths.

Just two days later, as if in response to the call for greater enforcement, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) came out with its own paper titled: ‘Important Patient and Consumer Information About Regenerative Medicine Therapies.’ Like the Pew report the FDA’s paper highlighted the dangers of unproven and unapproved “therapies” saying it “has received reports of blindness, tumor formation, infections, and more… due to the use of these unapproved products.”

The FDA runs down a list of diseases and conditions that predatory clinics claim they can cure without any evidence that what they offer is even safe, let alone effective. It says Regenerative Medicine therapies have not been approved for the treatment of:

  • Arthritis, osteoarthritis, rheumatism, hip pain, knee pain or shoulder pain.
  • Blindness or vision loss, autism, chronic pain or fatigue.
  • Neurological conditions like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.
  • Heart disease, lung disease or stroke.

The FDA says it has warned clinics offering these “therapies” to stop or face the risk of legal action, and it warns consumers: “Please know that if you are being charged for these products or offered these products outside of a clinical trial, you are likely being deceived and offered a product illegally.”

It tells consumers if you are offered one of these therapies – often at great personal cost running into the thousands, even tens of thousands of dollars – you should contact the FDA at ocod@fda.hhs.gov.

The Pew report highlights just how dangerous these “therapies” are for patients. They did a deep dive into health records and found that between 2004 and September 2020 there were more than 360 reported cases of patients experiencing serious side effects from a clinic that offered unproven and unapproved stem cell procedures.

Those side effects include 20 deaths as well as serious and even lifelong disabilities such as:

  • Partial or complete blindness (9).
  • Paraplegia (1).
  • Pulmonary embolism (6).
  • Heart attack (5).
  • Tumors, lesions, or other growths (16).
  • Organ damage or failure in several cases that resulted in death.

More than one hundred of the patients identified had to be hospitalized.

The most common type of procedures these patients were given were stem cells taken from their own body and then injected into their eye, spine, hip, shoulder, or knee. The second most common was stem cells from a donor that were then injected.

The Pew report cites the case of one California-based stem cell company that sold products manufactured without proper safety measures, “including a failure to properly screen for communicable diseases such as HIV and hepatitis B and C.” Those products led to at least 13 people being hospitalized due to serious bacterial infection in Texas, Arizona, Kansas, and Florida.

Shocking as these statistics are, the report says this is probably a gross under count of actual harm caused by the bogus clinics. It says the clinics themselves rarely report adverse events and many patients don’t report them either, unless they are so serious that they require medical intervention.

The Pew report concludes by saying the FDA needs more resources so it can more effectively act against these clinics and shut them down when necessary. It says the agency needs to encourage doctors and patients to report any unexpected side effects, saying: “devising effective strategies to collect more real-world evidence of harm can help the agency in its efforts to curb the growth of this unregulated market and ensure that the regenerative medicine field develops into one that clinicians and patients can trust and safely access.”

We completely support both reports and will continue to work with the FDA and anyone else opposed to these predatory clinics. You can read more here about what we have been doing to oppose these clinics, and here is information that will help inform your decision if you are thinking about taking part in a stem cell clinical trial but are not sure if it’s a legitimate one.

Finally a possible use for your excess fat; using it to fix your arthritic knee

shutterstock_425039020

One of the most common questions we get asked at CIRM, almost every other day to be honest, is “are there any stem cell treatments for people with arthritis in their knees?” It’s not surprising. This is a problem that plagues millions of Americans and is one of the leading causes of disability in the US.

Sadly, we have to tell people that there are no stem cell treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) in the knee that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). There’s also a lack of solid evidence from clinical trials that the various approaches are effective.

But that could be changing. There’s a growing number of clinical trials underway looking at different approaches to treating OA in the knee using various forms of stem cells. Sixteen of those are listed at clinicaltrials.gov. And one new study suggests that just one injection of stem cells may be able to help reduce pain and inflammation in arthritic knees, at least for six months. The operative word here being may.

The study, published in the journal Stem Cells Translational Medicine,  used adipose-derived stromal cells, a kind of stem cell taken from the patient’s own fat. Previous studies have shown that these cells can have immune boosting and anti-scarring properties.

The cells were removed by liposuction, so not only did the patient’s get a boost for their knees they also got a little fat reduction. A nice bonus if desired.

The study was quite small. It involved 18 patients, between the ages of 50 and 75, all of whom had suffered from osteoarthritis (OA) in the knee for at least a year before the treatment. This condition is caused by the cartilage in the knee breaking down, allowing bones to rub against each other, leading to pain, stiffness and swelling.

One group of patients were given a low dose of the cells (23,000) injected directly into the knee, one a medium dose (103,000) and one a high dose (503,000).

Over the next six months, the patients were closely followed to see if there were any side effects and, of course, any improvement in their condition. In a news release, Christian Jorgensen, of University Hospital of Montpellier, the director of the study, said the results were encouraging:

“Although this phase I study included a limited number of patients without a placebo arm we were able to show that this innovative treatment was well tolerated in patients with knee OA and it provided encouraging preliminary evidence of efficacy. Interestingly, patients treated with low-dose ASCs significantly improved in pain and function compared with the baseline.”

The researchers caution that the treatment doesn’t halt the progression of OA and does not restore the damaged cartilage, instead it seems to help patients by reducing inflammation.

In a news article about the study Tony Atala, director of the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, in Winston-Salem, N.C. and the editor of Stem Cells Translational Medicine said the study offered the patients involved another benefit:

“In fact, most of the patients (in the study group) who had previously scheduled total knee replacement surgery decided to cancel the surgery. It will be interesting to see if these improvements are seen in larger groups of study participants.”

Interesting is an understatement.

But while this is encouraging it’s important to remember it was done in a small group of patients and needs to be replicated in a much larger group before we can draw any solid conclusions. It will also be important to see if the benefits last longer than six months.

We might not have to wait too long for some answers. The researchers are already running a 2-year trial involving 150 people in Europe.

We’ll let you know what they find.