26 September 2018
Canadian Clinics are Marketing Unproven Stem Cell Treatments
New empirical study examines Canadian companies and clinics engaged in direct-to-consumer online marketing of purported stem cell treatments
Future Science Group today announces the publication of a new peer-reviewed study that surveys the Canadian direct-to-consumer marketplace of companies advertising putative stem cell treatments for various clinical indications. “Direct-to-Consumer Marketing of Stem Cell Interventions by Canadian Businesses” is authored by Leigh Turner, a Canadian citizen and Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Bioethics, School of Public Health, and College of Pharmacy (MN, USA), and published in the industry-leading journal Regenerative Medicine.
In the article, Turner identifies a total of 30 Canadian businesses marketing stem cell interventions provided at 43 clinics. The province of Ontario has 24 such clinics, British Columbia has eight clinics, Alberta has six, Quebec has three, and Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan each has a single clinic marketing stem cell treatments. Since these interventions are not approved by Health Canada or covered by provincial health insurance plans, patients typically pay for such interventions on an out-of-pocket basis.
The most common indications marketed by the 30 companies were orthopedic and musculoskeletal indications (26/30), pain relief (23/30) and sports-related injuries (14/30). One British Columbia-based company markets purported stem cell treatments for a wide range of disorders including ALS, Parkinson’s disease, stroke, multiple sclerosis, scleroderma, muscular dystrophy, post myocardial infarction and erectile dysfunction.
Of the 30 companies, 22 market autologous stem cells derived from adipose tissue, 15 advertise autologous stem cells obtained from bone marrow, and 2 promote autologous stem cells reportedly sourced from peripheral blood. One company markets amniotic derived stem cell products and stem cells reportedly obtained from umbilical cords. Most Canadian businesses marketing ‘stem cell therapies’ also advertise platelet-rich plasma (PRP) procedures.
“I’m critical of the advertising claims made by many of these companies,” Turner stated. “In general, they exaggerate likelihood of therapeutic benefits and minimize possibility of complications.”
Canadian businesses marketing minimally manipulated autologous stem cell products used for homologous purposes are not required to obtain pre-marketing authorization from Health Canada. Precisely which autologous stem cell products fall within the scope of minimal manipulation is not clearly indicated by federal regulations. Likewise, what constitutes homologous use of autologous stem cell products is not precisely specified. Researchers have identified this space as a regulatory gap that needs to be better addressed by Health Canada.
“In Canada, as in other countries,” Turner stated, “it is common to find clinics selling purported stem cell treatments operating in regulatory grey zones. They don’t have regulatory approval for their stem cell products and, in many cases, they don’t have conclusive safety and efficacy data supporting their advertising claims.”
To date, Health Canada does not appear to have taken regulatory action against any of the 30 businesses. Likewise, there is no public evidence of any clinicians associated with these businesses being disciplined for participating in the marketing, sale and provision of purported stem cell treatments. In the absence of more robust regulatory oversight, there likely will be an increase in the number of Canadian companies advertising purported stem cell treatments.
In the USA, the emergence of a large and growing direct-to-consumer marketplace selling unproven and unlicensed stem cell interventions has resulted in a growing number of patients who have reportedly been harmed by such procedures. Whether a similar outcome will occur in Canada is as yet unclear, though there are grounds for concern that growth of Canada’s marketplace could lead to injuries, financial losses and other harms.
“I’m concerned when businesses charge thousands of dollars for stem cell interventions that are not evidence-based,” Turner said. “There’s a risk that vulnerable individuals are making decisions on the basis of inaccurate marketing claims. There’s also the possibility that some patients will suffer serious injuries as a result of receiving stem cell products that are not being adequately overseen by federal and provincial regulatory authorities. I’d like to see regulatory authorities act now, before there are reports of life-altering complications.”
Adam Price-Evans, Managing Editor of the journal Regenerative Medicine commented, “With the rapid proliferation of businesses engaged in direct-to-consumer marketing of stem cell treatments worldwide, this study provides a timely analysis of the current Canadian landscape. It aims to educate and inform the wide range of stakeholders in the field of stem cell therapeutics and I hope it will ultimately benefit patients in the future.”
“Direct-to-Consumer Marketing of Stem Cell Interventions by Canadian Businesses” will be published online ahead-of-print on 26-September-2018 at 07:00 EDT (www.futuremedicine.com/doi/10.2217/rme-2018-0033). Reporters can request an in-proof copy of the paper from the article’s author. An exclusive interview with author Leigh Turner providing background and future perspectives on the study can also be read on Regenerative Medicine’s partner site, RegMedNet, here: http://bit.ly/2MKYka8
Leigh Turner, the author of the article, is an Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics, School of Public Health, and College of Pharmacy. He can be reached by phone at 612-381-6419 and by email at firstname.lastname@example.org. His Twitter account is @LeighGTurner.
About the journal
Regenerative Medicine (MEDLINE, IF: 2.992) is part of the internationally recognized Future Medicine portfolio and is supported by a multidisciplinary, international editorial board comprising leading researchers and opinion leaders from academia and industry, including Senior Editor Chris Mason (UCL, UK), and Associate Editors Robert Lanza (Astellas GRM, CA, USA), Phillipe Menasché (Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, FR), Gail Naughton (Histogen Inc., CA, USA) and Glyn Stacey (UK Stem Cell Bank, UK).
Regenerative Medicine focuses on the entire spectrum of approaches in regenerative medicine, including small molecule drugs, biologics, biomaterials, tissue engineering, and cell and gene therapies. The peer-reviewed journal uniquely supports this important area of biomedical science and healthcare by publishing the very best research and opinion, encompassing all aspects of the sector ranging from discovery research, to clinical development and commercialization.
For additional information on the journal’s aims and scope, editorial board and the latest content, please visit the Future Medicine website: https://www.futuremedicine.com/journal/rme
About Future Science Group (FSG)
Founded in 2001, Future Science Group (FSG) is a progressive publisher focused on breakthrough medical, biotechnological, and scientific research. FSG’s portfolio includes two imprints, Future Science and Future Medicine. In addition to this core publishing business, FSG develops specialist eCommunities. Key titles and sites include Bioanalysis Zone, Epigenomics, Nanomedicine and the award-winning Regenerative Medicine.
The aim of FSG is to service the advancement of clinical practice and drug research by enhancing the efficiency of communications among clinicians, researchers and decision-makers, and by providing innovative solutions to their information needs. This is achieved through a customer-centric approach, use of new technologies, products that deliver value-for-money and uncompromisingly high standards.