Direct to consumer offerings of unproven stem cell interventions is a pressing scientific and policy issue. According to media reports, providers of SCIs have emerged in Canada. This study provides the first systematic scan of Canadian providers and associated trends and claims. The study sample consisted of 15 websites retrieved from a Google™ keyword search. The websites were assessed by a rater using a peer-reviewed coding frame that queried treatment location, stem cell offerings, treatment claims, supporting evidence, and legal and (...) regulatory compliance. A second rater reviewed a subset of the websites for purposes of inter-rater reliability. Disagreements between raters were resolved by consensus. Data collected by the raters was analyzed in SPSS. Physicians are the dominant treatment providers in Canada. Providers operate in urban and semi-urban areas in the most populous provinces. SCIs provided are mainly autologous adult stem cells for multiple conditions including musculoskeletal disorders, spinal cord injury and diabetes. Efficacy and benefits of treatment are prominently and positively portrayed, while risks are not mentioned or portrayed as trivial. Regulatory concerns are not discussed. The involvement of physicians in promoting and providing unproven and unapproved SCIs raises significant ethical, legal and regulatory concerns. Treatment claims and trends appear to contravene applicable professional standards, statutory obligations, and consumer protection laws. While the number of providers observed is still marginal, urgent and proactive regulatory response is needed to prevent proliferation of a potentially exploitative and harmful market for unproven SCIs in Canada. (shrink)

Stem cell tourism is a growing industry in which patients pursue unproven stem cell therapies for a wide variety of illnesses and conditions. It is a challenging market to regulate due to a number of factors including its international, online, direct-to-consumer approach. Calls to provide education and information to patients, their families, physicians, and the general public about the risks associated with stem cell tourism are mounting. Initial studies examining the perceptions of patients who have pursued stem cell tourism indicate (...) many are highly critical of the research and regulatory systems in their home countries and believe them to be stagnant and unresponsive to patient needs. We suggest that educational material should include an explanation of the translational research process, in addition to other aspects of stem cell tourism, as one means to help promote greater understanding and, ideally, curb patient demand for unproven stem cell interventions. The material provided must stress that strong scientific research is required in order for therapies to be safe and have a greater chance at being effective. Through an analysis of educational material on stem cell tourism and translational stem cell research from patient groups and scientific societies, we describe essential elements that should be conveyed in educational material provided to patients. Although we support the broad dissemination of educational material on stem cell translational research, we also acknowledge that education may simply not be enough to engender patient and public trust in domestic research and regulatory systems. However, promoting patient autonomy by providing good quality information to patients so they can make better informed decisions is valuable in itself, irrespective of whether it serves as an effective deterrent of stem cell tourism. (shrink)

Stem cell tourism is a form of medical tourism in which patients travel to receive unproven or untested stem cell-based interventions for many different diseases and conditions. A few studies indicate that patients and the public have several reasons for seeking these treatments for themselves or for their loved ones. Among these are the feeling of not having any other clinical options left, distrust of or frustration with their home country’s health care system, and a perception that their home country (...) has a burdensome or sluggish regulatory system for the approval of novel stem cell therapies. These last two viewpoints may contribute to a certain sense of distrust of regulatory agencies governing the conduct of clinical research, and perhaps the perception of a health care system that seems unresponsive to the needs of patients suffering from severe conditions. (shrink)