Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesLaboratory StudyPubMed

The FDA and the US direct-to-consumer marketplace for stem cell interventions: a temporal analysis.

Knoepfler PS., Turner LG.

Laboratory Study, published in Regen Med (2018) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Laboratory Study
Journal
Regen Med (2018)
Country
England
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
29327974
DOI
10.2217/rme-2017-0115
Citations
43

Abstract (original English)

Hundreds of businesses in the US currently advertise a wide range of non-US FDA-approved stem cell interventions. Here we present a novel systematic temporal analysis of US companies engaged in direct-to-consumer marketing of putative stem cell treatments. Between 2009 and 2014, the number of new US stem cell businesses with websites grew rapidly, at least doubling on average every year. From 2014 to 2016, approximately 90-100 new stem cell business websites appeared per year. In contrast, from 2012 to the present, regulatory activity in the form of FDA warning letters has been limited. These data point to a problematic disconnect between a rapidly expanding US direct-to-consumer stem cell industry and limited FDA oversight of this marketplace. More consistent, timely and effective FDA actions are urgently needed.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
Cell- and Tissue-Based TherapyHumansStem CellsUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administration

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.