Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsClinical TrialEurope PMCOpen access

Regulatory and Ethical Aspects of Orthobiologic Therapies

Murray IR., Chahla J., Wordie SJ., Shapiro SA., Piuzzi NS., Frank RM.

Clinical Trial, published in Orthop J Sports Med (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsEvidence level of this study

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

  • 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
Clinical Trial
Journal
Orthop J Sports Med (2022)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
36479465
PMCID
PMC9720812
DOI
10.1177/23259671221101626
Citations
25

Abstract (original English)

Orthobiologic therapies show significant promise to improve outcomes for patients with musculoskeletal pathology. There are considerable research efforts to develop strategies that seek to modulate the biological environment to promote tissue regeneration and healing and/or provide symptomatic relief. However, the regulatory pathways overseeing the clinical translation of these therapies are complex, with considerable worldwide variation. The introduction of novel biologic treatments into clinical practice raises several ethical dilemmas. In this review, we describe the process for seeking approval for biologic therapies in the United States, Europe, and Japan. We highlight a number of ethical issues raised by the clinical translation of these treatments, including the design of clinical trials, monitoring outcomes, biobanking, "off-label" use, engagement with the public, marketing of unproven therapies, and scientific integrity.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

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