Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Stem Cells International
Volume 2017, Article ID 5080259, 8 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5080259
Review Article

Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation: A Roadmap about Good Clinical Practice and Patient Care

1Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic and Orthopaedic Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Regina Elena 336, 00185 Rome, Italy
2IRCCS Neuromed, Via Atinense 18, 86077 Pozzilli, Italy

Correspondence should be addressed to Alessandro Santurro; ti.1amorinu@orrutnas.ordnassela

Received 24 March 2017; Revised 27 July 2017; Accepted 12 September 2017; Published 27 September 2017

Academic Editor: Bruno Pèault

Copyright © 2017 Paola Frati et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. International Society of Stem Cell Research, Guidelines for the Conduct of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, ISSCR, Illinois, USA, 2006.
  2. International Society of Stem Cell Research, Guidelines for the Clinical Translation of Stem Cells, ISSCR, Illinois, USA, 2008.
  3. International Society of Stem Cell Research, Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation, ISSCR, Illinois, USA, 2016.
  4. J. Kimmelman, H. E. Heslop, J. Sugarman et al., “New ISSCR guidelines: clinical translation of stem cell research,” Lancet, vol. 387, no. 10032, pp. 1979–1981, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. Nuremberg Military Tribunal, The Nuremberg Code, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1949.
  6. Department of Health, and Education and Welfare, “Report of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (The Belmont Report),” vol. 44, no. fed. reg. 23, 1979. View at Google Scholar
  7. World Medical Association, “Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 310, no. 20, pp. 2191–2194, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. U.K. Department of Health, Mitochondrial Donation. Government Response to the Consultation on Draft Regulations to Permit the Use of New Treatment Techniques to Prevent the Transmission of a Serious Mitochondrial Disease from Mother to Child, Department of Health, London, UK, 2014.
  9. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques: Ethical, Social, and Policy Considerations, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2016.
  10. J. A. Fishman, “Metrics and data analysis in transplantation: quality improvement via transparency,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1435-1436, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  11. A. Asante-Korang and J. P. Jacobs, “Big data and paediatric cardiovascular disease in the era of transparency in healthcare,” Cardiology in the Young, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1597–1602, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  12. G. Q. Daley, “Prospects for stem cell therapeutics: myths and medicines,” Current Opinion in Genetics and Development, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 607–613, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. P. Braude, S. L. Minger, and R. M. Warwick, “Stem cell therapy: hope or hype?” British Medical Journal, vol. 330, no. 7501, pp. 1159-1160, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  14. T. Caulfield, D. Sipp, C. E. Murry, G. Q. Daley, and J. Kimmelman, “Confronting stem cell hype,” Science, vol. 352, no. 6287, pp. 776-777, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. E. Cattaneo and G. Corbellini, “Stem cells: taking a stand against pseudoscience,” Nature, vol. 510, no. 7505, pp. 333–335, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. J. D. Banja, “Ethical considerations in stem cell research on neurologic and orthopedic conditions,” PM&R, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 66–75, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. L. Y. Cabrera Trujillo and S. Engel-Glatter, “Human-animal chimera: a neuro driven discussion? Comparison of three leading European research countries,” Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 595–617, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. M. G. Garry and D. J. Garry, “Humanized organs in gene-edited animals,” Regenerative Medicine, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 617–619, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. X. Tang, H. Qin, X. Gu, and X. Fu, “China’s landscape in regenerative medicine,” Biomaterials, vol. 124, pp. 78–94, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  20. A. Sobhani, N. Khanlarkhani, M. Baazm et al., “Multipotent stem cell and current application,” Acta Medica Iranica, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 6–23, 2017. View at Google Scholar
  21. A. S. Mao and D. J. Mooney, “Regenerative medicine: current therapies and future directions,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 112, no. 47, pp. 14452–14459, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. D. Shaw, W. Dondorp, N. Geijsen, and G. de Wert, “Creating human organs in chimaera pigs: an ethical source of immunocompatible organs?” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 970–974, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. H. Mizuno, H. Akutsu, and K. Kato, “Ethical acceptability of research on human-animal chimeric embryos: summary of opinions by the Japanese Expert Panel on Bioethics,” Life Sciences Society and Policy, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 15, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. I. Hyun, “From naïve pluripotency to chimeras: a new ethical challenge?” Development, vol. 142, no. 1, pp. 6–8, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. S. Holm, “Biobanking human embryonic stem cell lines: policy, ethics and efficiency,” Monash Bioethics Review, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 265–276, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  26. J. Flory and E. Emanuel, “Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 139, no. 2, p. 399, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  27. B. Hofmann, “Incidental findings of uncertain significance: to know or not to know - that is not the question,” BMC Medical Ethics, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 13, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. R. Andorno, “The right not to know: an autonomy based approach,” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 435–440, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. H. Neumann, “Patients have the right not to know,” Medical World News, vol. 21, no. 13, p. 63, 1980. View at Google Scholar
  30. J. Räikkä, “Freedom and a right (not) to know,” Bioethics, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 49–63, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  31. J. Herring and C. Foster, ““Please don’t tell me”. The right not to know,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 20–29, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. B. M. Knoppers and R. Isasi, “Stem cell banking: between traceability and identifiability,” Genome Medicine, vol. 2, no. 10, p. 73, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. R. M. Isasi and B. M. Knoppers, “Governing stem cell banks and registries: emerging issues,” Stem Cell Research, vol. 3, no. 2-3, pp. 96–105, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. D. J. Cote, A. L. Bredenoord, T. R. Smith et al., “Ethical clinical translation of stem cell interventions for neurologic disease,” Neurology, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 322–328, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  35. V. Prasad, “Translation failure and medical reversal: two sides to the same coin,” European Journal of Cancer, vol. 52, pp. 197–200, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. P. Frati, M. Gulino, A. Pacchiarotti, S. D'Errico, L. Sicuro, and V. Fineschi, “A survey of Italian physicians’ opinion about stem cells research: what doctors prefer and what the law requires,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2014, Article ID 480304, 9 pages, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. T. R. Heathman, A. W. Nienow, M. J. McCall, K. Coopman, B. Kara, and C. J. Hewitt, “The translation of cell-based therapies: clinical landscape and manufacturing challenges,” Regenerative Medicine, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 49–64, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. A. Liso, M. Neri, F. Maglietta, R. La Russa, and E. Turillazzi, “Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a bioethical lens,” Stem Cells International, vol. 2017, Article ID 1286246, 11 pages, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  39. A. J. London, J. Kimmelman, and M. E. Emborg, “Research ethics. Beyond access vs. protection in trials of innovative therapies,” Science, vol. 328, no. 5980, pp. 829-830, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. P. W. Lavori, J. Sugarman, M. T. Hays, and J. R. Feussner, “Improving informed consent in clinical trials: a duty to experiment,” Controlled Clinical Trials, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 187–193, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. R. La Russa, V. Fineschi, M. Di Sanzo et al., “Personalized medicine and adverse drug reactions: the experience of an Italian teaching hospital,” Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 274–281, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  42. A. A. Apte, “Reporting of adverse events for marketed drugs: need for strengthening safety database,” Perspectives in Clinical Research, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 111–114, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  43. I. Ribeiro-Vaz, C. C. Santos, and R. Cruz-Correia, “Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches,” Revista de Saúde Pública, vol. 50, p. 14, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  44. Z. Master, K. Robertson, D. Frederick, C. Rachul, and T. Caulfield, “Stem cell tourism and public education: the missing elements,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 267–270, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. K. R. Matthews and A. S. Iltis, “Unproven stem cell-based interventions and achieving a compromise policy among the multiple stakeholders,” BMC Medical Ethics, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 75, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. P. Frati, G. Frati, M. Gulino, G. Montanari Vergallo, A. Di Luca, and V. Fineschi, “Stem cell therapy: from evidence-based medicine to emotion-based medicine? The long Italian way for a scientific regulation,” Stem Cell Research & Therapy, vol. 4, no. 5, p. 122, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. M. L. Cuchiara, J. K. Olive, and K. Matthews, “Regulating the therapeutic translation of regenerative medicine,” Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 1387–1390, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. T. Caulfield, C. Rachul, and A. Zarzeczny, “The evolution of policy issues in stem cell research: an international survey,” Stem Cell Reviews, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1037–1042, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. K. Kamenova and T. Caulfield, “Stem cell hype: media portrayal of therapy translation,” Science Translational Medicine, vol. 7, no. 278, p. 278ps4, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. I. Boutron, S. Dutton, P. Ravaud, and D. G. Altman, “Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 303, no. 20, pp. 2058–2064, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. J. C. Bailar, “How to distort the scientific record without actually lying: truth and arts of science,” European Journal of Oncology, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 217–224, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  52. B. Als-Nielsen, W. Chen, C. Gluud, and L. L. Kjaergard, “Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events?” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 290, no. 7, pp. 921–928, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. P. Glasziou, D. G. Altman, P. Bossuyt et al., “Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research,” Lancet, vol. 383, no. 9913, pp. 267–276, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. M. C. Wong, K. C. Yee, and P. Turner, “Complex clinical communication practices: how do information receivers assimilate and act upon information for patient care?” Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, vol. 234, pp. 376–381, 2017. View at Google Scholar
  55. J. A. Robertson, “Compensation and egg donation for research,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 86, no. 6, pp. 1573–1575, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. J. U. Klein and M. V. Sauer, “Ethics in egg donation: past, present, and future,” Seminars in Reproductive Medicine, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 322–328, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. I. Hyun, “Fair payment or undue inducement?” Nature, vol. 442, no. 7103, pp. 629-630, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. I. Hyun, “Moving human SCNT research forward ethically,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 295–297, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Human Bodies: Donation for Medicine and Research, Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London, UK, 2011.
  60. R. M. Isasi and B. M. Knoppers, “Monetary payments for the procurement of oocytes for stem cell research: in search of ethical and political consistency,” Stem Cell Research, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 37–44, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. World Health Organization, Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) for Trials on Pharmaceutical Products, WHO, Geneva, 1995.
  62. M. Di Sanzo, V. Fineschi, M. Borro et al., “Clinical applications of personalized medicine: a new paradigm and challenge,” Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 194–203, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar