Stem cell & PRP course recommendations

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
D

deleted185747

I want to learn stem cell and prp injections. I read with great interest algos last few posts and am looking for the best course or conference out there. Also need to know an unbiased opinion on best kit to use for stem cells and protocol in order to create top notch care

Members don't see this ad.
 
www.apexbiologix.com

Salt Lake City
NYC - manhattan
Southern CA

there will be a course in Southern California in the Spring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
no disrespect to Dr. Rosethal and his apex courses, but the most academic conference with input from multiple physicians doing research and clinical practice is the TOBI conference & courses in June of each year.

http://www.prpseminar.com/ and click on the faculty and the 2016 conference
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I went to TOBI last year in Vegas. They have a great line up of docs. When Malanga got up there, I was excited about the topics he was covering. then i thought, "wow, if they only gave Gerry 15 minutes, I wonder what the rest of this conference is going to be like!"

it was really disappointing. there were a few good talks... Dragoo presented some early research on them trying to get at the stem cells in fat without collagenase, etc

they played 15-20 minute industry sponsored infomercials every 2-3 talks. most of the speakers hadn't published their data. a lot of "in my experience" evidence. 1 of the speakers demonstrated her technique for US guided injections. she didn't know how to use the US. had a tech find the targets. but she was injecting into perfectly normal tissue. and she injected EVERY tendon in the shoulder, arbitrarily putting a needle into the supraspinatus, AC joint, infraspinatus, GH joint, etc. no diagnosis whatsoever... defeats the purpose of trying to find the target and put the injectate where it is needed. I would never go back to another TOBI course. maybe listen to the streaming once every 5 years.

if you do go, dont pay for the cadaver lab. it was 3 hours of lecture, and maybe 2 hours of cadaver. definitely not worth the $$$
 
Last edited:
The apex courses offer live diagnosis, on real patients. case presentations, physical examination, Ultrasound examination demonstrating lesions, and then real time injections including bone marrow harvesting, processing, and ultimately delivery back into the patient with discussion regarding pre/post procedure protocols. typically the courses will have spine (disc) and peripheral joints injections. in the past, adipose was also demonstrated.
 
The apex courses offer live diagnosis, on real patients. case presentations, physical examination, Ultrasound examination demonstrating lesions, and then real time injections including bone marrow harvesting, processing, and ultimately delivery back into the patient with discussion regarding pre/post procedure protocols. typically the courses will have spine (disc) and peripheral joints injections. in the past, adipose was also demonstrated.


Apex course is sub par at best. I have been to it. Dr Rosenthal is a great teacher however he does not use Stem Cells for the majority of his injections and they prefer Amniotic products but the science behind it is not clear except for convince

He did some live injections, but some the patients are brand new to the Dr. We asked about the history of a patient there getting PRP into the discs and he stated it was the first time he was meeting him. Overall, I can do any procedure they do, I need to understand the clinical indications
 
I believe Dr. Centeno from Regenexx offers something similar to an apprenticeship

http://www.regenexx.com/global-navigation/physician-info/

"We are looking for a few well trained, board certified musculoskeletal medicine specialists to join our exclusive network. Joining the network involves extensive training and most providers who apply are not accepted due to lack of basic training in interventional orthopedics (fluoroscopy and MSK US guided injection based procedures). In addition, the ability to perform an in depth, complex musculoskeletal exam lasting more than 25-30 minutes of hands on time with the patient is required or must be learned. This includes the ability to quantify problems of stability, nerves, muscles, joints, and body symmetry."
 
I believe Dr. Centeno from Regenexx offers something similar to an apprenticeship

http://www.regenexx.com/global-navigation/physician-info/

"We are looking for a few well trained, board certified musculoskeletal medicine specialists to join our exclusive network. Joining the network involves extensive training and most providers who apply are not accepted due to lack of basic training in interventional orthopedics (fluoroscopy and MSK US guided injection based procedures). In addition, the ability to perform an in depth, complex musculoskeletal exam lasting more than 25-30 minutes of hands on time with the patient is required or must be learned. This includes the ability to quantify problems of stability, nerves, muscles, joints, and body symmetry."

Ithought they just taught you how to get a ssn and pull a fico to see if patient can afford it. 6 easy payments.
 
There is (was) a doc in Eugene OR doing stem cell injections (along with plenty of totally wacky things) who lost his license. The OMB listed "stem cell injections outside of a clinical trial" as one of the reasons for discipline.

I went to Rosenthal's course. Great as usual. Definitely a commercial bias. When I raised the question of problems with one's local medical board it seemed that it hadn't been considered in depth. I wrote to the OMB and got a very negative and ambiguous response. I checked the FDA's website and found contradictions and so wrote to them and their response raised more questions and provided little in the way of answers. The FDA response is copied below.

Thank you for writing to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). One of seven centers within the FDA, is responsible for the regulation of many biologically-derived products, including blood intended for transfusion, blood components and derivatives, vaccines, allergenic extracts, tissue, and cell and gene therapy products. We hope that the information which we are able to provide will be helpful.
Human cells and tissues intended for use in humans are regulated by CBER as human cells, tissues and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps). FDA has a risk based approach to the regulation of HCTP/s. Under the authority of Section 361 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, FDA established regulations for all HCT/Ps to prevent the transmission of communicable disease. These can be found in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR Part 1271).
The regulations in 21 CFR Part 1271 identify the criteria for regulation solely under Section 361. HCT/Ps that meet all of the criteria in 21 CFR Section 1271.10(a) are regulated solely under Section 361 of the PHS Act. If all of the criteria in 21 CFR Section 1271.10 are met then no pre-market review (application to FDA) is required. To satisfy these criteria, an HCT/P must be: minimally manipulated (relates to the nature and degree of processing); intended for homologous use only (the product performs the same basic function in the donor as in the recipient); not combined with another article (with some limited exceptions); and the HCT/P does not have a systemic effect and is not dependent on the metabolic activity of living cells for its primary function, or if it does, the HCT/P is intended for autologous use or use by a first- or second-degree blood relative.
HCT/P establishments must register with the FDA and submit a list of every HCT/P manufactured within 5 days after beginning operations (see 21 CFR 1271.21). Registration of an HCT/P establishment with FDA does not in any way denote approval of the firm or its products. Registered establishments undergo routine inspections to determine compliance with the applicable regulations. You can query the list of registered establishments in the Human Cell and Tissue Establishment Registration (HCTERS) database on CBER's website at http://www.fda.gov/cber/tissue/tissregdata.htm. You can also find the dates of inspection and the inspection classification in our publicly available database (see http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/ucm222557.htm).
HCT/Ps that do not meet all of the criteria of 21 CFR Section 1271.10 are also regulated under Section 351 of the PHS Act and/or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act as drugs, devices and/or biological products and require premarket approval prior to distribution.
The FDA issued a number of untitled letters to manufacturers of amniotic-membrane based products whose products did not meet the minimal manipulation and/or the homologous use criteria (see untitled letters). As a result, these HCT/Ps are drugs as defined under section 201(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and biological products as defined in section 351(i) of the PHS Act. Thus premarket approval is required, but no such products have been approved.
FDA has also issued four draft guidances related to the regulation of HCT/Ps as listed below. The guidances on minimal manipulation and homologous use may be of most interest.
• Same Surgical Procedure Exception under § 1271.15(b): Questions and Answers Regarding the Scope of the Exception; Draft Guidance for Industry (Same Surgical Procedure Exception Draft Guidance) (October 2014);
• Minimal Manipulation of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff (Minimal Manipulation Draft Guidance) (December 2014); and
• Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps) from Adipose Tissue: Regulatory Considerations; Draft Guidance for Industry (Adipose Tissue Draft Guidance) (December 2014).
• Homologous Use of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products; Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff (Homologous Use Draft Guidance) (October 2015)
The comment period for all four draft guidances is currently open to allow interested stakeholders to provide critical input across the full scope of the FDA’s thinking in these areas. Once the comment period ends, the FDA will carefully review and consider all comments received on the draft guidance documents and make modifications and additional clarifications as necessary. When finalized, the guidance documents will represent the FDA’s current thinking on how certain regulations apply to various HCT/Ps. The agency will also hold a public hearing on April 13, 2016 to obtain additional public input.
We hope this information has been helpful.
Sincerely,
 
After reviewing regenexx website it looks like bone marrow aspirated is sent to their lab for expansion and then injected back into patient in a different day. How is this legal by the FDA's minimal manipulation and "same day" requirements?
 
After reviewing regenexx website it looks like bone marrow aspirated is sent to their lab for expansion and then injected back into patient in a different day. How is this legal by the FDA's minimal manipulation and "same day" requirements?

In Cayman Islands
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It seems there is no consensus on which courses are "good." It also would make sense to wait until after this FDA public hearing in March to invest in equipment/ courses - may not be something that you will be allowed to do?? At least the way its written they are highly debating the safety of this practice.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
It seems there is no consensus on which courses are "good." It also would make sense to wait until after this FDA public hearing in March to invest in equipment/ courses - may not be something that you will be allowed to do?? At least the way its written they are highly debating the safety of this practice.

Agree that the lack of consensus on course, and on specific stem cell techniques is huge. There need to be recognized standards of practice for physicians to follow.

Although stem cells may or may not be limited by the FDA with the legal cases, I don't see there ever being an issue with PRP being used in clinical practice.
 
PRP would be " human cells, tissues and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps)". IMO it would be minimally manipulated. Would it be considered "Homologous Use"? It seems like they are leaving it ambiguous enough that they could say it is all wrong. Stem cells are undifferentiated, but a stem cell from adipose tissue can't be used for an arthritic joint or damaged disc. So what is a stem cell from bone marrow aspirate?

I talked to my group's attorney who suggested that I talk to the doc who writes the opinions for the OMB when they discipline someone, on the assumption that if he has given me his opinion and I follow it then he can't be too critical if the board is trying to shoot me down. I am skeptical. Regenerative therapy seems like a great concept but I am not in a position to lead the pack.
 
Are there any basic introductory text books or review articles that would be recommended on this topic??
 
Last year the PMR journal (purple one) had a full journal dedicated to biologics. I think it was around sping/summer in the supplement journal for CME
 
What some pros and cons of various stem cell preparations? Prices? Legal liability?

Amniotic

Fat

Marrow

I am seriously considering starting amniotic intradsical injections. "Young stem cells" higher concentration, ease, more liability as not autologous and fda issue.

Appreciate in advance
 
Last edited:
I wrote the Oregon Medical Board about this. Their reply:

Thank you for your inquiry. Our Medical Director makes two suggestions regarding your question. The first is to use extreme caution in approaching the use of stem cell or growth factor injections. The Board has disciplined physicians who have harmed patients by using non-FDA approved stem cell.
In addition, it is suggested that you review the September 10, 2015, article that discusses this topic in the New England Journal of Medicine. The link for that article follows:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1504560
Please contact me directly if you have any further questions.

The truth is that you could probably fly under the radar on this forever, unless one of your competitors decided to play dirty.

At the Rosenthal class they said that the stem cells were a minor component and that the key ingredient is the growth factors. They said that the FDA is very critical of the sale of cells and so the amniotic product reps don't push that aspect. They said that they would not use the $1000 amniotic product unless they mixed it with PRP. Unfortunately that would increase the price significantly.

I got a couple samples of an amniotic product, dried, no cells, just growth factors, $300/dose, long shelf life, not frozen. Put one in my SI joint and it is a big improvement, right away and now, 2.5 weeks later. N=1.

Adipose derived and amniotic derived would not be defined as "minimally manipulated". Since bone marrow aspirate and PRP are simply spun then I would think that they would be "minimally manipulated". If you send the bone marrow aspirate to the lab for expansion then that may no longer be "minimally manipulated".

I suspect that PRP or bone marrow aspirate would be easier to defend legally than amniotic since it goes back to the donor. PRP would be rich in growth factors which will recruit stem cells. Bone marrow aspirate has both stem cells and platelets but is more invasive.

The doc in Eugene who lost his license was doing adipose.

I'm going to wait on offering this to my patients but I might ask for a few more samples.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
not to take this thread on a tangent, but wondering who activates their PRP.
 
I activate prpby filtration and ultrasound. The light activator device is around 4 grand... My concern over amniotic treatment is fradulent advertising to patients as stem cell therapy. Several of my patients have already received this treatment from orthopedic surgeons who told them it was stem cell therapy. They were very upset when I told them otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
We looked at light activation.....we think it works by creating reactive oxygen species that make the cell think it's infected by a virus. Algos is probably right....we just went a different direction.....if i was actually doing stem cell stuff i mean.

Absolutley true about amniotic stuff being sold as stem cell this and stem cell that. It makes legit docs look good, but muddies the field for everyone.
 
Interesting about the light or US activation. If the PRP (which is ideally cell free) has reactive oxygen species then the growth factors in the PRP are better at recruiting stem cells into the area? Hopefully it does not disqualify from the "minimal manipulation" standpoint.

Some of the amniotic reps that I have talked to will say that they have no cells in their product and that the vast majority of stem cells that are injected with any product will die or not stay in the area of injection. They all agree that it is the growth factors that can recruit stem cells to the area. Then some reps do a quick 180 when comparing to competitors and say that the competitors don't have cells.

If the amniotic product is not significantly cheaper and more convenient than the PRP then I would have a hard time justifying amniotic unless it turns out to be much more effective.
 
Is it the consensus that amniotic tissue does not have any stem cells? What are the numbers for the different unexpanded tissues? I had thought very low levels in adipose and a few more but still few in marrow
 
Is it the consensus that amniotic tissue does not have any stem cells? What are the numbers for the different unexpanded tissues? I had thought very low levels in adipose and a few more but still few in marrow

Yes, amniotic fluid does have stem cells. I believe we will find that most tissue types have a mesenchymal stem cell reservoir; which modulates the healing process in injury and in general cellular turnover. The most famous types of mesenchymal stem cells right now are adipose, bone marrow, umbilical cord, dental pulp, and amniotic. I believe amniotic cells are quite primary and likely have good therapeutic potential. Check out this study from last month:

Therapeutic Potential of Secreted Molecules Derived from Human
Amniotic Fluid Mesenchymal Stem/Stroma Cells in a Mice Model of Colitis


Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) are the result of pathological immune responses due to environmental factors or microbial antigens into a genetically predisposed individual. Mainly due to their trophic properties, a mounting interest is focused on the use of human mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (hMSCs) to treat IBD disease in animal models. The aim of the study is to test whether the secreted molecules, derived from a specific population of second trimester amniotic fluid mesenchymal stem/stromal cells, the spindle-shaped MSCs (SS-AF-MSCs), could be utilized as a novel therapeutic, cell free approach for IBD therapy. Induction of colitis was achieved by oral administration of dextran sulphate sodium (DSS) (3 % w/v in tap water), for 5 days, to 8-week-old NOD/SCID mice. The progression of colitis was assessed on a daily basis through recording the body weight, stool consistency and bleeding. Conditioned media (CM) derived from SS-AF-MSCs were collected, concentrated and then delivered intraperitoneally into DSS treated mice. To evaluate and determine the inflammatory cytokine levels, histopathological approach was applied. Administration of CM derived from SS-AF-MSCs cells reduced the severity of colitis in mice. More importantly, TGFb1 protein levels were increased in the mice received CM, while TNFa and MMP2 protein levels were decreased, respectively. Accordingly, IL-10 was significantly increased in mice received CM, whereas TNFa and IL-1b were decreased at mRNA level. Our results demonstrated that CM derived from SS-AF-MSCs cells is able to ameliorate DSS-induced colitis in immunodeficient colitis mouse model, and thus, it has a potential for use in IBD therapy.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12015-016-9677-1
 
A nonsensical treatment with non-existing cells for a made up disease. Priceless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Also, just to be clear, amniotic tissue and amniotic fluid are not the same thing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N930A using SDN mobile
 
Yes, amniotic fluid does have stem cells. I believe we will find that most tissue types have a mesenchymal stem cell reservoir; which modulates the healing process in injury and in general cellular turnover. The most famous types of mesenchymal stem cells right now are adipose, bone marrow, umbilical cord, dental pulp, and amniotic. I believe amniotic cells are quite primary and likely have good therapeutic potential. Check out this study from last month:

Lots of letters, lots of words, but not a single coherent sentence.
 
Amnionic tissue and fluid both contain stem cells. The cells are 100% dead. The tissue has been freeze dried. Amniotic tissues and fluids serve primarily as a vehicle to bamboozle and defraud patients.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Definitely companies who are pedaling amniotic anything may be misleading. If anything, the proteins are potent and numerous growth factors that may have an effect on the patients mRNA. The patient's own PRP can be weak, so there is definitely variability in each patient, and amniotic or placental growth factors may have a benefit if they fail PRP.
 
Last edited:
Definitely companies who are pedaling amniotic anything may be misleading. If anything, the proteins are potent and numerous growth factors that may have an effect on the patients mRNA. The potential benefit is the patient's own PRP can be weak, so there is definitely variability in each patient.

4631236.jpg
 
Amnionic tissue and fluid both contain stem cells. The cells are 100% dead. The tissue has been freeze dried. Amniotic tissues and fluids serve primarily as a vehicle to bamboozle and defraud patients.

Do you have any source for this? Not doubting you, but I just haven't seen this claimed before.

And even if the cells are dead, they likely maintain immunomodulatory capacity, likely through recognition by monocytic cells. I was shocked to read this study earlier this year:

Inactivated Mesenchymal Stem Cells Maintain Immunomodulatory Capacity
Mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) are studied as a cell therapeutic agent for treatment of various immune diseases. However, therapy with living culture-expanded cells comes with safety concerns. Furthermore, development of effective MSC immunotherapy is hampered by lack of knowledge of the mechanisms of action and the therapeutic components of MSC. Such knowledge allows better identification of diseases that are responsive to MSC treatment, optimization of the MSC product, and development of therapy based on functional components of MSC. To close in on the components that carry the therapeutic immunomodulatory activity of MSC, we generated MSC that were unable to respond to inflammatory signals or secrete immunomodulatory factors, but preserved their cellular integrity [heat-inactivated MSC (HI-MSC)]. Secretome-deficient HI-MSC and control MSC showed the same biodistribution and persistence after infusion in mice with ischemic kidney injury. Both control and HI-MSC induced mild inflammatory responses in healthy mice and dramatic increases in interleukin-10, and reductions in interferon gamma levels in sepsis mice. In vitro experiments showed that opposite to control MSC, HI-MSC lacked the capability to suppress T-cell proliferation or induce regulatory B-cell formation. However, both HI-MSC and control MSC modulated monocyte function in response to lipopolysaccharides. The results of this study demonstrate that, in particular disease models, the immunomodulatory effect of MSC does not depend on their secretome or active cross-talk with immune cells, but on recognition of MSC by monocytic cells. These findings provide a new view on MSC-induced immunomodulation and help identify key components of the therapeutic effects of MSC.

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/scd.2016.0068
 
I don't think you can make your particular claim - I think you are reaching.

it could be that the MSC do "modulate monocyte function in response to lipopolysaccharides", but one has to make the assumption that killing the MSC does not alter these same lipopolysaccharides or does not alter monocytic response to dead vs live MSC.
 
I was unable to watch today. Did anybody catch most of it, and what is the synopsis?

Sure, I watched it. Here are the major points:

The concept of homologous use was introduced. This means that any cellular transfer of a tissue from a donor to a recipient should be done only when the cells serve the same purpose in the recipient as they do in the donor. For example, under the new guidelines, using amniotic fluid derived MSCs in corneal abrasion would not be considered homologous use, as the use definition of amniotic fluid derived MSCs would need to be expanded to include "protecting" and "covering". There are many other examples of cases where these new guidelines would make currently legal treatments illegal, like using same-day autologous adipose derived MSC (adMSC) infusions to treat immune related diseases and even some structural indications - the FDA mandated definition of adMSCs will be that they are only used for cushioning. There was an enormous amount of disagreement about this particular definition, as it would probably result in the closure of several hundred clinics, and it was argued that the adMSC niche is responsible for much more than just cushioning. It is known that adMSCs secrete cell-signaling factors, like adipokines, and assist in cellular turnover. Evidence was produced to this effect. I am not sure how the FDA will reconcile their guidelines with the science on this point.

Practicing MDs and society/coalition presidents alike got up on the podium to testify the importance of cellular therapies and regenerative medicine. One of the issues raised was that in many other countries, these therapies have fewer restrictions and are being used to great effect. If the FDA instates these new restrictions, it will be more difficult for the US to stay competitive in offering the world's best healthcare. It was also brought up that some of the biggest consumers of cell-based therapies are disabled soldiers from the Iraq war, who are desperate to heal from injuries sustained in the course of battle. Most of the MDs showed slides of the dramatic effects these therapies can have on these soldiers and citizens in general. One was a 70+ year old man with chronic wounds, including lesions of pyoderma gangrenosum. These wounds were refractory to all previous interventions, and the patient was left with no alternatives. Upon administration of SVF and PRP, the previously non-healing wounds resolved, and these lesions did not recur. Another patient was a housewife with severe MS. After treatment with autologous adMSCs, she was able to walk with the assistance of a walker and do the laundry for the first time in five years.

This discussion continues today, in 10 minutes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sure, I watched it. Here are the major points:

The concept of homologous use was introduced. This means that any cellular transfer of a tissue from a donor to a recipient should be done only when the cells serve the same purpose in the recipient as they do in the donor. For example, under the new guidelines, using amniotic fluid derived MSCs in corneal abrasion would not be considered homologous use, as the use definition of amniotic fluid derived MSCs would need to be expanded to include "protecting" and "covering". There are many other examples of cases where these new guidelines would make currently legal treatments illegal, like using same-day autologous adipose derived MSC (adMSC) infusions to treat immune related diseases and even some structural indications - the FDA mandated definition of adMSCs will be that they are only used for cushioning. There was an enormous amount of disagreement about this particular definition, as it would probably result in the closure of several hundred clinics, and it was argued that the adMSC niche is responsible for much more than just cushioning. It is know that adMSCs secrete cell-signaling factors, like adipokines, and assist in cellular turnover. Evidence was produced to this effect. I am not sure how the FDA will reconcile their guidelines with the science on this point.

Practicing MDs and society/coalition presidents alike got up on the podium to testify the importance of cellular therapies and regenerative medicine. One of the issues raised was that in many other countries, these therapies have fewer restrictions and are being used to great effect. If the FDA instates these new restrictions, it will be more difficult for the US to stay competitive in offering the world's best healthcare. It was also brought up that some of the biggest consumers of cell-based therapies are disabled soldiers from the Iraq war, who are desperate to heal from injuries sustained in the course of battle. Most of the MDs showed slides of the dramatic effects these therapies can have on these soldiers and citizens in general. One was a 70+ year old man with chronic wounds, including lesions of pyoderma gangrenosum. These wounds were refractory to all previous interventions, and the patient was left with no alternatives. Upon administration of SVF and PRP, the previously non-healing wounds resolved, and these lesions did not recur. Another patient was a housewife with severe MS. After treatment with autologous adMSCs, she was able to walk with the assistance of a walker and do the laundry for the first time in five years.

This discussion continues today, in 10 minutes.

Good summary:

http://rickjaffeesq.com/2016/09/13/...lemaking-bad-science-heartless-public-policy/
 
Sure, I watched it. Here are the major points:

The concept of homologous use was introduced. This means that any cellular transfer of a tissue from a donor to a recipient should be done only when the cells serve the same purpose in the recipient as they do in the donor. For example, under the new guidelines, using amniotic fluid derived MSCs in corneal abrasion would not be considered homologous use, as the use definition of amniotic fluid derived MSCs would need to be expanded to include "protecting" and "covering". There are many other examples of cases where these new guidelines would make currently legal treatments illegal, like using same-day autologous adipose derived MSC (adMSC) infusions to treat immune related diseases and even some structural indications - the FDA mandated definition of adMSCs will be that they are only used for cushioning. There was an enormous amount of disagreement about this particular definition, as it would probably result in the closure of several hundred clinics, and it was argued that the adMSC niche is responsible for much more than just cushioning. It is known that adMSCs secrete cell-signaling factors, like adipokines, and assist in cellular turnover. Evidence was produced to this effect. I am not sure how the FDA will reconcile their guidelines with the science on this point.

Practicing MDs and society/coalition presidents alike got up on the podium to testify the importance of cellular therapies and regenerative medicine. One of the issues raised was that in many other countries, these therapies have fewer restrictions and are being used to great effect. If the FDA instates these new restrictions, it will be more difficult for the US to stay competitive in offering the world's best healthcare. It was also brought up that some of the biggest consumers of cell-based therapies are disabled soldiers from the Iraq war, who are desperate to heal from injuries sustained in the course of battle. Most of the MDs showed slides of the dramatic effects these therapies can have on these soldiers and citizens in general. One was a 70+ year old man with chronic wounds, including lesions of pyoderma gangrenosum. These wounds were refractory to all previous interventions, and the patient was left with no alternatives. Upon administration of SVF and PRP, the previously non-healing wounds resolved, and these lesions did not recur. Another patient was a housewife with severe MS. After treatment with autologous adMSCs, she was able to walk with the assistance of a walker and do the laundry for the first time in five years.

This discussion continues today, in 10 minutes.

Thank you very much and welcome to the forum!
 
Thank you! Happy to be here :)

http://rickjaffeesq.com/2016/09/16/...reconstruction-procedure-will-become-illegal/

"If you think you might ever need to use your own stem cells or other body parts in the future, or if you know anyone how might need them, then write, fax or email the FDA and tell them. Here are some possible points:

  1. Withdraw the four HCT/P guidance documents
  2. Get out of the business of regulating a person’s use of his own body parts
  3. Any opinions you might have about where they should place their draft guidance documents, or such other opinions you might have on this regulatory exercise, mindful of the rules of polite discourse, based on your discretion and/or temperament.
Maybe if a few hundred thousand people contact these jokers, they might get the message."
 
Do we have a date when the final FDA guidelines will come out? Estimate?
 
Are there updates on any current restrictions or recommendations following the FDA overview? What is the current practice standard of care for regenerative med, ie what are people using and why?
 
Wanted to revive this thread for it’s original purpose as I’m interested in attending a Regenerative Medicine course. Seems that there are a few new courses out there and wanted to see if anybody has been to them recently and had feedback regarding their experience. I noted mixed reviews for the ARMI course and was wondering how it compared to the WAPMU course and ASRA Ultrasound course as they are all coming up soon. Any opinions regarding the usefulness of these courses in introducing Regenertaive Medicine techniques into clinical practice are greatly appreciated!
 
Are there updates on any current restrictions or recommendations following the FDA overview? What is the current practice standard of care for regenerative med, ie what are people using and why?
Bump
 
Top