January 2nd, 2019 by admin
By: Matt Fischer
On November 29, 2018, Florida Representative Chuck Clemons proposed house bill 65 (“HB 65”) that would significantly tighten regulation on the use of stem cells. If the stem cell bill is signed into law, Florida will join other states (e.g. California, Texas and Washington) in passing some type of stem cell regulation. While some bills around the country have centered the regulation on informing prospective customers of the risks associated with these treatments, HB 65 takes a more stringent approach with the threat of criminal exposure and includes certain protections for providers in the form of a “right-to-try” law.
Some of the highlights of HB 65 include: read more
June 20th, 2018 by admin
By: Matthew Fischer
Jumping into the stem cell industry can be an exciting venture. However, with this emerging industry comes a mine field of legal pitfalls and potential problems. The keys to a successful business not only include selecting a strong product and building strong relationships with clients but being able to navigate the regulatory framework that accompanies this type of product.
FDA regulations require establishments that perform one or more steps in the manufacturing process of HCT/Ps (i.e. Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products) to register and submit a list of products with the agency. If so, you have five days to register after beginning operations. When I mention “manufacturing” to clients they usually interject with “I only want to distribute.” Good point. However, the FDA defines “manufacture” as any or all steps in the recovery, processing, storage, labeling, packaging, or distribution of any human cell or tissue. These registrations must be updated annually and in the event of a change of ownership, within 30 days of the change. read more
May 11th, 2018 by admin
By: Matthew Fischer
With the rapid growth of the regenerative medicine field, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is trying to strike the right balance between preventing harm to the public and fostering innovation of new treatments. In an effort to prevent potential harm, the FDA stepped up enforcement this week. In two complaints filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of the FDA, the FDA has sought permanent injunctions against a California and Florida stem cell clinic along with their owners and officers to prevent the marketing of stem cell products without FDA approval and for failure to correct deviations from manufacturing practice requirements. read more
May 4th, 2018 by admin
stem cell law
By: Matthew Fischer
Amid the growing focus on stem cell products by the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), multiple states have proposed and passed some form of stem cell law or clinic regulation. While some center the regulation on informing prospective customers of the risks associated with these treatments others seek to protect the availability of these treatments in the form of a “right-to-try” law. Here are a few examples:
California
Effective January of this year, California implemented a new regulation in its Business and Professions Code aimed at clinics offering non-FDA approved stem cell treatments. The regulation requires a notice to be posted at the clinic entrance along with the requirement to provide a separate written notice to the patient prior to initiating treatment. However, this requirement does not apply if a licensed health care practitioner has obtained approval for an investigational new drug from the FDA. read more
April 23rd, 2018 by admin
By: Matthew Fischer
Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley issued a press release last week indicating that he sent a letter to the leadership of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking additional information regarding the investigation into U.S. Stem Cell Clinic, LLC based in Sunrise, Florida. The letter poses seven questions with a deadline of April 27th. Last November, the FDA issued new guidance regarding human cell and tissue based treatments and announced its intention to crackdown on unproven treatments. Hence, many in the industry are watching closely to see what actions if any have been taken.
In August 2017, the FDA issued a press release setting forth the details of a warning letter sent to U.S. Stem Cell Clinic, LLC. The warning letter cited manufacturing deviations, efforts to impede an investigation, and issuance of a demand for corrective action. This step was taken as a result of several people experiencing blindness after receiving stem cell injections for treatment of macular degeneration. One of the patients noted that she believed the treatment was part of a clinical trial listed on ClinicalTrials.gov. read more
March 23rd, 2018 by admin
By: Matthew Fischer
The regenerative medicine arena consists of a wide range of innovative products. Congress, acknowledging the importance of this field, has established a new program via the 21st Century Cures Act to help spur development and provide for accelerated approval for regenerative medicine products similar to the FDA’s fast track and breakthrough therapy designations. This new approval is the Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) Designation.
The RMAT Designation includes all the benefits of the FDA’s other accelerated designations including early agency engagement and priority review; however, unlike the other designations, the RMAT Designation does not require evidence that the product offers substantial improvement over other therapies. For a drug to be eligible for the RMAT Designation, it must meet the following: read more
March 13th, 2018 by admin
By: Matthew Fischer
Through two public channels this month, the FDA further solidified its stance on the innovative field of regenerative medicine. First, in an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Dr. Scott Gottlieb, FDA Commissioner, and Dr. Peter Marks, Director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), co-wrote a new paper entitled “Balancing Safety and Innovation for Cell-Based Regenerative Medicine.” On the same day of this publication, the FDA hosted a “Grand Rounds” webcast with Dr. Steven Bauer, Chief of the Cellular and Tissues Therapy Branch within CBER. Taken together, these actions suggest a continued effort by the FDA to take a strong position against predatory clinics touting unapproved therapies while extending an open invitation to industry developers for expedited treatment to encourage innovation. read more
March 6th, 2018 by admin
By: Matthew Fischer
Certain stem cell products fall under the definition of a HCT/P. If so, unless an exception is met, the product will be subject to regulation by various laws and regulations such as the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), Public Health Safety Act (“PHSA”), and 21 CFR 1271. When determining which apply, 21 CFR 1271.10(a) and the exception in 21 CFR 1271.15(b) (i.e. the “Same Surgical Procedure Exception”) must be reviewed. However, many are left asking: what is the relationship between the same surgical procedure exception and the four criteria set forth in 21 CFR 1271.10(a)? Thanks to recent guidance released by the FDA, some clarification has arrived. read more
February 27th, 2018 by admin
By: Matthew Fischer
There are no off the shelf solutions when it comes to starting a new stem cell business or adding a new component to a practice. Between navigating regulations, receiving training, and marketing the service, there’s a lot to address in a short time. Trying to do it all yourself? You may be a highly trained clinician, but given healthcare’s ever-changing regulatory environment, seeking out experienced counsel at the outset will save lots of time and money in the long run. To get started, here is a short summary of what to expect.
Stem Cell Business – Corporate Structure
The first issue is always protection when starting a business or adding a new service. Take the case of an orthopedic physician that wants to add stem cell treatments (e.g. PRP) to his or her practice. The initial inclination is usually to create a new entity separate from the medical practice. What the physician is likely unaware of is that this may create exposure to state self-referral laws. Typically, under these types of laws, intent is not a requirement to find a physician liable for wrongdoing. Therefore, is it important to determine if your state has this type of law and if so, how to structure the new venture before moving forward. read more
February 8th, 2018 by admin
By: Matthew Fischer
Platelet-Rich Plasma (“PRP”) has become a popular treatment for various conditions from sports injuries to hair rejuvenation so it makes sense that PRP regulation must keep up. With PRP, both the device used to separate platelets and the subsequent use of the PRP product fall under the scope of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). The common question is: what is approved by the FDA with regards to PRP? Given the increased use, it is important for health care providers to understand the FDA’s standpoint on PRP regulation.
Medical Device Regulation
Let’s start with PRP devices. Generally, the FDA provides several avenues in which a device, drug, or biologic can come to market. For medical devices, an applicant can either obtain Premarket Approval (“PMA”) or 510(k) clearance. Most PRP preparation systems have utilized the 510(k) clearance process. What is meant by 510(k) clearance? The 510(k) application process, also known as premarket notification (“PMN”), is for medical devices that are seen as lower risk which are found to be “substantially equivalent” to a previously cleared device. Under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, device manufacturers are required to register and notify the FDA of the intent to market a medical device in advance.
The FDA then determines whether the device is equivalent to a device already on the market. The 510(k) clearance process is a common way for PRP devices because it is less costly and time consuming as opposed to obtaining PMA. There is one important caveat though with 510(k) clearance. Clearance does not equate to approval for treatment of any indication. It only applies to its intended use in a specific setting. For example, in past warning letters issued by the FDA, the agency has required certain manufacturers to add language to its label stating that the PRP prepared by the device had not been evaluated for any clinical indication. read more
