Exploiting Science? A Systematic Analysis of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Clinic Websites' Marketing of Stem Cell Therapies

Overview

Journal BMJ Open

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2018 Mar 2

PMID 29490963

Citations 21

Authors

Blake Murdoch

Amy Zarzeczny

Timothy Caulfield

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To identify the frequency and qualitative characteristics of stem cell-related marketing claims made on websites of clinics featuring common types of complementary and alternative medicine practitioners. The involvement of complementary and alternative medicine practitioners in the marketing of stem cell therapies and stem cell-related interventions is understudied. This research explores the extent to which they are involved and collaborate with medical professionals. This knowledge will help with identifying and evaluating potential policy responses to this growing market.

Design: Systematic website analysis.

Setting: Global. US and English-language bias due to methodology.

Main Outcome Measures: Representations made on clinic websites in relation to practitioner types, stem cell therapies and their targets, stem cell-related interventions. Statements about stem cell therapies relating to evidence of inefficacy, limited evidence of efficacy, general procedural risks, risks specific to the mode of therapy, regulatory status, experimental or unproven nature of therapy. Use of hype language (eg, language that exaggerates potential benefits).

Results: 243 websites offered stem cell therapies. Many websites advertised stem cell transplantation from multiple sources, such as adipose-derived (112), bone marrow-derived (100), blood-derived (28), umbilical cord-derived (26) and others. Plant stem cell-based treatments and products (20) were also advertised. Purposes for and targets of treatment included pain, physical injury, a wide range of diseases and illnesses, cosmetic concerns, non-cosmetic ageing, sexual enhancement and others. Medical doctors (130), chiropractors (53) and naturopaths (44) commonly work in the clinics we found to be offering stem cell therapies. Few clinic websites advertising stem cell therapies included important additional information, including statements about evidence of inefficacy (present on only 12.76% of websites), statements about limited evidence of efficacy (18.93%), statements of general risks (24.69%), statements of risks specific to the mode(s) of therapy (5.76%), statements as to the regulatory status of the therapies (30.86%) and statements that the therapy is experimental or unproven (33.33%). Hype language was noted (31.69%).

Conclusions: Stem cell therapies and related interventions are marketed for a wide breadth of conditions and are being offered by complementary and alternative practitioners, often in conjunction with medical doctors. Consumer protection and truth-in-advertising regulation could play important roles in addressing misleading marketing practices in this area.

Citing Articles

Unapproved and unproven cancer treatments in patients admitted to palliative care units.

Akagi H, Katsumata N, Suzuki K, Masukawa K, Morita T, Kizawa Y Support Care Cancer. 2024; 32(12):841.

PMID: 39621134 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-024-09057-2.

Clinical use of autologous cell-based therapies in an evolving regulatory landscape: A survey of patient experiences and perceptions.

Ogbogu U, Case N F1000Res. 2024; 12:1165.

PMID: 39430869 PMC: 11489844. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.141002.2.

Alternative cancer clinics' use of Google listings and reviews to mislead potential patients.

Zenone M, Snyder J, van Schalkwyk M, Belisle-Pipon J, Hartwell G, Caulfield T BJC Rep. 2024; 2(1):55.

PMID: 39119508 PMC: 11303243. DOI: 10.1038/s44276-024-00071-9.

Regenerative Medicine: Case Study for Understanding and Anticipating Emerging Science and Technology.

Mathews D, Abernethy A, Chaikof E, Charo R, Daley G, Enriquez J NAM Perspect. 2024; 2023.

PMID: 38855738 PMC: 11157685. DOI: 10.31478/202311d.

US state laws on medical freedom and investigational stem cell procedures: a call to focus on state-based legislation.

Matthews K, Lowe S, Master Z Cytotherapy. 2024; 26(4):404-409.

PMID: 38310500 PMC: 11010147. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2024.01.002.

References

Ikonomou L, Freishtat R, Wagner D, Panoskaltsis-Mortari A, Weiss D . The Global Emergence of Unregulated Stem Cell Treatments for Respiratory Diseases. Professional Societies Need to Act. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2016; 13(8):1205-7. DOI: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201604-277ED. View

Artus M, Croft P, Lewis M . The use of CAM and conventional treatments among primary care consulters with chronic musculoskeletal pain. BMC Fam Pract. 2007; 8:26. PMC: 1878478. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2296-8-26. View

Daley G . Polar Extremes in the Clinical Use of Stem Cells. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(11):1075-1077. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe1701379. View

Regenberg A, Hutchinson L, Schanker B, Mathews D . Medicine on the fringe: stem cell-based interventions in advance of evidence. Stem Cells. 2009; 27(9):2312-9. DOI: 10.1002/stem.132. View

Caulfield T, Sipp D, Murry C, Daley G, Kimmelman J . SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. Confronting stem cell hype. Science. 2016; 352(6287):776-7. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf4620. View

Berger I, Ahmad A, Bansal A, Kapoor T, Sipp D, Rasko J . Global Distribution of Businesses Marketing Stem Cell-Based Interventions. Cell Stem Cell. 2016; 19(2):158-162. DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2016.07.015. View

Welsh S, Kelner M, Wellman B, Boon H . Moving forward? Complementary and alternative practitioners seeking self-regulation. Sociol Health Illn. 2004; 26(2):216-41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2004.00387.x. View

Zarzeczny A, Caulfield T, Ogbogu U, Bell P, Crooks V, Kamenova K . Professional regulation: a potentially valuable tool in responding to "stem cell tourism". Stem Cell Reports. 2014; 3(3):379-84. PMC: 4266009. DOI: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2014.06.016. View

Barnes P, Bloom B, Nahin R . Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults and children: United States, 2007. Natl Health Stat Report. 2009; (12):1-23. View

10.

Sipp D, Caulfield T, Kaye J, Barfoot J, Blackburn C, Chan S . Marketing of unproven stem cell-based interventions: A call to action. Sci Transl Med. 2017; 9(397). DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aag0426. View

11.

Elo S, Kyngas H . The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008; 62(1):107-15. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x. View

12.

Chang D, Abouassaly R, Lawrentschuk N . Quality of Health Information on the Internet for Urolithiasis on the Google Search Engine. Adv Urol. 2017; 2016:8243095. PMC: 5164884. DOI: 10.1155/2016/8243095. View

13.

Fujita M, Hatta T, Ozeki R, Akabayashi A . The current status of clinics providing private practice cell therapy in Japan. Regen Med. 2015; 11(1):23-32. DOI: 10.2217/rme.15.64. View

14.

McHugh M . Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012; 22(3):276-82. PMC: 3900052. View

15.

Deans R, Gunter K, Dominici M, Forte M . Part 5: Unproven cell therapies and the commercialization of cell-based products. Cytotherapy. 2016; 18(1):138-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2015.11.001. View

16.

Caulfield T, Rachul C . Supported by science?: what canadian naturopaths advertise to the public. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2011; 7:14. PMC: 3182944. DOI: 10.1186/1710-1492-7-14. View

17.

Rosemann A, Sleeboom-Faulkner M . New regulation for clinical stem cell research in China: expected impact and challenges for implementation. Regen Med. 2015; 11(1):5-9. DOI: 10.2217/rme.15.80. View

18.

Turner L, Knoepfler P . Selling Stem Cells in the USA: Assessing the Direct-to-Consumer Industry. Cell Stem Cell. 2016; 19(2):154-157. DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2016.06.007. View

19.

Lau D, Ogbogu U, Taylor B, Stafinski T, Menon D, Caulfield T . Stem cell clinics online: the direct-to-consumer portrayal of stem cell medicine. Cell Stem Cell. 2008; 3(6):591-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2008.11.001. View

20.

Ogbogu U, Rachul C, Caulfield T . Reassessing direct-to-consumer portrayals of unproven stem cell therapies: is it getting better?. Regen Med. 2013; 8(3):361-9. DOI: 10.2217/rme.13.15. View