This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
The application of stem cell transplants in clinical practice has increased in frequency in recent years. Many of the stem cell transplants in neurologic diseases, including stroke, Parkinson disease, spinal cord injury, and demyelinating diseases, are unproven—they have not been tested in prospective, controlled clinical trials and have not become accepted therapies. Stem cell transplant procedures currently being carried out have therapeutic aims, but are frequently experimental and unregulated, and could potentially put patients at risk. In some cases, patients undergoing such operations are not included in a clinical trial, and do not provide genuinely informed consent. For these reasons and others, some current stem cell interventions for neurologic diseases are ethically dubious and could jeopardize progress in the field. We provide discussion points for the evaluation of new stem cell interventions for neurologic disease, based primarily on the new Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation released by the International Society for Stem Cell Research in May 2016. Important considerations in the ethical translation of stem cells to clinical practice include regulatory oversight, conflicts of interest, data sharing, the nature of investigation (e.g., within vs outside of a clinical trial), informed consent, risk-benefit ratios, the therapeutic misconception, and patient vulnerability. To help guide the translation of stem cells from the laboratory into the neurosurgical clinic in an ethically sound manner, we present an ethical discussion of these major issues at stake in the field of stem cell clinical research for neurologic disease.
GLOSSARY
- FDA=
- Food and Drug Administration;
- IRB=
- institutional review board
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
- Received July 26, 2016.
- Accepted in final form October 11, 2016.
- © 2016 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.