I requested an interview with the FDA to cover the key pressing issues in this direct-to-consumer stem cell interventions. I want to thank the FDA for taking the time to do this interview.
Below are their answers covering regulation of SVF, homologous use, FDA action/inaction on dubious stem cell clinics, Right To Try Laws, and the FDA’s own research on stem cells.
Paul: One of the hot topics in the stem cell arena is the production and use of stem cells from adipose tissue with the most common product being called stromal vascular fraction (SVF). A current debate is whether CBER views SVF as a biological drug product. Could you please comment on SVF and whether it is a 351 or 361 product? is it more than minimally manipulated? If such a definition/guidance is on a case-by-case basis, can you cite any examples of where SVF has been defined simply as 361? The field could really benefit from some clarity on this issue.
Related on the SLP
FDA: FDA recognizes the importance of this issue and the necessity for clear communication regarding minimal-manipulation, SVF, and other stem cell-based products. It is understandable that the field is eager for clarification on the categorization of SVF and other stem cell-based products and FDA develops guidance on these topics as the specific regulatory approaches are sufficiently mature.
Read full, original article: New Interview with FDA on Key Stem Cell Regulatory Issues & Its Own Research
