Further to my recent post, “Six steps to fighting non-compliant cell therapy treatments. The stuff of grey shades, spades, ivory towers and (ahem) balls.“, I have crafted a 6-point platform that I propose to submit (with potential edits based on preliminary feedback) to several of the leading industry and professional organizations for their consideration including ARM, ISCT, ISSCR, FACT, AABB ICMS, and perhaps, in due course, to patient groups, physician groups, disease-specific professional organizations (e.g, cardiology, oncology, neurology, cosmetic, etc).
I welcome comments and feedback.
1. In addition to helping patients distinguish between compliant and non-compliant treatments (and providers) we must do more to help patients distinguish between non-compliant cell therapy treatments (and providers) which are more or less risky.
2. Whatever we do in response to this issue should be done with an eye to being practical and helpful to patients in the real-life context of their decision about whether or not to buy a non-complaint cell therapy.
3. Our response to this issue should be based on a risk-based approach recognizing that not all non-compliance is created equal. We should create a framework for risk-based analysis (both for us and our audiences) and focus initiatives around those which present the highest risk.
4. We recognize the problem of non-compliant cell therapies is not just a problem that exists in jurisdictions with little, no, or poor regulation but that is a growing problem even in the most highly regulated jurisdictions meaning the solution cannot be regulated it depends on education and enforcement.
5. We recognize regulatory agencies cannot enforce non-compliance on their own. We as an industry need to complement their efforts through our own standards and enforcement.
6. Stakeholder groups should support the formation of a multi-organizational initiative to, based on a risk-based assessment, spotlight the categories or signs of highest-risk offenders for use by patients and/or their physicians in identifying whether or not treatments (and providers) they may be considering fall into the that category associated with the highest level of risk.
What do you think?
Recommendation and review posted by G. Smith