[The regenerative medicine and stem cell business: confusion with legal implications]. / El negocio de la medicina regenerativa y las células madre: confusión con implicaciones legales.

The rise of regenerative medicine and the growth of the offer of autologous therapies, obtained from blood, cells or tissues of the patients, have been favoured by the current availability of an increasing number of commercial devices. Most of these devices are easy to use, allowing the elaboration of products and its application within the same procedure. Regardless of the questionable efficacy and safety of many of the treatments offered under the claim of stem cells or regenerative medicine, most of the centres and professionals offering these treatments are unaware of the legal requirements and implications of their use. A common confusion consists in not distinguishing between the authorization required by the equipment itself, considered a medical device, and the authorization for the use of the product obtained, usually considered a medicinal product (whether advanced therapy or not) or a transplant. Moreover, these treatments frequently have an experimental nature. In that case, in addition to requiring the corresponding ethical evaluation and the authorization of various regulatory bodies, their administration must be offered free of charge, obtaining the patient's informed consent and after contracting a specific insurance policy. In this article we present a brief summary of the main requirements for the application of these autologous biological products with the aim of serving as a guide both for the professionals who prescribe them and for those who inspect the centres where the products are administered. Finally, we include some recommendations for patients.

Promoting the ethical use of safe and effective cell-based products: the Andalusian plan on regenerative medicine.

With regard to regenerative medicine, the expectations generated over the last two decades and the time involved in developing this type of therapies, together with the availability of devices that allow point-of-care treatments through the rapid isolation of cellular or plasma products from patients in the operating theater, represent the perfect breeding ground for the offering of unproven or unregulated therapies on a global scale. A multidisciplinary approach-one based on the collaboration of institutions that, from the perspective of their area of competence, can contribute to reversing this worrying situation-to this problem is essential. It is a priority for local health authorities to take measures that are adapted to the particular situation and regulatory framework of their respective territory. In this article, the authors present the regenerative medicine action plan promoted by the Andalusian Transplant Coordination (i.e., the action plan for the largest region in Spain), highlighting the aspects the authors believe are fundamental to its success. The authors describe, in summary form, the methodology, phases of the plan, actions designed, key collaborators, important milestones achieved and main lessons they have drawn from their experience so that this can serve as an example for other institutions interested in promoting the ethical use of this type of therapy.

Model for end-stage liver disease score-based allocation of donors for liver transplantation: a spanish multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Prioritizing the liver transplant waiting list (WL) is subject to great variability. We present the experience of four transplant centers in Andalusia (Southern Spain) with a new consensus model of WL management based on the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. METHODS: The initial criteria for local prioritizing were: a) cirrhosis with MELD score > or =24, and b) all hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) admitted to the WL. Fourteen months later new criteria were established: a) cirrhosis with MELD score > or =18, and b) uninodular HCC between 3-5 cm or multinodular HCC (2-3 nodules <3 cm). Access to regional priority was scheduled after three months for patients with cirrhosis or six months for patients with HCC. We analyzed the WL mortality rate, posttransplant survival rate, and overall survival rate over three 14-month periods: A (before implementation of priority criteria), B (initial criteria), and C (current criteria). RESULTS: Priority was given to 36% of recipients in period B and 47% in period C. The WL mortality rate (including removals from WL) was 12.9%, 12.9%, and 10.7% in periods A, B, and C, respectively. One-year graft survival was 79.7%, 72.6%, and 81.2% in the same periods. The overall one-year survival rate for new cases on the WL was 74.9% in period A, 68.6% in period B, and 82.2% in period C. CONCLUSIONS: The allocation system and WL management with the current criteria resulted in lower waiting list mortality without reducing posttransplant survival, leading to better survival for all patients listed.