Stem Cells, Cell Therapies and Bioengineering in Lung Biology and Diseases 2023.

Repair and regeneration of a diseased lung using stem cells or bioengineered tissues is an exciting therapeutic approach for a variety of lung diseases and critical illnesses. Over the past decade increasing evidence from preclinical models suggests that cells, which are not normally resident in the lung can be utilized to modulate immune responses after injury, but there have been challenges in translating these promising findings to the clinic. In parallel, there has been a surge in bioengineering studies investigating the use of artificial and acellular lung matrices as scaffolds for three-dimensional lung or airway regeneration, with some recent attempts of transplantation in large animal models. The combination of these studies with those involving stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cell derivatives, and/or cell therapies is a promising and rapidly developing research area. These studies have been further paralleled by significant increases in our understanding of the molecular and cellular events by which endogenous lung stem and/or progenitor cells arise during lung development and participate in normal and pathologic remodeling after lung injury. For the 2023 Stem Cells, Cell Therapies, and Bioengineering in Lung Biology and Diseases Conference, scientific symposia were chosen to reflect the most cutting-edge advances in these fields. Sessions focused on the integration of "-omics" technologies with function, the influence of immune cells on regeneration, and the role of the extracellular matrix in regeneration. The necessity for basic science studies to enhance fundamental understanding of lung regeneration and to design innovative translational studies was reinforced throughout the conference.

The Legal Landscape for Opioid Treatment Agreements.

Policy Points Opioid treatment agreements (OTAs) are controversial because of the lack of evidence that their use reduces opioid-related harms and the potential risks they pose of stigmatizing patients and undermining the clinician-patient relationship. Even so, their use is now required in most jurisdictions, and their use is influencing the outcomes of civil and criminal lawsuits. More research is needed to evaluate how OTAs are implemented given existing requirements. If additional research does not resolve the current level of uncertainty regarding OTA benefits, then policymakers in jurisdictions where they are required should consider eliminating OTA mandates or providing flexibility in the legal requirements to make room for clinicians and health care institutions to implement best practices. CONTEXT: Opioid treatment agreements (OTAs) are documents that clinicians present to patients when prescribing opioids that describe the risks of opioids and specify requirements that patients must meet to receive their medication. Notwithstanding a lack of evidence that OTAs effectively mitigate opioids' risks, professional organizations recommend that they be implemented, and jurisdictions increasingly require them. We sought to identify the jurisdictions that require OTAs, how OTAs might affect the outcomes of lawsuits that arise when things go wrong, and instances in which the law permits flexibility for clinicians and health care institutions to adopt best practices. METHODS: We surveyed the laws and regulations of all 50 states and the District of Columbia to identify which jurisdictions require the use of OTAs, the circumstances in which OTA use is mandatory, and the terms OTAs must include (if any). We also surveyed criminal and civil judicial decisions in which OTAs were discussed as evidence on which a court relied to make its decision to determine how OTA use influences litigation outcomes. FINDINGS: Results show that a slight majority (27) of jurisdictions now require OTAs. With one exception, the jurisdictions' requirements for OTA use are triggered at least in part by long-term prescribing. There is otherwise substantial variation and flexibility within OTA requirements. Results also show that even in jurisdictions where OTA use is not required by statute or regulation, OTA use can inform courts' reasoning in lawsuits involving patients or clinicians. Sometimes, but not always, OTA use legally protects clinicians from liability. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that OTA use is entwined with legal obligations in various ways. Clinicians and health care institutions should identify ways for OTAs to enhance clinician-patient relationships and patient care within the bounds of relevant legal requirements and risks.

Clinician Perspectives on Opioid Treatment Agreements: A Qualitative Analysis of Focus Groups.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic pain face significant barriers in finding clinicians to manage long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). For patients on LTOT, it is increasingly common to have them sign opioid treatment agreements (OTAs). OTAs enumerate the risks of opioids, as informed consent documents would, but also the requirements that patients must meet to receive LTOT. While there has been an ongoing scholarly discussion about the practical and ethical implications of OTA use in the abstract, little is known about how clinicians use them and if OTAs themselves modify clinician prescribing practices. OBJECTIVE: To determine how clinicians use OTAs and the potential impacts of OTAs on opioid prescribing. DESIGN: We conducted qualitative analysis of four focus groups of clinicians from a large Midwestern academic medical center. Groups were organized according to self-identified prescribing patterns: two groups for clinicians who identified as prescribers of LTOT, and two who did not. PARTICIPANTS: 17 clinicians from General Internal Medicine, Family Medicine, and Palliative Care were recruited using purposive, convenience sampling. APPROACH: Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for themes using reflexive thematic analysis by a multidisciplinary team. KEY RESULTS: Our analysis identified three main themes: (1) OTAs did not influence clinicians' decisions whether to use LTOT generally but did shape clinical decision-making for individual patients; (2) clinicians feel OTAs intensify the power they have over patients, though this was not uniformly judged as harmful; (3) there is a potential misalignment between the intended purposes of OTAs and their implementation. CONCLUSION: This study reveals a complicated relationship between OTAs and access to pain management. While OTAs seem not to impact the clinicians' decisions about whether to use LTOT generally, they do sometimes influence prescribing decisions for individual patients. Clinicians shared complex views about OTAs' purposes, which shows the need for more clarity about how OTAs could be used to promote shared decision-making, joint accountability, informed consent, and patient education.

The Mifepristone Litigation: Untangling the Implications of the Fifth Circuit's Decision for Abortion Access and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In August 2023, a federal appeals court issued an opinion in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v FDA, a case wherein a group of antiabortion medical organizations and physicians have challenged U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and regulation of mifepristone. This opinion contained some good news for the FDA, drug makers, and patients: the appeals court declined to halt the marketing of mifepristone altogether (as the trial court judge would have). But the court also decided that the FDA's 2016 and 2021 actions expanding the indication for mifepristone, lowering the drug's dose, and loosening restrictions on its distribution and use were likely unlawful, and it thus affirmed the trial court's order staying these actions. In this article, we explain key aspects of the opinion to health care professionals and consider the ways in which the appeals court's reasoning and conclusions, if followed by the Supreme Court, could undermine abortion access and public health going forward.

Effects of "Tobacco Free" Language in Warning Labels on Perceptions of Electronic Cigarettes and Nicotine Pouches among Young Adult Men: A Randomized Trial.

Background: Manufacturers of Puff Bar electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and Fre nicotine pouches claim that their products contain synthetic nicotine. The packages for Puff Bar and Fre have modified versions of the warning labels required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for tobacco products, which specify that Puff Bar and Fre products contain "tobacco free" or "non-tobacco" nicotine, respectively. We evaluated whether exposure to these "tobacco free" warning labels was associated with differing perceptions about the products. Method: N = 239 young adult men who were enrolled in a cohort study completed a short online experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to view either packages of Puff Bar and Fre nicotine pouches with the standard FDA warning or packages with the standard FDA warning + the tobacco free descriptor. We compared harm and addictiveness perceptions and products' perceived substitutability for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco (SLT) by exposure to a "tobacco free" warning. Results: Viewing a Puff Bar package with a "tobacco free" warning label was associated with increased perceived substitutability of the product for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco (p's<.05). Viewing a Fre package with a "non-tobacco" warning label was associated with thinking the product was less harmful than SLT (p<.01). Conclusions: "Tobacco free" descriptors in warning labels for e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches affect young adults' perceptions of the products. To date, it is unclear whether the FDA will continue to permit "tobacco free" descriptors in warning labels. As e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches are increasingly marketed with "tobacco free" language, urgent action is needed.

An International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy working group short report on the future of expanded access to unapproved cell and gene therapies.

Patient interest in non-trial access pathways to investigational cell-and gene-based interventions, such as expanded access in the USA, is increasing, while the regulatory and business environments for non-trial access in the cell and gene therapy field are shifting. Against this background, in 2022 the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy (ISCT) established a Working Group on Expanded Access to identify practical, ethical, and regulatory issues emerging from the use (and possible misuse) of the expanded access pathway in the cell and gene therapy field. In this Short Report, the Working Group sets the stage for its future activities by analyzing the history of expanded access and identifying three examples of questions that we anticipate arising as uses of expanded access for investigational cell and gene-based interventions increase and evolve.

Mifepristone, preemption, and public health federalism.

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in which five justices voted to overturn Roe v Wade. Even before the final opinion issued, scholars and advocates had begun to consider legal strategies that might mitigate the decision's anticipated harmful consequences. One such strategy involves challenging state restrictions on Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved pregnancy termination drugs on preemption grounds. This article begins by exploring how these challenges might fare-considering both drug-specific restrictions and complete bans on abortion-arguing that there are compelling legal grounds on which courts should conclude that many state restrictions are preempted. Importantly, although these state restrictions have arisen within a larger debate about reproductive health care, this is far from the only area in which states seek to regulate prescription drugs. States have long regulated drugs in ways that diverge from FDA, arguably increasingly so in recent years. Accordingly, the article investigates the implications that preemption challenges in the abortion context may have for other areas of state drug regulation, making the case that the benefits of public health federalism need not be undermined by successful preemption challenges in the abortion arena.

Patient access to and ethical considerations of the application of the European Union hospital exemption rule for advanced therapy medicinal products.

Hospital exemption (HE) is a regulated pathway that allows the use of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) within the European Union (EU) under restrictive conditions overseen by national medicine agencies. In some EU countries, HE is granted for ATMPs with no demonstrated safety and efficacy; therefore, they are equivalent to investigational drugs. In other countries, HE is granted for ATMPs with demonstrated quality, safety and efficacy and for which centralized marketing authorization has not been requested. The Committee on the Ethics of Cell and Gene Therapy of the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy reflects here on the ethical issues concerning HE application from the perspective of the patient, including risk-benefit balance, accessibility and transparency, while providing evidence that HE must not be regarded as a conduit for unproven and unethical ATMP-based interventions. Indeed, HE represents a legal instrument under which a patient's need for access to novel ATMPs is reconciled with ethics. Moreover, for some unmet medical needs, HE is the only pathway for accessing innovative ATMPs. Nonetheless, HE harmonization across EU Member States and limitations of ATMP use under the HE rule when similar products have already been granted centralized marketing authorization to avoid a parallel regulatory pathway are controversial issues whose political and economic consequences are beyond the scope of this review. Finally, the institution of an EU registry of HE applications and outcomes represents a priority to improve transparency, reduce patient risks, increase efficiency of health systems, facilitate company awareness of business opportunities and boost progressive entry of ATMPs into the therapeutic repertoire of health systems.

Off-Label Prescription of COVID-19 Vaccines in Children: Clinical, Ethical, and Legal Issues.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the biologics license application for the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine (Comirnaty) on August 23, 2021, opened the door to the off-label vaccination of children younger than the age range currently covered by either the biologics license application (16 years old and older) or the emergency use authorization (12 to 15 years old). Although prescribing medications at doses, for conditions, or in populations other than those approved by the FDA is generally legal and is common in pediatrics, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have recommended against off-label prescription of the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine. Several commentaries consider a case in which parents ask their child's pediatrician to prescribe the vaccine for their 11-year-old with special health care needs before approval or authorization in her age group. The first commentary considers the potential benefits and risks to the patient, as well as to the family, the provider, and society, emphasizing the unknown risks in younger patients and the need for adequate informed consent. The second commentary describes an algorithm and principles for evaluating off-label prescribing and argues that the current benefits of prescribing Comirnaty off label to children <12 do not outweigh the risks. The third commentary addresses ethical and legal issues, ultimately calling on federal agencies to remove legal barriers to making the vaccine available to children in age groups that currently lack authorization.

ISSCR Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation: The 2021 update.

The International Society for Stem Cell Research has updated its Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation in order to address advances in stem cell science and other relevant fields, together with the associated ethical, social, and policy issues that have arisen since the last update in 2016. While growing to encompass the evolving science, clinical applications of stem cells, and the increasingly complex implications of stem cell research for society, the basic principles underlying the Guidelines remain unchanged, and they will continue to serve as the standard for the field and as a resource for scientists, regulators, funders, physicians, and members of the public, including patients. A summary of the key updates and issues is presented here.

Switching stories: user testimonials on juul.com continue to contradict JUUL's switch ≠ cessation narrative.

BACKGROUND: In January 2019, electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) market leader Juul Labs (JUUL) launched an advertising campaign encouraging adult smokers to 'make the switch' from combustible cigarettes to JUUL. Our primary aim was to describe consumer perceptions of JUUL as communicated by members of JUUL's online social community via testimonials promoted on JUUL's website. METHODS: User testimonials that were displayed on the JUUL website in December 2019 and January 2020 were collected and coded by three reviewers. A total of 220 testimonials were coded for primary and secondary themes (eight codes within four broader themes). RESULTS: Testimonial writers were, on average, 43.0 years old (range 28 to 74) and reported using JUUL for an average of 21.8 months (range 9 to 59 months). The most prominent theme, present in nearly half of the testimonials, was a description of how to use JUUL, with a mention of JUUL's benefits and tips on how to use the product. Nearly four in 10 statements encouraged smokers to give JUUL a try or noted that JUUL is a better product compared with cigarettes. About one in 10 statements focused on switching from smoking cigarettes to using JUUL. CONCLUSION: This study presents a foundation for understanding how adult users describe JUUL, including their experiences using JUUL to 'switch' or stop smoking. Currently, the effectiveness of ENDS for smoking cessation is not supported by substantial evidence; however, if cessation is defined as 'quitting combustible tobacco products', then regulators should be aware that switch and cessation messages may not be distinct.

Realizing Present and Future Promise of DIY Biology and Medicine through a Trust Architecture.

The speed and scale of the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the limits of current health systems and the potential promise of non-establishment research such as "DIY" research. We consider one example of how DIY research is responding to the pandemic, discuss the challenges faced by DIY research more generally, and suggest that a "trust architecture" should be developed now to contribute to successful future DIY efforts.