Update on “Cell Therapy” Clinics Offering Treatments of Ocular Conditions Using Direct-To-Consumer Marketing Websites in the U.S.

Abstract

To assess the scope of U.S.-based companies advertising and administering non-Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approved cell-based therapy (herein called NFACT) for ocular conditions based on information from companies' public websites after the FDA's legal actions against specific NFACT clinics in 2018 and 2019. Current findings are compared to previously published data from 2017. Trend study looking at U.S.-based companies that use direct-to-consumer marketing and have websites advertising therapy for ocular conditions. A systematic and extensive keyword-based Internet search was utilized to identify, document, and analyze U.S. business websites offering NFACT for ocular conditions as of August 2022. Main outcomes measured include, clinic locations, marketed ocular conditions, types of NFACT offered, source of stem cells used, routes of administration, and treatment costs. From the prior analysis in 2017 to the 2019 analysis, there was a decrease in the number of NFACT clinics from 76 to 62 and companies from 40 to 39. Given the concerning persistence of NFACTs in August 2019 an additional analysis was performed in 2022 which showed a drastic decrease in NFACT clinics from 62 in 2019 to 18 in 2023 and from 39 companies to 13 in 2023. In both 2019 and 2022, the most commonly referenced ocular condition was age-related macular degeneration (2019 - 72%, 2022 - 92%). The state with the most clinics was in Texas (2019 - 12; 2022 - 5). Autologous adipose-derived stem cells were the most common cell type used in both analyses. In 2019 U.S.-based direct-to-consumer companies marketing NFACT persisted despite (1) a lack of high-quality clinical evidence supporting the efficacy of these procedures, (2) the association of some of these treatments with severe vision loss, and (3) increasing FDA oversight and recent legal action. In 2022 the number of clinics and companies decreased, but their persistence is a reminder that continued concern is necessary and ophthalmic associations need to continue advocacy efforts to protect patients from these potentially predatory organizations.