FDA Stem Cell Regulation Court Ruling Analyzed
Four Ropes & Gray attorneys say the 9/27 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision backing FDA regulation of stem cell treatment, which followed a 2021 similar ruling by the 11th Circuit, will make it harder for other clinics to argue that their procedures are exempt from agency oversight. Writing in a Litigation Update, the attorneys say the 9th Circuit held that the stem cell clinic’s treatment was not covered by the “same surgical procedure” exception.
“Although this 9th Circuit ruling reinforced FDA’s authority to regulate stem cell therapies and other human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps),” the analysis says, “the incoming administration may choose not to prioritize enforcement in this area. Additionally, recent jurisprudential trends may increase the likelihood of future administrative law challenges to the underlying FDA regulations.”
The attorneys discuss these two points from the decision:
- defendants do not qualify for the same surgical procedure exception because the implanted stromal vascular fraction derived from a patient’s adipose tissue is not the same as the removed adipose tissue; and
- the defendants’ stromal vascular fraction is a drug and FDA’s regulation of the product does not intrude upon the practice of medicine, as the clinic had claimed.
In a section on implications for oversight and enforcement of HCT/Ps, the attorneys say the decision may lay the groundwork for future criminal prosecutions involving unapproved clinician-created stem cell therapies. Such prosecutions they say, would be more likely when the government can present evidence of fraud on patients and patient harm.
They note that the Federal Trade Commission also has acted against false and misleading advertising practices for stem cell products.
Unsure at this time, the attorneys write, is the potential for future Administrative Procedure Act challenges to FDA statutory and regulatory interpretations based on the Supreme Court’s ruling this year eliminating the so-called Chevron deference and saying that courts should decide for themselves whether FDA’s interpretation of an unclear law is correct.