LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Company News/Loses This Round in Stem Cell Court Battle
Company News

Loses This Round in Stem Cell Court Battle

July 31, 2012 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

Loses This Round in Stem Cell Court Battle
Courtesy of Regenexx Corporation
Secondary

Federal judge Rosemary Collyer has ruled that stem cell therapy for orthopedic patients constitutes a drug—a ruling that exposes manufacturers to liability for adulteration and misbranding. According to Ryan Abbott, writing July 16 for Courthouse News Service, the Food and Drug Administration has, since 2008, argued its position that the stem cell procedure should be classified as a drug, making it subject to Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act regulations.

This case is the latest round in Regenexx’s battle to be able to provide autologous stem cell therapies to their clients. In January 2011, the U.S. government filed a motion for summary judgment and made the claim that there was no issue of material fact in the case since, in their view, Regenexx was manufacturing a “drug” (the cultured stem cells) and selling it “after one or more of its components have been shipped in interstate commerce.” The government also argued that Regenexx did not comply with current Good Manufacturing Practices.

The government also argued that the autologous stem cells were misbranded since they did not bear the symbol “Rx only” and do not have adequate directions for use.

Regenexx countered by saying that the practice of medicine is outside of the FDA’s jurisdiction and that the FDA may not “interfere with a physician prescribing lawfully marketed products for uses other than those for which they are approved, licensed, or cleared by FDA, the agency’s role in determining the availability of therapeutic products inevitably affects the options available to practitioners seeking to use or prescribe those products.”

The Government’s lawyers then answered by saying that while it is true that the FDA may not directly interfere with a physician’s prescribing habits, it CAN limit what drugs are available to physicians to prescribe in the U.S. market. Therefore the Government argued, the FDA was not impinging on the clinic’s ability to practice medicine as it is only requiring a drug product to be approved for sale in the U.S.

In deciding the case, Judge Collyer wrote, “It is a close question but ultimately the court concludes that the Regenexx Procedure is subject to FDA enforcement because it constitutes a ‘drug’ and because a drug that has been shipped in interstate commerce is used in the solution through which the cultured stem cells are administered to patients.” Collyer permanently enjoined Regenexx from using the procedure, which she described as “a non-surgical procedure for patients suffering from moderate to severe joint, muscle, tendon or bone pain due to injury or other conditions.”

In August 2010, Regenexx accounted for about one-third of the procedures performed by a Colorado-based clinic. The practice argued that Regenexx “constitutes the practice of medicine as defined by Colorado law, ” and that the FDA lacked jurisdiction to regulate it. However Judge Collyer disagreed.

Regenexx and the U.S. Government have now been arguing this case for more than ten years.  Parsing out where the government can enter the practice of medicine and where it can’t is still an extremely close call when it comes to the patient’s own cells and tissues. We expect that this fight is still in its middle rounds.

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy