Ismail M. Fareez, Fong Fong Liew, Darius Widera, Naiyareen Fareeza Mayeen, Jannatul Mawya, Noor Hayaty Abu Kasim* and Nazmul Haque* Pages 689 - 701 ( 13 )
In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the practice of regenerative medicine by health practitioners and direct-to-consumer businesses globally. Among different tools of regenerative medicine, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and stem cell-based therapies have received considerable attention. The use of PRP, in particular, has gained popularity due to its easy access, simple processing techniques, and regenerative potential. However, it is important to address a common misconception amongst the general public equating to PRP and stem cells due to the demonstrated efficacy of PRP in treating musculoskeletal and dermatological disorders. Notably, PRP promotes regeneration by providing growth factors or other paracrine factors only. Therefore, it cannot replenish or replace the lost cells in conditions where a large number of cells are required to regenerate tissues and/or organs. In such cases, cellbased therapies are the preferred option. Additionally, other tools of regenerative medicine, such as bioprinting, organoids, and mechanobiology also rely on stem cells for their success. Hence, healthcare and commercial entities offering direct-to-customer regenerative therapies should not mislead the public by claiming that the application of PRP is a stem cell-based therapy. Furthermore, it is important for regulatory bodies to strictly monitor these profit-driven entities to prevent them from providing unregulated regenerative treatments and services that claim a broad variety of benefits with little proof of efficacy, safety concerns, and obscure scientific justification.
Adult stem cells, angiogenesis, bioprinting, embryonic stem cells, growth factors, induced pluripotent stem cells, mesenchymal stem cells, regeneration.