FOR every woman who declares she’s brave enough to age gracefully, there are probably a dozen standing next to her singing the song by Cher, If I Could Turn Back Time. And that’s why new anti-ageing beauty treatments with advertising pitches that carry key words like “regenerative” or “reactivate” usually sell like hotcakes.
The latest trend in skincare these days is no longer about repair wear or camouflaging blemishes. Instead, beauty therapies, cosmeceuticals and even ingestible products are focusing on preventive measures that allegedly are able to keep skin damage in check even before it occurs.
Buzzwords like “stem cell technology”, “gene modification” and “cell renewal” are often touted, which may all sound high-tech and impressive, but it also means opening a Pandora’s box that leads to all sorts of claims and new-fangled treatments which may not be substantiated by research or medical science.
In an era when non-invasive techniques are now lauded over old-fashioned nip-tuck methods, stem cells are hailed as the new remedy for beauty products and treatments.
The idea of treatment with bone marrow-derived stem cells was pioneered by a team of researchers in the United States during the 1960s. Then in 1998, stem cell research exploded on the scientific scene and took on a whole new life when researchers reported that they had successfully isolated embryonic stem cells.
These cells were discovered to have the potential to make many different types of cells, capable of dividing and renewing themselves for long periods of time, and turn into specialised cells such as neurons, muscle cells or red blood cells through a process known as differentiation.
Stem cells are harvested either from adults or embryos. Ethical and legal issues have since arisen regarding the use of human embryonic cells, which are primarily obtained from frozen embryos or therapeutic cloning. From a moral standpoint, opponents argue that human life begins once an egg is fertilised (embryo), and therefore stem cell research and experimentation intervenes with human life. Some experts say that any product that claims to affect the growth of stem cells or the replication process is potentially dangerous, as it may lead to out-of-control replication or mutation.
Stem cells in skincare
Cosmetic labs and skincare specialists are playing it safe by steering clear of embryonic stem cells, and instead, claim to create products with specialised peptides and enzymes that, when applied topically on the surface, could stimulate the skin’s own stem cells and protect from further damage.
Unfortunately, there are many wrong perceptions – from patients and doctors alike – regarding the potential benefits of stem cell therapy.
Many people perceive it to be the new age magic bullet which can fix everything, from dark pigmented skin on the face, to wrinkles on the nose, bad eyesight and reduced sexual performance.
“Stem cells can do a lot for tissue growth and repair. However, this does not translate into better looks and performance,” says Dr Ben L. Pfeifer, professor and director for Research and Development at the Aeskulap Hospital and Cancer Centre in Brunnen, Switzerland, who was in Kuala Lumpur recently for a beauty expo.
“Stem cell therapy today is still highly experimental in most areas of medicine, and it belongs in the hands of reputable scientists and clinicians at highly specialised medical institutions. It certainly is not a domain of mail order companies or salons!” he warns.
Nevertheless, too many people still believe in the promise of clever marketers offering various concoctions – including creams, lotions, capsules or injections – labelled as “stem cells” or “stem cell technology”. Purchasing such products for beauty and rejuvenation may be hazardous and costly.“People should remember that stem cells are delicate living matter with a metabolism and energy needs – therefore, all of the above ways of presenting stem cells are only marketing gimmicks. Do not trust the claims of benefits and false certificates exhibited on their packages simply to facilitate sales and optimise profit. For bona fide stem cell treatment, always consult a specialist of a well known research or clinical institution,” says Dr Pfeifer.
These stern warnings are not without basis. While most of the products sold in pharmacies and beauty salons touting to have stem cell origins do little other than empty your pocket, those that are ingested or injected may actually cause serious harm.
“I came across a young woman who was seeking stem cell therapy in Malaysia to improve her beauty. She was lured into a quick injection treatment without any general check-up or blood laboratory analysis. Turns out that this woman’s tumour marker, CA 15-3 (indicating possible trouble in her breasts), was five times higher than normal at the time the ‘stem cell treatment’ was administered. It could indeed have stimulated her breast tumour growth, especially if the treatment vials were spiked with oestrogen, which I have seen many times in such uncontrolled over-the-counter products in Asia. This woman later had to undergo a mastectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer,” says Dr Pfeifer.
As for over-the-counter products, he says that while most of them are totally worthless, some are outright dangerous.
“We have analysed some of these suspicious products and found artificial hormones, glucocorticoids, pain killer and even controlled substances such as amphetamines. This is not only illegal but also dangerous to the unsuspecting customer. The problem is that most of these products enter the market unchecked and without any regulatory safeguards. Other such products come with false certificates to improve their marketability. The ordinary layman, and sometimes even doctors, fall prey to the practices of such unscrupulous tactics,” he says.
What it means
For a better grasp of the whole issue, one needs to understand what takes place in stem cell therapy.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines stem cell treatment as administration of autologous, allogeneic or xenogeneic cells manipulated in the laboratory for the purpose of repair, replacement or restoration of damaged tissues or organs. (Autologous cells are cells derived from the patient; allogeneic cells are from another human being; and xenogeneic cells are those from another species.) All stem cells are undifferentiated cells with the ability to continuously divide and differentiate (develop) into various other cell types and tissues.
“One concern of stem cell treatment is the possible risk that transplanted cells could form tumours that could become cancerous, if cell division goes out of control. Medical researchers believe that stem cell therapy has the potential to dramatically change the treatment of human disease in general: away from treatment of symptoms with chemical drugs, towards addressing the cause via biological means. However, there still exists a great deal of social and scientific uncertainty surrounding the research and the clinical application of these cells.”
Dr Pfeifer’s areas of speciality lies in cancer immunology, anaesthesiology, intensive care medicine and physiology. After almost 20 years of working at various university medical centres in the United States, the German clinician and researcher today combines science with clinical practice, specifically in the field of stem cell applications.
He explains in a later e-mail interview that autologous stem cell therapy involves three major steps: first, the harvesting of stem cells from either the peripheral blood or bone marrow of the patient; second, the identification, separation and culturing of the actual stem cells; and third, the application of the cultured stem cells back to the patient.
Harvesting stem cells from the peripheral blood is often done by a special machine and may take several hours. Harvesting bone marrow is done by needle aspiration, and this is usually much faster (less than half an hour, when done by an experienced medical doctor). After culturing the stem cells, they can be given back to the patient by either a simple intravenous infusion, intra-muscular injection, or implantation directly to the organ in need, for example via angiographic catheter techniques or through a surgical procedure.
Same treatment principal
Dr Pfeifer goes on to explain that there is really no real difference between stem cell therapy for anti-ageing purposes or treatment of serious diseases.
“In principal, it is the same. It doesn’t matter whether the stem cell preparation is needed to treat a serious health problem, or to mitigate or prevent premature ageing. The harvesting and culturing steps for the stem cell preparation must be done with the same precision, accuracy and quality control.
“The only difference between stem cell treatment for patients with a serious illness and for an otherwise healthy individual for anti-ageing, is probably the method of administration. For the seriously ill patient, stem cells are usually administered directly to the organ (system) in need. This is done either via implantation surgery or special X-ray guided catheter techniques; for general rejuvenation, such invasive techniques are usually not required, and a simple intravenous infusion or intra-muscular injection implantation is employed,” he says.
Results are swift, too. After implantation, these cells go directly to work. However, for noticeable clinical improvement, usually more time is needed. The duration of the achieved effects varies depending on the individual circumstances and the disease stage. Some patients show improvement after the first treatment and this may last for a long time; others need repeated treatments to secure a lasting effect.
“With regard to side effects, we have to differentiate between those possibly due to the administration technique (infusion, injection or surgery), and those possibly due to the stem cells themselves. From the administration technique, there is always a chance of bleeding, hematoma formation at the injection site and infection. Possible side effects from the stem cell preparation are mild fever (often on the day of implantation), allergic reactions (with the use of allogeneic and xenogeneic stem cells only), and the slight risk of infection of the stem cell preparation itself,” says Dr Pfeifer.
Recovery period after harvesting and application of stem cells may vary from an hour to a day or longer, depending on individual circumstances.
“As for treatment expectations and results, in general, I believe patients and doctors expect too much. Stem cells are not a ‘quick fix’ for lack of a healthy lifestyle or good nutrition. For example, a heavy smoker should not expect a stem cell treatment to fix his lungs so that he or she may continue to chain-smoke without increased risk of chronic bronchitis or lung cancer.
“Of course, stem cell treatment can improve diabetes mellitus and prevent the possible complication of this disease on the heart, kidneys, eyes and peripheral nervous system. Research shows that it may also improve the lives of patients with Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease.
“For an otherwise healthy individual, stem cell therapy may increase physical stamina and mental capacity. However, this is difficult to evaluate and, to date, there is no undisputed proof in the scientific literature for this,” he says.
Before contemplating treatment, patients should educate themselves thoroughly and consult experts of a reputable stem cell treatment centre for advice and guidance, advises Dr Pfeifer.
“Most of these treatments are done within the framework of tightly regulated clinical studies at university medical centres around the world, and only patients with serious illnesses (after exhausting all available conventional treatments) are eligible for these studies.”
Dr Pfeifer says: “As for stem cell therapy for the prevention of premature ageing, certain clinics in Switzerland and Germany play a traditional role in this respect, since they have been frequented by the rich and famous for many years in the hope of finding the proverbial fountain of youth.”