Three stories give us a glimpse of the real possibilities for stem cell therapies

Today we’re featuring a guest blog by Lisa Willemse about the Till and McCulloch Stem Cell Meeting in Canada. Enjoy!

Stem cell treatments should be incredibly easy. Or rather, that’s what some clinics or products would have you believe. Because, on the surface, a one-stop-shop for injectable cells to cure just about any condition or topical creams to peel away the scourge of time are very easy.

Attend one stem cell research conference and you’ll be convinced that it’s much more complicated. It’s a sea of reagents and transcription factors and unknown cause-and-effect. Many researchers will spend their entire career working on just one unknown and their caution and concern when it comes to the notion of a cure is justifiable.

Whistler (Courtesy of Lisa Willemse)

Whistler (Courtesy of Lisa Willemse)

Which makes it all the more impactful when you attend a research conference and hear three talks, back-to-back, that demonstrate that we’re ticking off some of those unknowns and getting much closer to real – not sham – therapies. Therapies with a sound scientific basis that are well planned and done with patient safety (not sales) in mind. Last week’s Till and McCulloch Meetings, held in Whistler, British Columbia gave us a sense of what is possible for three conditions: macular degeneration (vision), septic shock and a rare neurologic disease (Stiff Person Syndrome). Other blogs have covered  different aspects of this meeting here and here.

Vision Repair – Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD)

As the world’s first clinical trial to use induced pluripotent stem cells launched amid sweeping regulatory changes in Japan, Dr. Masayo Takahashi’s treatment protocol for AMD has received no small amount of scrutiny. After a brief hiatus, the trial was back on track earlier this year and Takahashi’s presentation at this meeting was highly anticipated.

Dr. Masayo Takahashi

Dr. Masayo Takahashi

It did not disappoint. Takahashi spent the better part of her time outlining the steps taken to reach the point where the clinical trial was possible, including multiple studies in mice and further refinement of the treatment to ensure it would be stable in humans even with genetic changes over time. Given that one of the reasons the trial was put on hold was due to genetic mutations found in the cells prepared for the second potential human transplant, Takahashi’s careful work in ensuring the product was safe bodes well for the future of this trial.

The first patient was treated in 2014, a 78-year-old woman with wet AMD in the right eye, and although only minimal visual improvement was documented, the patient anonymously told the Japan Times, “I’m glad I received the treatment. I feel my eyesight has brightened and widened.”

Takahashi also alluded to some of the other challenges she’d had to overcome to make this trial a reality, including would-be critics who told her that the nervous system and the retina were too complicated to regenerate. Takahashi’s response? “You don’t know stem cells [and] you don’t understand the needs of the patient.”

While it was unclear when the next patient will receive treatment, Takahashi did say that three new applications for clinical trials using her refined protocols have been submitted for approval.

Septic shock  

Septic shock is not a condition that gets a lot of attention, most likely because it’s not a primary illness, but a secondary one; a drastic and often fatal immune response that severely reduces blood pressure and cell metabolism. It accounts for 20% of all intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and is the most common cause of non-coronary mortality in the ICU. For those who survive septic shock, there are significant and long-term health consequences.

Over 100 clinical trials have attempted to improve outcomes for patients with septic shock, but not one has been successfully translated into the clinical setting. Supportive care remains the mainstay of therapy.

Dr. Lauralyn McIntyre

Dr. Lauralyn McIntyre

This was the sober backdrop painted by critical care physician, Dr. Lauralyn McIntyre as she began her talk on the world’s first stem cell clinical trial for septic shock she is co-leading in Ottawa with Dr. Duncan Stewart.

Like Takahashi, McIntyre spent a good deal of time explaining the rationale and research that underpin the trial, which takes advantage of the immune-modulating properties of mesenchymal stromal cells (also called mesenchymal stem cells or MSCs) to suppress and reverse the effects of septic shock. This work includes reviews of more than 50 studies that looked at the effects of MSCs in both human trials and animal studies.

McIntyre also discussed research she did with mice in 2010 as a proof-of-concept, where the MSC therapy was delayed for six days. This delay is important as it better simulates the time frame in which most patients arrive in the hospital. As McIntryre pointed out, if the therapy only worked when given within hours of disease development, what good would it be for patients who come in on day six?

Fortunately, the therapy worked in the mice, even after a delayed timeframe, providing a green light for safety testing in humans. The small first human trial is currently underway for nine patients (with a control arm of 21) with results not yet published – although one of the patients shared his experience earlier this year. McIntyre relayed that the early data is very encouraging – enough that the team is moving ahead with a Phase 2 randomized trial in 10 centres across Canada in 2017.

Stiff Person Syndrome

Tina Ceroni’s story is much more personal. She is only the second person in the world to have received an experimental stem cell treatment for Stiff Person Syndrome, a rare neurologic condition that causes uncontrolled and sustained contractions of the arm, leg or other muscles. Often misdiagnosed initially as Multiple Sclerosis or anxiety/depression, SPS is also an autoimmune disease for which the cause is unknown.

Tina Ceroni

Tina Ceroni (The Ottawa Hospital)

I’ve written about Tina’s story before – about how she was hospitalized 47 times in one year and how a chance meeting with another SPS patient propelled Ceroni on a journey that included an intensive stem cell therapy under the guidance of Dr. Harry Atkins at the Ottawa Hospital, in which her blood stem cells were harvested from her bone marrow and used to repopulate her system after her immune system was wiped clean with chemotherapy.

Now a stem cell advocate, Ceroni’s story keeps getting better – not merely in how powerfully and passionately she tells it, but in the continued good health she enjoys after her treatment and in her efforts to share it more broadly.

Most importantly, she drives home a key message:

“My story underscores the importance of clinical trials…. My experience will help to change the future for others. I am living proof that a clinical trial for stem cell therapy can have a life-changing outcome.”

“Often hope is the only medicine we have.”

It’s important that patients like Ceroni continue share their story, not just with the research community to give a human face to the work they do, but to show that solid research is making an impact, one that can be measured in lives saved.


Lisa Willemse

Lisa Willemse

This article is published simultaneously, with permission by the author, Lisa Willemse, on the Ontario Institute for Regenerative Medicine (OIRM) Expression blog.

Another way to dial back stem cell hype (but not hope): Put a dollar figure on it

In an effort to reign in the hype surrounding stem cell research that has led to a proliferation of unapproved and potentially dangerous stem cell therapies, the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) recently released updated guidelines outlining conduct for stem cell researchers that,  for the first time, included communications activities.  At only 1.5 pages in the 37-page document, the statements around communications asked researchers, communications professionals, institutions and the media to be more proactive in combatting stem cell hype by ensuring accuracy and balance in communications activities.

Stock Image

Stock Image

It’s too early to know what the full impact of the guidelines will be, however, the communications recommendations did generate a good deal of interest and some media, at least, have taken steps to address the issue.

Whether directly influenced by the guidelines or not, in the final plenary session of the ISSCR annual meeting last week, Professor Roger Barker, a research-clinician at the University of Cambridge, provided a candid portrayal of some of the challenges of preclinical and early clinical research.

Though he may have poked a small hole in some of the optimism that characterized the four-day conference, in providing a rare glimpse of the real costs of research, Dr. Barker might also have given us a new way to frame research to downplay hype.

Dr. Roger Barker

Dr. Roger Barker

Dr. Barker is one of many researchers across the globe working on a potential cell-based treatment for Parkinson’s Disease. Parkinson’s is a rather straightforward disease to tackle in this way, because its cause is known: the death of cells that produce the chemical dopamine. Even so, the challenges in developing a treatment are many. Apart from the design of a clinical study (which includes, for example, careful selection of the Parkinson’s patients to include; as Barker pointed out, there are two main types of Parkinson progression and one type may respond to a treatment while the other may not. This is a real concern for Barker, who commented that “a lack of rigour in selecting patients has dogged the field for the past 25 years.”), there are several other factors that need to be addressed in the pre-clinical work, such as identifying the best type of cells to use, how to scale them up and make them both GMP-compliant and standardized for reproducibility.

Such work, Barker estimated, costs between £2 and £3 million (or roughly $3-5 million, valued at pre-Brexit currency rates, one would assume). And, having invested so much to this point, you don’t even have something that can be published yet.

Running the actual clinical phase 1 study, with roughly 20 patients, will cost millions more. If it doesn’t work, you’re back to lab and in search of more pre-clinical funding.

But, assuming the study nets the desired results, it’s still only looking at safety, not efficacy. Getting it to phases 2 and 3 costs several orders of magnitude more. Put in this light, the $3 billion USD given to the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine seems like not nearly enough. The Ontario Institute for Regenerative Medicine’s $25 million CAD is nothing at all. Not that we aren’t grateful — we do what we can to maximize impact and make even a small investment worthwhile. Every step counts.

Another point to consider is whether the final therapy will be more cost-effective than existing, approved medical interventions. If it’s not, there is little incentive in pursuing it. This is the notion of headroom that I’ve heard discussed more directly at commercialization-based conferences (and is very well explained here) but is one that will become increasingly relevant to research as more basic and translational work finds its way into the clinic.

Talking about money with regard to health can be seen as tedious and even crass. The three short talks given by patient advocates at the ISSCR meeting served to emphasize this – each outlined personal tragedy connected to illness or disease: congestive heart failure at 11 years of age, four generations of a family with sickle cell disease, retinitis pigmentosa that derailed a young woman’s budding career. You simply can’t put a price on a person’s life, happiness and well-being. Each of these patients, and millions more, have hope that research will find an answer. It’s a lofty goal, one that is sometimes hard to remember in the lab trenches when a grant doesn’t materialize or a negative result sends the work back to ground zero.

And therein lies some of the tension that can easily lead to hype. We do want to fly high. We do want to deliver cures and therapies. We need to be reminded, by interactions with the patient community, of what’s at stake and what we can gain for humanity. The field should and will continue to strive to achieve these goals.

But not without responsibility. And a dose of realism.


This post appears simultaneously on OIRM Expression and appears here with permission by the author Lisa Willemse.