Last week saw a flurry of really encouraging reports from projects that CIRM has supported. We blogged about two of them last Wednesday, but here’s another two programs showing promising results.
UC San Diego researcher Dr. Stephanie Cherqui is running a CIRM-funded clinical trial for cystinosis. This is a condition where patients lack the ability to clear an amino acid called cystine from their cells. As the cystine builds up it can lead to multi-organ failure affecting the kidneys, eyes, thyroid, muscle, and pancreas.
Dr. Cherqui uses the patient’s own blood stem cells, that have been genetically corrected in the lab to remove the defective gene that causes the problem. It’s hoped these new cells will help reduce the cystine buildup.
The data presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Cell and Gene Therapy (ASCGT) focused on the first patient treated with this approach. Six months after being treated the patient is showing positive trends in kidney function. His glomerular filtration rate (a measure of how well the kidneys are working) has risen from 38 (considered a sign of moderate to severe loss of kidney function) to 52 (mild loss of kidney function). In addition, he has not had to take the medication he previously needed to control the disorder, nor has he experienced any serious side effects from the therapy.
Capricor Therapeutics also had some positive news about its therapy for people with Duchenne’s Muscular Dystrophy (DMD). This is a progressive genetic disorder that slowly destroys the muscles. It affects mostly boys. By their teens many are unable to walk, and most die of heart or lung failure in their 20’s.
Capricor is using a therapy called CAP-1002, using cells derived from heart stem cells, in the HOPE-2 clinical trial.
In a news release Capricor said 12-month data from the trial showed improvements in heart function, lung function and upper body strength. In contrast, a placebo control group that didn’t get the CAP-1002 treatment saw their condition deteriorate.
Craig McDonald, M.D., the lead investigator on the study, says these results are really encouraging. “I am incredibly pleased with the outcome of the HOPE-2 trial which demonstrated clinically relevant benefits of CAP-1002 which resulted in measurable improvements in upper limb, cardiac and respiratory function. This is the first clinical trial which shows benefit to patients in advanced stages of DMD for which treatment options are limited.”
To help with the coronavirus pandemic, many scientists are repurposing previously developed approaches or treatments to see if they can be used to treat patients with COVID-19. Capricor Therapeutics, lead by Dr. Linda Marbán, is using cardiosphere derived cells (CDCs), which are stem cells derived from heart tissue, to treat critically ill patients with COVID-19.
When a patient contracts the virus, their body produces cytokines, proteins that play an important role in the immune response. Unfortunately, having too many cytokines, known as a “cytokine storm”, leads to a severe immune reaction that can cause pneumonia, organ failure, and death. CDCs in previous studies have been shown to help regulate the immune response and cytokines, which could help patients with COVID-19.
Over the course of one month, six critically ill patients with COVID-19, five of whom were on mechanical ventilators, were treated with CDCs. In these compassionate care cases, five male patients and one female patient received treatment. Of the five patients on ventilator support, four patients no longer required ventilator support within just one to four days after treatment. Although these results are promising, it is important to remember that this treatment is in very early testing and will need to demonstrate significant improvement in larger patient groups.
Following a review of the results of this small study, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved treatment of up to an 20 additional COVID-19 patients.
In a press release, Dr. Marbán discuses the results of the compassionate care study and treatment of additional COVID-19 patients.
“As the global medical community continues to come together in its battle against COVID-19, the results of our initial compassionate care cases are extremely promising and what we had anticipated. We look forward to continuing to treat additional patients under our recently approved expanded access program Investigational New Drug application.”
On December 12th we hosted our latest ‘Facebook Live: Ask the Stem Cell Team’ event. This time around we really did mean team. We had a host of our Science Officers answering questions from friends and supporters of CIRM. We got a lot of questions and didn’t have enough time to address them all. So here’s answers to all the questions.
What are the obstacles to using partial cellular reprogramming to return people’s entire bodies to a youthful state.Paul Hartman. San Leandro, California
Dr. Kelly Shepard: Certainly, scientists have observed that various manipulations of cells, including reprogramming, partial reprogramming, de-differentiation and trans-differentiation, can restore or change properties of cells, and in some cases, these changes can reflect a more “youthful” state, such as having longer telomeres, better proliferative capacity, etc. However, some of these same rejuvenating properties, outside of their normal context, could be harmful or deadly, for example if a cell began to grow and divide when or where it shouldn’t, similar to cancer. For this reason, I believe the biggest obstacles to making this approach a reality are twofold: 1) our current, limited understanding of the nature of partially reprogrammed cells; and 2) our inability to control the fate of those cells that have been partially reprogrammed, especially if they are inside a living organism. Despite the challenges, I think there will be step wise advances where these types of approaches will be applied, starting with specific tissues. For example, CIRM has recently funded an approach that uses reprogramming to make “rejuvenated” versions of T cells for fighting lung cancer. There is also a lot of interest in using such approaches to restore the reparative capacity of aged muscle. Perhaps some successes in these more limited areas will be the basis for expanding to a broader use.
What’s going on with Stanford’s stem cell trials for stroke? I remember the first trial went really well In 2016 have not heard anything about since? Elvis Arnold
Dr. Lila Collins: Hi Elvis, this is an evolving story. I believe you are referring to SanBio’s phase 1/2a stroke trial, for which Stanford was a site. This trial looked at the safety and feasibility of SanBio’s donor or allogeneic stem cell product in chronic stroke patients who still had motor deficits from their strokes, even after completing physical therapy when natural recovery has stabilized. As you note, some of the treated subjects had promising motor recoveries.
SanBio has since completed a larger, randomized phase 2b trial in stroke, and they have released the high-level results in a press release. While the trial did not meet its primary endpoint of improving motor deficits in chronic stroke, SanBio conducted a very similar randomized trial in patients with stable motor deficits from chronic traumatic brain injury (TBI). In this trial, SanBio saw positive results on motor recovery with their product. In fact, this product is planned to move towards a conditional approval in Japan and has achieved expedited regulatory status in the US, termed RMAT, in TBI which means it could be available more quickly to patients if all goes well. SanBio plans to continue to investigate their product in stroke, so I would stay tuned as the work unfolds.
Also, since you mentioned Stanford, I should note that Dr Gary Steinberg, who was a clinical investigator in the SanBio trial you mentioned, will soon be conducting a trial with a different product that he is developing, neural progenitor cells, in chronic stroke. The therapy looks promising in preclinical models and we are hopeful it will perform well for patients in the clinic.
I am a stroke survivor will stem cell treatment able to restore my motor skills?Ruperto
Dr. Lila Collins:
Hi Ruperto. Restoring motor loss after stroke is a very active area of research. I’ll touch upon a few ongoing stem cell trials. I’d just like to please advise that you watch my colleague’s comments on stem cell clinics (these can be found towards the end of the blog) to be sure that any clinical research in which you participate is as safe as possible and regulated by FDA.
Back to stroke, I mentioned SanBio’s ongoing work to address motor skill loss in chronic stroke earlier. UK based Reneuron is also conducting a phase 2 trial, using a neural progenitor cell as a candidate therapy to help recover persistent motor disability after stroke (chronic). Dr Gary Steinberg at Stanford is also planning to conduct a clinical trial of a human embryonic stem cell-derived neuronal progenitor cell in stroke.
There is also promising work being sponsored by Athersys in acute stroke. Athersys published results from their randomized, double blinded placebo controlled Ph2 trial of their Multistem product in patients who had suffered a stroke within 24-48 hours. After intravenous delivery, the cells improved a composite measure of stroke recovery, including motor recovery. Rather than acting directly on the brain, Multistem seems to work by traveling to the spleen and reducing the inflammatory response to a stroke that can make the injury worse.
Athersys is currently recruiting a phase 3 trial of its Multistem product in acute stroke (within 1.5 days of the stroke). The trial has an accelerated FDA designation, called RMAT and a special protocol assessment. This means that if the trial is conducted as planned and it reaches the results agreed to with the FDA, the therapy could be cleared for marketing. Results from this trial should be available in about two years.
Questions from several hemorrhagic stroke survivors who say most clinical trials are for people with ischemic strokes. Could stem cells help hemorrhagic stroke patients as well?
Dr. Lila Collins:
Regarding hemorrhagic stroke, you are correct the bulk of cell therapies for stroke target ischemic stroke, perhaps because this accounts for the vast bulk of strokes, about 85%.
That said, hemorrhagic strokes are not rare and tend to be more deadly. These strokes are caused by bleeding into or around the brain which damages neurons. They can even increase pressure in the skull causing further damage. Because of this the immediate steps treating these strokes are aimed at addressing the initial bleeding insult and the blood in the brain.
While most therapies in development target ischemic stroke, successful therapies developed to repair neuronal damage or even some day replace lost neurons, could be beneficial after hemorrhagic stroke as well.
I had an Ischemic stroke in 2014, and my vision was also affected. Can stem cells possibly help with my vision issues. James Russell
Dr. Lila Collins:
Hi James. Vision loss from stroke is complex and the type of loss depends upon where the stroke occurred (in the actual eye, the optic nerve or to the other parts of the brain controlling they eye or interpreting vision). The results could be:
Visual loss from damage to the retina
You could have a normal eye with damage to the area of the brain that controls the eye’s movement
You could have damage to the part of the brain that interprets vision.
You can see that to address these various issues, we’d need different cell replacement approaches to repair the retina or the parts of the brain that were damaged.
Replacing lost neurons is an active effort that at the moment is still in the research stages. As you can imagine, this is complex because the neurons have to make just the right connections to be useful.
Is there any stem cell therapy for optical nerve damage? Deanna Rice
Dr. Ingrid Caras: There is currently no proven stem cell therapy to treat optical nerve damage, even though there are shady stem cell clinics offering treatments. However, there are some encouraging early gene therapy studies in mice using a virus called AAV to deliver growth factors that trigger regeneration of the damaged nerve. These studies suggest that it may be possible to restore at least some visual function in people blinded by optic nerve damage from glaucoma
I read an article about ReNeuron’s retinitis pigmentosa clinical trial update. In the article, it states: “The company’s treatment is a subretinal injection of human retinal progenitors — cells which have almost fully developed into photoreceptors, the light-sensing retinal cells that make vision possible.” My question is: If they can inject hRPC, why not fully developed photoreceptors?Leonard
Dr. Kelly Shepard: There is evidence from other studies, including from other tissue types such as blood, pancreas, heart and liver, that fully developed (mature) cell types tend not to engraft as well upon transplantation, that is the cells do not establish themselves and survive long term in their new environment. In contrast, it has been observed that cells in a slightly less “mature” state, such as those in the progenitor stage, are much more likely to establish themselves in a tissue, and then differentiate into more mature cell types over time. This question gets at the crux of a key issue for many new therapies, i.e. what is the best cell type to use, and the best timing to use it.
My question for the “Ask the Stem Cell Team” event is: When will jCyte publish their Phase IIb clinical trial results. Chris Allen
Dr. Ingrid Caras: The results will be available sometime in 2020.
I understand the hRPC cells are primarily neurotropic (rescue/halt cell death); however, the literature also says hRPC can become new photoreceptors. My questions are:Approximately what percentage develop into functioning photoreceptors? And what percentage of the injected hRPC are currently surviving?Leonard Furber, an RP Patient
Dr. Kelly Shepard: While we can address these questions in the lab and in animal models, until there is a clinical trial, it is not possible to truly recreate the environment and stresses that the cells will undergo once they are transplanted into a human, into the site where they are expected to survive and function. Thus, the true answer to this question may not be known until after clinical trials are performed and the results can be evaluated. Even then, it is not always possible to monitor the fate of cells after transplantation without removing tissues to analyze (which may not be feasible), or without being able to transplant labeled cells that can be readily traced.
Dr. Ingrid Caras – Although the cells have been shown to be capable of developing into photoreceptors, we don’t know if this actually happens when the cells are injected into a patient’s eye. The data so far suggest that the cells work predominantly by secreting growth factors that rescue damaged retinal cells or even reverse the damage. So one possible outcome is that the cells slow or prevent further deterioration of vision. But an additional possibility is that damaged retinal cells that are still alive but are not functioning properly may become healthy and functional again which could result in an improvement in vision.
What advances have been made using stem cells for the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes?Mary Rizzo
Dr. Ross Okamura: Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) is a disease where the body is unable to maintain normal glucose levels due to either resistance to insulin-regulated control of blood sugar or insufficient insulin production from pancreatic beta cells. The onset of disease has been associated with lifestyle influenced factors including body mass, stress, sleep apnea and physical activity, but it also appears to have a genetic component based upon its higher prevalence in certain populations.
Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) differs from T2D in that in T1D patients the pancreatic beta cells have been destroyed by the body’s immune system and the requirement for insulin therapy is absolute upon disease onset rather than gradually developing over time as in many T2D cases. Currently the only curative approach to alleviate the heavy burden of disease management in T1D has been donor pancreas or islet transplantation. However, the supply of donor tissue is small relative to the number of diabetic patients. Donor islet and pancreas transplants also require immune suppressive drugs to prevent allogenic immune rejection and the use of these drugs carry additional health concerns. However, for some patients with T1D, especially those who may develop potentially fatal hypoglycemia, immune suppression is worth the risk.
To address the issue of supply, there has been significant activity in stem cell research to produce insulin secreting beta cells from pluripotent stem cells and recent clinical data from Viacyte’s CIRM funded trial indicates that implanted allogeneic human stem cell derived cells in T1D patients can produce circulating c-peptide, a biomarker for insulin. While the trial is not designed specifically to cure insulin-dependent T2D patients, the ability to produce and successfully engraft stem cell-derived beta cells would be able to help all insulin-dependent diabetic patients.
It’s also worth noting that there is a sound scientific reason to clinically test a patient-derived pluripotent stem cell-based insulin-producing cells in insulin-dependent T2D diabetic patients; the cells in this case could be evaluated for their ability to cure diabetes in the absence of needing to prevent both allogeneic and autoimmune responses.
SPINAL CORD INJURY
Is there any news on clinical trials for spinal cord injury? Le Ly
Kevin McCormack: The clinical trial CIRM was funding, with Asterias (now part of a bigger company called Lineage Cell Therapeutics, is now completed and the results were quite encouraging. In a news release from November of 2019 Brian Culley, CEO of Lineage Cell Therapeutics, described the results this way.
“We remain extremely excited about the potential for OPC1 (the name of the therapy used) to provide enhanced motor recovery to patients with spinal cord injuries. We are not aware of any other investigative therapy for SCI (spinal cord injury) which has reported as encouraging clinical outcomes as OPC1, particularly with continued improvement beyond 1 year. Overall gains in motor function for the population assessed to date have continued, with Year 2 assessments measuring the same or higher than at Year 1. For example, 5 out of 6 Cohort 2 patients have recovered two or more motor levels on at least one side as of their Year 2 visit whereas 4 of 6 patients in this group had recovered two motor levels as of their Year 1 visit. To put these improvements into perspective, a one motor level gain means the ability to move one’s arm, which contributes to the ability to feed and clothe oneself or lift and transfer oneself from a wheelchair. These are tremendously meaningful improvements to quality of life and independence. Just as importantly, the overall safety of OPC1 has remained excellent and has been maintained 2 years following administration, as measured by MRI’s in patients who have had their Year 2 follow-up visits to date. We look forward to providing further updates on clinical data from SCiStar as patients continue to come in for their scheduled follow up visits.”
Lineage Cell Therapeutics plans to meet with the FDA in 2020 to discuss possible next steps for this therapy.
In the meantime the only other clinical trial I know that is still recruiting is one run by a company called Neuralstem. Here is a link to information about that trial on the www.clinicaltrials.gov website.
Now that the Brainstorm ALS trial is finished looking for new patients do you have any idea how it’s going and when can we expect to see results? Angela Harrison Johnson
Dr. Ingrid Caras: The treated patients have to be followed for a period of time to assess how the therapy is working and then the data will need to be analyzed. So we will not expect to see the results probably for another year or two.
Are there treatments for autism or fragile x using stem cells? Magda Sedarous
Dr. Kelly Shepard: Autism and disorders on the autism spectrum represent a collection of many different disorders that share some common features, yet have different causes and manifestations, much of which we still do not understand. Knowing the origin of a disorder and how it affects cells and systems is the first step to developing new therapies. CIRM held a workshop on Autism in 2009 to brainstorm potential ways that stem cell research could have an impact. A major recommendation was to exploit stem cells and new technological advances to create cells and tissues, such as neurons, in the lab from autistic individuals that could then be studied in great detail. CIRM followed this recommendation and funded several early-stage awards to investigate the basis of autism, including Rett Syndrome, Fragile X, Timothy Syndrome, and other spectrum disorders. While these newer investigations have not yet led to therapies that can be tested in humans, this remains an active area of investigation. Outside of CIRM funding, we are aware of more mature studies exploring the effects of umbilical cord blood or other specific stem cell types in treating autism, such as an ongoing clinical trial conducted at Duke University.
What is happening with Parkinson’s research? Hanifa Gaphoor
Dr. Kent Fitzgerald: Parkinson’s disease certainly has a significant amount of ongoing work in the regenerative medicine and stem cell research.
The nature of cell loss in the brain, specifically the dopaminergic cells responsible for regulating the movement, has long been considered a good candidate for cell replacement therapy.
This is largely due to the hypothesis that restoring function to these cells would reverse Parkinson’s symptoms. This makes a lot of sense as front line therapy for the disease for many years has been dopamine replacement through L-dopa pills etc. Unfortunately, over time replacing dopamine through a pill loses its benefit, whereas replacing or fixing the cells themselves should be a more permanent fix.
Because a specific population of cells in one part of the brain are lost in the disease, multiple labs and clinicians have sought to replace or augment these cells by transplantation of “new” functional cells able to restore function to the area an theoretically restore voluntary motor control to patients with Parkinson’s disease.
Early clinical research showed some promise, however also yielded mixed results, using fetal tissue transplanted into the brains of Parkinson’s patients. As it turns out, the cell types required to restore movement and avoid side effects are somewhat nuanced. The field has moved away from fetal tissue and is currently pursuing the use of multiple stem cell types that are driven to what is believed to be the correct subtype of cell to repopulate the lost cells in the patient.
One project CIRM sponsored in this area with Jeanne Loring sought to develop a cell replacement therapy using stem cells from the patients themselves that have been reprogrammed into the kinds of cell damaged by Parkinson’s. This type of approach may ultimately avoid issues with the cells avoiding rejection by the immune system as can be seen with other types of transplants (i.e. liver, kidney, heart etc).
Still, others are using cutting edge gene therapy technology, like the clinical phase project CIRM is sponsoring with Krystof Bankiewicz to investigate the delivery of a gene (GDNF) to the brain that may help to restore the activity of neurons in the Parkinson’s brain that are no longer working as they should.
The bulk of the work in the field of PD at the present remains centered on replacing or restoring the dopamine producing population of cells in the brain that are affected in disease.
Any plans for Huntington’s?Nikhat Kuchiki
Dr. Lisa Kadyk: The good news is that there are now several new therapeutic approaches to Huntington’s Disease that are at various stages of preclinical and clinical development, including some that are CIRM funded. One CIRM-funded program led by Dr. Leslie Thompson at UC Irvine is developing a cell-based therapeutic that consists of neural stem cells that have been manufactured from embryonic stem cells. When these cells are injected into the brain of a mouse that has a Huntington’s Disease mutation, the cells engraft and begin to differentiate into new neurons. Improvements are seen in the behavioral and electrophysiological deficits in these mutant mice, suggesting that similar improvements might be seen in people with the disease. Currently, CIRM is funding Dr. Thompson and her team to carry out rigorous safety studies in animals using these cells, in preparation for submitting an application to the FDA to test the therapy in human patients in a clinical trial.
There are other, non-cell-based therapies also being tested in clinical trials now, using anti-sense oligonucleotides (Ionis, Takeda) to lower the expression of the Huntington protein. Another HTT-lowering approach is similar – but uses miRNAs to lower HTT levels (UniQure,Voyager)
TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY (TBI)
My 2.5 year old son recently suffered a hypoxic brain injury resulting in motor and speech disabilities. There are several clinical trials underway for TBI in adults. My questions are:
Will the results be scalable to pediatric use and how long do you think it would take before it is available to children?
I’m wondering why the current trials have chosen to go the route of intracranial injections as opposed to something slightly less invasive like an intrathecal injection?
Is there a time window period in which stem cells should be administered by, after which the administration is deemed not effective?
Dr. Kelly Shepard: TBI and other injuries of the nervous system are characterized by a lot of inflammation at the time of injury, which is thought to interfere with the healing process- and thus some approaches are intended to be delivered after that inflammation subsides. However, we are aware of approaches that intend to deliver a therapy to a chronic injury, or one that has occurred previously. Thus, the answer to this question may depend on how the intended therapy is supposed to work. For example, is the idea to grow new neurons, or is it to promote the survival of neurons of other cells that were spared by the injury? Is the therapy intended to address a specific symptom, such as seizures? Is the therapy intended to “fill a gap” left behind after inflammation subsides, which might not restore all function but might ameliorate certain symptoms.? There is still a lot we don’t understand about the brain and the highly sophisticated network of connections that cannot be reversed by only replacing neurons, or only reducing inflammation, etc. However, if trials are well designed, they should yield useful information even if the therapy is not as effective as hoped, and this information will pave the way to newer approaches and our technology and understanding evolves.
We have had a doctor recommending administering just the growth factors derived from MSC stem cells. Does the science work that way? Is it possible to isolate the growth factors and boost the endogenous growth factors by injecting allogenic growth factors?
Dr. Stephen Lin: Several groups have published studies on the therapeutic effects in non-human animal models of using nutrient media from MSC cultures that contain secreted factors, or extracellular vesicles from cells called exosomes that carry protein or nucleic acid factors. Scientifically it is possible to isolate the factors that are responsible for the therapeutic effect, although to date no specific factor or combination of factors have been identified to mimic the effects of the undefined mixtures in the media and exosomes. At present no regulatory approved clinical therapy has been developed using this approach.
PREDATORY STEM CELL CLINICS
What practical measures are being taken to address unethical practitioners whose bad surgeries are giving stem cell advances a bad reputation and are making forward research difficult?Kathy Jean Schultz
Dr. Geoff Lomax: Terrific question! I have been doing quite a bit research into the history of this issue of unethical practitioners and I found an 1842 reference to “quack medicines.” Clearly this is nothing new. In that day, the author appealed to make society “acquainted with the facts.”
In California, we have taken steps to (1) acquaint patients with the facts about stem cell treatments and (2) advance FDA authorized treatments for unmet medical needs.
First, CIRM work with Senator Hernandez in 2017 to write a law the requires provides to disclose to patient that a stem cell therapy has not been approved by the Food and Drug administration.
We continue to work with the State Legislature and Medical Board of California to build on policies that require accurate disclosure of the facts to patients.
Second, our clinical trial network the — Alpha Stem Cell Clinics – have supported over 100 FDA-authorized clinical trials to advance responsible clinical research for unmet medical needs.
I’m curious if adipose stem cell being used at clinics at various places in the country is helpful or beneficial?Cheri Hicks
Adipose tissue has been widely used particularly in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Many practitioners suggest adipose cells are beneficial in this context. With regard to regenerative medicine and / or the ability to treat disease and injury, I am not aware of any large randomized clinical trials that demonstrate the safety and efficacy of adipose-derived stem cells used in accordance with FDA guidelines.
I went to a “Luncheon about Stem Cell Injections”. It sounded promising. I went thru with it and got the injections because I was desperate from my knee pain. The price of stem cell injections was $3500 per knee injection. All went well. I have had no complications, but haven’t noticed any real major improvement, and here I am a year later. My questions are:
1) I wonder on where the typical injection cells are coming from?
2) I wonder what is the actual cost of the cells?
3) What kind of results are people getting from all these “pop up” clinics or established clinics that are adding this to there list of offerings?
Dr. Geoff Lomax: You raise a number of questions and point here; they are all very good and it’s is hard to give a comprehensive response to each one, but here is my reaction:
There are many practitioners in the field of orthopedics who sincerely believe in the potential of cell-based treatments to treat injury / pain
Most of the evidence presented is case reports that individuals have benefited
The challenge we face is not know the exact type of injury and cell treatments used.
Well controlled clinical trials would really help us understand for what cells (or cell products) and for what injury would be helpful
Prices of $3000 to $5000 are not uncommon, and like other forms of private medicine there is often a considerable mark-up in relation to cost of goods.
You are correct that there have not been reports of serious injury for knee injections
However the effectiveness is not clear while simultaneously millions of people have been aided by knee replacements.
Do stem cells have benefits for patients going through chemotherapy and radiation therapy?Ruperto
Dr. Kelly Shepard: The idea that a stem cell therapy could help address effects of chemotherapy or radiation is being and has been pursued by several investigators over the years, including some with CIRM support. Towards the earlier stages, people are looking at the ability of different stem cell-derived neural cell preparations to replace or restore function of certain brain cells that are damaged by the effects of chemotherapy or radiation. In a completely different type of approach, a group at City of Hope is exploring whether a bone marrow transplant with specially modified stem cells can provide a protective effect against the chemotherapy that is used to treat a form of brain cancer, glioblastoma. This study is in the final stage of development that, if all goes well, culminates with application to the FDA to allow initiation of a clinical trial to test in people.
Dr. Ingrid Caras: That’s an interesting and valid question. There is a Phase 1 trial ongoing that is evaluating a novel type of stem/progenitor cell from the umbilical cord of healthy deliveries. In animal studies, these cells have been shown to reduce the toxic effects of chemotherapy and radiation and to speed up recovery. These cells are now being tested in a First-in-human clinical trial in patients who are undergoing high-dose chemotherapy to treat their disease.
There is a researcher at Stanford, Michelle Monje, who is investigating that the role of damage to stem cells in the cognitive problems that sometimes arise after chemo- and radiation therapy (“chemobrain”). It appears that damage to stem cells in the brain, especially those responsible for producing oligodendrocytes, contributes to chemobrain. In CIRM-funded work, Dr. Monje has identified small molecules that may help prevent or ameliorate the symptoms of chemobrain.
Is it possible to use a technique developed to fight one disease to also fight another? For instance, the bubble baby disease, which has cured (I think) more than 50 children, may also help fight sickle cell anemia? Don Reed.
Dr. Lisa Kadyk: Hi Don. Yes, the same general technique can often be applied to more than one disease, although it needs to be “customized” for each disease. In the example you cite, the technique is an “autologous gene-modified bone marrow transplant” – meaning the cells come from the patient themselves. This technique is relevant for single gene mutations that cause diseases of the blood (hematopoietic) system. For example, in the case of “bubble baby” diseases, a single mutation can cause failure of immune cell development, leaving the child unable to fight infections, hence the need to have them live in a sterile “bubble”. To cure that disease, blood stem cells, which normally reside in the bone marrow, are collected from the patient and then a normal version of the defective gene is introduced into the cells, where it is incorporated into the chromosomes. Then, the corrected stem cells are transplanted back into the patient’s body, where they can repopulate the blood system with cells expressing the normal copy of the gene, thus curing the disease.
A similar approach could be used to treat sickle cell disease, since it is also caused by a single gene mutation in a gene (beta hemoglobin) that is expressed in blood cells. The same technique would be used as I described for bubble baby disease but would differ in the gene that is introduced into the patient’s blood stem cells.
Is there any concern that CIRM’s lack of support in basic research will hamper the amount of new approaches that can reach clinical stages? Jason
Dr. Kelly Shepard: CIRM always has and continues to believe that basic research is vital to the field of regenerative medicine. Over the past 10 years CIRM has invested $904 million in “discovery stage/basic research”, and about $215 million in training grants that supported graduate students, post docs, clinical fellows, undergraduate, masters and high school students performing basic stem cell research. In the past couple of years, with only a limited amount of funds remaining, CIRM made a decision to invest most of the remaining funds into later stage projects, to support them through the difficult transition from bench to bedside. However, even now, CIRM continues to sponsor some basic research through its Bridges and SPARK Training Grant programs, where undergraduate, masters and even high school students are conducting stem cell research in world class stem cell laboratories, many of which are the same laboratories that were supported through CIRM basic research grants over the past 10 years. While basic stem cell research continues to receive a substantial level of support from the NIH ($1.8 billion in 2018, comprehensively on stem cell projects) and other funders, CIRM believes continued support for basic research, especially in key areas of stem cell research and vital opportunities, will always be important for discovering and developing new treatments.
What is the future of the use of crispr cas9 in clinical trials in california/globally. Art Venegas
Dr. Kelly Shepard: CRISPR/Cas9 is a powerful gene editing tool. In only a few years, CRISPR/Cas9 technology has taken the field by storm and there are already a few CRISPR/Cas9 based treatments being tested in clinical trials in the US. There are also several new treatments that are at the IND enabling stage of development, which is the final testing stage required by the FDA before a clinical trial can begin. Most of these clinical trials involving CRISPR go through an “ex vivo” approach, taking cells from the patient with a disease causing gene, correcting the gene in the laboratory using CRISPR, and reintroducing the cells carrying the corrected gene back into the patient for treatment. Sickle cell disease is a prime example of a therapy being developed using this strategy and CIRM funds two projects that are preparing for clinical trials with this approach. CRISPR is also being used to develop the next generation of cancer T-cell therapies (e.g. CAR-T), where T-cells – a vital part of our immune system – are modified to target and destroy cancer cell populations. Using CRISPR to edit cells directly in patients “in vivo” (inside the body) is far less common currently but is also being developed. It is important to note that any FDA sanctioned “in vivo” CRISPR clinical trial in people will only modify organ-specific cells where the benefits cannot be passed on to subsequent generations. There is a ban on funding for what are called germ line cells, where any changes could be passed down to future generations.
CIRM is currently supporting multiple CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing projects in California from the discovery or most basic stage of research, through the later stages before applying to test the technique in people in a clinical trial.
While the field is new – if early safety signals from the pioneering trials are good, we might expect a number of new CRISPR-based approaches to enter clinical testing over the next few years. The first of these will will likely be in the areas of bone marrow transplant to correct certain blood/immune or metabolic diseases, and cancer immunotherapies, as these types of approaches are the best studied and furthest along in the pipeline.
Explain the differences between gene therapy and stem cell therapy?Renee Konkol
Dr. Stephen Lin: Gene therapy is the direct modification of cells in a patient to treat a disease. Most gene therapies use modified, harmless viruses to deliver the gene into the patient. Gene therapy has recently seen many success in the clinic, with the first FDA approved therapy for a gene induced form of blindness in 2017 and other approvals for genetic forms of smooth muscle atrophy and amyloidosis.
Stem cell therapy is the introduction of stem cells into patients to treat a disease, usually with the purpose of replacing damaged or defective cells that contribute to the disease. Stem cell therapies can be derived from pluripotent cells that have the potential to turn into any cell in the body and are directed towards a specific organ lineage for the therapy. Stem cell therapies can also be derived from other cells, called progenitors, that have the ability to turn into a limited number of other cells in the body. for example hematopoietic or blood stem cells (HSCs), which are found in bone marrow, can turn into other cells of the blood system including B-cells and T-cells: while mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), which are usually found in fat tissue, can turn into bone, cartilage, and fat cells. The source of these cells can be from the patient’s own body (autologous) or from another person (allogeneic).
Gene therapy is often used in combination with cell therapies when cells are taken from the patient and, in the lab, modified genetically to correct the mutation or to insert a correct form of the defective gene, before being returned to patients. Often referred to as “ex vivo gene therapy” – because the changes are made outside the patient’s body – these therapies include Chimeric Antigen Receptor T (CAR-T) cells for cancer therapy and gene modified HSCs to treat blood disorders such as severe combined immunodeficiency and sickle cell disease. This is an exciting area that has significantly improved and even cured many people already.
Currently, how can the outcome of CIRM stem cell medicine projects and clinical trials be soundly interpreted when their stem cell-specific doses are not known?James L. Sherley, M.D., Ph.D., Director. Asymmetrex, LLC
Dr. Stephen Lin: Stem cell therapies that receive approval to conduct clinical trials must submit a package of data to the FDA that includes studies that demonstrate their effectiveness, usually in animal models of the disease that the cell therapy is targeting. Those studies have data on the dose of the cell therapy that creates the therapeutic effect, which is used to estimate cell doses for the clinical trial. CIRM funds discovery and translational stage awards to conduct these types of studies to prepare cell therapies for clinical trials. The clinical trial is also often designed to test multiple doses of the cell therapy to determine the one that has the best therapeutic effect. Dosing can be very challenging with cell therapies because of issues including survival, engraftment, and immune rejection, but CIRM supports studies designed to provide data to give the best estimate possible.
Is there any research on using stem cells to increase the length of long bones in people?” For example, injecting stem cells into the growth plates to see if the cells can be used to lengthen limbs.Sajid
Dr. Kelly Shepard: There is quite a lot of ongoing research seeking ways to repair bones with stem cell based approaches, which is not the same but somewhat related. Much of this is geared towards repairing the types of bone injuries that do not heal well naturally on their own (large gaps, dead bone lesions, degenerative bone conditions). Also, a lot of this research involves engineering bone tissues in the lab and introducing the engineered tissue into a bone lesion that need be repaired. What occurs naturally at the growth plate is a complex interaction between many different cell types, much of which we do not fully understand. We do not fully understand how to use the cells that are used to engineer bone tissue in the lab. However, a group at Stanford, with some CIRM support, recently discovered a “skeletal stem cell” that exists naturally at the ends of human bones and at sites of fracture. These are quite different than MSCs and offer a new path to be explored for repairing and generating bone.
This past Wednesday was Stem Cell Awareness Day, a day that is meant to remind us all of the importance of stem cell research and the potential it has to treat a wide variety of diseases. On this day, we also released an independent Economic Impact Report that showed how $10.7 Billion (yes, you read that right) was generated as a direct result of the the legacy we have built as a state agency that funds groundbreaking research.
Aside from the monetary incentive, which is an added bonus, the research we fund has made encouraging progress in the scientific field and has demonstrated the positive impact it can have on various disease areas. This week, two clinical trials supported by CIRM funding have released very promising updates.
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
Capricor Therapeutics, Inc. has presented positive results for a clinical trial related to a treatment for duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), a genetic disorder. DMD leads to progressive muscle degeneration and weakness due to its effect on a protein called dystrophin, which helps keep muscle cells intact.
The treatment that Capricor is testing is called CAP-1002 and consists of a unique population of cells that contain cardiac progenitor cells, a type of stem cell, that help encourage the regeneration of cells. CIRM funded an earlier clinical trial for this treatment.
The early results of this current trial describe how teens and young men in the advanced stages of DMD saw improvements in skeletal, lung, and heart measurements after receiving multiple doses of the treatment.
In a news release, Dr. Linda Marban, Chief Executive Officer of Capricor, expresses optimism for this clinical trial by saying,
“We are very pleased that the interim analysis from this double-blind placebo-controlled study, has demonstrated meaningful improvements across three clinically relevant endpoints in older patients with limited remaining treatment options.”
In the same news release, Dr. Craig McDonald, the national principal investigator for the trial, echoes the same sentiment by stating,
“The results from this trial to date are very promising in that the cells appear to positively impact skeletal, pulmonary and cardiac assessments in older DMD patients who have few, if any, remaining treatment options. We are eager to meet with the FDA to discuss the next steps for this promising program.”
Mantle Cell Lymphoma
Additionally, Oncternal Therapeutics has decided, because of positive results, to open an expansion of its CIRM-funded clinical trial aimed at treating patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The treatment involves an antibody called cirmtuzumab, named after us, in combination with a drug called ibrutinib.
The preliminary results were from the first six patients with MCL that were treated in the trial. One patient with MCL, who had relapsed following an allogeneic stem cell transplant, experienced a confirmed complete response (CR) after three months of cirmtuzumab plus ibrutinib treatment. This complete response appears to be sustained and has been confirmed to be ongoing after completing 12 months of the combination treatment. A second confirmed complete response occurred in a patient who had progressive disease after failing several different chemotherapy regimens, bone marrow transplant and CAR-T therapy.
In a news release, Dr. Hun Lee, an investigator in the trial, states that,
“It is encouraging to see that the drug has been well tolerated as well as the early signal of efficacy of cirmtuzumab with ibrutinib in MCL, particularly the rapid and durable complete responses of the heavily pre-treated patients after three months of therapy, which is an unusually fast response in this patient population.”
In 2017 Texas passed a sweeping new law, HB 810, which allowed medical clinics to provide “investigational stem cell treatments to patients with certain severe chronic diseases or terminal illnesses.” Those in favor of the law argued that patients battling life-threatening or life-changing diseases should have the right to try stem cell therapies that were involved in a clinical trial.
Now a new study, published in the journal Stem Cells and Development, looks at the impact of the law. The report says that despite some recent amendments t there are still some concerns about the law including:
It allows treatment only if the patient has a “severe, chronic” illness but doesn’t define what that means
It doesn’t have clearly defined procedures on tracking and reporting procedures so it’s hard to know how many patients might be treated and what the outcomes are
There is no Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight of the patients being treated
Because the treatments are unproven there are fears this will “open up the state to unsavory and predatory practices by individuals preying on vulnerable patients”
The researchers conclude:
“While HB 810 opens up access to patients, it also increases significant risks for their safety and financial cost for something that might have no positive impact on their disease. Truly understanding the impact of stem cell based interventions (SCBI) requires scientific rigor, and accurate outcome data reporting must be pursued to ensure the safety and efficacy behind such procedures. This information must be readily available so that patients can make informed decisions before electing to pursue such treatments. The creation of the SCBI registry could allow for some level of scientific rigor, provide a centralized data source, and offer the potential for better informed patient choices, and might be the best option for the state to help protect patients.”
Another CIRM-funded company gets RMAT designation
When Congress approved the 21st Century Cures Act a few years ago one of the new programs it created was the Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) designation. This was given to therapies that are designed to treat a serious or life-threatening condition, where early clinical stage trials show the approach is safe and appears to be effective.
Getting an RMAT designation is a big deal. It means the company or researchers are able to apply for an expedited review by the FDA and could get approval for wider use.
This week Poseida Therapeutics was granted RMAT designation by the Food and drug Administration (FDA) for P-BCMA-101, its CAR-T therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. This is currently in a Phase 1 clinical trial that CIRM is funding
In this trial Poseida’s technology takes an immunotherapy approach that uses the patient’s own engineered immune system T cells to seek and destroy cancerous myeloma cells.
In a news release Eric Ostertag, Poseida’s CEO, welcomed the news:
“Initial Phase 1 data presented at the CAR-TCR Summit earlier this year included encouraging response rates and safety data, including meaningful responses in a heavily pretreated population. We expect to have an additional data update by the end of the year and look forward to working closely with the FDA to expedite development of P-BCMA-101.”
This means that five CIRM-funded companies have now been granted RMAT designations:
For people battling Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), a rare and fatal genetic disorder that slowly destroys muscles, hope has often been in short supply. There is no cure and treatments are limited. But now a new clinical trial at the site of one of the newest CIRM Alpha Stem Cell Clinic Network members could change that.
The HOPE-2 clinical trial has treated its first patient at UC Davis Medical Center, inaugurating the institution’s Alpha Stem Cell Clinic. The clinic is part of a CIRM-created network of top California medical centers that specialize in delivering stem cell clinical trials to patients. The key to the Network’s success is the ability to accelerate the delivery of treatments to patients through partnerships with patients, medical providers and clinical trial sponsors.
UC Davis is one of five medical centers that now make up the network (the others are UC San Francisco, UCLA/UC Irvine, UC San Diego and City of Hope).
In a news release, Jan Nolta, the director of the UC Davis Institute for Regenerative Cures, says the UC Davis Alpha Clinic is well equipped to move promising therapies out of the lab and into clinical trials and people.
“We have the full range of resource experts in regenerative medicine, from the cellular to the clinical trials level. We’re also excited about the prospect of being able to link with other Alpha Stem Cell Clinics around the state to help speed the process of testing and refining treatments so we can get therapies to patients in need.”
The news of this first patient is a cause for double celebration at CIRM. The trial is run by Capricor and CIRM funded the first phase of this work. You can read the story of Caleb Sizemore, who took part in that trial or watch this video of him talking about his fight.
When the CIRM Board approved funding for the UC Davis Alpha Clinic in October of 2017, Abla Creasey, CIRM’s Vice President for Therapeutics and Strategic Infrastructure, said:
“The Alpha Clinics are a one-of-a-kind network that gives patients access to the highest quality stem cell trials for a breadth of diseases including cancer, diabetes, heart disease and spinal cord injury. Expanding our network will allow more patients to participate in stem cell trials and will advance the development of stem cell treatments that could help or possibly cure patients.”
The UC Davis Alpha Clinic provides a one-stop shop for delivering stem cell therapies, gene therapies and immunotherapies, as well as conducting follow-up visits. It’s this type of CIRM-funded infrastructure that helps steer potential clinical trial participants away from illegitimate, unproven and potentially harmful fee-for-service stem cell treatments.
The DMD trial is the first of what we are confident will be many high-quality trials at the Clinic, bringing promising stem cell therapies to patients with unmet medical needs.
Here are the stem cell stories that caught our eye this week.
Photos of the week
TGIF! We’re so excited that the weekend is here that we are sharing not one but TWO amazing stem cell photos of the week.
Image caption: Cells of a human intestinal lining, after being placed in an Intestine-Chip, form intestinal folds as they do in the human body. (Photo credit: Cedars-Sinai Board of Governors Regenerative Medicine Institute)
Photo #1 is borrowed from a blog we wrote earlier this week about a new stem cell-based path to personalized medicine. Scientists at Cedars-Sinai are collaborating with a company called Emulate to create intestines-on-a-chip using human stem cells. Their goal is to create 3D-organoids that represent the human gut, grow them on chips, and use these gut-chips to screen for precision medicines that could help patients with intestinal diseases. You can read more about this gut-tastic research here.
Image caption: UCLA scientists used four different fluorescent-colored proteins to determine the origin of cardiomyocytes in mice. (Image credit: UCLA Broad Stem Cell Research Center/Nature Communications)
Photo #2 is another beautiful fluorescent image, this time of a cross-section of a mouse heart. CIRM-funded scientists from UCLA Broad Stem Cell Research Center are tracking the fate of stem cells in the developing mouse heart in hopes of finding new insights that could lead to stem cell-based therapies for heart attack victims. Their research was published this week in the journal Nature Communications and you can read more about it in a UCLA news release.
Stem cell injection improves muscle function in muscular dystrophy mice
Another study by CIRM-funded Cedars-Sinai scientists came out this week in Stem Cell Reports. They discovered that they could improve muscle function in mice with muscular dystrophy by injecting cardiac progenitor cells into their hearts. The injected cells not only improved heart function in these mice, but also improved muscle function throughout their bodies. The effects were due to the release of microscopic vesicles called exosomes by the injected cells. These cells are currently being used in a CIRM-funded clinical trial by Capricor therapeutics for patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
How to build a better brain (blob)
For years stem cell researchers have been looking for ways to create “mini brains”, to better understand how our own brains work and develop new ways to repair damage. So far, the best they have done is to create blobs, clusters of cells that resemble some parts of the brain. But now researchers at the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at UCLA have come up with a new method they think can advance the field.
Their approach is explained in a fascinating article in the journal Science News, where lead researcher Bennet Novitch says finding the right method is like being a chef:
“It’s like making a cake: You have many different ways in which you can do it. There are all sorts of little tricks that people have come up with to overcome some of the common challenges.”
Brain cake. Yum.
A more efficient way to make iPS cells
Shinya Yamanaka. (Image source: Ko Sasaki, New York Times)
In 2006 Shinya Yamanaka discovered a way to take ordinary adult cells and reprogram them into embryonic-like stem cells that have the ability to turn into any other cell in the body. He called these cells induced pluripotent stem cells or iPSC’s. Since then researchers have been using these iPSC’s to try and develop new treatments for deadly diseases.
There’s been a big problem, however. Making these cells is really tricky and current methods are really inefficient. Out of a batch of, say, 1,000 cells sometimes only one or two are turned into iPSCs. Obviously, this slows down the pace of research.
Now researchers in Colorado have found a way they say dramatically improves on that. The team says it has to do with controlling the precise levels of reprogramming factors and microRNA and…. Well, you can read how they did it in a news release on Eurekalert.
The brain and its 100 billion cells need blood, which carries oxygen and nutrients, to function. When that blood supply is cut off, brain cells start to die and patients experience a stroke. Stroke can happen in one of two ways: either by blood clots that block the arteries and blood vessels that send blood to the brain or by blood vessels that burst within the brain itself. Symptoms experienced by stroke victims vary based on the severity of the stroke, but often patients report experiencing numbness or paralysis in their limbs or face, difficulty walking, talking and understanding.
Steinberg and his team at Stanford are developing a stem cell treatment to help stroke patients. Steinberg believes that not all brain cells die during a stroke, but rather some brain cells become “dormant” and stop functioning instead. By transplanting stem cells derived from donated bone marrow into the brains of stroke patients, Steinberg thinks he can wake up these dormant cells much like how the prince wakens Sleeping Beauty from her century of enchanted sleep.
Basically, the transplanted cells act like a defibrillator for the dormant cells in the stroke-damaged area of the brain. Steinberg thinks that the transplanted cells secrete proteins that signal dormant brain cells to wake up and start functioning normally again, and that they also trigger a “helpful immune response” that prompts the brain to repair itself.
Sonia has seen first hand how a stroke can rob you of even your most basic abilities.
Steinberg tested this stem cell treatment in a small clinical trial back in 2013. 18 patients were treated and many of them showed improvements in their symptoms. The Smithsonian piece mentions a particular patient who had a remarkable response to the treatment. Sonia Olea Coontz, at age 32, suffered a stroke that robbed her of most of her speech and her ability to use her right arm and leg. After receiving Steinberg’s stem cell treatment, Sonia rapidly improved and was able to raise her arm above her head and gained most of her speech back. You can read more about her experience in our Stories of Hope.
In collaboration with a company called SanBio, Steinberg’s team is now testing this stem cell therapy in 156 stroke patients in a CIRM-funded phase 2 clinical trial. The trial will help answer the question of whether this treatment is safe and also effective in a larger group of patients.
The Smithsonian article, which I highly recommend reading, shared Steinberg’s future aspirations to pursue stem cell therapies for traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries as well as neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and ALS.
Capricor Approved to Launch New Clinical Trial for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
On Wednesday, Capricor Therapeutics achieved an exciting milestone for its leading candidate CAP-1002 – a stem cell-based therapy developed to treat boys and young men with a muscle-wasting disease called Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD).
The Los Angeles-based company announced that it received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for their investigational new drug (IND) application to launch a new clinical trial called HOPE II that’s testing repeated doses of CAP-1002 cells in DMD patients. The cells are derived from donated heart tissue and are believed to release regenerative factors that strengthen heart and other muscle function in DMD patients.
Earlier this year, the company shared encouraging, positive results from the HOPE-1 trial suggesting that the therapy was improving some heart function and upper limb movement six months after treatment and was well-tolerated in patients. The goal of the new trial will be to determine whether giving patients repeated doses of the cell therapy over time will extend the benefits in upper limb movement in DMD patients.
In a news release, Capricor President and CEO Dr. Linda Marbán shared her company’s excitement for the launch of their new trial and what this treatment could mean for DMD patients,
Linda Marban, CEO of Capricor Therapeutics
“The FDA’s clearance of this IND upon its initial submission is a significant step forward in our development of CAP-1002. While there are many clinical initiatives in Duchenne muscular dystrophy, this is one of the very few to focus on non-ambulant patients. These boys and young men are looking to maintain what function they have in their arms and hands and, based on our previous study, we think CAP-1002 may be able to do exactly that.”
For our last blog before the Thanksgiving holiday, we give thanks to the patients and their caregivers who are forging a path toward a new era of regenerative medicine therapies through their participation in CIRM-funded clinical trials.
Some of our trials are in the early stages which means they are mainly focused on safety. Participants go into these trials knowing that the cell therapy dose they receive will probably be too low to get any benefit for themselves. And in later trials, some patients will receive a placebo, or blank therapy, for comparison purposes. Even if a patient gets an effective dose, it may not work for them. So the decision to enroll in an experimental clinical trial is often a selfless act. Yet final approval of a therapy by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (and other regulatory agencies around the world) depends on these brave souls and for that we are truly grateful.
So, with this Thanksgiving Day spirit in mind, we leave you with our latest video featuring Caleb Sizemore, a charming young man who epitomizes the courage of our clinical trial pioneers. At just 7 years old, Caleb was diagnosed with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), a degenerative muscle disease which makes it difficult for him to walk and climb stairs, has led to dangerous scarring of his heart muscle and carries a shortened life expectancy with most DMD patients not living past their 20s or 30s.
In a sit-down interview with us and in clips from his June 2017 presentation to the CIRM governing Board, Caleb talked about the impact of DMD on his life and his experience enrolling in Capricor Therapeutics’ CIRM-funded clinical trial. The trial is testing a stem cell therapy designed to repair the heart scarring that occurs with DMD. By the end of the three-minute video, I can assure you that you’ll be as captivated as we were by Caleb’s delightful, sincere and full-of-faith personality.
Caleb Sizemore, a young man with DMD, speaks to the CIRM Board about his treatment in the Capricor clinical trial.
It’s hard to imagine how missing just one tiny protein can have such a devastating impact on a person. But with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) the lack of a single protein called dystrophin has deadly consequences. Now a new study is offering hope we may be able to help people with this rare genetic disorder.
DMD is a muscle wasting condition that steadily destroys the muscles in the arms and legs, heart and respiratory system. It affects mostly boys and it starts early in life, sometimes as young as 3 years old, and never lets up. By early teens many boys are unable to walk and are in a wheelchair. Their heart and breathing are also affected. In the past most people with DMD didn’t survive their teens. Now it’s more common for them to live into their 20’s and 30’s, but not much beyond that.
Results from a clinical trial being run by Capricor Therapeutics – and funded by CIRM – suggest we may be able to halt, and even reverse, some of the impacts of DMD.
Capricor has developed a therapy called CAP-1002 using cells derived from heart stem cells, called cardiospheres. Boys and young men with DMD who were treated with CAP-1002 experienced what Capricor calls “significant and sustained improvements in cardiac structure and function, as well as skeletal muscle function.”
In a news release Dr. Ronald Victor, a researcher at Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute and the lead investigator for the trial, said they followed these patients for 12 months after treatment and the results are encouraging:
“Because Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a devastating, muscle-wasting disease that causes physical debilitation and eventually heart failure, the improvements in heart and skeletal muscle in those treated with a single dose of CAP-1002 are very promising and show that a subsequent trial is warranted. These early results provide hope for the Duchenne community, which is in urgent need of a major therapeutic breakthrough.”
According to the 12-month results:
89 percent of patients treated with CAP-1002 showed sustained or improved muscle function compared to untreated patients
The CAP-1002 group had improved heart muscle function compared to the untreated group
The CAP-1002 group had reduced scarring on their heart compared to the untreated group.
Now, these results are still very early stage and there’s a danger in reading too much into them. However, the fact that they are sustained over one year is a promising sign. Also, none of the treated patients experienced any serious side effects from the therapy.
The team at Capricor now plans to go back to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to get clearance to launch an even larger study in 2018.
For a condition like DMD, that has no cure and where treatments can simply slow down the progression of the disorder, this is a hopeful start.