Ingenious CIRM-funded stem cell approach to treating ALS gets go-ahead to start clinical trial


Clive Svendsen

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), better known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, was first identified way back in 1869 but today, more than 150 years later, there are still no effective treatments for it. Now a project, funded by CIRM, has been given approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to start a clinical trial that could help change that.

Clive Svendsen and his team at Cedars-Sinai are about to start a clinical trial they hope will help slow down the progression of the disease. And they are doing it in a particularly ingenious way. More on that in a minute.

First, let’s start with ALS itself. It’s a particularly nasty, rapidly progressing disease that destroys motor neurons, those are the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that control movement. People with ALS lose the ability to speak, eat, move and finally, breathe. The average life expectancy after diagnosis is just 3 – 4 years. It’s considered an orphan disease because it affects only around 30,000 people in the US; but even with those relatively low numbers that means that every 90 minutes someone in the US is diagnosed with ALS, and every 90 minutes someone in the US dies of ALS.

Ingenious approach

In this clinical trial the patients will serve as their own control group. Previous studies have shown that the rate of deterioration of muscle movement in the legs of a person with ALS is the same for both legs. So Svendsen and his team will inject specially engineered stem cells into a portion of the spine that controls movement on just one side of the body. Neither the patient nor the physician will know which side has received the cells. This enables the researchers to determine if the treated leg is deteriorating at a slower rate than the untreated leg.

The stem cells being injected have been engineered to produce a protein called glial cell line derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) that helps protect motor neurons. Svendsen and the team hope that by providing extra GDNF they’ll be able to protect the motor neurons and keep them alive.

Reaching a milestone

In a news release announcing the start of the trial, Svendsen admitted ALS is a tough disease to tackle:

“Any time you’re trying to treat an incurable disease, it is a long shot, but we believe the rationale behind our new approach is strong.”

Diane Winokur, the CIRM Board patient advocate for ALS, says this is truly a milestone:

“In the last few years, thanks to new technologies, increased interest, and CIRM support, we finally seem to be seeing some encouraging signs in the research into ALS. Dr. Svendsen has been at the forefront of this effort for the 20 years I have followed his work.  I commend him, Cedars-Sinai, and CIRM.  On behalf of those who have suffered through this cruel disease and their families and caregivers, I am filled with hope.”

You can read more about Clive Svendsen’s long journey to this moment here.


Creating a “Pitching Machine” to speed up our delivery of stem cell treatments to patients


When baseball players are trying to improve their hitting they’ll use a pitching machine to help them fine tune their stroke. Having a device that delivers a ball at a consistent speed can help a batter be more consistent and effective in their swing, and hopefully get more hits.

That’s what we are hoping our new Translating and Accelerating Centers will do. We call these our “Pitching Machine”, because we hope they’ll help researchers be better prepared when they apply to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval to start a clinical trial, and be more efficient and effective in the way they set up and run that clinical trial once they get approval.

The CIRM Board approved the Accelerating Center earlier this summer. The $15 million award went to QuintilesIMS, a leading integrated information and technology-enabled healthcare service provider.

The Accelerating Center will provide key core services for researchers who have been given approval to run a clinical trial, including:

  • Regulatory support and management services
  • Clinical trial operations and management services
  • Data management, biostatistical and analytical services

The reason why these kinds of service are needed is simple, as Randy Mills, our President and CEO explained at the time:

“Many scientists are brilliant researchers but have little experience or expertise in navigating the regulatory process; this Accelerating Center means they don’t have to develop those skills; we provide them for them.”

The Translating Center is the second part of the “Pitching Machine”. That is due to go to our Board for a vote tomorrow. This is an innovative new center that will support the stem cell research, manufacturing, preclinical safety testing, and other activities needed to successfully apply to the FDA for approval to start a clinical trial.

The Translating Center will:

  • Provide consultation and guidance to researchers about the translational process for their stem cell product.
  • Initiate, plan, track, and coordinate activities necessary for preclinical Investigational New Drug (IND)-enabling development projects.
  • Conduct preclinical research activities, including pivotal pharmacology and toxicology studies.
  • Manufacture stem cell and gene modified stem cell products under the highest quality standards for use in preclinical and clinical studies.

The two centers will work together, helping researchers create a comprehensive development plan for every aspect of their project.

For the researchers this is important in giving them the support they need. For the FDA it could also be useful in ensuring that the applications they get from CIRM-funded projects are consistent, high quality and meet all their requirements.

We want to do everything we can to ensure that when a CIRM-funded therapy is ready to start a clinical trial that its application is more likely to be a hit with the FDA, and not to strike out.

Just as batting practice is crucial to improving performance in baseball, we are hoping our “Pitching Machine” will raise our game to the next level, and enable us to deliver some game-changing treatments to patients with unmet medical needs.


Trash talking and creating a stem cell community


Imilce Rodriguez-Fernandez likes to talk trash. No, really, she does. In her case it’s cellular trash, the kind that builds up in our cells and has to be removed to ensure the cells don’t become sick.

Imilce was one of several stem cell researchers who took part in a couple of public events over the weekend, on either side of San Francisco Bay, that served to span both a geographical and generational divide and create a common sense of community.

The first event was at the Buck Institute for Research on Aging in Marin County, near San Francisco. It was titled “Stem Cell Celebration” and that’s pretty much what it was. It featured some extraordinary young scientists from the Buck talking about the work they are doing in uncovering some of the connections between aging and chronic diseases, and coming up with solutions to stop or even reverse some of those changes.

One of those scientists was Imilce. She explained that just as it is important for people to get rid of their trash so they can have a clean, healthy home, so it is important for our cells to do the same. Cells that fail to get rid of their protein trash become sick, unhealthy and ultimately stop working.

Imilce is exploring the cellular janitorial services our bodies have developed to deal with trash, and trying to find ways to enhance them so they are more effective, particularly as we age and those janitorial services aren’t as efficient as they were in our youth.

Unlocking the secrets of premature aging

Chris Wiley, another postdoctoral researcher at the Buck, showed that some medications that are used to treat HIV may be life-saving on one level, preventing the onset of full-blown AIDS, but that those benefits come with a cost, namely premature aging. Chris said the impact of aging doesn’t just affect one cell or one part of the body, but ripples out affecting other cells and other parts of the body. By studying the impact those medications have on our bodies he’s hoping to find ways to maintain the benefits of those drugs, but get rid of the downside.

Creating a Community


Across the Bay, the U.C. Berkeley Student Society for Stem Cell Research held it’s 4th annual conference and the theme was “Culturing a Stem Cell Community.”

The list of speakers was a Who’s Who of CIRM-funded scientists from U.C. Davis’ Jan Nolta and Paul Knoepfler, to U.C. Irvine’s Henry Klassen and U.C. Berkeley’s David Schaffer. The talks ranged from progress in fighting blindness, to how advances in stem cell gene editing are cause for celebration, and concern.

What struck me most about both meetings was the age divide. At the Buck those presenting were young scientists, millennials; the audience was considerably older, baby boomers. At UC Berkeley it was the reverse; the presenters were experienced scientists of the baby boom generation, and the audience were keen young students representing the next generation of scientists.

Bridging the divide

But regardless of the age differences there was a shared sense of involvement, a feeling that regardless of which side of the audience we are on we all have something in common, we are all part of the stem cell community.

All communities have a story, something that helps bind them together and gives them a sense of common purpose. For the stem cell community there is not one single story, there are many. But while those stories all start from a different place, they end up with a common theme; inspiration, determination and hope.


Using skin cells to repair damaged hearts


Heart muscle  cells derived from skin cells

When someone has a heart attack, getting treatment quickly can mean the difference between life and death. Every minute delay in getting help means more heart cells die, and that can have profound consequences. One study found that heart attack patients who underwent surgery to re-open blocked arteries within 60 minutes of arriving in the emergency room had a six times greater survival rate than people who had to wait more than 90 minutes for the same treatment.

Clearly a quick intervention can be life-saving, which means an approach that uses a patient’s own stem cells to treat a heart attack won’t work. It simply takes too long to harvest the healthy heart cells, grow them in the lab, and re-inject them into the patient. By then the damage is done.

Now a new study shows that an off-the-shelf approach, using donor stem cells, might be the most effective way to go. Scientists at Shinshu University in Japan, used heart muscle stem cells from one monkey, to repair the damaged hearts of five other monkeys.

In the study, published in the journal Nature, the researchers took skin cells from a macaque monkey, turned those cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), and then turned those cells into cardiomyocytes or heart muscle cells. They then transplanted those cardiomyocytes into five other monkeys who had experienced an induced heart attack.

After 3 months the transplanted monkeys showed no signs of rejection and their hearts showed improved ability to contract, meaning they were pumping blood around the body more powerfully and efficiently than before they got the cardiomyocytes.

It’s an encouraging sign but it comes with a few caveats. One is that the monkeys used were all chosen to be as close a genetic match to the donor monkey as possible. This reduced the risk that the animals would reject the transplanted cells. But when it comes to treating people, it may not be feasible to have a wide selection of heart stem cell therapies on hand at every emergency room to make sure they are a good genetic match to the patient.

The second caveat is that all the transplanted monkeys experienced an increase in arrhythmias or irregular heartbeats. However, Yuji Shiba, one of the researchers, told the website ResearchGate that he didn’t think this was a serious issue:

“Ventricular arrhythmia was induced by the transplantation, typically within the first four weeks. However, this post-transplant arrhythmia seems to be transient and non-lethal. All five recipients of [the stem cells] survived without any abnormal behaviour for 12 weeks, even during the arrhythmia. So I think we can manage this side effect in clinic.”

Even with the caveats, this study demonstrates the potential for a donor-based stem cell therapy to treat heart attacks. This supports an approach already being tested by Capricor in a CIRM-funded clinical trial. In this trial the company is using donor cells, derived from heart stem cells, to treat patients who developed heart failure after a heart attack. In early studies the cells appear to reduce scar tissue on the heart, promote blood vessel growth and improve heart function.

The study from Japan shows the possibilities of using a ready-made stem cell approach to helping repair damage caused by a heart attacks. We’re hoping Capricor will take it from a possibility, and turn it into a reality.

If you would like to read some recent blog posts about Capricor go here and here.

Bioengineered veins give hope to kidney disease patients on dialysis

As blood travels around your body, it helps your body get around. Blood is essential for delivering oxygen and nutrients to all the cells in your body and for removing waste products made by these cells. Your body contains approximately 1.5 gallons of blood, which translates to around 7% of your body weight. In order for all this blood to do its job, it needs to be constantly cleaned of waste and extra fluids.

Your kidneys are your blood’s best friend. They act as natural filters that remove those cellular waste products and extra fluid from the blood and pass them off to the bladder, where they are disposed of through urine. Kidneys have the important job of maintaining the proper balance of fluids, electrolytes and chemicals in the blood. They are also involved in other essential biological processes such as regulating blood pressure, making new blood cells, and maintaining healthy bones. It’s a big problem when your kidneys stop working. Without this built-in filtration system, toxic byproducts build up in your blood and cause a multitude of not fun symptoms.

Hemodialysis acts as an artificial kidney to filter the blood of kidney disease patients. (wikipedia)

Hemodialysis acts as an artificial kidney to filter the blood of kidney disease patients. (wikipedia)

More than half a million Americans suffering from kidney dysfunction or failure are being treated by hemodialysis. This process involves connecting a patient to a machine that acts as an artificial kidney. “Old blood” is pumped into the machine from a plastic tube, also known as a shunt, that’s inserted into the patient’s vein. The blood is then passed through a dialyzer which filters out the waste products and extra fluid and allows clean blood to pass through and be put back into the patient (see image).

While hemodialysis is successful at extending the lifespan of kidney disease patients, serious complications can arise from this treatment including uncontrolled changes in blood pressure, bone disease, and anemia. Another common problem occurs with the shunt that’s inserted into a patient’s vein. Shunts can cause infection, blood clots, and can also be rejected by a patient’s immune system. As a result, patients have to get new shunts implanted every year. This is not always feasible for older patients whose veins cannot hold up to this invasive procedure.

A tubular alternative for better hemodialysis

A North Carolina company called Humacyte is trying to improve current hemodialysis technology by engineering human acellular vessels (HAVs) (meaning that the vessels don’t have any cells) that can be transplanted into patients and develop into a human version of a shunt. Sounds complicated, but it’s not really!

First, scientists take muscle cells from human organ donors and coax these cells to grow into tube-like structures. During this process, the cells secrete a compound called cellulose – a component of the extracellular matrix – which forms a biological scaffold that maintains the structure of the cells.

Next, the scientists chemically wash away the muscle cells, leaving an intact scaffold with a hole the diameter of your pinky finger. These scaffolds are then placed under the skin of patients on dialysis. Once transplanted, a patient’s own stem cells migrate to the empty scaffold, set up shop and create a new vein with a wide enough hole that can be used for hemodialysis.

Humacyte’s Chief Medical Officer, Jeff Lawson, explained it an interview with KQED Science:

Jeff Lawson, Humacyte

Jeff Lawson, Humacyte

“This scaffold, once implanted, uniquely becomes repopulated with their own stem cells. That then turns back into something that looks like a vascular cell. And it now transitions over the period of a few months into something that’s indistinguishable from your own tissue. One of the holy grails in vascular surgery is to come up with a prosthetic artificial graft that has the same properties as the patient’s own blood vessels.”

The great news about this promising technology is that Humacyte is testing it in a Phase III clinical trial – the final stage before a drug or treatment is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In a Phase III trial, the treatment has already proven to be safe and shown some effectiveness (in a Phase II trial) and is now being tested in a larger group of patients to hopefully confirm these findings.

In July, CIRM invested $10 million in Humacyte’s Phase III trial in hopes that this technology will improve the lives and health of dialysis patients. Randy Mills, the President and CEO of CIRM, views kidney failure as an unmet medical need that could benefit from a stem cell related treatment:

“This approach has the potential to significantly improve our ability to care for people with kidney disease. Being able to reduce infections and clotting problems, and increase the consistency of care hemodialysis patients get, would meaningfully impact the quality of their lives.”

A patient’s story and CIRM’s efforts to fund clinical trials

Raymund Ramirez

Raymond Ramirez (KQED Science)

Yesterday, David Gorn from KQED Science published a nice piece about Humacyte’s stem cell derived technology and featured the story of a kidney failure patient, Raymond Ramirez. Raymond’s story is very emotional. He is a Vietnam war veteran that has experienced a gauntlet of maladies including bladder cancer and blindness in his right eye. On top of that, his kidneys aren’t functioning well and he is unable to continue his dialysis treatments because his veins aren’t holding up.

Raymond was the first patient to be treated in Humacyte’s Phase III trial. You can read more about his story here.

Gorn also highlighted CIRM’s recent efforts to fund promising stem cell projects that are further along in development and ready for clinical trials in patients. He ended with a quote from UC San Diego’s director of stem cell research, Larry Goldstein, on how important it is for our agency to continue funding stem cell clinical trials.

Larry Goldstein

Larry Goldstein

“Ten years ago I don’t think there were that many [stem cell] projects that were really ready for clinical trials. The field itself has developed projects that are at clinical stage. If the agency [CIRM] keeps pumping out these types of clinical results, California voters may soon see another ballot measure to keep it going.”

Ready, Set, Go: CIRM funded clinical trial for heart disease finishes patient enrollment

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States with over 600,000 deaths occurring per year. Patients with heart disease or heart failure are given treatments that attempt to prevent their condition from getting worse or improve some of their symptoms. However, no treatment exists that can completely restore their heart function except for having a heart transplant – a risky procedure that has significant obstacles associated with it including transplant rejection and limited donor availability.

Regenerative medicine research for heart disease is an up-and-coming field. Scientist and companies are testing stem cell-based therapies to treat patients with heart disease in hopes of improving or restoring heart function.


CIRM is funding a company called Capricor Therapeutics located in Los Angeles, California, that’s testing a stem cell-based therapy in a Phase II clinical trial for cardiac dysfunction called ALLSTAR (ALLogeneic Heart STem Cells to Achieve Myocardial Regeneration).  The treatment is called  CAP-1002, which is an infusion of allogeneic cardiosphere-derived cells (CDCs). Capricor has shown that CDCs can regenerate tissue in the injured human heart in a previous Phase I clinical trial called CADUCEUS, which treated patients one to three months after they had a heart attack.

This week, Capricor reported that it has passed another milestone in the ALLSTAR trial and finished patient enrollment. Compared to the CADUCEUS trial, the patient population in ALLSTAR was expanded to include individuals that had a heart attack in the past 12 months. The purpose of this expanded patient population is to determine whether CAP-1002 is beneficial to patients with older heart injuries. A total of 142 patients were enrolled in the trial and 134 of those patients received either a single injection of CAP-1002 or a placebo treatment into their coronary artery associated with the heart injury.

In a news release, Capricor President and CEO Linda Marban explained the logic behind the CADUCEUS and ALLSTAR trials for cardiac dysfunction:

Linda Marban, CEO of Capricor Therapeutics

Linda Marban, CEO of Capricor Therapeutics

“As we and others have shown, CAP-1002 possesses the ability to promote therapeutic regeneration in the injured heart, a powerful concept for the treatment of heart disease. In the CADUCEUS clinical trial, CDCs decreased scar size and increased viable tissue in the hearts of patients who had suffered a large heart attack. In ALLSTAR, not only are we studying a population similar to the one that delivered such astounding results in CADUCEUS (30 – 90 days post-MI), but we have also included patients that were 91 – 365 days post-MI to see if we could extend the indication window. We have also moved to an allogeneic platform from autologous cells.”

ALLSTAR patients will be monitored carefully over the next year to make sure the CAP-1002 treatment is safe. After a year, Capricor will assess the potential regenerative capacity of CAP-1002 by measuring the size of the heart injury and looking for a reduction in scar tissue using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

“With the last patient in ALLSTAR having been dosed on September 30th, we expect to report top-line 12-month primary efficacy outcome results in the fourth quarter of 2017,” said Marban. “We are very much looking forward to seeing the results of the ALLSTAR trial because they may show, for the first time in a Phase II clinical trial, that cells can reduce scar and potentially improve outcomes.”

CIRM is also funding another clinical trial by Capricor that’s evaluating CAP-1002 in young boys with cardiomyopathy – diseases that affect heart muscle – resulting from Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The Phase I/II trial called HOPE recently completed its patient enrollment and you can read more about it here on the Stem Cellar.

Related links:

Stem Cell Experts Discuss the Ethical Implications of Translating iPSCs to the Clinic

Part of The Stem Cellar blog series on 10 years of iPSCs.

This year, scientists are celebrating the 10-year anniversary of Shinya Yamanaka’s Nobel Prize winning discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). These are cells that are very similar biologically to embryonic stem cells and can develop into any cell in the body. iPSCs are very useful in scientific research for disease modeling, drug screening, and for potential cell therapy applications.

However, with any therapy that involves testing in human patients, there are ethical questions that scientists, companies, and policy makers must consider. Yesterday, a panel of stem cell and bioethics experts at the Cell Symposium 10 Years of iPSCs conference in Berkeley discussed the ethical issues surrounding the translation of iPSC research from the lab bench to clinical trials in patients.

The panel included Shinya Yamanaka (Gladstone Institutes), George Daley (Harvard University), Christine Mummery (Leiden University Medical Centre), Lorenz Studer (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center), Deepak Srivastava (Gladstone Institutes), and Bioethicist Hank Greely (Stanford University).

iPSC Ethics Panel

iPSC Ethics Panel at the 10 Years of iPSCs Conference

Below is a summary of what these experts had to say about questions ranging from the ethics of patient and donor consent, genetic modification of iPSCs, designer organs, and whether patients should pay to participate in clinical trials.

How should we address patient or donor consent regarding iPSC banking?

Multiple institutes including CIRM are developing iPSC banks that store thousands of patient-derived iPSC lines, which scientists can use to study disease and develop new therapies. These important cell lines wouldn’t exist without patients who consent to donate their cells or tissue. The first question posed to the panel was how to regulate the consent process.

Christine Mummery began by emphasizing that it’s essential that companies are able to license patient-derived iPSC lines so they don’t have to go back to the patient and inconvenience them by asking for additional samples to make new cell lines.

George Daley and Hank Greely discussed different options for improving the informed consent process. Daley mentioned that the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) recently updated their informed consent guidelines and now provide adaptable informed consent templates that can be used for obtaining many type of materials for human stem cell research.  Daley also mentioned the move towards standardizing the informed consent process through a single video shared by multiple institutions.

Greely agreed that video could be a powerful way to connect with patients by using talented “explainers” to educate patients. But both Daley and Greely cautioned that it’s essential to make sure that patients understand what they are getting involved in when they donate their tissue.

Greely rounded up the conversation by reminding the audience that patients are giving the research field invaluable information so we should consider giving back in return. While we can’t and shouldn’t promise a cure, we can give back in other ways like recognizing the contributions of specific patients or disease communities.

Greely mentioned the resolution with Henrietta Lack’s family as a good example. For more than 60 years, scientists have used a cancer cell line called HeLa cells that were derived from the cervical cancer cells of a woman named Henrietta Lacks. Henrietta never gave consent for her cells to be used and her family had no clue that pieces of Henrietta were being studied around the world until years later.

In 2013, the NIH finally rectified this issue by requiring that researchers ask for permission to access Henrietta’s genomic data and to include the Lacks family in their publication acknowledgements.

Hank Greely, Stanford University

Hank Greely, Stanford University

“The Lacks family are quite proud and pleased that their mother, grandmother and great grandmother is being remembered, that they are consulted on various things,” said Hank Greely. “They aren’t making any direct money out of it but they are taking a great deal of pride in the recognition that their family is getting. I think that returning something to patients is a nice thing, and a human thing.”

What are the ethical issues surrounding genome editing of iPSCs?

The conversation quickly focused on the ongoing CRISPR patent battle between the Broad Institute, MIT and UC Berkeley. For those unfamiliar with the technique, CRISPR is a gene editing technology that allows you to cut and paste DNA at precise locations in the genome. CRISPR has many uses in research, but in the context of iPSCs, scientists are using CRISPR to remove disease-causing mutations in patient iPSCs.

George Daley expressed his worry about a potential fallout if the CRISPR battle goes a certain way. He commented, “It’s deeply concerning when such a fundamentally enabling platform technology could be restricted for future gene editing applications.”

The CRISPR patent battle began in 2012 and millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent since then. Hank Greely said that he can’t understand why the Institutes haven’t settled this case already as the costs will only continue to rise, but that it might not matter how the case turns out in the end:

“My guess is that this isn’t ultimately going to be important because people will quickly figure out ways to invent around the CRISPR/Cas9 technology. People have already done it around the Cas9 part and there will probably be ways to do the same thing for the CRISPR part.”

 Christine Mummery finished off with a final point about the potential risk of trying to correct disease causing mutations in patient iPSCs using CRISPR technology. She noted that it’s possible the correction may not lead to an improvement because of other disease-causing genetic mutations in the cells that the patient and their family are unaware of.

 Should patients or donors be paid for their cells and tissue?

Lorenz Studer said he would support patients being paid for donating samples as long as the payment is reasonable, the consent form is clear, and patients aren’t trying to make money off of the process.

Hank Greely said the big issue is with inducement and whether you are paying enough money to convince people to do something they shouldn’t or wouldn’t want to do. He said this issue comes up mainly around reproductive egg donation but not with obtaining simpler tissue samples like skin biopsies. Egg donors are given money because it’s an invasive procedure, but also because a political decision was made to compensate egg donors. Greely predicts the same thing is unlikely to happen with other cell and tissue types.

Christine Mummery’s opinion was that if a patient’s iPSCs are used by a drug company to produce new successful drugs, the patient should receive some form of compensation. But she said it’s hard to know how much to pay patients, and this question was left unanswered by the panel.

Should patients pay to participate in clinical trials?

George Daley said it’s hard to justify charging patients to participate in a Phase 1 clinical trial where the focus is on testing the safety of a therapy without any guarantee that there will be beneficial outcome to the patient. In this case, charging a patient money could raise their expectations and mislead them into thinking they will benefit from the treatment. It would also be unfair because only patients who can afford to pay would have access to trials. Ultimately, he concluded that making patients pay for an early stage trial would corrupt the informed consent process. However, he did say that there are certain, rare contexts that would be highly regulated where patients could pay to participate in trials in an ethical way.

Lorenz Studer said the issue is very challenging. He knows of patients who want to pay to be in trials for treatments they hope will work, but he also doesn’t think that patients should have to pay to be in early stage trials where their participation helps the progress of the therapy. He said the focus should be on enrolling the right patient groups in clinical trials and making sure patients are properly educated about the trial they are participating.

Thoughts on the ethics behind making designer organs from iPSCs?

Deepak Srivastava said that he thinks about this question all the time in reference to the heart:

Deepak Srivastava, Gladstone Institutes

Deepak Srivastava, Gladstone Institutes

“The heart is basically a pump. When we traditionally thought about whether we could make a human heart, we asked if we could make the same thing with the same shape and design. But in fact, that’s not necessarily the best design – it’s what evolution gave us. What we really need is a pump that’s electrically active. I think going forward, we should remove the constraint of the current design and just think about what would be the best functional structure to do it. But it is definitely messing with nature and what evolution has given us.”

Deepak also said that because every organ is different, different strategies should be used. In the case of the heart, it might be beneficial to convert existing heart tissue into beating heart cells using drugs rather than transplant iPSC-derived heart cells or tissue. For other organs like the pancreas, it is beneficial to transplant stem cell-derived cells. For diabetes, scientists have shown that injecting insulin secreting cells in multiple areas of the body is beneficial to Diabetes patients.

Hank Greely concluded that the big ethical issue of creating stem cell-derived organs is safety. “Biology isn’t the same as design,” Greely said. “It’s really, really complicated. When you put something into a biological organism, the chances that something odd will happen are extremely high. We have to be very careful to avoid making matters worse.”

For more on the 10 years of iPSCs conference, check out the #CSStemCell16 hashtag on twitter.

Full Steam Ahead: First Patient is Dosed in Expanded CIRM Spinal Cord Injury Trial

Today we bring you more good news about a CIRM-funded clinical trial for spinal cord injury that’s received a lot of attention lately in the news. Asterias Biotherapeutics has treated its first patient in an expanded patient population of spinal cord injury patients who suffer from cervical, or neck, injuries.

In late August, Asterias reported that they had passed the first hurdle in their Phase 1/2a trial and showed that their stem cell therapy is safe to use in patients with a more serious form of cervical spinal cord injuries.

Earlier this month, we received more exciting updates from Asterias – this time reporting that the their embryonic stem cell-based therapy, called AST-OPC1, appeared to benefit treated patients. Five patients with severe spinal cord injuries to their neck were dosed, or transplanted, with 10 million cells. These patients are classified as AIS-A on the ASIA impairment scale – meaning they have complete injuries in which the spinal cord tissue is severed and patients lose all feeling and use of their limbs below the injury site. Amazingly, after three months, all five of the AIS-A patients have seen improvements in their movement.

Today, Asterias announced that it has treated its first patient with an AIS-B grade cervical spinal cord injury with a dose of 10 million cells at the Sheperd Center in Atlanta. AIS-B patients have incomplete neck injuries, meaning that they still have some spinal cord tissue at the injury site, some feeling in their arms and legs, but no movement. This type of spinal cord injury is still severe, but these patients have a better chance at gaining back some of their function and movement after treatment.

In a press release by Asterias, Chief Medical Officer Dr. Edward Wirth said:

“We have been very encouraged by the first look at the early efficacy data, as well as the safety profile, for AST-OPC1 in AIS-A patients, and now look forward to also evaluating efficacy and safety in AIS-B patients. AIS-B patients also have severe spinal cord injuries, but compared to AIS-A patients they have more spared tissue in their spinal cords.  This may allow these patients to have a greater chance of meaningful functional improvement after being treated with AST-OPC1 cells.”

Dr. Donald Peck Leslie, who directs the Sheperd Center and is the lead investigator at the Atlanta clinical trial site, expressed his excitement about the trials’ progress.

“As someone who regularly treats patients who have sustained paralyzing spinal cord injuries, I am encouraged by the progress we’ve seen in evaluations of AST-OPC1 in people with AIS-A injuries, particularly the improvements in hand, finger and arm function. Now, I am looking forward to continuing the evaluation of this promising new treatment in AIS-B patients, as well.”

Asterias has plans to enroll a total of five to eight AIS-B patients who will receive a dose of 10 million cells. They will continue to monitor all patients in this trial (both AIS-A and B) and will conduct long-term follow up studies to make sure that the AST-OPC1 treatment remains safe.

We hope that the brave patients who have participated in the Asterias trial continue to show improvements following treatment. Inspiring stories like that of Kris Boesen, who was the first AIS-A patient to get 10 million cells in the Asterias trial and now has regained the use of his arms and hands (and regaining some sensation in his legs), are the reason why CIRM exists and why we are working so hard to fund promising clinical trials. If we can develop even one stem cell therapy that gives patients back their life, then our efforts here at CIRM will be worthwhile.

Kris Boesen, CIRM spinal cord injury clinical trial patient.

Kris Boesen, CIRM spinal cord injury clinical trial patient.

Related Links:

Funding stem cell research targeting a rare and life-threatening disease in children


Photo courtesy Cystinosis Research Network

If you have never heard of cystinosis you should consider yourself fortunate. It’s a rare condition caused by an inherited genetic mutation. It hits early and it hits hard. Children with cystinosis are usually diagnosed before age 2 and are in end-stage kidney failure by the time they are 9. If that’s not bad enough they also experience damage to their eyes, liver, muscles, pancreas and brain.

The genetic mutation behind the condition results in an amino acid, cystine, accumulating at toxic levels in the body. There’s no cure. There is one approved treatment but it only delays progression of the disease, has some serious side effects of its own, and doesn’t prevent the need for a  kidney transplant.

Researchers at UC San Diego, led by Stephanie Cherqui, think they might have a better approach, one that could offer a single, life-long treatment for the problem. Yesterday the CIRM Board agreed and approved more than $5.2 million for Cherqui and her team to do the pre-clinical testing and work needed to get this potential treatment ready for a clinical trial.

Their goal is to take blood stem cells from people with cystinosis, genetically-modify them and return them to the patient, effectively delivering a healthy, functional gene to the body. The hope is that these genetically-modified blood stem cells will integrate with various body organs and not only replace diseased cells but also rescue them from the disease, making them healthy once again.

In a news release Randy Mills, CIRM’s President and CEO, said orphan diseases like cystinosis may not affect large numbers of people but are no less deserving of research in finding an effective therapy:

“Current treatments are expensive and limited. We want to push beyond and help find a life-long treatment, one that could prevent kidney failure and the need for kidney transplant. In this case, both the need and the science were compelling.”

The beauty of work like this is that, if successful, a one-time treatment could last a lifetime, eliminating or reducing kidney disease and the need for kidney transplantation. But it doesn’t stop there. The lessons learned through research like this might also apply to other inherited multi-organ degenerative disorders.

Asterias’ stem cell clinical trial shows encouraging results for spinal cord injury patients

jake and family

Jake Javier; Asterias spinal cord injury clinical trial participant

When researchers are carrying out a clinical trial they have two goals: first, show that it is safe (the old “do no harm” maxim) and second, show it works. One without the other doesn’t do anyone any good in the long run.

A few weeks ago Asterias Biotherapeutics showed that their CIRM-funded stem cell therapy for spinal cord injuries appeared to be safe. Now their data suggests it’s working. And that is a pretty exciting combination.

Asterias announced the news at the annual scientific meeting of the International Spinal Cord Society in Vienna, Austria. These results cover five people who got a transplant of 10 million cells. While the language is muted, the implications are very encouraging:

“While early in the study, with only 4 of the 5 patients in the cohort having reached 90 days after dosing, all patients have shown at least one motor level of improvement so far and the efficacy target of 2 of 5 patients in the cohort achieving two motor levels of improvement on at least one side of their body has already been achieved.”

What does that mean for the people treated? A lot. Remember these are people who qualified for this clinical trial because of an injury that left them pretty much paralyzed from the chest down. Seeing an improvement of two motor levels means they are regaining some use of their arms, hands and fingers, and that means they are regaining the ability to do things like feeding, dressing and bathing themselves. In effect, it is not only improving their quality of life but it is also giving them a chance to lead an independent life.


Kris Boesen, Asterias clinical trial participant

One of those patients is Kris Boesen who regained the use of his arms and hands after becoming the first patient in this trial to get a transplant of 10 million cells. We blogged about Kris here

Asterias says of the 5 patients who got 10 million cells, 4 are now 90 days out from their transplant. Of those:

  • All four have improved one motor level on at least one side
  • 2 patients have improved two motor levels on one side
  • One has improved two motor levels on both sides

What’s also encouraging is that none of the people treated experienced any serious side effects or adverse events from the transplant or the temporary use of immunosuppressive drugs.

Steve Cartt, CEO of Asterias, was understandably happy with the news and that it allows them to move to the next phase:

“We are quite encouraged by this first look at efficacy results and look forward to reporting six-month efficacy data as planned in January 2017.  We have also just recently been cleared to begin enrolling a new cohort and administering to these new patients a much higher dose of 20 million cells.  We look forward to begin evaluating efficacy results in this higher-dose cohort in the coming months as well.”

People with spinal cord injuries can regain some function spontaneously so no one is yet leaping to the conclusion that all the progress in this trial is due to the stem cells. But to see all of the patients in the 10 million stem cell group do well is at the very least a positive sign. Now the hope is that these folks will continue to do well, and that the next group of people who get a 20 million cell transplant will also see improvements.


Roman Reed, spinal cord injury patient advocate

While the team at Asterias were being cautiously optimistic, Roman Reed, whose foundation helped fund the early research that led to this clinical trial, was much less subdued in his response. He was positively giddy:

“If one patient only improves out of the five, it can be an outlier, but with everyone improving out of the five this is legit, this is real. Cures are happening!”