Getting the inside scoop on the stem cell agency

There’s a wonderful moment at the end of the movie The Candidate (starring Robert Redford, 87% approval on Rotten Tomatoes!) about a modern political campaign for a US Senate seat. Redford (spoiler alert) plays a come-from-behind candidate and at the end when he wins he turns to his campaign manager and says “Now what?”.

I think that’s how a lot of people associated with Proposition 71 felt when it was approved by California voters in 2004, creating CIRM. Now what? During the campaign you are so focused on crossing the finish line that when the campaign is over you have to pause because you just realized it wasn’t the finishing line, it was actually the starting line.

For us “now what” involved hiring a staff, creating oversight groups of scientists and ethics experts, developing strategies and then mechanisms for funding, and then mechanisms for tracking that funding to make sure it was being used properly. It was creating something from scratch and trying to do something that no state agency had done before.

Fifteen years later we are coming to the end of the funding provided by Prop 71 and that question keeps popping up again, “Now what?” And that’s what we are going to be talking about in our next Facebook Live.

We have three great experts on our panel. They are scientists and researchers and leaders in biotech, but also members of our CIRM Board. We rely on their experience and expertise in making key decisions and you can rely on them to pull back the curtain and talk about the things that matter most to them in helping advance our mission, and in helping secure our legacy.

Anne-Marie Duliege MD, has more than 25 years of experience in the medical world, starting out as a pediatrician and then moving into research. She has experience developing new therapies for auto-immune disorders, lung problems and infectious diseases.

Like Anne-Marie, Joe Panetta, has years of experience working in the research field, and is currently President & CEO of Biocom, the California association that advocates for more than 1,200 companies, universities and research institutes working in biotechnology.

Finally, Dave Martin MD, came to CIRM after stints at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), UC San Francisco, Genentech, Chiron and several other highly-regarded organizations. He is also the co-founder, chairman and CEO of AvidBiotics, a privately held biotechnology company in South San Francisco.

Each brings a different perspective to the work that we do at CIRM, and each enriches it not just with their intelligence and experience, but also with their compassion for the patients and commitment to our mission.

So, join us on Thursday, July 25th from noon till 1pm (PDT) for a special Facebook Live “Ask the Stem Cell Team” to understand how we got where we are, how the rest of the field is doing, and what happens next. It promises to be a fascinating hour.

Breaking bad news to stem cell researchers

It’s never easy to tell someone that they are too late, that they missed the deadline. It’s particularly hard when you know that the person you are telling that to has spent years working on a project and now needs money to take it to the next level. But in science, as in life, it’s always better to tell people what they need to know rather than what they would like to hear.

And so, we have posted a notice on our website for researchers thinking about applying for funding that, except in a very few cases, they are too late, that there is no money available for new projects, whether it’s Discovery, Translational or Clinical.

Here’s that notice:

CIRM anticipates that the budget allocation of funds for new awards under the CIRM clinical program (CLIN1, CLIN2 and CLIN3) may be depleted within the next two to three months. CIRM will accept applications for the monthly deadline on June 28, 2019 but will suspend application submissions after that date until further notice. All applicants should note that the review of submitted applications may be halted at any point in the process if funds are depleted prior to completion of the 3-month review cycle. CIRM will notify applicants of such an occurrence. Therefore, submission and acceptance of an application to CIRM does not guarantee the availability of funds or completion of a review cycle.

The submission of applications for the CIRM/NHLBI Cure Sickle Cell Initiative (CLIN1 SCD, CLIN2 SCD) are unaffected and application submissions for this program will remain open.

We do, of course, have enough money set aside to continue funding all the projects our Board has already approved, but we don’t have money for new projects (except for some sickle cell disease projects).

In truth our funding has lasted a lot longer than anyone anticipated. When Proposition 71 was approved the plan was to give CIRM $300 million a year for ten years. That was back in 2004. So what happened?

Well, in the early years stem cell science was still very much in its infancy with most of the work being done at a basic or Discovery level. Those typically don’t require very large sums so we were able to fund many projects without hitting our $300m target. As the field progressed, however, more and more projects were at the clinical trial stage and those need multiple millions of dollars to be completed. So, the money went out faster.

To date we have funded 55 clinical trials and our early support has helped more than a dozen other projects get into clinical trials. This includes everything from cancer and stroke, to vision loss and diabetes. It’s a good start, but we feel there is so much more to do.

Followers of news about CIRM know there is talk about a possible ballot initiative next year that would provide another $5.5 billion in funding for us to help complete the mission we have started.

Over the years we have built a pipeline of promising projects and without continued support many of those projects face a difficult future. Funding at the federal level is under threat and without CIRM there will be a limited number of funding alternatives for them to turn to.

Telling researchers we don’t have any money to support their work is hard. Telling patients we don’t have any money to support work that could lead to new treatments for them, that’s hardest of all.

Clinical trials: separating the wheat from the chaff

What do you do when the supposed solution to a problem actually turns out to be a part of the problem? That’s the situation facing people who want to direct patients to scientifically sound clinical trials. Turns out the site many were going to may be directing patients to therapies that are not only not scientifically sound, they may not even be safe.

The site in question is the www.clinicaltrials.gov website. That’s a list of all the clinical trials registered with the National Institutes of Health. In theory that should be a rock-solid list of trials that have been given the go-ahead by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be tested in people. Unfortunately, the reality is very different. Many of the trials listed there have gone through the rigorous testing and approval process to earn the right to be tested in people. But some haven’t. And figuring out which is which is not easy.

The issue was highlighted by a terrific article on STAT News this week. The article’s title succinctly sums up the piece: “Stem cell clinics co-opt clinical-trials registry to market unproven therapies, critics say.”

The story highlights how clinics that are offering unproven and unapproved stem cell therapies can register their “clinical trial” on the site, even if they haven’t received FDA approval to carry out a clinical trial.

Leigh Turner, a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota and a long-time foe of these clinics, said:

“You can concoct this bogus appearance of science, call it a clinical study, recruit people to pay to participate in your study, and not only that: You can actually register on clinicaltrials.gov and have the federal government help you promote what you’re doing. That struck me as both dangerous and brilliant.”

At CIRM this is a problem we face almost every day. People call or email us asking for help finding a stem cell therapy for everything from cancer and autism to diabetes. If we are funding something or if there is one underway at one of our Alpha Stem Cell Clinics we can direct them to that particular trial. If not, the easiest thing would be to direct them to the clinicaltrials.gov site. But when you are not sure that all the programs listed are legitimate clinical trials, that’s not something we always feel comfortable doing.

As the STAT piece points out, some of the “trials” listed on the site are even being run by companies that the FDA is trying to shut down because of serious concerns about the “therapies” they are offering. One was for a Florida clinic that had blinded four people. Despite that, the clinic’s projects remain on the site where other patients can find them.

Being listed on clinicaltrials.gov gives clinics offering unproven therapies an air or legitimacy. So how can you spot a good trial from a bad one? It’s not always easy.

One red flag is if the trial is asking you to pay for the treatment. That’s considered unethical because it’s asking you to pay to be part of an experiment. Only a very few legitimate clinical trials ask patients to pay, and even then, only with permission from the FDA.

Another warning sign is anything that has a laundry list of things it can treat, everything from arthritis to Alzheimer’s. Well-designed clinical trials tend to be targeted at one condition not multiple ones.

We have put together some useful tools for patients considering taking part in a clinical trial. Here is a link to a video and infographic that tell people the questions they need to ask, and things they need to consider, before signing up for any clinical trial.

So why does the NIH continue to allow these clinics to “advertise” their programs on its website? One reason is that the NIH simply doesn’t have the bandwidth to check every listing to make sure they are legit. They have tried to make things better by including a warning, stating:

“Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and learn about the risks and potential benefits.”

The bottom line is that if you are in the market for a stem cell therapy you should approach it the way you would any potentially life-changing decision: caveat emptor, buyer beware.

The Past, the Present, and the Uncertain Future of Stem Cell Research

Ronnie, a boy who was born without a functioning immune system but who is thriving today because of CIRM funded research

When CIRM was created in 2004 the field of stem cell research was still very much in its infancy. Fast forward 15 years and it’s moving ahead at a rapid pace, probably faster than most scientists would have predicted. How fast? Find out for yourself at a free public event at UC San Diego on May 28th from 12.30 to 1.30p.

In the last 15 years CIRM has funded 53 clinical trials in everything from heart disease and stroke, to spinal cord injury, vision loss, sickle cell disease and HIV/AIDS.

UCSD was one of the first medical centers chosen to host a CIRM Alpha Stem Cell Clinic – a specialist center with the experience and expertise to deliver stem cell therapies to patients – and to date is running more than a dozen clinical trials for breast cancer, heart failure, leukemia and chronic lower back pain.

Clearly progress is being made. But the field is also facing some challenges. Funding at the federal level for stem cell research is under threat, and CIRM is entering what could be its final phase. We have enough money left to fund new projects through this year (and these are multi-year projects so they will run into 2021 or 2022) but unless there is a new round of funding we will slowly disappear. And with us, may also disappear the hopes of some of the most promising projects underway.

If CIRM goes, then projects that we have supported and nurtured through different phases of research may struggle to make it into a clinical trial because they can’t get the necessary funding.

Clearly this is a pivotal time in the field.

We will discuss all this, the past, the present and the uncertain future of stem cell research at the meeting at UC San Diego on May 28th. The doors will open at noon for registration (snacks and light refreshments will also be available) and the program runs from 12.30p to 1.30p.

The speakers are:

  • Dr. Catriona Jamieson, Director of the UC San Diego Health CIRM Alpha Stem Cell Clinic and Sanford Stem Cell Clinical Center.
  • Dr. Maria Millan, President and CEO of CIRM
  • Dr. David Higgins, CIRM Board member and Patient Advocate for Parkinson’s Disease.

And of course, we want to hear from you, so we’ll leave plenty of time for questions.

Free parking is available.

Go here for more information about the event and how you can register

Free free to share this with anyone you think might be interested in joining us and we look forward to seeing you there.

200 years later, the search for a cure for Parkinson’s continues

On the surface, actor Michael J. Fox, singer Neil Diamond, civil rights activist Jesse Jackson and Scottish comedian Billy Connolly would appear to have little in common. Except for one thing. They all have Parkinson’s Disease (PD).

Their celebrity status has helped raise public awareness about the condition, but studies show that awareness doesn’t amount to an understanding of PD or the extent to which it impacts someone’s life. In fact a study in the UK found that many people still don’t think PD is a serious condition.

To try and help change that people around the world will be holding events today, April 11th, World Parkinson’s Day.

The disease was first described by James Parkinson in 1817 in “An Essay on the Shaking Palsy”. In the essay Parkinson described a pattern of trembling in the hands and fingers, slower movement and loss of balance. Our knowledge about the disease has advanced in the last 200 years and now there are treatments that can help slow down the progression of the disease. But those treatments only last for a while, and so there is a real need for new treatments.  

That’s what Jun Takahashi’s team at Kyoto University in Japan hope to provide. In a first-of-its-kind procedure they took skin cells from a healthy donor and reprogrammed them to become induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), or stem cells that become any type of cell. These iPSCs were then turned into the precursors of dopamine-producing neurons, the cells destroyed by PD, and implanted into 12 brain regions known to be hotspots for dopamine production.

The procedure was carried out in October and the patient, a male in his 50s, is still healthy. If his symptoms continue to improve and he doesn’t experience any bad side effects, he will receive a second dose of dopamine-producing stem cells. Six other patients are scheduled to receive this same treatment.

Earlier tests in monkeys showed that the implanted stem cells improved Parkinson’s symptoms without causing any serious side effects.

Dompaminergic neurons derived from stem cells

Scientists at UC San Francisco are trying a different approach, using gene therapy to tackle one of the most widely recognized symptoms of PD, muscle movement.

In the study, published in the journal Annals of Neurology, the team used an inactive virus to deliver a gene to boost production of dopamine in the brain. In a Phase 1 clinical trial 15 patients, whose medication was no longer able to fully control their movement disorder, were treated with this approach. Not only were they able to reduce their medication – up to 42 percent in some cases – the medication they did take lasted longer before causing dyskinesia, an involuntary muscle movement that is a common side effect of the PD medication.

In a news article Dr. Chad Christine, the first author of the study, says this approach may also help reduce other symptoms.

“Since many patients were able to substantially reduce the amount of Parkinson’s medications, this gene therapy treatment may also help patients by reducing dose-dependent side effects, such as sleepiness and nausea.” 

At CIRM we have a long history of funding research into PD. Over the years we have invested more than $55 million to try and develop new treatments for the disease.

In June 2018, the CIRM Board awarded $5.8 million to UC San Francisco’s Krystof Bankiewicz and Cedars-Sinai’s Clive Svendsen. They are using neural progenitor cells, which have the ability to multiply and turn into other kinds of brain cells, and engineering them to express the growth factor GDNF which is known to protect the cells damaged in PD. The hope is that when transplanted into the brain of someone with PD, it will help slow down, or even halt the progression of the disease. 

The CIRM funding will hopefully help the team do the pre-clinical research needed to get the FDA’s go-ahead to test this approach in a clinical trial. 

David Higgins, CIRM Board member and Patient Advocate for Parkinson’s Disease

At the time of the award David Higgins, PhD, the CIRM Board Patient Advocate for Parkinson’s Disease, said: “One of the big frustrations for people with Parkinson’s, and their families and loved ones, is that existing therapies only address the symptoms and do little to slow down or even reverse the progress of the disease. That’s why it’s important to support any project that has the potential to address Parkinson’s at a much deeper, longer-lasting level.”

But we don’t just fund the research, we try to bring the scientific community together to help identify obstacles and overcome them. In March of 2013, in collaboration with the Center for Regenerative Medicine (CRM) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), we held a two-day workshop on cell therapies for Parkinson’s Disease. The experts outlined the steps needed to help bring the most promising research to patients.

Around one million Americans are currently living with Parkinson’s Disease. Worldwide the number is more than ten million. Those numbers are only expected to increase as the population ages. There is clearly a huge need to develop new treatments and, hopefully one day, a cure.

Till then days like April 11th will be an opportunity to remind ourselves why this work is so important.

Midwest universities are making important tools to advance stem cell research

580b4-ipscell

iPSCs are not just pretty, they’re also pretty remarkable

Two Midwest universities are making headlines for their contributions to stem cell research. Both are developing important tools to advance this field of study, but in two unique ways.

Scientists at the University of Michigan (UM), have compiled an impressive repository of disease-specific stem cell lines. Cell lines are crucial tools for scientists to study the mechanics of different diseases and allows them to do so without animal models. While animal models have important benefits, such as the ability to study a disease within the context of a living mammal, insights gained from such models can be difficult to translate to humans and many diseases do not even have good models to use.

The stem cell lines generated at the Reproductive Sciences Program at UM, are thanks to numerous individuals who donated extra embryos they did not use for in vitro fertilization (IVF). Researchers at UM then screened these embryos for abnormalities associated with different types of disease and generated some 36 different stem cell lines. These have been donated to the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry, and include cell lines for diseases such as cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s Disease and hemophilia.

Using one such cell line, Dr. Peter Todd at UM, found that the genetic abnormality associated with Fragile X Syndrome, a genetic mutation that results in developmental delays and learning disabilities, can be corrected by using a novel biological tool. Because Fragile X Syndrome does not have a good animal model, this stem cell line was critical for improving our understanding of this disease.

In the next state over, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UWM), researchers are doing similar work but using induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) for their work.

The Human Stem Cell Gene Editing Service has proved to be an important resource in expediting research projects across campus. They use CRISPR-Cas9 technology (an efficient method to mutate or edit the DNA of any organism), to generate human stem cell lines that contain disease specific mutations. Researchers use these cell lines to determine how the mutation affects cells and/or how to correct the cellular abnormality the mutation causes. Unlike the work at UM, these stem cell lines are derived from iPSCs  which can be generated from easy to obtain human samples, such as skin cells.

The gene editing services at UWM have already proved to be so popular in their short existence that they are considering expanding to be able to accommodate off-campus requests. This highlights the extent to which both CRISPR technology and stem cell research are being used to answer important scientific questions to advance our understanding of disease.

CIRM also created an iPSC bank that researchers can use to study different diseases. The  Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell (iPSC) Repository is  the largest repository of its kind in the world and is used by researchers across the globe.

The iPSC Repository was created by CIRM to house a collection of stem cells from thousands of individuals, some healthy, but some with diseases such as heart, lung or liver disease, or disorders such as autism. The goal is for scientists to use these cells to better understand diseases and develop and test new therapies to combat them. This provides an unprecedented opportunity to study the cell types from patients that are affected in disease, but for which cells cannot otherwise be easily obtained in large quantities.

NIH-scientists are told to stop buying fetal tissue for research, highlighting importance of CIRM’s voter-created independence

NIH_Clinical_Research_Center_aerial

National Institutes of Health

The news that President Trump’s administration has told scientists employed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that they can’t buy any new human fetal tissue for research has left many scientists frustrated and worried.

The news has also highlighted the reason why voters created CIRM in the first place and the importance of having an independent source of funding for potentially life-saving research such as this.

The Trump administration imposed the suspension of all new acquisitions saying it wants to review all fetal tissue research funded by the federal government. The impact was felt immediately.

In an article on ScienceMag.com, Warner Greene, director of the Center for HIV Cure Research at the Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco, said the decision derailed collaboration between his lab and one at Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana. The research focused on an antibody that previous studies showed might prevent HIV from establishing reservoirs in the human body.

“We were all poised to go and then the bombshell was dropped. The decision completely knocked our collaboration off the rails. We were devastated.”

Right now, it’s not clear if the “halt” is temporary or permanent, or if it will ultimately be expanded beyond scientists employed by the NIH to all scientists funded by the NIH who use fetal tissue.

In 2001, President George W. Bush’s decision to impose restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research helped generate support for Proposition 71, the voter-approved initiation that created CIRM. People felt that stem cell research had potential to develop treatments and cures for deadly diseases and that if the federal government wasn’t going to support it then California would.

CIRM Board member, and Patient Advocate for HIV/AIDS, Jeff Sheehy says the current actions could have wide-reaching impact.

“While the initial focus of the emerging ban on the use of fetal tissue has been on projects related to HIV, this action undermines a spectrum of vital research initiatives that seek to cure multiple life-threatening diseases and conditions.  Many regenerative medicine cell-based or gene therapies require pre-clinical safety studies in humanized mice created with fetal tissue.  These mice effectively have human immune systems, which allows researchers to examine the effects of products on the immune system. Work to prevent and treat infectious diseases, including vaccine efforts, require this animal model to do initial testing. Development of vaccines to respond to actual threats requires use of this animal model.  This action could have damaging effects on the health of Americans.”

 

California’s Stem Cell Agency Accelerates Treatments to Patients

The following article is an Op Ed that appeared in today’s print version of the San Francisco Chronicle

SanFranChronicle_Web

Biotechnology was born in California in the 1970s based on the discovery out of one of its universities and California is responsible for an industry that has impacted the lives of billions of people worldwide. In 2004, the voters of California approved Proposition 71, creating the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine and setting the state on the path to becoming a global leader in stem cell research. Today the therapies resulting from the institute’s work are not just changing lives, they are already saving lives.

Lives like Evie Vaccaro, who is alive today because of a treatment CIRM is funding. Vaccaro was born with SCID, also known as “bubble baby disease,” an immune disorder that often kills babies in their first two years. Vaccaro and dozens of other babies were given stem cell treatments thanks to the institute. All are showing improvement; some are now several years past treatment and considered cured.

An accident left Jake Javier from Danville paralyzed from the chest down on the eve of his high school graduation. Javier was treated in a CIRM-funded clinical trial. Today he has regained the use of his arms and hands, is driving a car and is a sophomore at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Five other patients treated at the same time as Javier have all experienced improvements meaning that instead of needing round-the-clock care, they can lead independent lives.

A study by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development estimated it takes at least 10 years and $2.6 billion to develop one successful drug. In 14 years, and with just $3 billion, CIRM has funded 1,000 different projects, enrolled 900 patients, and supported 49 different clinical trials targeting diseases such as cancer, kidney failure and leukemia. Four of these programs have received an expedited designation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, meaning they could get faster approval to help more patients

We have created a network of world class medical clinics that have expertise in delivering treatments to patients. The CIRM Alpha Clinics offer treatments based on solid science, unlike the unlicensed clinics sprouting up around California that peddle unproven and potentially harmful therapies that cost patients thousands of dollars.

CIRM has:

  • Supported the creation of 12 stem-cell research facilities in California
  • Attracted hundreds of top-tier researchers to California
  • Trained a new generation of stem-cell scientists
  • Brought clinical trials to California — for example, one targeting ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease
  • Deployed rigorous scientific standards and support so our programs have a “seal of approval” to attract $2.7 billion in additional investments from industry and other sources.

We recently have partnered with the National Institutes of Health to break down barriers and speed up the approval process to bring curative treatments to patients with Sickle Cell Disease.

Have we achieved all we wanted to? Of course not. The first decade of CIRM’s life was laying the groundwork, developing the knowledge and expertise and refining processes so that we can truly accelerate progress. As a leader in this burgeoning field of regenerative medicine, CIRM needs to continue its mission of accelerating stem-cell treatments to patients with unmet medical needs.

Dr. Maria T. Millan is President and CEO and Jonathan Thomas, JD, PhD, is the Board Chairman of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. 

 

 

Has Regenerative Medicine Come of Age?

Signals logo

For the past few years the Signals blog site –  which offers an insiders’ perspectives on the world of regenerative medicine and stem cell research – has hosted what it calls a “Blog Carnival”. This is an event where bloggers from across the stem cell field are invited to submit a piece based on a common theme. This year’s theme is “Has Regenerative Medicine Come of Age?” Here’s my take on that question:

Many cultures have different traditions to mark when a child comes of age. A bar mitzvah is a Jewish custom marking a boy reaching his 13th birthday when he is considered accountable for his own actions. Among Latinos in the US a quinceañera is the name given to the coming-of-age celebration on a girl’s 15th birthday.

Regenerative Medicine (RM) doesn’t have anything quite so simple or obvious, and yet the signs are strong that if RM hasn’t quite come of age, it’s not far off.

For example, look at our experience at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). When we were created by the voters of California in 2004 the world of stem cell research was still at a relatively immature phase. In fact, CIRM was created just six years after scientists first discovered a way to derive stem cells from human embryos and develop those cells in the laboratory. No surprise then that in the first few years of our existence we devoted a lot of funding to building world class research facilities and investing in basic research, to gain a deeper understanding of stem cells, what they could do and how we could use them to develop therapies.

Fast forward 14 years and we now have funded 49 projects in clinical trials – everything from stroke and cancer to spinal cord injury and HIV/AIDS – and our early funding also helped another 11 projects get into clinical trials. Clearly the field has advanced dramatically.

In addition the FDA last year approved the first two CAR-T therapies – Kymriah and Yescarta – another indication that progress is being made at many levels.

But there is still a lot of work to do. Many of the trials we are funding at the Stem Cell Agency are either Phase 1 or 2 trials. We have only a few Phase 3 trials on our books, a pattern reflected in the wider RM field. For some projects the results are very encouraging – Dr. Gary Steinberg’s work at Stanford treating people recovering from a stroke is tremendously promising. For others, the results are disappointing. We have cancelled some projects because it was clear they were not going to meet their goals. That is to be expected. These clinical trials are experiments that are testing, often for the first time ever in people, a whole new way of treating disease. Failure comes with the territory.

As the number of projects moving out of the lab and into clinical trials increases so too are the other signs of progress in RM. We recently held a workshop bringing together researchers and regulators from all over the world to explore the biggest problems in manufacturing, including how you go from making a small batch of stem cells for a few patients in an early phase clinical trial to mass producing them for thousands, if not millions of patients. We are also working with the National Institutes of Health and other stakeholders in discussing the idea of reimbursement, figuring out who pays for these therapies so they are available to the patients who need them.

And as the field advances so too do the issues we have to deal with. The discovery of the gene-editing tool CRISPR has opened up all sorts of possible new ways of developing treatments for deadly diseases. But it has also opened up a Pandora’s box of ethical issues that the field as a whole is working hard to respond to.

These are clear signs of a maturing field. Five years ago, we dreamed of having these kinds of conversations. Now they are a regular feature of any RM conference.

The simple fact that we can pose a question asking if RM has come of age is a sign all by itself that we are on the way.

Like little kids sitting in the back of a car, anxious to get to their destination, we are asking “Are we there yet?” And as every parent in the front seat of their car responds, “Not yet. But soon.”

Overcoming one of the biggest challenges in stem cell research

Imagine you have just designed and built a new car. Everyone loves it. It’s sleek, fast, elegant, has plenty of cup holders. People want to buy it. The only problem is you haven’t built an assembly line to make enough of them to meet demand. Frustrating eh.

Overcoming problems in manufacturing is not an issue that just affects the auto industry (which won’t make Elon Musk and Tesla feel any better) it’s something that affects many other areas too – including the field of regenerative medicine. After all, what good is it developing a treatment for a deadly disease if you can’t make enough of the therapy to help the people who need it the most, the patients.

As the number of stem cell therapies entering clinical trials increases, so too does the demand for large numbers of high quality, rigorously tested stem cells. And because each of those therapies is unique, that places a lot of pressure on existing manufacturing facilities to meet the demand.

IABS panel

Representatives from the US FDA, Health Canada, EMA, FDA China, World Health Organization discuss creating a manufacturing roadmap for stem cell therapies: Photo Geoff Lomax

So, with that in mind CIRM teamed up with the International Alliance for Biological Standardization (IABS) to hold the 4th Cell Therapy Conference: Manufacturing and Testing of Pluripotent Stem Cells to try and identify the key problems and chart out solutions.

The conference brought together everyone who had a stake in this issue, including leading experts in cell manufacturing, commercial sponsors developing stem cell treatments, academic researchers, the World Health Organization, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), international regulatory bodies as well as patient and patient advocates too (after all, who has a greater stake in this).

Commercial sponsors and academic researchers presented case studies of how they worked through the development of manufacturing process for their stem cell treatments.

Some key points quickly emerged:

  • Scale up and quality control of stem cell manufacturing is vital to the development of stem cell treatments.
  • California is a world leader in stem cell manufacturing.
  • There have been numerous innovations in cell manufacturing that serve to support quality, quantity, performance and cost control.
  • The collective experience of the field is leading to standardization of definitions (so we all use the same language), standardization of processes to release quality cells, manufacturing and standardization of testing (so we all meet the same safety requirements).
  • Building consensus among stakeholders is important for accelerating stem cell treatments to patients.

Regulatory experts emphasized the importance of thinking about manufacturing early on in the research and product development phase, so that you can avoid problems in later stages.

There were no easy answers to many of the questions posed, but there was agreement on the importance of developing a stem cell glossary, a common set of terms and definitions that we can all use. There was also agreement on the key topics that need to continue to be highlighted such as safety testing, compatibility, early locking-in of quality processes when feasible, and scaling up.

In the past our big concern was developing the therapies. Now we have to worry about being able to manufacture enough of the cells to meet demand. That’s progress.

A technical summary is being developed and we will announce when it is available.