As we get close to the end of the year there is no shortage of lists of the “best of the year” and even this year the “best of the decade”. But when it comes to podcasts it would be hard to think of a better one than “Bad Batch”. It’s part stem cell research, part medical mystery and altogether engrossing.
It’s the work of Laura Beil, an award-winning journalist who follows the trail of a stem cell therapy that was supposed to help patients but instead left them battling life-threatening infections. It highlights how some clinics are able to find loopholes in the law that allow them to offer unproven and unapproved therapies, and how those therapies can put people’s lives at risk.
We have written about the dangers of predatory stem cell clinics several times, but in “Bad Batch” you get to hear the voices of the people affected, and ultimately the people responsible. It’s great journalism and fascinating story telling. And it’s a reminder of the work that needs to be done to stop this ever happening again.
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.
An independent Economic Impact Report says the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) has had a major impact on California’s economy, creating tens of thousands of new jobs, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in new taxes, and producing billions of dollars in additional revenue for the state.
The report, done by Dan Wei and Adam Rose at the Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California, looked at the impacts of CIRM funding on both the state and national economy from the start of the Stem Cell Agency in 2004 to the end of 2018.
The total impacts on the California economy are estimated
billion of additional gross output (sales revenue)
million of additional state/local tax revenues
million of additional federal tax revenues
additional full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs, half of which offer salaries
considerably higher than the state average
Millan, M.D., CIRM’s President and CEO, says the report reflects the Agency’s
role in building an ecosystem to accelerate the translation of important stem
cell science to solutions for patients with unmet medical needs. “CIRM’s
mission on behalf of patients has been the priority from day one, but this
report shows that CIRM funding brings additional benefits to the state. This report
reflects how CIRM is promoting economic growth in California by attracting
scientific talent and additional capital, and by creating an environment that
supports the development of businesses and commercial enterprises in the state”
In addition to the benefits to California, the impacts
outside of California on the US economy are estimated to be:
billion of additional gross output (sales revenue)
million of additional state (non-Californian) & local tax revenue
million of additional federal tax revenues
additional full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs
researchers summarize their findings, saying: “In terms of economic impacts, the
state’s investment in CIRM has paid handsome dividends in terms of output, employment,
and tax revenues for California.”
The estimates in the report are based on the economic stimulus
created by CIRM funding and by the co-funding that researchers and companies
were required to provide for clinical and late-stage preclinical projects. The
estimates also include:
Investments in CIRM-supported projects from private funders such
as equity investments, public offerings and mergers and acquisitions,
Follow-on funding from the National Institutes of Health and other
organizations due to data generated in CIRM-funded projects
Funding generated by clinical trials held at CIRM’s Alpha Stem
Cell Clinics network
researchers state “Nearly half of these impacts emanate from the $2.67 billion
CIRM grants themselves.”
economic impact of California’s investment in stem and regenerative cell
research is reflective of significant progress in this field that was just
being born at the time of CIRM’s creation,” says Dr. Millan. “We fund the most
promising projects based on rigorous science from basic research into clinical
trials. We partnered with researchers and companies to increase the likelihood
of success and created specialized infrastructure such as the Alpha Clinics
Network to support the highest quality of clinical care and research standards
for these novel approaches. The
ecosystem created by CIRM has attracted scientists, companies and capital from outside
the state to California. By supporting promising science projects early on,
long before most investors were ready to come aboard, we enabled our scientists
to make progress that positioned them to attract significant commercial
investments into their programs and into California.”
think one of the greatest strengths of CIRM has been their focus on development
of new stem cell therapies that can become real medicines,” says UCLA and
Orchard Therapeutics’ Don Kohn, M.D. “This has meant guiding academic
investigators to do the things that may be second nature in
industry/pharmaceutical companies but are not standard for basic or clinical
research. The support from CIRM to perform the studies and regulatory
activities needed to navigate therapies through the FDA and to form alliances
with biotech and pharma companies has allowed the stem cell gene therapy we
developed to treat SCID babies to be advanced and licensed to Orchard
Therapeutics who can make it available to patients across the country.”
support has been instrumental to our early successes and our ability to rapidly
progress Forty Seven’s CD47 antibody targeting approach with magrolimab,” says
Mark Chao, M.D., Ph.D., Founder and Vice President of Clinical Development at
Forty Seven Inc. “ CIRM was an early collaborator in our clinical
programs, and will continue to be a valued partner as we move forward with our
MDS/AML clinical trials.”
researchers say the money generated by partnerships and investments, what is
called “deal-flow funding”, is still growing and that the economic benefits
created by them are likely to continue for some time: “Deal-flow funding
usually involves several waves or rounds of capital infusion over many years,
and thus is it expected that CIRM’s past and current funding will attract
increasing amounts of industry investment and lead to additional spending
injections into the California economy in the years to come.”
They conclude their report by saying: “CIRM has led to
California stem cell research and development activities becoming a leader
among the states.”
For years CIRM and others in the stem cell community (hello Paul Knoepfler) have been warning people about the dangers of going to clinics offering unproven and unapproved stem cell therapies. Recently the drum beat of people and organizations coming out in support of that stand has grown louder and louder. Mainstream media – TV and print – have run articles about these predatory clinics. And now, Google has joined those ranks, announcing it will restrict ads promoting these clinics.
“We regularly review and revise our
advertising policies. Today, we’re announcing a new Healthcare and
medicines policy to prohibit advertising for unproven or experimental
medical techniques such as most stem cell therapy, cellular (non-stem) therapy,
and gene therapy.”
“Google’s new policy banning
advertising for speculative medicines is a much-needed and welcome step to curb
the marketing of unscrupulous medical products such as unproven stem cell
therapies. While stem cells have great potential to help us understand and
treat a wide range of diseases, most stem cell interventions remain
experimental and should only be offered to patients through well-regulated
clinical trials. The premature marketing and commercialization of unproven stem
cell products threatens public health, their confidence in biomedical research,
and undermines the development of legitimate new therapies.”
Speaking of Deepak – we can use first
names here because we are not only great admirers of him as a physician but also
as a researcher, which is why we have funded
some of his research – he has just published a wonderfully well written
article criticizing these predatory clinics.
The article – in Scientific
American – is titled “Don’t Believe Everything You Hear About Stem Cells”
and rather than paraphrase his prose, I think it best if you read it yourself.
So, here it is.
Don’t Believe Everything You Hear about Stem Cells
The science is progressing rapidly,but bad
actors have co-opted stem cells’ hope and promise by preying on unsuspecting
patients and their families
Stem cell science is moving forward
rapidly, with potential therapies to treat intractable human diseases on the
horizon.Clinical trials are now underway to test the safety
and effectiveness of stem cell–based treatments for blindness,spinal
cord injury,heart disease,Parkinson’s
disease, and more,some with early positive results.A
sense of urgency drives the scientific community, and there is tremendous hope
to finally cure diseases that, to date, have had no treatment.
But don’t believe everything you hear about stem cells. Advertisements and pseudo news articles promote stem cell treatments for everything from Alzheimer’s disease,autism and ALS, to cerebral palsy and other diseases.The claims simply aren’t true–they’re propagated by people wanting to make money off of a desperate and unsuspecting or unknowing public.Patients and their families can be misled by deceptive marketing from unqualified physicians who often don’t have appropriate medical credentials and offer no scientific evidence of their claims.In many cases, the cells being utilized are not even true stem cells.
Advertisements for stem cell treatments are showing up everywhere, with too-good-to-be-true
claims and often a testimonial or two meant to suggest legitimacy or efficacy.Beware of the following:
• Claims that stem
cell treatments can treat a wide range of diseases using a singular stem cell
type. This is unlikely to be true.
• Claims that stem
cells taken from one area of the body can be used to treat another, unrelated
area of the body. This is also unlikely to be true.
• Patient testimonials used to validate a
particular treatment, with no scientific evidence. This is a red flag.
• Claims that
evidence doesn’t yet exist because the clinic is running a patient-funded
trial. This is a red flag; clinical trials rarely require payment for
• Claims that the
trial is listed on ClinicalTrials.gov and is therefore NIH-approved. This may
not be true. The Web site is simply a listing; not all are legitimate trials.
• The bottom line:
Does the treatment sound too good to be true? If so, it probably is. Look for
concrete evidence that the treatment works and is safe.
Hundreds of clinics offer costly, unapproved and unproven stem cell
interventions, and patients may suffer physical and financial harm as a result.A Multi-Pronged Approach to Deal with
The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR)has
long been concerned that bad actors have co-opted the hope and promise of stem
cell science to prey on unsuspecting patients and their families.
We read with sadness and disappointment the many stories of people trying unproven therapies and being harmed, including going blind from injections into the eyes or suffering from a spinal tumor after an injection of stem cells.Patients left financially strapped, with no physical improvement in their condition and no way to reclaim their losses, are an underreported and underappreciated aspect of these treatments.
Since late 2017, the Food and Drug Administration has stepped up its
regulatory enforcement of stem cell therapies and provided a framework
for regenerative medicine products that provides guidelines for work in
this space.The agency has alerted many clinics and centers
that they are not in compliance and has pledged to bring additional enforcement
action if needed.
A Multi-Pronged Approach to Deal with Bad Actors The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) has long been concerned that bad actors have co-opted the hope and promise of stem cell science to prey on unsuspecting patients and their families.
We read with sadness and disappointment the many stories of people trying
unproven therapies and being harmed, including going
blind from injections into the eyesor suffering from a spinal
tumor after an injection of stem cells.Patients left
financially strapped, with no physical improvement in their condition and no
way to reclaim their losses, are an underreported and underappreciated aspect
of these treatments.
Since late 2017, the Food and Drug Administration has stepped up its
regulatory enforcement of stem cell therapies and provided a framework
for regenerative medicine products that provides guidelines for work in
this space.The agency has alerted many clinics and centers
that they are not in compliance and has pledged to bring additional enforcement
action if needed.
In recent weeks, a federal judge granted the FDA a permanent injunction
against U.S. Stem Cell, Inc. and U.S. Stem Cell Clinic, LLC for adulterating
and misbranding its cellular products and operating outside of regulatory
authority.We hope this will send a strong message to other
clinics misleading patients with unapproved and potentially harmful cell-based
The Federal Trade Commission has also helped by identifying and curtailing
unsubstantiated medical claims in advertising by several clinics. Late in 2018
the FTC won a $3.3-million judgment against two California-based clinics for
deceptive health claims.
The Federal Trade Commission has also
helped by identifying and curtailing unsubstantiated medical claims in
advertising by several clinics. Late in 2018 the FTC won a $3.3-million
judgment against two California-based clinics for deceptive health claims.
These and other actions are needed to stem the tide of clinics offering
unproved therapies and the people who manage and operate them.
Improving Public Awareness
We’re hopeful that the FDA will help improve public awareness of these
issues and curb the abuses on ClinicalTrials.gov,a government-run Web site being misused by rogue clinics looking to
legitimize their treatments. They list pay-to-participate clinical trials on
the site, often without developing, registering or administering a real
The ISSCR Web site A Closer
Look at Stem Cellsincludes patient-focused information
about stem cells,with information written and vetted by stem
cell scientists.The site includes how and where to report
adverse events and false marketing claims by stem cell clinics.I
encourage you to visit and learn about what is known and unknown about stem
cells and their potential for biomedicine.The views expressed are those of the
author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
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.
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
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.
The “Valley of Death” sounds like a scary place from “Lord of the Rings” or “Game of Thrones” that our heroes have to navigate to reach safety. The reality is not that different. It’s the space that young companies have to navigate from having a good idea to getting financial backing, so they can move their projects towards the clinic. At the other side of the Valley are deep-pocket investors, waiting to see what makes it through before deciding if they want to support them.
It’s a Catch 22 situation. Without financing companies can’t make it through the Valley; but they need to get through before the folks with money will considering investing. As a result many companies languish or even fail to make it through the Valley of Death. Without that financial support promising therapies are lost before they even get a chance to show their potential.
CIRM was created, in part, to help those great ideas get through the Valley. That’s why it is so gratifying to hear the news today from ViaCyte – that is developing a promising approach to treating type 1 diabetes – that they have secured $80 million in additional financing.
The money comes from Bain Capital Life Sciences, TPG and RA Capital Management and several other investors. It’s important because it is a kind of vote of confidence in ViaCyte, suggesting these deep-pocket investors believe the company’s approach has real potential.
In a news release Adam Koppel, a Managing Director at Bain, said:
“ViaCyte is the clear leader in beta cell replacement, and we are excited about the lasting impact that it’s stem cell-derived therapies can potentially have on improving treatment and quality of life for people living with insulin-requiring diabetes. We look forward to partnering with ViaCyte’s management team to accelerate the development of ViaCyte’s transformative cell therapies to help patients.”
CIRM has been a big supporter of ViaCyte for several years, investing more than $70 million to help them develop a cell therapy that can be implanted under the skin that is capable of delivering insulin to people with type 1 diabetes when needed. The fact that these investors are now stepping up to help it progress suggests we are not alone in thinking this project has tremendous promise.
But ViaCyte is far from the only company that has benefitted from CIRM’s early and consistent support. This year alone CIRM-funded companies have raised more than $1.0 billion in funding from outside investors; a clear sign of validation not just for the companies and their therapies, but also for CIRM and its judgement.
Humacyte raising $225 million for its program to help people battling kidney failure
Forty Seven Inc. raising $113 million from an Initial Public Offering for its programs targeting different forms of cancer
We have shown there is a path through the Valley of Death. We are hoping to lead many more companies through that in the coming years, so they can bring their therapies to people who really need them, the patients.
At CIRM, California’s Stem Cell Agency, we are fortunate to work with some amazing people. This summer we added another name that list when Melissa Cairos joined us for an internship. Melissa is now on to the next part of her adventure, as a policy wonk in Washington DC., but before she left we asked her to write about her experiences, and thoughts after her time at the Stem Cell Agency.
In January of 2018, I had a casual conversation with a woman, whom I had never met before, at a high school basketball game. Through small talk about my studies in school and my career interests for the future, the woman suggested I may be interested in her work because it seemed to be aligned with what I wanted to do. Her work happened to be at CIRM and she happened to be Maria Millan, the President and CEO.
Interestingly, I had never heard of CIRM (the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine) and had limited knowledge of regenerative medicine. But, I had dedicated a semester in spring of 2015 to analyzing and lobbying for the 21st Century Cures Act. I engaged in that work because I believe in the importance of investing in, and expediting the regulatory process for, lifesaving medical innovations, so that they can be accessed faster by patients and at a lower cost. The 21st Century Cures Act has since become law and has created incredible opportunities for both CIRM and the entire field of regenerative medicine.
Since joining CIRM, I have been able to continue with similar work by analyzing legislation, policies and regulations that affect patients’ abilities to access regenerative medicine therapies and our grantees’ abilities to receive reimbursement for their therapies. Because the stem cell and gene therapies CIRM’s grantees are coming up with are so new and innovative, I quickly realized that the legislative, policy and regulatory solutions for them needed to reflect that innovative spirit.
Working alongside Geoff Lomax, (the Senior Officer for CIRM Strategic Infrastructures) my manager and mentor, we identified a number of potential barriers to access and reimbursement and tried to come up with policy solutions to address them.
For one project, we looked at the high cost of regenerative medicine therapies. Because high cost affects both patient access and potential reimbursement problems for the companies that develop those therapies we felt it was essential to try and come up with policy solutions to address these issues. To do this, we studied the traditional payment structure for drugs and medical devices and found it inappropriate for regenerative medicine in most cases.
This is because regenerative medicine requires a one-time high cost payment, but the regenerative medicine treatments/cures would eliminate long term costs including: previous treatment cost, complications from that treatment, progression of disease cost, hospitalizations, disability, quality of life, co-morbidities, disease effect on longevity etc. Thus, we proposed that payment models for regenerative medicine should consider their unique value benefits, such as the number of additional years of life the treatment added, and the overall cost-effectiveness of a one-time treatment compared to years of treatment. With this in mind, we suggested innovative payment models that accounted for these factors and further proposed changes that need to be made so that different manufacturers and payors can engage in innovative financing agreements.
Through my work at CIRM, I found that what makes regenerative medicine unique is that it not only offers new ways of treating previously untreatable diseases, but it has additional benefits or value. Not only the economic value, but also the human value, as regenerative medicine offers patients with life threatening or painful chronic diseases a solution that will change their lives and the lives of their families for the better. Through this understanding, I grew an incredible appreciation for CIRM, for not only being a great place to work with incredibly talented and kind people, but also an incredibly unique government agency that reflected the value and innovative spirit of the research it supports.
I am so grateful that I met Maria at that basketball game and got the opportunity to support CIRM in adding value to California in my role this summer as a Policy Fellow. I plan to return to California in the future and work in the health policy field to further support programs, policies, and/or agencies, like CIRM, that bring so much value to this state.
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.”
Statistics don’t usually make for very exciting blog fodder, but they can be useful in charting progress. Case in point, the recent quarterly report from the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM), a global advocate and industry group for the field.
In the report ARM takes an in-depth look at cell therapy, gene therapy, tissue engineering and other trends in the regenerative medicine field.
Among the more notable findings are:
Companies in the regenerative medicine space collectively raised more than $4.1 billion in the second quarter of this year, up 164 percent over the same period in 2017.
Companies focused on cell therapy raised $2.2 billion, up 416 percent over the same period last year.
More and more companies in the space are turning to the public markets. So far this year they collectively raised $913.4 million in IPOs (initial public offerings – the very first sale of a company’s stock to the public), up from $254 million during all of last year.
Nearly 977 clinical trials testing such therapies are in progress across the globe; more than half of them are trying to treat cancer.
In a news release, Janet Lynch Lambert, ARM’s CEO, was understandably upbeat:
“There has been a tremendous amount of forward momentum during the first half of this year, both clinically and commercially. We’re excited for the continued growth of the regenerative medicine sector, and what it means for patients worldwide.”
Nearly half a million Americans with kidney disease are on dialysis, so it’s not surprising the CIRM Board had no hesitation, back in July 2016, in funding a program to make it easier and safer to get that life-saving therapy.
That’s why it’s gratifying to now hear that Humacyte, the company behind this new dialysis device, has just signed a $150 million deal with Fresenius Medical Care, to make their product more widely available.
The CIRM Board gave Humacyte $10 million for a Phase 3 clinical trial to test a bioengineered vein needed by people undergoing hemodialysis, the most common form of dialysis.
The vein – called a human acellular vessel or HAV – is implanted in the arm and used to carry the patient’s blood to and from an artificial kidney that removes waste from the blood. Current synthetic versions of this device have many problems, including clotting, infections and rejection. In tests, Humacyte’s HAV has fewer complications. In addition, over time the patient’s own stem cells start to populate the bioengineered vein, in effect making it part of the patient’s own body.
Fresenius Medical Care is investing $150 million in Humacyte, with a plan to use the device in its dialysis clinics worldwide. As an indication of how highly they value the device, the deal grants Fresenius a 19% ownership stake in the company.
In an interview with FierceBiotech, Jeff Lawson, Humacyte’s Chief Medical Officer, said if all goes well the company plans to file for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2019 and hopes it will be widely available in 2020.
In addition to being used for kidney disease the device is also being tested for peripheral artery disease, vascular trauma and other cardiovascular indications. Lawson says testing the device first in kidney disease will provide a solid proving ground for it.
“It’s a very safe place to develop new vascular technologies under clinical study. From a regulatory safety standpoint, this is the first area we could enter safely and work with the FDA to get approval for a complete new technology.”
This is another example of what we call CIRM’s “value proposition”; the fact that we don’t just provide funding, we also provide support on many other levels and that has a whole range of benefits. When our Grants Working Group – the independent panel of experts who review our scientific applications – and the CIRM Board approves a project it’s like giving it the CIRM Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. That doesn’t just help that particular project, it can help attract further investment in the company behind it, enabling it to expand operations and create jobs and ultimately, we hope, help advance the field as a whole.
Those benefits are substantial. To date we have been able to use our funding to leverage around $2 billion in additional dollars in terms of outside companies investing in companies like Humacyte, or researchers using data from research we funded to get additional funding from agencies like the National Institutes of Health.
So, when a company like Humacyte is the object of such a lucrative agreement it’s not just a compliment to the quality of the work they do, it’s also a reflection of our ability to pick great projects.