Facebook Live: Ask the Stem Cell Team

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

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.

************************************

STROKE

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

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.

We are aware of a clinical trial targeting acute hemorrhagic stroke that is being run by the Mayo clinic in Jacksonville Florida.

****************************

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:

  1. Visual loss from damage to the retina
  2. You could have a normal eye with damage to the area of the brain that controls the eye’s movement
  3. 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. 

*****************************

VISION

Is there any stem cell therapy for optical nerve damage? Deanna Rice

Dr. Ingrid Caras

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.

**********************************

DIABETES

What advances have been made using stem cells for the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes? Mary Rizzo

Dr. Ross Okamura

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.

*********************************

ALS

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.

***********************************

AUTISM

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.

**********************************

PARKINSON’S DISEASE

What is happening with Parkinson’s research? Hanifa Gaphoor

Dr. Kent Fitzgerald

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.   

********************************

HUNTINGTON’S DISEASE

Any plans for Huntington’s? Nikhat Kuchiki

Dr. Lisa Kadyk

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

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

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. 

Four CIRM Funded Trials Release Results at 2019 ASH Meeting

With more than 17,000 members from nearly 100 countries, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) is an organization composed of clinicians and scientists around the world working to conquer various blood diseases. Currently, they are having their 61st Annual ASH Meeting to highlight some of the exciting work going on in the field. Four of our CIRM funded trials have released promising results at this conference and we wanted to take the opportunity to highlight them below.

Sangamo Therapeutics

Sangamo Therapeutics is conducting a CIRM-funded clinical trial for beta-thalassemia, a severe form of anemia caused by mutations in the hemoglobin gene. The therapy Sangamo is testing takes a patient’s own blood stem cells and, using a gene-editing technology called zinc finger nuclease (ZFN), provides a functional copy of the hemoglobin gene. These modified cells are then given back to the patient. The company announced preliminary results from their first three patients treated. in the clinical trials at the ASH 2019 Conference as well.

Some of the highlights are the following:

  • The first three patients experienced prompt hematopoietic reconstitution, meaning that their supply of blood stem cells was restored.
  • The first three patients experienced no clonal hematopoiesis, meaning that the blood stem cells did not create cells with mutations in the DNA
  • Additional study results are expected in late 2020 once enrollment is complete and all six patients have longer follow-up

You can read more detailed results regarding the first three patients in the press release.

Forty Seven, Inc.

In another CIRM funded trial, Forty Seven, Inc. is testing a treatment for myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The treatment involves an antibody called magrolimab in combination with the chemotherapy drug azacitidine. Cancer cells express a signal that send a “don’t eat me” message to white blood cells that are part of the immune system designed to “eat” and destroy unhealthy cells. Magrolimab works by blocking the signal, enabling the body’s own immune system to detect these evasive cancer cells. The goal is to use both magrolimab and azacitidine to make the cancer stem cells vulnerable to being attacked and destroyed by the immune system.

Of the 46 patients evaluated, 24 patients had untreated higher-risk MDS and 22 patients had untreated AML. None of the patients were eligible for treatment with chemotherapy.

In higher-risk MDS, the overall response rate (ORR), which is the proportion of patients in a trial whose tumor is destroyed or significantly reduced by a treatment, was 92%.

Within this group of patients with an ORR, the following was observed:

  • 12 patients (50%) achieved a complete response (CR), meaning that they experienced a disappearance of all signs of cancer in response to treatment.
  • Two patients (8%) achieved hematologic (blood) improvement. 
  • Additionally, two patients (8%) achieved stable disease, meaning the cancer is neither increasing nor decreasing in extent or severity.

In untreated AML, the ORR was 64% and the following was observed within this group patients with an ORR:

  • Nine patients (41%) achieved a CR
  • Three patients (14%) achieved a CR with an incomplete blood count recovery (CRi)
  • One patient (5%) achieved a morphologic leukemia-free state (MLFS), which is defined as the disappearance of all cells with morphologic characteristics of leukemia, accompanied by bone marrow recovery, in response to treatment.
  • Seven patients (32%) achieved stable disease (SD)

The median time to response among MDS and AML patients treated with the combination was 1.9 months.

More details regarding these results are available via the news release.

Oncternal Therapeutics

Onceternal Therapeutics, which is conducting a CIRM-funded trial for a treatment for lymphoma and leukemia, presented results at the 2019 ASH Meeting. The treatment involves an antibody called cirmtuzumab (named after yours truly) being used with a cancer fighting drug called ibrutinib. The antibody recognizes and attaches to a protein on the surface of cancer stem cells. This attachment disables the protein, which slows the growth of the leukemia and makes it more vulnerable to anti-cancer drugs.

Some of the results presented are summarized as follows:

  • Twenty-nine of the 34 patients achieved a response, for an overall best objective response rate of 85%.
  • One patient achieved a complete response (CR) and remained in remission six months after completion of the trial and discontinuation of all anti-CLL therapy. In addition, three patients met radiographic and hematologic response criteria for Clinical CR.
  • Five patients had stable disease.
  • The total clinical benefit rate was 100%.
  • None of the patients died or saw their disease progress.
  • Patients achieved responses rapidly, with 68% of patients achieving a clinical response by three months on the combination therapy.
  • The rise in leukemic cell counts that is typically seen in the first six months with ibrutinib by itself was blunted with the addition of cirmtuzumab, and leukemic cell counts returned toward baseline and normal levels rapidly.

You can read more about these results in the official press release.

Rocket Pharmaceuticals

Last, but not least, Rocket Pharmaceuticals presented results at the 2019 ASH Conference related to a CIRM-funded trial for Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency-I (LAD-I), a rare pediatric disease caused by a mutation in a specific gene that affects the body’s ability to combat infections. As a result, there is low expression of neutrophil (CD18). The company is testing a treatment that uses a patient’s own blood stem cells and inserts a functional version of the gene.  These modified stem cells are then reintroduced back into the patient. The goal is to establish functional immune cells, enabling the body to combat infections.  

Here are some of the highlights from the presentation:

  • Initial results from the first pediatric patient treated demonstrate early evidence of safety and potential effectiveness. 
  • The patient exhibited early signs of engraftment
  •  The patient also displayed visible improvement of multiple disease-related skin lesions after receiving therapy
  •  No safety issues related to administration have been identified

More detailed results on this trial are available via the news release.

Promising start to CIRM-funded trial for life-threatening blood disorder

Aristotle

At CIRM we are always happy to highlight success stories, particularly when they involve research we are funding. But we are also mindful of the need not to overstate a finding. To quote the Greek philosopher Aristotle (who doesn’t often make an appearance on this blog), “one swallow does not a summer make”. In other words, one good result doesn’t mean you have proven something works.  But it might mean that you are on the right track. And that’s why we are welcoming the news about a clinical trial we are funding with Sangamo Therapeutics.  

The trial is for the treatment of beta-thalassemia, (beta-thal) a severe form of anemia caused by a genetic mutation. People with beta-thal require life-long blood transfusions because they have low levels of hemoglobin, a protein needed to help the blood carry oxygen around the body. Those low levels of oxygen can cause anemia, fatigue, weakness and, in severe cases, can lead to organ damage and even death. The life expectancy for people with the more severe forms of the condition is only 30-50 years.

In this clinical trial the Sangamo team takes a patient’s own blood stem cells and, using a gene-editing technology called zinc finger nuclease (ZFN), inserts a working copy of the defective hemoglobin gene. These modified cells are given back to the patient, hopefully generating a new, healthy, blood supply which potentially will eliminate the need for chronic blood transfusions.

Yesterday, Sangamo announced that the first patient treated in this clinical trial seems to be doing rather well.

The therapy, called ST-400, was given to a patient who has the most severe form of beta-thal. In the two years before this treatment the patient was getting a blood transfusion every other week. While the treatment initially caused an allergic reaction, the patient quickly rebounded and in the seven weeks afterwards:

  • Demonstrated evidence of being able to produce new blood cells including platelets and white blood cells
  • Showed that the genetic edits made by ST-400 were found in new blood cells
  • Hemoglobin levels – the amount of oxygen carried in the blood – improved.

In the first few weeks after the therapy the patient needed some blood transfusions but in the next five weeks didn’t need any.

Obviously, this is encouraging. But it’s also just one patient. We don’t yet know if this will continue to help this individual let alone help any others. A point Dr. Angela Smith, one of the lead researchers on the project, made in a news release:

“While these data are very early and will require confirmation in additional patients as well as longer follow-up to draw any clinical conclusion, they are promising. The detection of indels in peripheral blood with increasing fetal hemoglobin at seven weeks is suggestive of successful gene editing in this transfusion-dependent beta thalassemia patient. These initial results are especially encouraging given the patient’s β0/ β0 genotype, a patient population which has proved to be difficult-to-treat and where there is high unmet medical need.” It’s a first step. But a promising one. And that’s always a great way to start.

Therapies Targeting Cancer, Deadly Immune Disorder and Life-Threatening Blood Condition Get Almost $32 Million Boost from CIRM Board

An innovative therapy that uses a patient’s own immune system to attack cancer stem cells is one of three new clinical trials approved for funding by CIRM’s Governing Board.

Researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine were awarded $11.9 million to test their Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T Cell Therapy in patients with B cell leukemias who have relapsed or are not responding after standard treatments, such as chemotherapy.CDR774647-750Researchers take a patient’s own T cells (a type of immune cell) and genetically re-engineer them to recognize two target proteins on the surface of cancer cells, triggering their destruction. In addition, some of the T cells will form memory stem cells that will survive for years and continue to survey the body, killing any new or surviving cancer cells.

MariaMillan-085_600px

Maria T. Millan

“When a patient is told that their cancer has returned it can be devastating news,” says Maria T. Millan, MD, President & CEO of CIRM. “CAR T cell therapy is an exciting and promising new approach that offers us a way to help patients fight back against a relapse, using their own cells to target and destroy the cancer.”

 

 

Sangamo-logoThe CIRM Board also approved $8 million for Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc. to test a new therapy for beta-thalassemia, a severe form of anemia (lack of healthy red blood cells) caused by mutations in the beta hemoglobin gene. Patients with this genetic disorder require frequent blood transfusions for survival and have a life expectancy of only 30-50 years. The Sangamo team will take a patient’s own blood stem cells and, using a gene-editing technology called zinc finger nuclease (ZFN), turn on a different hemoglobin gene (gamma hemoglobin) that can functionally substitute for the mutant gene. The modified blood stem cells will be given back to the patient, where they will give rise to functional red blood cells, and potentially eliminate the need for chronic transfusions and its associated complications.

UCSFvs1_bl_a_master_brand@2xThe third clinical trial approved is a $12 million grant to UC San Francisco for a treatment to restore the defective immune system of children born with severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), a genetic blood disorder in which even a mild infection can be fatal. This condition is also called “bubble baby disease” because in the past children were kept inside sterile plastic bubbles to protect them from infection. This trial will focus on SCID patients who have mutations in a gene called Artemis, the most difficult form of SCID to treat using a standard bone marrow transplant from a healthy donor. The team will genetically modify the patient’s own blood stem cells with a functional copy of Artemis, with the goal of creating a functional immune system.

CIRM has funded two other clinical trials targeting different approaches to different forms of SCID. In one, carried out by UCLA and Orchard Therapeutics, 50 children have been treated and all 50 are considered functionally cured.

This brings the number of clinical trials funded by CIRM to 48, 42 of which are active. There are 11 other projects in the clinical trial stage where CIRM funded the early stage research.

Throwback Thursday: Progress towards a cure for HIV/AIDS

Welcome to our “Throwback Thursday” series on the Stem Cellar. Over the years, we’ve accumulated an arsenal of exciting stem cell stories about advances towards stem cell-based cures for serious diseases. Today we’re featuring stories about the progress of CIRM-funded research and clinical trials that are aimed at developing stem cell-based treatments for HIV/AIDS.

 Tomorrow, December 1st, is World AIDS Day. In honor of the 34 million people worldwide who are currently living with HIV, we’re dedicating our latest #ThrowbackThursday blog to the stem cell research and clinical trials our Agency is funding for HIV/AIDS.

world_logo3To jog your memory, HIV is a virus that hijacks your immune cells. If left untreated, HIV can lead to AIDS – a condition where your immune system is compromised and cannot defend your body against infection and diseases like cancer. If you want to read more background about HIV/AIDs, check out our disease fact sheet.

Stem Cell Advancements in HIV/AIDS
While patients can now manage HIV/AIDS by taking antiretroviral therapies (called HAART), these treatments only slow the progression of the disease. There is no effective cure for HIV/AIDS, making it a significant unmet medical need in the patient community.

CIRM is funding early stage research and clinical stage research projects that are developing cell based therapies to treat and hopefully one day cure people of HIV. So far, our Agency has awarded 17 grants totalling $72.9 million in funding to HIV/AIDS research. Below is a brief description of four of these exciting projects:

Discovery Stage Research
Dr. David Baltimore at the California Institute of Technology is developing an innovative stem cell-based immunotherapy that would prevent HIV infection in specific patient populations. He recently received a CIRM Quest award, (a funding initiative in our Discovery Stage Research Program) to pursue this research.

CIRM science officer, Dr. Ross Okamura, oversees Baltimore’s CIRM grant. He explained how the Baltimore team is genetically modifying the blood stem cells of patients so that they develop into immune cells (called T cells) that specifically recognize and target the HIV virus.

Ross_IDCard

Ross Okamura, PhD

“The approach Dr. Baltimore is taking in his CIRM Discovery Quest award is to engineer human immune stem cells to suppress HIV infection.  He is providing his engineered cells with T cell protein receptors that specifically target HIV and then exploring if he can reduce the viral load of HIV (the amount of virus in a specific volume) in an animal model of the human immune system. If successful, the approach could provide life-long protection from HIV infection.”

While Baltimore’s team is currently testing this strategy in mice, if all goes well, their goal is to translate this strategy into a preventative HIV therapy for people.

Clinical Trials
CIRM is currently funding three clinical trials focused on HIV/AIDS led by teams at Calimmune, City of Hope/Sangamo Biosciences and UC Davis. Rather than spelling out the details of each trial, I’ll refer you to our new Clinical Trial Dashboard (a screenshot of the dashboard is below) and to our new Blood & Immune Disorders clinical trial infographic we released in October.

dashboardblooddisorders

MonthofCIRM_BloodDisordersJustHIV.png

As you can see from these projects, CIRM is committed to funding cutting edge research in HIV/AIDS. We hope that in the next few years, some of these projects will bear fruit and help advance stem cell-based therapies to patients suffering from this disease.

I’ll leave you with a few links to other #WorldAIDSDay relevant blogs from our Stem Cellar archive and our videos that are worth checking out.

 

CIRM-Funded Clinical Trials Targeting Blood and Immune Disorders

This blog is part of our Month of CIRM series, which features our Agency’s progress towards achieving our mission to accelerate stem cell treatments to patients with unmet medical needs.

This week, we’re highlighting CIRM-funded clinical trials to address the growing interest in our rapidly expanding clinical portfolio. Today we are featuring trials in our blood and immune disorders portfolio, specifically focusing on sickle cell disease, HIV/AIDS, severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID, also known as bubble baby disease) and rare disease called chronic granulomatous disease (CGD).

CIRM has funded a total of eight trials targeting these disease areas, all of which are currently active. Check out the infographic below for a list of those trials.

For more details about all CIRM-funded clinical trials, visit our clinical trials page and read our clinical trials brochure which provides brief overviews of each trial.

Key Steps Along the Way To Finding Treatments for HIV on World AIDS Day

Today, December 1st,  is World AIDS Day. It’s a day to acknowledge the progress that is being made in HIV prevention and treatment around the world but also to renew our commitment to a future free of HIV. This year’s theme is Leadership. Commitment. Impact.  At CIRM we are funding a number of projects focused on HIV/AIDS, so we asked Jeff Sheehy, the patient advocate for HIV/AIDS on the CIRM Board to offer his perspective on the fight against the virus.

jeff-sheehy

At CIRM we talk about and hope for cures, but our actual mission is “accelerating stem cell treatments to patients with unmet medical needs.”

For those of us in the HIV/AIDS community, we are tremendously excited about finding a cure for HIV.  We have the example of Timothy Brown, aka the “Berlin Patient”, the only person cured of HIV.

Multiple Shots on Goal

Different approaches to a cure are under investigation with multiple clinical trials.  CIRM is funding three clinical trials using cell/gene therapy in attempts to genetically modify blood forming stem cells to resist infection with HIV.  While we hope this leads to a cure, community activists have come together to urge a look at something short of a “home run.”

A subset of HIV patients go on treatment, control the virus in their blood to the point where it can’t be detected by common diagnostic tests, but never see their crucial immune fighting CD4 T cells return to normal levels after decimation by HIV.

For instance, I have been on antiretroviral therapy since 1997.  My CD4 T cells had dropped precipitously, dangerous close to the level of 200.  At that level, I would have had an AIDS diagnosis and would have been extremely vulnerable to a whole host of opportunistic infections.  Fortunately, my virus was controlled within a few weeks and within a year, my CD T cells had returned to normal levels.

For the immunological non-responders I described above, that doesn’t happen.  So while the virus is under control, their T cell counts remain low and they are very susceptible to opportunistic infections and are at much greater risk of dying.

Immunological non-responders (INRs) are usually patients who had AIDS when they were diagnosed, meaning they presented with very low CD4 T cell counts.  Many are also older.  We had hoped that with frequent testing, treatment upon diagnosis and robust healthcare systems, this population would be less of a factor.  Yet in San Francisco with its very comprehensive and sophisticated testing and treatment protocols, 16% of newly diagnosed patients in 2015 had full blown AIDS.

Until we make greater progress in testing and treating people with HIV, we can expect to see immunological non-responders who will experience sub-optimal health outcomes and who will be more difficult to treat and keep alive.

Boosting the Immune System

A major cell/gene trial for HIV targeted this population.  Their obvious unmet medical need and their greater morbidity/mortality balanced the risks of first in man gene therapy.  Sangamo, a CIRM grantee, used zinc finger nucleases to snip out a receptor, CCR5, on the surface of CD4 T cells taken from INR patients.  That receptor is a door that HIV uses to enter cells.  Some people naturally lack the receptor and usually are unable to be infected with HIV.  The Berlin Patient had his entire immune system replaced with cells from someone lacking CCR5.

Most of the patients in that first trial saw their CD4 T cells rise sharply.  The amount of HIV circulating in their gut decreased.  They experienced a high degree of modification and persistence in T stem cells, which replenish the T cell population.  And most importantly, some who regularly experienced opportunistic infections such as my friend and study participant Matt Sharp who came down with pneumonia every winter, had several healthy seasons.

Missed Opportunities

Unfortunately, the drive for a cure pushed development of the product in a different direction.  This is in large part to regulatory challenges.  A prior trial started in the late 90’s by Chiron tested a cytokine, IL 2, to see if administering it could increase T cells.  It did, but proving that these new T cells did anything was illusive and development ceased.  Another cytokine, IL 7, was moving down the development pathway when the company developing it, Cytheris, ceased business.  The pivotal trial would have required enrolling 4,000 participants, a daunting and expensive prospect.  This was due to the need to demonstrate clinical impact of the new cells in a diverse group of patients.

Given the unmet need, HIV activists have looked at the Sangamo trial, amongst others, and have initiated a dialogue with the FDA.  Activists are exploring seeking orphan drug status since the population of INRs is relatively small.

Charting a New Course

They have also discussed trial designs looking at markers of immune activity and discussed potentially identifying a segment of INRs where clinical efficacy could be shown with far, far fewer participants.

Activists are calling for companies to join them in developing products for INRs.  I’ve included the press release issued yesterday by community advocates below.

With the collaboration of the HIV activist community, this could be a unique opportunity for cell/gene companies to actually get a therapy through the FDA. On this World AIDS Day, let’s consider the value of a solid single that serves patients in need while work continues on the home run.

NEWS RELEASE: HIV Activists Seek to Accelerate Development of Immune Enhancing Therapies for Immunologic Non-Responders.

Dialogues with FDA, scientists and industry encourage consideration of orphan drug designations for therapies to help the immunologic non-responder population and exploration of novel endpoints to reduce the size of efficacy trials.

November 30, 2016 – A coalition of HIV/AIDS activists are calling for renewed attention to HIV-positive people termed immunologic non-responders (INRs), who experience sub-optimal immune system reconstitution despite years of viral load suppression by antiretroviral therapy. Studies have shown that INR patients remain at increased risk of illness and death compared to HIV-positive people who have better restoration of immune function on current drug therapies. Risk factors for becoming an INR include older age and a low CD4 count at the time of treatment initiation. To date, efforts to develop immune enhancing interventions for this population have proven challenging, despite some candidates from small companies showing signs of promise.

“We believe there is an urgent need to find ways to encourage and accelerate development of therapies to reduce the health risks faced by INR patients,” stated Nelson Vergel of the Program for Wellness Restoration (PoWeR), who initiated the activist coalition. “For example, Orphan Drug designations[i] could be granted to encourage faster-track approval of promising therapies.  These interventions may eventually help not only INRs but also people with other immune deficiency conditions”.

Along with funding, a major challenge for approval of any potential therapy is proving its efficacy. While INRs face significantly increased risk of serious morbidities and mortality compared to HIV-positive individuals with more robust immune reconstitution, demonstrating a reduction in the incidence of these outcomes would likely require expensive and lengthy clinical trials involving thousands of individuals. Activists are therefore encouraging the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA), industry and researchers to evaluate potential surrogate markers of efficacy such as relative improvements in clinical problems that may be more frequent in INR patients, such as upper respiratory infections, gastrointestinal disease, and other health issues.

“Given the risks faced by INR patients, every effort should be made to assess whether less burdensome pathways toward approval are feasible, without compromising the regulatory requirement for compelling evidence of safety and efficacy”, said Richard Jefferys of the Treatment Action Group.

The coalition is advocating that scientists, biotech and pharmaceutical companies pursue therapeutic candidates for INRs. For example, while gene and anti-inflammatory therapies for HIV are being assessed in the context of cure research, there is also evidence that they may have potential to promote immune reconstitution and reduce markers associated with risk of morbidity and mortality in INR patients. Therapeutic research should also be accompanied by robust study of the etiology and mechanisms of sub-optimal immune responses.

“While there is, appropriately, a major research focus on curing HIV, we must be alert to evidence that candidate therapies could have benefits for INR patients, and be willing to study them in this context”, argued Matt Sharp, a coalition member and INR who experienced enhanced immune reconstitution and improved health and quality of life after receiving an experimental gene therapy.

The coalition has held an initial conference call with FDA to discuss the issue. Minutes are available online.

The coalition is now aiming to convene a broader dialogue with various drug companies on the development of therapies for INR patients. Stakeholders who are interested in becoming involved are encouraged to contact coalition representatives.

[i] The Orphan Drug Act incentivizes the development of treatments for rare conditions. For more information, see:  http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/ucm2005525.htm

For more information:

Richard Jefferys

Michael Palm Basic Science, Vaccines & Cure Project Director
Treatment Action Group richard.jefferys@treatmentactiongroup.org

Nelson Vergel, Program for Wellness Restoration programforwellness@gmail.com

 

 

HIV/AIDS: Progress and Promise of Stem Cell Research

Our friends at Americans for Cures and Youreka Science have done it again. They’ve produced another whiteboard video about the progress and promise of stem cell research that’s so inspiring that it would probably make Darth Vader consider coming back to the light side. This time they tackled HIV.

If you haven’t watched one of these videos already, let me bring you up to speed. Americans for Cures is a non-profit organization, the legacy of the passing of Proposition 71, that supports patient advocates in the fight for stem cell research and cures. They’ve partnered with Youreka Science to produce eye-catching and informative videos to teach patients and the general public about the current state of stem cell research and the quest for cures for major diseases.

Stem cell cure for HIV?

Their latest video is on HIV, a well-known and deadly virus that attacks and disables the human immune system. Currently, 37 million people globally are living with HIV and only a few have been cured.

The video begins with the story of Timothy Brown, also known as the Berlin patient. In 2008 at the age of 40, he was dying of a blood cancer called acute myeloid leukemia and needed a bone marrow stem cell transplant to survive. Timothy was also HIV positive, so his doctor decided to use a bone marrow donor who happened to be naturally resistant to HIV infection. The transplanted donor stem cells were not only successful in curing Timothy of his cancer, but they also “rebooted his immune system” and cured his HIV.

Screen Shot 2015-12-23 at 2.21.18 PMSo why haven’t all HIV patients received this treatment? The video goes on to explain that bone marrow transplants are dangerous and only used in cancer patients who’ve run out of options. Additionally, only a small percentage of the world’s population is resistant to HIV and the chances that one of these individuals is a bone marrow donor match to a patient is very low.

This is where science comes to the rescue. Three research groups in California, all currently supported by CIRM funding, have proposed alternative solutions: they are attempting to make a patient’s own immune system resistant to HIV instead of relying on donor stem cells. Using gene therapy, they are modifying blood stem cells from HIV patients to be HIV resistant, and then transplanting the modified stem cells back into the same patient to rebuild a new immune system that can block HIV infection.

Screen Shot 2015-12-23 at 4.47.17 PM

All three groups have proven their stem cell technology works in animals; two of them are now testing their approach in early phase clinical trials in humans, and one is getting ready to do so. If these trials are successful, there is good reason to hope for an HIV cure and maybe even cures for other immune diseases.

My thoughts…

What I liked most about this video was the very end. It concludes by saying that these accomplishments were made possible not just by funding promising scientific research, but also by the hard work of HIV patients and patient advocate communities, who’ve brought awareness to the disease and influenced policy changes. Ultimately, a cure for HIV will depend on researchers and patient advocates working together to push the pace and to tackle any obstacles that will likely appear with testing stem cell therapies in human clinical trials.

I couldn’t say it any better than the final line of the video:

“We must remember that human trials will celebrate successes, but barriers will surface along with complications and challenges. So patience and understanding of the scientific process are essential.”

Gene editing in blood stem cells just got easier

Genome editing is a field of science that’s been around for awhile, but has experienced an explosion of activity and interest in recent years. Chances are that even your grandmother has heard about the recent story where for the first time, gene editing saved a one-year-old girl from dying of leukemia.

Microsoft word versus genome editing

To give you an idea of what this technique involves, think back to the last time you had to write a report. You let all your ideas flow out onto the page, but then realize that certain sentences or paragraphs need to be rearranged, removed, or added. So you copy, paste, and move stuff around with your mouse and keyboard until you’re satisfied.

Image source: Broad Institute

Image source: Broad Institute

Tools for editing the genome (which contain all of our genes) work a similar way, but they cut and paste DNA sequences in the human genome instead of words on a page. Scientists have figured out how to use these “genetic scissors” to delete genes (so they no longer have function) and to correct disease-causing mutations (by pasting in the normal DNA sequence of a gene to restore function). Both these abilities make genome editing a highly valuable tool for scientists to model diseases and to develop therapies to treat them.

There are multiple tools that researchers are currently using to modify the human genome. The main ones are fancifully named ZFNs, TALENs, and CRISPRs. All three use engineered proteins called nucleases to cut strands of DNA at specific locations in the genome. A cell’s DNA repair machinery will then either glue the DNA strands back together (this typically results in the loss of DNA and gene function), or repair the break by copying and pasting in the missing sequence of DNA from a template (you can correct disease-causing mutations this way by providing a donor template). We don’t have time to get into more details about how these tools work, but you can learn more by reading this fact sheet from Science Media Centre.

Some cells are more stubborn than others

While genome editing technologies offer many advantages for modifying human genes, it’s not a perfect science. There are still many limitations and roadblocks that need to be addressed to make sure that these tools can be safely and effectively used as therapies in humans.

Besides the obvious worry about “off-target effects” (when the genetic scissors cut random sections of DNA, which can cause big problems), another issue with genome editing tools is that some types of cells are harder to genetically modify than others.

Such is the case with blood stem cells, also known as hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs), that live in our bone marrow and make all the different blood cells in our body. Initial studies reported difficulty in delivering genome editing tools into human HSPCs, which is a problem if you want to use these tools to help cure patients suffering from genetic blood or immune diseases.

Human blood (red) and immune cells (green) are made from hematopoietic/blood stem cells. Photo credit: ZEISS Microscopy.

Human blood (red) and immune cells (green) are made from hematopoietic/blood stem cells. Photo credit: ZEISS Microscopy.

Have no fear, blood-stem cell editing is here

We are happy to inform you that a CIRM-funded study published today in Nature Biotechnology has developed a solution to the problem of hard-to-edit blood stem cells. Scientists from the USC Keck School of Medicine and from Sangamo BioSciences developed a new delivery method that allows for efficient genome editing of human HSPCs using zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs).

They used a viral delivery system to deliver ZFNs to distinct locations in the genome of HSPCs and successfully inserted a gene sequence that made the cells turn green under a fluorescent microscope. The virus they used was a harmless form of an adeno-associated virus (AAV), which can enter certain cells and delivery the researcher’s DNA cargo with a very low chance of altering or inserting its own DNA into the HSPC genome.

Using an AAV that was exceptionally good at entering HPSCs, they virally delivered ZFNs to specific gene locations in HSPCs that had been isolated from human blood and from fetal liver tissue. They found that delivering the ZFNs as mRNA molecules allowed the protein versions they turned into to be temporarily expressed in HSPCs. This produced a high rate of gene insertion (ranging from 15-40% of cells treated), while keeping off-target effects and cell death low. Even the most hard-to-edit HSPCs, called the primitive HSPCs, were modified. This result was really exciting because no other study has reported gene editing with this level of efficiency in this primitive population of blood stem cells.

The tools work but what about the cells?

After proving that they were able to successfully edit the genomes of HSPCs with high efficiency, they next asked whether the modified cells could grow in culture and create new blood cells when transplanted into mice.

While their method to deliver ZFNs into the HSPCs did cause some of the cells to die (around 20%), the majority that survived were able to multiply in a dish and specialize into various blood cells when grown in cultures. When the modified HSPCs were taken a step further and transplanted into immune-deficient mice (meaning their immune system is compromised and won’t attack transplanted cells), they not only survived, but they also specialized into many different types of blood cells while still retaining their genomic modifications.

Now here is where I want to give the researchers a high five. They decided that once wasn’t enough, and challenged their modified HSPCs to a second round of transplantation. They collected the bone marrow from mice that received the first transplant of modified HSPCs, and transferred it into another immune-deficient mouse. Five months later, they found that the modified cells were still there and had generated other blood cell types. Because these modified HSPCs lasted for so long and through two rounds of transplants, the authors concluded that they had successfully edited the primitive, long-term repopulating HSPCs.

Next stop, the clinic?

In summary, this study offers a new and improved method to genetically modify blood stem cells in all their forms.

So what’s next? The obvious hope is the clinic.

HIV (yellow) infecting a human immune cell. CREDIT: SETH PINCUS, ELIZABETH FISCHER AND AUSTIN ATHMAN, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

HIV (yellow) infecting a human immune cell. Photo credit: Seth Pincus, Elizabeth Fischer and Austin Athman, NIH.

It’s a likely future as the study was conducted in collaboration with Sangamo BioSciences. They specialize in ZFN-mediated gene therapy and have a number of preclinical therapeutic programs, many of which focus on genetic diseases that affect the blood and immune system, as well as ongoing clinical trials using ZFNs to treat patients with HIV/AIDs. (One of these trials is funded by CIRM, read more here).

In a USC press release, Dr. Michael Holmes, VP of Research at Sangamo and co-senior author on the paper hinted at future clinical applications:

Michael Holmes, Sangamo BioSciences

Michael Holmes, Sangamo BioSciences

 

Our results provide a strategy for broadening the application of gene editing technologies in HSPCs. This significantly advances our progress towards applying gene editing to the treatment of human diseases of the blood and immune systems.

 

 

Co-senior author and USC Professor Dr. Paula Cannon echoed Dr. Holmes:

Gene therapy using HSPCs has enormous potential for treating HIV and other diseases of the blood and immune systems.

One last question

A question that I had after reading this exciting study was whether other genome editing tools such as CRISPR could produce better results in blood stem cells using a similar viral delivery method.

CRISPR is described as a faster, cheaper, and easier gene editing technology compared to ZFNs and TALENS (for a comparison, check out this fun article by The Jackson Laboratory). And many scientists, both in academia and industry, are pushing CRISPR gene editing towards clinical applications.

When I asked Paula Cannon about which gene editing technology, ZFNs or CRISPRs, is better for therapeutic development, she said:

Paula Cannon, USC Professor

Paula Cannon, USC Professor

In terms of advantages, CRISPRs are easier to work with initially, and this makes them a great lab research tool. But when it comes to developing something for a clinical trial, its much more of a long game, so that initial advantage disappears. The ZFNs I work with have been previously optimized and are well characterized, and the CCR5 ZFNs are already in the clinic so they have a big advantage in that regard when you are trying to develop something for the next clinical application.


Related Links: