Mending Stem Cells: The Past, Present & Future of Regenerative Medicine

UCSF’s Mission Bay Campus

For years we have talked about the “promise” and the “potential” of stem cells to cure patients. But more and more we are seeing firsthand how stem cells can change a patient’s life, even saving it in some cases. That’s the theme of the 4th Annual CIRM Alpha Stem Cell Clinics Network Symposium.

It’s not your usual symposium because this brings together all the key players in the field – the scientists who do the research, the nurses and doctors who deliver the therapies, and the patients who get or need those therapies. And, of course, we’ll be there; because without CIRM’s funding to support that research and therapies none of this happens.

We are going to look at some of the exciting progress being made, and what is on the horizon. But along the way we’ll also tackle many of the questions that people pose to us every day. Questions such as:

  • How can you distinguish between a good clinical trial offering legitimate treatments vs a stem cell clinic offering sham treatments?
  • What about the Right to Try, can’t I just demand I get access to stem cell therapies?
  • How do I sign up for a clinical trial, and how much will it cost me?
  • What is the experience of patients that have participated in a stem cell clinical trial?

World class researchers will also talk about the real possibility of curing diseases like sickle cell disease on a national scale, which affect around 100,000 Americans, mostly African Americans and Hispanics. They’ll discuss the use of gene editing to battle hereditary diseases like Huntington’s. And they’ll highlight how they can engineer a patient’s own immune system cells to battle deadly cancers.

So, join us for what promises to be a fascinating day. It’s the cutting edge of science. And it’s all FREE.

Here’s where you can go to find out more information and to sign up for the event.

Targeting clinics offering bogus stem cell therapies

For some years now CIRM has been raising the alarm about the growing numbers of clinics offering unproven and unapproved stem cell therapies. But we are not alone. Now a leader of the California state Assembly is taking action, trying to ensure the clinics follow the law and don’t endanger patients.

Kevin Mullin is the Speaker pro Tem in the Assembly. He is championing a bill, AB 617, that will create a Stem Cell Clinic Regulation Advisory Group. In a news release Mullin said the motivation behind the bill is simple:

“As the Chair of the Select Committee on Biotechnology, I have heard from patients who have experienced both sides of the treatment continuum. It is clear that more must be done to ensure the proper regulation of for-profit stem cell clinics.”

Concerns about these clinics are well-founded. The clinics claim the treatments they offer – usually involving the use of the patient’s own fat or blood cells – can help address everything from arthritis to Alzheimer’s but offer little or no proof. Because the “therapies” are not approved by the FDA they are not covered by insurance, so people spend thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars for something that is almost guaranteed to do little to help. In some cases, the “treatments” have had disastrous results, harming patients.

The news release from Speaker pro Tem Mullin’s office says CIRM has helped position California as a leader in stem cell research. 

“Unfortunately, not all stem cell clinics are adhering to the expected high standards of review within the industry and, as a result, patients have been subjected to unscrupulous, sometimes harmful practices. AB 617 will address those entities by creating a Stem Cell Clinic Regulation Advisory Group.”

The Advisory Group will review existing licensing and certification laws for clinics offering stem cell therapies. The Group would then make recommendations to the Legislature about ways to improve the existing rules and ensure greater protection for patients. CIRM has been working with Speaker pro Tem Mullin on AB 617 and, as our President & CEO, Maria Millan, said we will continue to do so.

“We fully support AB 617 and Speaker pro Tem Mullin’s efforts to protect California consumers from unregulated and unproven stem cell treatments.  AB 617 will help patients, their families and the medical community identify legitimate clinics that offer scientifically tested clinical trials and treatments that meet federal regulatory requirements.  The field of regenerative medicine and cell and gene therapy are coming of age and entering the realm of medical practice, so AB 617 would set up an important foundation for ensuring that the highest quality care is provided to patients seeking these treatments.”

Peddling hope for thousands of dollars – a TV expose on one clinic offering unproven stem cell therapies

David Goldstein

You may have seen an ad in your local paper, promoting a seminar on the “wonders” of stem cell therapies. They are becoming increasingly common all around the US.

The ads talk about the ability of stem cells to heal everything from arthritis to autism. But what they don’t talk about is that they are not approved by the FDA for use in patients, and that they are not proven to do anything except remove large amounts of money from your wallet.

One TV reporter decided to see exactly what was on offer at these clinics. So CBSLA Investigative Reporter David Goldstein went to a free stem cell seminar in the City of Orange, put on by the Stem Cell Institute of Orange County, and found that there was a huge gap between what was being promised and what was being delivered.

You can watch that TV report here.

 

Research Targeting Prostate Cancer Gets Almost $4 Million Support from CIRM

Prostate cancer

A program hoping to supercharge a patient’s own immune system cells to attack and kill a treatment resistant form of prostate cancer was today awarded $3.99 million by the governing Board of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM)

In the U.S., prostate cancer is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in men.  An estimated 170,000 new cases are diagnosed each year and over 29,000 deaths are estimated in 2018.  Early stage prostate cancer is usually managed by surgery, radiation and/or hormone therapy. However, for men diagnosed with castrate-resistant metastatic prostate cancer (CRPC) these treatments often fail to work and the disease eventually proves fatal.

Poseida Therapeutics will be funded by CIRM to develop genetically engineered chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T) to treat metastatic CRPC. In cancer, there is a breakdown in the natural ability of immune T-cells to survey the body and recognize, bind to and kill cancerous cells. Poseida is engineering T cells and T memory stem cells to express a chimeric antigen receptor that arms these cells to more efficiently target, bind to and destroy the cancer cell. Millions of these cells are then grown in the laboratory and then re-infused into the patient. The CAR-T memory stem cells have the potential to persist long-term and kill residual cancer calls.

“This is a promising approach to an incurable disease where patients have few options,” says Maria T. Millan, M.D., President and CEO of CIRM. “The use of chimeric antigen receptor engineered T cells has led to impressive results in blood malignancies and a natural extension of this promising approach is to tackle currently untreatable solid malignancies, such as castrate resistant metastatic prostate cancer. CIRM is pleased to partner on this program and to add it to its portfolio that involves CAR T memory stem cells.”

Poseida Therapeutics plans to use the funding to complete the late-stage testing needed to apply to the Food and Drug Administration for the go-ahead to start a clinical trial in people.

Quest Awards

The CIRM Board also voted to approve investing $10 million for eight projects under its Discovery Quest Program. The Quest program promotes the discovery of promising new stem cell-based technologies that will be ready to move to the next level, the translational category, within two years, with an ultimate goal of improving patient care.

Among those approved for funding are:

  • Eric Adler at UC San Diego is using genetically modified blood stem cells to treat Danon Disease, a rare and fatal condition that affects the heart
  • Li Gan at the Gladstone Institutes will use induced pluripotent stem cells to develop a therapy for a familial form of dementia
  • Saul Priceman at City of Hope will use CAR-T therapy to develop a treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer

Because the amount of funding for the recommended applications exceeded the money set aside, the Application Subcommittee voted to approve partial funding for two projects, DISC2-11192 and DISC2-11109 and to recommend, at the next full Board meeting in October, that the projects get the remainder of the funds needed to complete their research.

The successful applications are:

 

APPLICATION

 

TITLE

 

INSTITUTION

CIRM COMMITTED FUNDING
DISC2-11131 Genetically Modified Hematopoietic Stem Cells for the

Treatment of Danon Disease

 

 

U.C San Diego

 

$1,393,200

 

DISC2-11157 Preclinical Development of An HSC-Engineered Off-

The-Shelf iNKT Cell Therapy for Cancer

 

 

U.C. Los Angeles

 

$1,404,000

DISC2-11036 Non-viral reprogramming of the endogenous TCRα

locus to direct stem memory T cells against shared

neoantigens in malignant gliomas

 

 

U.C. San Francisco

 

$900,000

DISC2-11175 Therapeutic immune tolerant human islet-like

organoids (HILOs) for Type 1 Diabetes

 

 

Salk Institute

 

$1,637,209

DISC2-11107 Chimeric Antigen Receptor-Engineered Stem/Memory

T Cells for the Treatment of Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

 

 

City of Hope

 

$1,381,104

DISC2-11165 Develop iPSC-derived microglia to treat progranulin-

deficient Frontotemporal Dementia

 

 

Gladstone Institutes

 

$1,553,923

DISC2-11192 Mesenchymal stem cell extracellular vesicles as

therapy for pulmonary fibrosis

 

 

U.C. San Diego

 

$865,282

DISC2-11109 Regenerative Thymic Tissues as Curative Cell

Therapy for Patients with 22q11 Deletion Syndrome

 

 

Stanford University

 

$865,282

 

 

Headline: Stem Cell Roundup: Here are some stem cell stories that caught our eye this past week.

In search of a miracle

Jordan and mother

Luane Beck holds Jordan in the emergency room while he suffers a prolonged seizure. Jordan’s seizures sometimes occur one after another with no break, and they can be deadly without emergency care. Photo courtesy San Francisco Chronicle’s Kim Clark

One of the toughest parts of my job is getting daily calls and emails from people desperate for a stem cell treatment or cure for themselves or a loved one and having to tell them that I don’t know of any. You can hear in their voice, read it in their emails, how hard it is for them to see someone they love in pain or distress and not be able to help them.

I know that many of those people may think about turning to one of the many stem cell clinics, here in the US and in Mexico and other countries, that are offering unproven and unapproved therapies. These clinics are offering desperate people a sense of hope, even if there is no evidence that the therapies they provide are either safe or effective.

And these “therapies” come with a big cost, both emotional and financial.

The San Francisco Chronicle this week launched the first in a series of stories they are doing about stem cells and stem cell research, the progress being made and the problems the field still faces.

One of the biggest problems, are clinics that offer hope, at a steep price, but no evidence to show that hope is justified. The first piece in the Chronicle series is a powerful, heart breaking story of one mother’s love for her son and her determination to do all she can to help him, and the difficult, almost impossible choices she has to make along the way.

It’s called: In search of a miracle.

A little turbulence, and a French press-like device, can help boost blood platelet production

Every year more than 21 million units of blood are transfused into people in the US. It’s a simple, life-saving procedure. One of the most important elements in transfusions are  platelets, the cells that stop bleeding and have other healing properties. Platelets, however, have a very short shelf life and so there is a constant need to get more from donors. Now a new study from Japan may help fix that problem.

Platelets are small cells that break off much larger cells called megakaryocytes. Scientists at the Center for iPS Cell Research and Application (CiRA) created billions of megakaryocytes using iPS technology (which turns ordinary cells into any other kind of cell in the body) and then placed them in a bioreactor. The bioreactor then pushed the cells up and down – much like you push down on a French press coffee maker – which helped promote the generation of platelets.

In their study, published in the journal Cell, they report they were able to generate 100 billion platelets, enough to be able to treat patients.

In a news release, CiRA Professor Koji Eto said they have shown this works in mice and now they want to see if it also works in people:

“Our goal is to produce platelets in the lab to replace human donors.”

Stem Cell Photo of the Week 

Photo Jul 11, 6 00 19 PM

Students at the CIRM Bridges program practice their “elevator pitch”. Photo Kyle Chesser

This week we held our annual CIRM Bridges to Stem Cell Research conference in Newport Beach. The Bridges program provides paid internships for undergraduate and masters-level students, a chance to work in a world-class stem cell research facility and get the experience needed to pursue a career in science. The program is training the next generation of stem cell scientists to fill jobs in California’s growing stem cell research sector.

This year we got the students to practice an “elevator Pitch”, a 30 second explanation, in plain English, of what they do, why they do it and why people should care. It’s a fun exercise but also an important one. We want scientists to be able to explain to the public what they are doing and why it’s important. After all, the people of California are supporting this work so they have a right to know, in language they can understand, how their money is changing the face of medicine.

Stem Cell Roundup: Jake Javier’s amazing spirit; TV report highlights clinic offering unproven stem cell therapies

JakeJavier_A_0107_20161207142726_JakeJavier_SeesTheDay

Jake Javier: Photo Michael Clemens, Sees the Day

In the Roundup we usually focus on studies that highlight advances in stem cell research but today we’re going to do something a little different. Instead of relying on print for our stories, we’re turning to video.

We begin with a piece about Jake Javier. Regular readers of our blog will remember that Jake is the young man who broke his neck the day before he graduated high school, leaving him paralyzed from the upper chest down.

After enrolling in the CIRM-funded Asterias clinical trial, and receiving a transplant of 10 million stem cells, Jake regained enough use of his arms and hands to be able to go to Cal Poly and start his life over.

This video highlights the struggles and challenges he faced in his first year, and his extraordinary spirit in overcoming them.

(thanks to Matt Yoon and his Creative Services team at Cal Poly for this video)

Going Undercover

The second video is from the NBC7 TV station in San Diego and highlights one of the big problems in regenerative medicine today, clinics offering unproven therapies. The investigative team at NBC7 went undercover at a stem cell clinic seminar where presenters talked about “the most significant breakthrough in natural medicine” for improving mobility and reducing pain. As the reporter discovered, the reality didn’t live up to the promise.

NBC7 Investigative Report

 

Using the courts to protect patients from unapproved stem cell therapies

A recent article in Nature looked at using lawsuits to help rein in the activities of clinics offering “unapproved” therapies. CIRM’s Geoff Lomax explains.

Stem-Cell-Clinics-to-Trust

When public health officials wanted to raise awareness about the dangers of smoking they filed lawsuits against the tobacco companies. They accused Big Tobacco of deceptive marketing and hiding the negative health effects of smoking. Ultimately, they won. Now a new study says a similar tactic could prove effective in combating clinics that offer unproven stem cell therapies.

CIRM works tirelessly to accelerate the delivery of stem cell treatments to patients with unmet medical needs. But, that doesn’t mean we support any treatment that claims to help people. CIRM only partners with projects that have been given the go-ahead by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be tested in people in a clinical trial.  That’s because FDA approval means the clinical trial will be monitored and evaluated under high scientific and ethical standards.

In contrast, there are numerous examples where “stem-cell treatments” not sanctioned by the FDA are being marketed directly to patients. For years the FDA, CIRM and others have been warning consumers about the risks involved with these untested treatments. For example, just last  November the FDA issued a warning and advice for people considering stem cell treatments.

Legal steps

Last year CIRM also helped author a new California law designed to protect consumers. The law requires health care providers to disclose to patients when using a treatment that is not FDA approved or part of an FDA-sanctioned clinical trial.

At CIRM, we frequently direct patients seeking treatments to our Alpha Stem Cell Clinics Network. The Alpha Clinics only perform clinical trials that have been given the green light by the FDA, and they provide expert consultation and informed consent to patients to help ensure they make the best choice for themselves. Further, the Alpha Clinics follow up with patients after their treatments to evaluate safety and the effectiveness of the treatments.

These are steps that clinics offering unproven and unapproved therapies typically don’t follow. So, the question is how do you let people know about the risks involved in going to one of these clinics and how do you stop clinics offering “therapies” that might endanger the health of patients?

Using the law to hit clinics where it hurts

In a recently published perspective in the journal Nature an international team of policy experts considered whether civil lawsuits may play a role in stemming the tide of unproven treatments. In the article the authors say:

“The threat of financial liability for wrongdoing is the primary means by which civil law governs behavior in the private sector. Despite calls for stepping up enforcement efforts, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently restricted in its ability to identify and target clinics operating in apparent violation of regulations. The fear of tort liability {lawsuits} may provide sufficient incentive for compliance and minimize the occurrence of unethical practices.”

The authors identified nine individual and class action lawsuits involving clinics offering what they called “unproven stem cell interventions.” A few of those were dismissed or decided in favor of the clinics, with judges saying the claims lacked merit. Most, however, were settled by the clinics with no ruling on the merits of the issue raised. Even without definitive judgements against the clinics the authors of the article conclude:

“Stem cell lawsuits could intensify publicity and raise awareness of the harms of unproven treatments, set legal precedent, reshape the media narrative from one focused on the right to try or practice to one highlighting the need for adequate safety and efficacy standards, and encourage authorities to turn their attention to policy reform and enforcement.”

The authors suggest the courts may provide a forum where medical experts can inform patients, the legal community and the public about good versus harmful clinical practices. In short, the authors believe the legal process can be an effective forum for to provide education and outreach to those with disease and the public at large.

The better option of course would be for the clinics themselves to reform their practices and engage with the FDA to test their therapies in a clinical trial. Until that happens the courts may offer an alternative approach to curbing the marketing of these unproven and unapproved therapies.

Stem Cell Stories that Caught Our Eye: New law to protect consumers; using skin to monitor blood sugar; and a win for the good guys

Hernendez

State Senator Ed Hernandez

New law targets stem cell clinics that offer therapies not approved by the FDA

For some time now CIRM and others around California have been warning consumers about the risks involved in going to clinics that offer stem cell therapies that have not been tested in a clinical trial or approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in patients.

Now a new California law, authored by State Senator Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina) attempts to address that issue. It will require medical clinics whose stem cell treatments are not FDA approved, to post notices and provide handouts to patients warning them about the potential risk.

In a news release Sen. Hernandez said he hopes the new law, SB 512, will protect consumers from early-stage, unproven experimental therapies:

“There are currently over 100 medical offices in California providing non-FDA approved stem cell treatments. Patients spend thousands of dollars on these treatments, but are totally unaware of potential risks and dangerous side effects.”

Sen. Hernandez’s staffer Bao-Ngoc Nguyen crafted the bill, with help from CIRM Board Vice Chair Sen. Art Torres, Geoff Lomax and UC Davis researcher Paul Knoepfler, to ensure it targeted only clinics offering non-FDA approved therapies and not those offering FDA-sanctioned clinical trials.

For example the bill would not affect CIRM’s Alpha Stem Cell Clinic Network because all the therapies offered there have been given the green light by the FDA to work with patients.

Blood_Glucose_Testing 

Using your own skin as a blood glucose monitor

One of the many things that people with diabetes hate is the constant need to monitor their blood sugar level. Usually that involves a finger prick to get a drop of blood. It’s simple but not much fun. Attempts to develop non-invasive monitors have been tried but with limited success.

Now researchers at the University of Chicago have come up with another alternative, using the person’s own skin to measure their blood glucose level.

Xiaoyang Wu and his team accomplished this feat in mice by first creating new skin from stem cells. Then, using the gene-editing tool CRISPR, they added in a protein that sticks to sugar molecules and another protein that acts as a fluorescent marker. The hope was that the when the protein sticks to sugar in the blood it would change shape and emit fluorescence which could indicate if blood glucose levels were too high, too low, or just right.

The team then grafted the skin cells back onto the mouse. When those mice were left hungry for a while then given a big dose of sugar, the skin “sensors” reacted within 30 seconds.

The researchers say they are now exploring ways that their findings, published on the website bioRxiv, could be duplicated in people.

While they are doing that, we are supporting ViaCytes attempt to develop a device that doesn’t just monitor blood sugar levels but also delivers insulin when needed. You can read about our recent award to ViaCyte here.

Deepak

Dr. Deepak Srivastava

Stem Cell Champion, CIRM grantee, and all-round-nice guy named President of Gladstone Institutes

I don’t think it would shock anyone to know that there are a few prima donnas in the world of stem cell research. Happily, Dr. Deepak Srivastava is not one of them, which makes it such a delight to hear that he has been appointed as the next President of the Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco.

Deepak is a gifted scientist – which is why we have funded his work – a terrific communicator and a really lovely fella; straight forward and down to earth.

In a news release announcing his appointment – his term starts January 1 next year – Deepak said he is honored to succeed the current President, Sandy Williams:

“I joined Gladstone in 2005 because of its unique ability to leverage diverse basic science approaches through teams of scientists focused on achieving scientific breakthroughs for mankind’s most devastating diseases. I look forward to continue shaping this innovative approach to overcome human disease.”

We wish him great success in his new role.

 

 

 

‘Pay-to-Participate’ stem cell clinical studies, the ugly stepchild of ClinicalTrials.gov

When patients are looking for clinical trials testing new drugs or treatments for their disease, one of the main websites they visit is ClinicalTrials.gov. It’s a registry provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of approximately 250,000 clinical trials spanning over 200 countries around the world.

ClinicalTrials.gov website

If you visit the website, you’ll find CIRM’s 28 active clinical trials testing stem cell-based therapies for indications like spinal cord injury, type 1 diabetes, heart failure, ALS, cancer and more. These are Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved trials, meaning that researchers did the proper preclinical studies to prove that a therapy was safe and effective in animal models and received approval from the US FDA to test the treatment in human clinical trials.

As the largest clinical registry in the world, ClinicalTrials.gov is a very valuable resource for patients and the public. But there are studies on the website that have recently surfaced and taken on the role of ‘ugly stepchild’. These are unapproved stem cell therapies from companies and stem cell clinics that are registering their “pay-to-participate treatments”. And they are doing so in clever ways that don’t make it obvious to patients that the trials aren’t legitimate. The reason this is so troubling is that unproven therapies can be dangerous or even life-threatening to patients.

Leigh Turner

Leigh Turner, an associate professor of bioethics at the University of Minnesota, has written extensively about the serious problem of stem cell clinics marketing unproven stem cell therapies to desperate patients. Turner, in collaboration with UC Davis professor Dr. Paul Knoepfler, published a study in Cell Stem Cell last year that identified over 550 clinics in the US that promote unproven treatments for almost any condition, including diseases like Alzheimer’s where research has shown that cures are a long way off.

Today, Turner published an article in Regenerative Medicine that shines a light on how companies and clinics are taking advantage of ClinicalTrials.gov to promote their “pay-to-participate” unproven stem cell studies. The article is available for free if you register with RegMedNet, but you can find news coverage about Turner’s piece through EurekAlert,  Wired Magazine and the San Diego Union Tribune.

In an interview with RegMedNet, Turner explained that his research into how businesses promote unproven stem cell therapies led to the discovery that these studies were being listed as “pay-to-participate” on ClinicalTrials.gov.

“Many of these businesses use websites, social media, YouTube videos, webinars and other tools to engage in direct-to-consumer marketing of supposed stem cell therapies. To my surprise, at one point I noticed that some of these companies had successfully listed “pay-to-participate” studies on ClinicalTrials.gov. Many of these “studies” look to me like little more than marketing exercises, though of course the businesses listing them would presumably argue that they are genuine clinical studies.”

While FDA-approved trials can charge study participants, most don’t. If they do, it’s motivated by recovering costs rather than making a profit. Turner also explained that organizations with FDA-approved studies “need to prepare a detailed rationale and a budget, and obtain approval from the FDA.”

Companies with unproven stem cell therapies are ignoring these regulatory requirements and listing their studies as “patient-funded” or “patient-sponsored”. Turner found seven such “pay-to-participate” studies sponsored by US companies on ClinicalTrials.gov. He also identified 11 studies where companies don’t indicate that patients have to pay, but do charge patients to participate in the studies.

Turner is concerned that these companies are using ClinicalTrials.gov to take advantage of innocent patients who don’t realize that these unproven treatments aren’t backed by solid scientific research.

“Patients have already been lured to stem cell clinics that use ClinicalTrials.gov to market unproven stem cell interventions. Furthermore, some patients have been injured after undergoing stem cell procedures at such businesses. Many individuals use ClinicalTrials.gov to find legitimate, well-designed, and carefully conducted clinical trials. They are at risk of being misled by study listings that lend an air of legitimacy and credibility to clinics promoting unproven and unlicensed stem cell interventions.”

Having identified the problem, Turner is now advocating for a solution.

“ClinicalTrials.gov needs to raise the bar and perform a proper review of studies before they are registered. Better screening is needed before more patients and research subjects are harmed. It’s astonishing that officials at the NIH and US FDA haven’t already done something to address this obvious matter of patient safety. Putting a disclaimer on the website isn’t sufficient.”

The disclaimer that Turner is referring to is a statement on the ClinicalTrials.gov website that says, “Listing of a study on this site does not reflect endorsement by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).”

Turner argues that this disclaimer “simply isn’t sufficient.”

“Patients and their loved ones, physicians, researchers, journalists, and many other individuals all use ClinicalTrials.gov because they regard the registry and database as a source of meaningful, credible information about clinical studies. I suspect most individuals would be shocked at how easy it is to register on ClinicalTrials.gov studies that have obvious methodological problems, do not appear to comply with applicable federal regulations or have glaring ethical shortcomings.”

While Turner acknowledges that the NIH database of clinical trials is a “terrific public resource” that he himself has used, he regards it “as a collective good that needs to be protected from parties willing to misuse and abuse it.” His hope is that his article will give journalists the starting material to conduct further investigators into these pay-to-participate studies and the companies behind them. He also hopes that “such coverage will help convince NIH officials that they have a crucial role to play in making ClinicalTrials.gov a resource people can turn to for information about credible clinical trials rather than allowing it to become a database corrupted and devalued by highly problematic studies.”

Convincing is one thing, but implementing change is another. Turner said in his interview that he knows that “careful screening by NIH officials will require more resources, and I am making this argument at a time when much of the political discourse in the U.S. is about cutting funding for the CDC, FDA, NIH and other federal agencies.”

He remains hopeful however and concluded that “perhaps there are ways to jolt into action people who are in positions of power and who can act to help prevent the spread of misinformation, bad science, and marketing packaged as clinical research.”

Texas tries to go it alone in offering unproven stem cell therapies to patients

Texas Capitol. (Shutterstock)

One of the most hotly debated topics in stem cell research is whether patients should be able to have easier access to unproven therapies using their own stem cells, at their own risk, and their own cost. It’s a debate that is dividing patients and physicians, researchers and lawmakers.

In California, a bill working its way through the state legislature wants to have warning signs posted in clinics offering unproven stem cell therapies, letting patients know they are potentially putting themselves at risk.

Texas is taking a very different approach. A series of bills under consideration would make it easier for clinics to offer unproven treatments; make it easier for patients with chronic illnesses to use the “right to try” law to take part in early-stage clinical trials (in the past, it was only patients with a terminal illness who could do that); and allow these clinics to charge patients for these unproven stem cell therapies.

Not surprisingly, the Texas bills are attracting some widely divergent views. Many stem cell researchers and some patient advocates are opposed to them, saying they prey on the needs of vulnerable people, offering them treatments – often costing thousands, even tens of thousands of dollars – that have little or no chance of success.

In an article on STATnews, Sean Morrison, a stem cell researcher at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, in Dallas, said the Texas bills would be bad for patients:

“When patients get desperate, they have a capacity to suspend disbelief. When offered the opportunity of a therapy they believe in, even without data and if the chances of benefit are low, they’ll fight for access to that therapy. The problem is there are fraudulent stem cell clinics that have sprung up to exploit that.”

Patients like Jennifer Ziegler disagree with that completely. Ziegler has multiple sclerosis and has undergone three separate stem cell treatments – two in the US and one in Panama – to help treat her condition. She is also a founding member of Patients For Stem Cells (PFSC):

Jennifer Ziegler

“PFSC does not believe our cells are drugs. We consider the lack of access to adult stem cells an overreach by the federal government into our medical freedoms. My cells are not mass produced, and they do not cross state lines. An adult stem cell treatment is a medical procedure, between me, a fully educated patient, and my fully competent doctor.”

The issue is further complicated because the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – which has regulatory authority over stem cell treatments – considers the kinds of therapies these clinics offer to be a technical violation of the law. So even if Texas passes these three bills, they could still be in violation of federal law. However, a recent study in Cell Stem Cell showed that there are some 570 clinics around the US offering these unproven therapies, and to date the FDA has shown little inclination to enforce the law and shut those clinics down.

UC Davis stem cell researcher – and CIRM grantee – Paul Knoepfler is one of the co-authors of the study detailing how many clinics there are in the US. On his blog – The Niche – he recently expressed grave concerns about the Texas bills:

Paul Knoepfler

“The Texas Legislature is considering three risky bills that would give free rein to stem cell clinics to profit big time off of patients by selling unproven and unapproved “stem cell treatments” that have little if any science behind them. I call one of these bills “Right to Profit” for clinics, which if these became law could get millions from vulnerable patients and potentially block patient rights.”

Ziegler counters that patients have the right to try and save their own lives, saying if the Texas bills pass: “chronically ill, no option patients in the US, will have the opportunity to seek treatment without having to leave the country.”

It’s a debate we are all too familiar with at CIRM. Every day we get emails and phone calls from people asking for help in finding a treatment, for them or a loved one, suffering from a life-threatening or life-altering disease or disorder. It’s incredibly difficult having to tell them there is nothing that would help them currently being tested in a clinical trial.

Inevitably they ask about treatments they have seen online, offered by clinics using the patient’s own stem cells to treat them. At that point, it is no longer an academic debate about proven or unproven therapies, it has become personal; one person asking another for help, to find something, anything, to save their life.

Barring a dramatic change of policy at the FDA. these clinics are not going to go away. Nor will the need of patients who have run out of options and are willing to try anything to ease their pain or delay death. We need to find another way, one that brings these clinics into the fold and makes the treatments they offer part of the clinical trial process.

There are no easy answers, no simple solutions. But standing on either side of the divide, saying those on the other side are either “heartless” or “foolish” serves no one, helps no one. We need to figure out another way.