CIRM-funded life-saving stem cell therapy gets nod of approval from FDA

Cured_AR_2016_coverIf you have read our 2016 Annual Report (and if you haven’t you should, it’s brilliant) or just seen the cover you’ll know that it features very prominently a young girl named Evie Padilla Vaccaro.

Evie was born with Severe Combined Immunodeficiency or SCID – also known as “bubble baby disease”; we’ve written about it here. SCID is a rare but deadly immune disorder which leaves children unable to fight off simple infections. Many children with SCID die in the first few years of life.

Fortunately for Evie and her family, Dr. Don Kohn and his team at UCLA, working with a UK-based company called Orchard Therapeutics Ltd., have developed a treatment called OTL-101. This involves taking the patient’s own blood stem cells, genetically modifying them to correct the SCID mutation, and then returning the cells to the patient. Those modified cells create a new blood supply, and repair the child’s immune system.

Evie was treated with OTL-101 when she was a few months old. She is cured. And she isn’t the only one. To date more than 40 children have been treated with this method. All have survived and are doing well.

Orchard Therapeutics

 FDA acknowledgement

Because of that success the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted OTL-101 Rare Pediatric Disease Designation. This status is given to a treatment that targets a serious or life-threatening disease that affects less than 200,000 people, most of whom are under 18 years of age.

The importance of the Rare Pediatric Disease Designation is that it gives the company certain incentives for the therapy’s development, including priority review by the FDA. That means if it continues to show it is safe and effective it may have a faster route to being made more widely available to children in need.

In a news release Anne Dupraz, PhD, Orchard’s Chief Regulatory Officer, welcomed the decision:

“Together with Orphan Drug and Breakthrough Therapy Designations, this additional designation is another important development step for the OTL-101 clinical program. It reflects the potential of this gene therapy treatment to address the significant unmet medical need of children with ADA-SCID and eligibility for a Pediatric Disease Priority Review voucher at time of approval.”

Creating a trend

This is the second time in less than two weeks that a CIRM-funded therapy has been awarded Rare Pediatric Disease designation. Earlier this month Capricor Therapeutics was given that status for its treatment for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.

Two other CIRM-funded clinical trials – Humacyte and jCyte – have been given Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy Designation (RMAT) by the FDA. This makes them eligible for earlier and faster interactions with the FDA, and also means they may be able to apply for priority review and faster approval.

All these are encouraging signs for a couple of reasons. It suggests that the therapies are showing real promise in clinical trials. And it shows that the FDA is taking steps to encourage those therapies to advance as quickly – and safely of course – as possible.

Credit where credit is due

In the past we have been actively critical of the FDA’s sluggish pace in moving stem cell therapies out of the lab and into clinical trials where they can be tested in people. So when the FDA does show signs of changing the way it works it’s appropriate that that we are actively supportive.

Getting these designations is, of course, no guarantee the therapies will ultimately prove to be successful. But if they are, creating faster pathways means they can get to patients, the people who really need them, at a much faster pace.

 

 

 

 

 

Stem cell agency funds Phase 3 clinical trial for Lou Gehrig’s disease

ALS

At CIRM we don’t have a disease hierarchy list that we use to guide where our funding goes. We don’t rank a disease by how many people suffer from it, if it affects children or adults, or how painful it is. But if we did have that kind of hierarchy you can be sure that Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, would be high on that list.

ALS is a truly nasty disease. It attacks the neurons, the cells in our brain and spinal cord that tell our muscles what to do. As those cells are destroyed we lose our ability to walk, to swallow, to talk, and ultimately to breathe.

As Dr. Maria Millan, CIRM’s interim President and CEO, said in a news release, it’s a fast-moving disease:

“ALS is a devastating disease with an average life expectancy of less than five years, and individuals afflicted with this condition suffer an extreme loss in quality of life. CIRM’s mission is to accelerate stem cell treatments to patients with unmet medical needs and, in keeping with this mission, our objective is to find a treatment for patients ravaged by this neurological condition for which there is currently no cure.”

Having given several talks to ALS support groups around the state, I have had the privilege of meeting many people with ALS and their families. I have seen how quickly the disease works and the devastation it brings. I’m always left in awe by the courage and dignity with which people bear it.

BrainStorm

I thought of those people, those families, today, when our governing Board voted to invest $15.9 million in a Phase 3 clinical trial for ALS run by BrainStorm Cell Therapeutics. BrainStorm is using mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) that are taken from the patient’s own bone marrow. This reduces the risk of the patient’s immune system fighting the therapy.

After being removed, the MSCs are then modified in the laboratory to  boost their production of neurotrophic factors, proteins which are known to help support and protect the cells destroyed by ALS. The therapy, called NurOwn, is then re-infused back into the patient.

In an earlier Phase 2 clinical trial, NurOwn showed that it was safe and well tolerated by patients. It also showed evidence that it can help stop, or even reverse  the progression of the disease over a six month period, compared to a placebo.

CIRM is already funding one clinical trial program focused on treating ALS – that’s the work of Dr. Clive Svendsen and his team at Cedars Sinai, you can read about that here. Being able to add a second project, one that is in a Phase 3 clinical trial – the last stage before, hopefully, getting approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for wider use – means we are one step closer to being able to offer people with ALS a treatment that can help them.

Diane Winokur, the CIRM Board Patient Advocate member for ALS, says this is something that has been a long time coming:

CIRM Board member and ALS Patient Advocate Diane Winokur

“I lost two sons to ALS.  When my youngest son was diagnosed, he was confident that I would find something to save him.  There was very little research being done for ALS and most of that was very limited in scope.  There was one drug that had been developed.  It was being released for compassionate use and was scheduled to be reviewed by the FDA in the near future.  I was able to get the drug for Douglas.  It didn’t really help him and it was ultimately not approved by the FDA.

When my older son was diagnosed five years later, he too was convinced I would find a therapy.  Again, I talked to everyone in the field, searched every related study, but could find nothing promising.

I am tenacious by nature, and after Hugh’s death, though tempted to give up, I renewed my search.  There were more people, labs, companies looking at neurodegenerative diseases.

These two trials that CIRM is now funding represent breakthrough moments for me and for everyone touched by ALS.  I feel that they are a promising beginning.  I wish it had happened sooner.  In a way, though, they have validated Douglas and Hugh’s faith in me.”

These therapies are not a cure for ALS. At least not yet. But what they will do is hopefully help buy people time, and give them a sense of hope. For a disease that leaves people desperately short of both time and hope, that would be a precious gift. And for people like Diane Winokur, who have fought so hard to find something to help their loved ones, it’s a vindication that those efforts have not been in vain.

CIRM-funded stem cell clinical trial for spinal cord injury expands patient recruitment

asterias

It’s always great to start the week off with some good news. Today we learned that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has given Asterias Biotherapeutics approval to expand the number and type of people with spinal cord injuries that it treats in their CIRM-funded clinical trial.

Up till now, Asterias has been treating people who have injuries at the C5-C7 level, those are the lowest levels of the cervical spine, near the base of the neck. Now they will be able to treat people with injuries at the C4 level, that’s not only higher up the neck but it’s also the second most common form of spinal cord injury.

In a news release Dr. Ed Wirth, Asterias’ Chief Medical Officer, says this is a vote of confidence from the FDA in the company’s AST-OPC1 stem cell therapy:

“FDA’s decision to allow the company to enroll qualified patients with C-4 level injuries is the result of the data supporting the safety of both AST-OPC1 and the procedure to inject the cells and means that the second most common cervical spinal cord injury population can now be eligible to receive AST-OPC1. The overall changes to the study protocol will enhance our ability to enroll qualified patient candidates for our current SCiStar study and we also expect the changes to help enrollment rates in a future, larger clinical study.”

C4 image

Photo courtesy Shepherd Center, Atlanta

People who are injured at the C4 level are typically paralyzed from the neck down and need constant help, while people with C5-C7 injuries typically have some use of their hands and arms. Caring for someone with a C4 injury is expensive, with lifetime costs estimated around $5 million. Anything that could help people recover some movement would not only reduce those costs but would, more importantly, also increase the quality of life for people.

Asterias is not only expanding the patient population they are working with, they are also expanding the window for treating the injury. Currently patients have to be enrolled from 14 to 30 days post injury. In this new C4 group that window has been extended to 21 to 42 days post injury.

The reason for that change is that because C4 is higher up in the neck, newly injured people often need to be placed on a ventilator to help stabilize them. These patients take a little more time to recover from the initial trauma before they are ready to be treated.

We have blogged several times (here, here and here) about the encouraging news from the Asterias trial and how it appears to be helping people with injuries at the C5-C7 level recover some movement in their arms and hands. In some cases, such as with Kris Boesen for example, the improvement has been quite dramatic. Now the hope is that this new patient population will see similar benefits.

kris-boesen

Kris Boesen, CIRM spinal cord injury clinical trial patient.

The study is being conducted at six centers in the U.S., including some here in California,  and the company plans to increase this to up to 12 sites to accommodate the expanded patient enrollment.

Humacyte Receives Prestigious Technology Pioneer Award for Kidney Failure Treatment

This month, a CIRM-funded company called Humacyte was named one of the World Economic Forum’s 30 Technology Pioneers for 2017. This prestigious award “recognizes early-stage companies from around the world that are involved in the design, development and deployment of new technologies and innovations, and are poised to have a significant impact on business and society.”

Humacyte is a North Carolina-based company that’s developing a promising human-tissue based treatment for kidney failure. They’ve developed a technology to manufacture a bioengineered human vein that they hope will improve kidney function in patients with end stage kidney disease and patients on hemodialysis. We’ve blogged about their exciting technology previously on the Stem Cellar (here).

The technology is fascinating. The first step involves stimulating human smooth muscle cells from donor tissue to develop into tubular vessels. After the vessels are made, the cells are removed, leaving a 3D extracellular matrix structure composed of molecules secreted by the cells. This decellularized tube-like structure is called a human acellular vessels or HAV.

Human acellular vessel (HAV) from Humacyte.

The HAV is then implanted under a patient’s skin, where it recruits the patient’s own stem cells to migrate into the HAV and develop into vascular smooth muscle cells that line the insides of actual blood vessels. For patients with kidney failure, HAVs provide vascular access for hemodialysis, the process of collecting and filtering a patient’s blood through an artificial kidney and then returning “clean” blood back to the body. It would provide an alternative to the current procedures that insert a plastic tube called a shunt into the patient’s vein. Shunts can cause infection, blood clots, and can also be rejected by a patient’s immune system.

In July of 2016, CIRM awarded Humacyte almost $10 million to launch a Phase 3 trial in California to test their bioengineered blood vessels in patients with kidney failure. Since launching the trial, Humacyte received Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy or RMAT designation from the US Food and Drug Administration in March of this year. This designation is a sign that the FDA sees promise in Humacyte’s stem cell-based therapy and “will help facilitate the efficient development and expedited review of the HAV for vascular access to patients in need of life-sustaining hemodialysis.”

Humacyte’s technology has wide-ranging applications beyond treating kidney disease, including peripheral arterial disease, “repairing or replacing damaged arteries, coronary artery bypass surgery, and vascular trauma.” Other key benefits of this technology are that HAVs can be designed on demand and can be stored for later use without fear of a rapidly degrading shelf-life.

In a recent Humacyte news release, Carrie Cox, Chair and CEO of Humacyte, commented on her company’s purpose and vision to help patients.

“Keeping patient care at its core, Humacyte’s scientific discoveries are designed to create ‘off-the-shelf,’ or ready to use, bioengineered blood vessels. Today these conduits are being investigated clinically for patients undergoing kidney dialysis who require vascular access and for patients with peripheral arterial disease. However, this technology may be extended into a range of vascular applications in the future, with the potential for better clinical outcomes and lower healthcare costs. Our vision is to make a meaningful impact in healthcare by advancing innovation in regenerative medicine to produce life-sustaining improvements for patients with vascular disease.”

The potential impact that Humacyte’s technology could have for patients with unmet medical needs was compelling enough to earn the company a coveted spot in the World Economic Forum’s Technology Pioneer community. This recognition will likely foster new partnerships and collaborations to further advance Humacyte’s technology down the clinical pipeline. Fulvia Montresor, Head of Technology Pioneers at the World Economic Forum, concluded in a news release.

“We welcome Humacyte in this group of extraordinary pioneers. We hope that thanks to this selection, the World Economic Forum can facilitate greater collaboration with business leaders, governments, civil society and other relevant individuals to accelerate the development of technological solutions to the world’s greatest challenges.”

According to coverage by North Carolina Biotechnology Center, Humacyte and the other Technology Pioneers will be honored at the “Summer Davos” World Economic Forum Annual Meeting of the New Champions later this month in China. You can learn more about this meeting here.


Related Links:

ViaCyte Advances Cell Replacement Therapy for High Risk Type 1 Diabetes

San Diego regenerative medicine company ViaCyte announced this week that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved their Investigational New Drug (IND) Application for PEC-Direct, a cell-based therapy to treat patients at risk for severe complications caused by type 1 diabetes. In the US, IND approval is the final regulatory step required before a therapy can be tested in clinical trials.

PEC-Direct is a combination therapy consisting of cells encapsulated in a device that aims to replace the insulin-producing islet cells of the pancreas destroyed in patients with type 1 diabetes. The device contains human stem cell-derived pancreatic progenitor cells that develop into insulin-secreting cells when the device is placed under the patient’s skin. Ports on the surface of the device allow blood vessels from the host to directly contact the cells within, allowing for engraftment of the transplanted cells and for their maturation into islet cells.  These cells can sense and regulate blood glucose levels by secreting the hormones found in islets, including insulin.

ViaCyte’s PEC-Direct device allows a patient’s blood vessels to integrate and make contact with the transplanted cells.

Because PEC-Direct allows for “direct vascularization”, in effect connecting the device to the blood system, patients will need to take immunosuppressive drugs to prevent rejection of the donor cells. ViaCyte is therefore testing this therapy in patients who are at risk for serious complications associated with type 1 diabetes like severe hypoglycemia where a patient’s blood sugar is so low they need immediate medical assistance.

Severe hypoglycemia can occur because people with diabetes must inject insulin to control elevated blood sugar, but the injections can exceed the patients’ needs. The resulting low blood sugar can lead to dizziness, irregular heartbeat, and unconsciousness, even death. In some cases, sufferers are not aware of their hypoglycemia symptoms, putting them at increased risk of these life-threatening complications.

ViaCyte’s President and CEO, Dr. Paul Laikind, explained in a news release,

Paul Laikind

“While insulin therapy transformed type 1 diabetes from a death sentence to a chronic illness, it is far from a cure. Type 1 diabetes patients continue to deal with the daily impact of the disease and remain at risk for often severe long-term complications.  This is especially true for the patients with high-risk type 1 diabetes, who face challenges such as hypoglycemia unawareness and life-threatening severe hypoglycemic episodes.  These patients have a particularly urgent unmet medical need and could benefit greatly from cell replacement therapy.”

Approximately 140,000 people in the US and Canada suffer from this form of high-risk diabetes. These patients qualify for islet transplants from donated cadaver tissue. But because donor islets are in limited supply, ViaCyte Clinical Advisor, Dr. James Shapiro at the University of Alberta, believes PEC-Direct will address this issue by providing an unlimited supply of cells.

“Islet transplants from scarce organ donors have offered great promise for those with unstable, high-risk type 1 diabetes, but the procedure has many limitations.  With an unlimited supply of new islets that the stem cell-derived therapy promises, we have real potential to benefit far more patients with islet cell replacement.”

The company’s preclinical research on PEC-Direct, leading up to the FDA’s IND approval, was funded by a CIRM late stage preclinical grant. ViaCyte now plans to launch a clinical trial this year that will evaluate the safety and efficacy of PEC-Direct in the US and Canada. They will enroll approximately 40 patients at multiple clinical trial centers including the University of Alberta in Edmonton, the University of Minnesota, and UC San Diego. The trial will test whether the device is safe and whether the transplanted cells can produce enough insulin to relieve patients of insulin injections and hypoglycemic events.

ViaCyte has another product called PEC-Encap, a different implantable device that contains the same cells but protects these cells from the patient’s immune system. The device is being tested in a CIRM-funded Phase 1/2a trial, and ViaCyte is currently collaborating with W. L. Gore & Associates to improve the design of PEC-Encap to improve consistency of engraftment in patients.

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.

Positively good news from Asterias for CIRM-funded stem cell clinical trial for spinal cord injury

AsteriasWhenever I give a talk on stem cells one of the questions I invariably get asked is “how do you know the cells are going where you want them to and doing what you want them to?”

The answer is pretty simple: you look. That’s what Asterias Biotherapeutics did in their clinical trial to treat people with spinal cord injuries. They used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans to see what was happening at the injury site; and what they saw was very encouraging.

Asterias is transplanting what they call AST-OPC1 cells into patients who have suffered recent injuries that have left them paralyzed from the neck down.  AST-OPC1 are oligodendrocyte progenitor cells, which develop into cells that support and protect nerve cells in the central nervous system, the area damaged in spinal cord injury. It’s hoped the treatment will restore connections at the injury site, allowing patients to regain some movement and feeling.

Taking a closer look

Early results suggest the therapy is doing just that, and now follow-up studies, using MRIs, are adding weight to those findings.

The MRIs – taken six months after treatment – show that the five patients given a dose of 10 million AST-OPC1 cells had no evidence of lesion cavities in their spines. That’s important because often, after a spinal cord injury, the injury site expands and forms a cavity, caused by the death of nerve and support cells in the spine, that results in permanent loss of movement and function below the site, and additional neurological damage to the patient.

Another group of patients, treated in an earlier phase of the clinical trial, showed no signs of lesion cavities 12 months after their treatment.

Positively encouraging

In a news release, Dr. Edward Wirth, the Chief Medical Officer at Asterias, says this is very positive:

“These new follow-up results based on MRI scans are very encouraging, and strongly suggest that AST-OPC1 cells have engrafted in these patients post-implantation and have the potential to prevent lesion cavity formation, possibly reducing long-term spinal cord tissue deterioration after spinal cord injury.”

Because the safety data is also encouraging Asterias is now doubling the dose of cells that will be transplanted into patients to 20 million, in a separate arm of the trial. They are hopeful this dose will be even more effective in helping restore movement and function in patients.

We can’t wait to see what they find.

Stem cell stories that caught our eye: update on Capricor’s heart attack trial; lithium on the brain; and how stem cells do math

Capricor ALLSTARToday our partners Capricor Therapeutics announced that its stem cell therapy for patients who have experienced a large heart attack is unlikely to meet one of its key goals, namely reducing the scar size in the heart 12 months after treatment.

The news came after analyzing results from patients at the halfway point of the trial, six months after their treatment in the Phase 2 ALLSTAR clinical trial which CIRM was funding. They found that there was no significant difference in the reduction in scarring on the heart for patients treated with donor heart-derived stem cells, compared to patients given a placebo.

Obviously this is disappointing news for everyone involved, but we know that not all clinical trials are going to be successful. CIRM supported this research because it clearly addressed an unmet medical need and because an earlier Phase 1 study had showed promise in helping prevent decline in heart function after a heart attack.

Yet even with this failure to repeat that promise in this trial,  we learned valuable lessons.

In a news release, Dr. Tim Henry, Director of the Division of Interventional Technologies in the Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and a Co-Principal Investigator on the trial said:

“We are encouraged to see reductions in left ventricular volume measures in the CAP-1002 treated patients, an important indicator of reverse remodeling of the heart. These findings support the biological activity of CAP-1002.”

Capricor still has a clinical trial using CAP-1002 to treat boys and young men developing heart failure due to Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD).

Lithium gives up its mood stabilizing secrets

As far back as the late 1800s, doctors have recognized that lithium can help people with mood disorders. For decades, this inexpensive drug has been an effective first line of treatment for bipolar disorder, a condition that causes extreme mood swings. And yet, scientists have never had a good handle on how it works. That is, until this week.

evan snyder

Evan Snyder

Reporting in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a research team at Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute have identified the molecular basis of the lithium’s benefit to bipolar patients.  Team lead Dr. Evan Snyder explained in a press release why his group’s discovery is so important for patients:

“Lithium has been used to treat bipolar disorder for generations, but up until now our lack of knowledge about why the therapy does or does not work for a particular patient led to unnecessary dosing and delayed finding an effective treatment. Further, its side effects are intolerable for many patients, limiting its use and creating an urgent need for more targeted drugs with minimal risks.”

The study, funded in part by CIRM, attempted to understand lithium’s beneficial effects by comparing cells from patient who respond to those who don’t (only about a third of patients are responders). Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) were generated from both groups of patients and then the cells were specialized into nerve cells that play a role in bipolar disorder. The team took an unbiased approach by looking for differences in proteins between the two sets of cells.

The team zeroed in on a protein called CRMP2 that was much less functional in the cells from the lithium-responsive patients. When lithium was added to these cells the disruption in CRMP2’s activity was fixed. Now that the team has identified the molecular location of lithium’s effects, they can now search for new drugs that do the same thing more effectively and with fewer side effects.

The stem cell: a biological calculator?

math

Can stem cells do math?

Stem cells are pretty amazing critters but can they do math? The answer appears to be yes according to a fascinating study published this week in PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Stem cells, like all cells, process information from the outside through different receptors that stick out from the cells’ outer membranes like a satellite TV dish. Protein growth factors bind those receptors which trigger a domino effect of protein activity inside the cell, called cell signaling, that transfers the initial receptor signal from one protein to another. Ultimately that cascade leads to the accumulation of specific proteins in the nucleus where they either turn on or off specific genes.

Intuition would tell you that the amount of gene activity in response to the cell signaling should correspond to the amount of protein that gets into the nucleus. And that’s been the prevailing view of scientists. But the current study by a Caltech research team debunks this idea. Using real-time video microscopy filming, the team captured cell signaling in individual cells; in this case they used an immature muscle cell called a myoblast.

goentoro20170508

Behavior of cells over time after they have received a Tgf-beta signal. The brightness of the nuclei (circled in red) indicates how much Smad protein is present. This brightness varies from cell to cell, but the ratio of brightness after the signal to before the signal is about the same. Image: Goentoro lab, CalTech.

To their surprise the same amount of growth factor given to different myoblasts cells led to the accumulation of very different amounts of a protein called Smad3 in the cells’ nuclei, as much as a 40-fold difference across the cells. But after some number crunching, they discovered that dividing the amount of Smad3 after growth factor stimulation by the Smad3 amount before growth stimulation was similar in all the cells.

As team lead Dr. Lea Goentoro mentions in a press release, this result has some very important implications for studying human disease:

“Prior to this work, researchers trying to characterize the properties of a tumor might take a slice from it and measure the total amount of Smad in cells. Our results show that to understand these cells one must instead measure the change in Smad over time.”

A call to put the ‘public’ back in publication, and make stem cell research findings available to everyone

Opening the door

Opening the door to scientific knowledge

Thomas Gray probably wasn’t thinking about stem cell research when, in 1750 in his poem “Elegy in a Country Churchyard”, he wrote: “Full many a flower is born to blush unseen”. But a new study says that’s precisely what seems to happen to the findings of many stem cell clinical trials. They take place, but no details of their findings are ever made public. They blush, if they blush at all, unseen.

The study, in the journal Stem Cell Reports, says that only around 45 percent of stem cell clinical trials ever have their results published in peer-reviewed journals. Which means the results of around 55 percent of stem cell clinical trials are never shared with either the public or the scientific community.

Now, this finding apparently is not confined to stem cell research. Previous studies have shown a similar lack of publication of the results of more conventional therapies. Nonetheless, it’s a little disappointing – to say the least – to find out that so much knowledge and potentially valuable data is being lost due to lack of publication.

Definitely not full disclosure

Researchers at the University of Alberta in Canada used the US National Institute of Health’s (NIH) clinicaltrials.gov website as their starting point. They identified 1,052 stem cell clinical trials on the site. Only 393 trials were completed and of these, just 179 (45.4 percent) published their findings in a peer-reviewed journal.

In an interview in The Scientist, Tania Bubela, the lead researcher, says they chose to focus on stem cell clinical trials because of extensive media interest and the high public expectations for the field:

“When you have a field that is accused of over promising in some areas, it is beholden of the researchers in that field to publish the results of their trials so that the public and policy makers can realistically estimate the potential benefits.”

Now, it could be argued that publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is a rather high bar, that many researchers may have submitted articles but were rejected. However, there are other avenues for researchers to publish their findings, such as posting results on the clinicaltrials.gov database. Only 37 teams (3.5 percent) did that.

Why do it?

In the same article in The Scientist, Leigh Turner, a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota, raises the obvious question:

“The study shows a gap between studies that have taken place and actual publication of the data, so a substantial number of trials testing cell-based interventions are not entering the public domain. The underlying question is, what is the ethical and scientific basis to exposing human research subjects to risk if there is not going to be any meaningful contribution to knowledge at the end of the process?”

In short, why do it if you are not going to let anyone know what you did and what you found?

It’s a particularly relevant question when you consider that much of this research was supported with taxpayer dollars from the NIH and other institutions. So, if the public is paying for this research, doesn’t the public have a right to know what was learned?

Right to know

At CIRM we certainly think so. We expect and encourage all the researchers we fund to publish their findings. There are numerous ways and places to do that. For example, we expect each grantee to post a lay summary of their progress which we publish on our website. Stanford’s Dr. Joseph Wu’s progress reports for his work on heart disease shows you what those look like.

We also require researchers conducting clinical trials that we are funding to submit and post their trial results on the clinicaltrials.gov website.

The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), agrees and recently updated its Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation calling on researchers to publish, as fully as possible, their clinical trial results.

That is true regardless of whether or not the clinical trial showed it was both safe and effective, or whether it showed it was unsafe and ineffective. We can learn as much from failure as we can from success. But to do that we need to know what the results are.

Publishing only positive findings skews the scientific literature, and public perception of this work. Ignoring the negative could mean that other scientists waste a lot of time and money trying to do something that has already demonstrated it won’t work.

Publication should be a requirement for all research, particularly publicly funded research. It’s time to put the word “public” back in publication.

 

 

jCyte gets FDA go-ahead for Fast Track review process of Retinitis Pigmentosa stem cell therapy

21 century cures

When the US Congress approved, and President Obama signed into law, the 21st Century Cures Act last year there was guarded optimism that this would help create a more efficient and streamlined, but no less safe, approval process for the most promising stem cell therapies.

Even so many people took a wait and see approach, wanting a sign that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would follow the recommendations of the Act rather than just pay lip service to it.

This week we saw encouraging signs that the FDA is serious when it granted Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) status to the CIRM-funded jCyte clinical trial for a rare form of blindness. This is a big deal because RMAT seeks to accelerate approval for stem cell therapies that demonstrate they can help patients with unmet medical needs.

klassen

jCyte co-founder Dr. Henry Klassen

jCyte’s work is targeting retinitis pigmentosa (RP), a genetic disease that slowly destroys the cells in the retina, the part of the eye that converts light into electrical signals which the brain then interprets as vision. At first people with RP lose their night and peripheral vision, then the cells that help us see faces and distinguish colors are damaged. RP usually strikes people in their teens and, by the time they are 40, many people are legally blind.

jCyte’s jCell therapy uses what are called retinal progenitor cells, injected into the eye, which then release protective factors to help repair and rescue diseased retinal cells. The hope is this will stop the disease’s progression and even restore some vision to people with RP.

Dr. Henry Klassen, jCyte’s co-founder and a professor at UC Irvine, was understandably delighted by the designation. In a news release, he said:

“This is uplifting news for patients with RP. At this point, there are no therapies that can help them avoid blindness. We look forward to working with the FDA to speed up the clinical development of jCell.”

FDA

On the FDA’s blog – yes they do have one – it says researchers:

“May obtain the RMAT designation for their drug product if the drug is intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions and if there is preliminary clinical evidence indicating that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for that disease or condition. Sponsors of RMAT-designated products are eligible for increased and earlier interactions with the FDA, similar to those interactions available to sponsors of breakthrough-designated therapies. In addition, they may be eligible for priority review and accelerated approval.”

Paul Bresge

jCyte CEO Paul Bresge

jCyte is one of the first to get this designation, a clear testimony to the quality of the work done by Dr. Klassen and his team. jCyte CEO Paul Bresge says it may help speed up their ability to get this treatment to patients.

 

“We are gratified by the FDA’s interest in the therapeutic potential of jCell and greatly appreciate their decision to provide extra support. We are seeing a lot of momentum with this therapy. Because it is well-tolerated and easy to administer, progress has been rapid. I feel a growing sense of excitement among patients and clinicians. We look forward to getting this critical therapy over the finish line as quickly as possible.”

Regular readers of this blog will already be familiar with the story of Rosie Barrero, one of the first group of people with RP who got the jCell therapy. Rosie says it has helped restore some vision to the point where she is now able to read notes she wrote ten years ago, distinguish colors and, best of all, see the faces of her children.

RMAT is no guarantee the therapy will be successful. But if the treatment continues to show promise, and is safe, it could mean faster access to a potentially life-changing therapy, one that could ultimately rescue many people from a lifetime of living in the dark.