This week saw the launch of the 45th startup company enabled by CIRM funding of translational research at California academic institutions. Graphite Bio officially launched with the help of $45M in funding led by bay area venture firms Versant Ventures and Samsara BioCapital to spinout a novel CRISPR gene editing platform from Stanford University to treat severe diseases. Graphite Bio’s lead candidate is for sickle cell disease and it harnesses CRISPR gene correction technology to correct the single DNA mutation in sickle cell disease and to restore normal hemoglobin expression in the red blood cells of sickle cell patients (Learn more about CRISPR from a previous blog post linked here).
Matt Porteus, M.D., Ph.D and Maria Grazia Roncarolo, M.D., both from Stanford University, are the company’s scientific founders. Dr. Porteus, Dr. Roncarolo, and the Stanford team are currently supported by a CIRM late stage preclinical grant to complete the final preclinical studies and to file an Investigational New Drug application with the FDA, which will enable Graphite Bio to commence clinical studies of the CRISPR sickle cell disease gene therapy candidate in sickle cell patients in 2021.
Josh Lehrer, M.D., was appointed CEO of Graphite Bio and elaborated on the company’s gene editing approach in a news release.
“Our flexible, site-specific approach is extremely powerful and could be used to definitively correct the underlying causes of many severe genetic diseases, and also is applicable to broader disease areas. With backing from Versant and Samsara, we look forward to progressing our novel medicines into the clinic for patients with high unmet needs.”
In a press release, Dr. Porteus take a retrospective look on his preclinical research and its progress towards a clinical trial.
“It is gratifying to see our work on new gene editing approaches being translated into novel therapies. I’m very excited to be working with Versant again on a start-up and I look forward to collaborating with Samsara and the Graphite Bio team to bring a new generation of genetic treatments to patients.”
CIRM’s funding of late stage preclinical projects such this one is critical to its funding model, which de-risks the discovery, translational development and clinical proof of concept of innovative stem cell-based treatments until they can attract industry partnerships. You can learn more about CIRM-enabled spinout companies and CIRM’s broader effort to facilitate industry partnering for its portfolio projects on CIRM’s Industry Alliance Program website.
You can contact CIRM’s Director of Business Development at the email below to learn more about the Industry Alliance Program.
One of our favorite things to do at CIRM is deliver exciting news about CIRM projects. This usually entails discussion of recent discoveries that made headlines, or announcing the launch of a new CIRM-funded clinical trial …. tangible signs of progress towards addressing unmet medical needs through advances in stem technology.
But there are equally exciting signs of progress that are not always so obvious to the untrained eye- those that we are privileged to witness behind the scenes at CIRM. These efforts don’t always lead to a splashy news article or even to a scientific publication, but they nonetheless drive the evolution of new ideas and can help steer the field away from futile lines of investigation. Dozens of such projects are navigating uncharted waters by filling knowledge gaps, breaking down technical barriers, and working closely with regulatory agencies to define novel and safe paths to the clinic.
These efforts can remain “hidden” because they are in the intermediate stages of the long, arduous and expensive journey from “bench to beside”. For the pioneering projects that CIRM funds, this journey is unique and untrod, and can be fraught with false starts. But CIRM has developed tools to track the momentum of these programs and provide continuous support for those with the most promise. In so doing, we have watched projects evolve as they wend their way to the clinic. We wanted to share a few examples of how we do this with our readers, but first… a little background for our friends who are unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of inventing new medicines.
A common metaphor for bringing scientific discoveries to market is a pipeline, which begins in a laboratory where a discovery occurs, and ends with government approval to commercialize a new medicine, after it is proven to be safe and effective. In between discovery and approval is a stage called “Translation”, where investigators develop ways to transition their “research level” processes to “clinically compatible” ones, which only utilize substances that are of certified quality for human use.
Investigators must also work out novel ways to manufacture the product at larger scale and transition the methods used for testing in animal models to those that can be implemented in human subjects.
A key milestone in Translation is the “preIND” (pre Investigational New Drug (IND) meeting, where an investigator presents data and plans to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for feedback before next stage of development begins, the pivotal testing needed to show it is both safe and effective.
These “IND enabling studies” are rigorous but necessary to support an application for an IND and the initiation of clinical trials, beginning with phase 1 to assess safety in a small number of individuals, and phase 2, where an expanded group is evaluated to see if the therapy has any benefits for the patient. Phase 3 trials are studies of very large numbers of individuals to gain definitive evidence of safety and therapeutic effect, generally the last step before applying to the FDA for market approval. An image of the pipeline and the stages described are provided in our diagram below.
The pipeline can be notoriously long and tricky, with plenty of twists, turns, and unexpected obstacles along the way. Many more projects enter than emerge from this gauntlet, but as we see from these examples of ‘works in progress”, there is a lot of momentum building.
Caption for Graphic:This graphic shows the number of CIRM-funded projects and the stages they have progressed through multiple rounds of CIRM funding. For example, the topmost arrow shows that are about 19 projects at the translational stage of the pipeline that received earlier support through one of CIRM’s Discovery stage programs. Many of these efforts came out of our pre-2016 funding initiatives such as Early Translation, Basic Biology and New Faculty Awards. In another example, you can see that about 15 awards that were first funded by CIRM at the IND enabling stage have since progressed into a phase 1 or phase 2 clinical trials. While most of these efforts also originated in some of CIRM’s pre-2016 initiatives such as the Disease Team Awards, others have already progressed from CIRM’s newer programs that were launched as part of the “2.0” overhaul in 2016 (CLIN1).
The number of CIRM projects that have evolved and made their way down the pipeline with CIRM support is impressive, but it is clearly an under-representation, as there are other projects that have progressed outside of CIRM’s purview, which can make things trickier to verify.
We also track projects that have spun off or been licensed to commercial organizations, another very exciting form of “progression”. Perhaps those will contribute to another blog for another day! In the meantime, here are a just a few examples of some of the progressors that are depicted on the graphic.
Project: stem cell therapy to enhance bone healing in theelderly
– Currently funded stage: IND enabling development, CLIN1-11256 (Dr. Zhu, Ankasa Regenerative Therapeutics)
The Deseret News is Utah’s oldest continuously published daily newspaper. It has a big readership too, with the largest Sunday circulation in the state and the second largest daily circulation. That’s why when they publish paid advertisements that look like serious news articles it can be misleading, even worse.
This week the Deseret News (that’s not a misspelling by the way, the name is taken from the word for honeybee in the Book of Mormon) ran an advertisement written by the East West Health Clinic. The advertisement is about regenerative medicine and its ability to help repair damaged knee, hip and shoulder joints. It quotes from some well-regarded scientific sources such as WebMD and the National Health Interview Survey.
They also quote CIRM. Here’s what they say:
“In theory, there’s no limit to the types of diseases that could be treated with stem cell research,” the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) explains. CIRM posits that stem cell therapy could be used to “replace virtually any tissue or organ that is injured or diseased.”
That’s from a page on our website that talks about the potential of stem cell research. And it’s all true. But then the advertisement switches quickly, and rather subtly, to talking about what the clinic is doing. And that’s where things get murky.
East West Health offers therapies using umbilical and cord blood that they claim can treat a wide range of diseases and disorders from tendonitis to arthritis and suggest they might even help people with Alzheimer’s and dementia. But none of these have been proven in an FDA-sanctioned clinical trial or approved by the FDA. In fact, if you scroll down to the bottom of the website you find this statement.
*These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA*
And they also say that “Individual results may vary”.
I bet they do.
There are many clinics around the US that claim that stem cells have almost magical powers to heal. They don’t.
What stem cells do have is enormous potential. That’s why we invest in solid, scientifically rigorous research to try and harness that potential and bring it to patients in need. But that takes years of work, meticulous testing in the lab long before it ever is tried in people. It takes working with the FDA to get their support in starting a clinical trial to show that the therapy is both safe and effective.
CIRM has long promoted the importance of the Three R’s, making sure research is regulated, reliable and reputable. We want to help advance promising regenerative medicine therapies and products while protecting patients from the risks posed by unproven interventions.
That’s why we have a commitment to only funding the best science, work that has undergone rigorous peer review. That’s why we collaborate with expert advisors, ensure all projects we fund are in alignment with FDA rules and regulations and that meet the highest standards set by the organizations like the National Institutes of Health.
There are no short cuts. No easy ways to just stick cells in someone and tell them they are good to go.
That’s why when we see advertisements like the one that ran in The Deseret News it concerns us, because people will see our name and think we support the work being done by the people who wrote the piece. We don’t. Quite the opposite.
If you would like to learn more about the kinds of questions you need to ask before signing up for a clinical trial or therapy of any kind just go to our website. And if you want to see the list of clinical trials we do support, you can go here.
Here at CIRM we only fund clinical trials that meet the rigorous standards outlined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These requirements are not only necessary to properly evaluate how effective a potential treatment may be, but they are also important in fulfilling the Hippocratic Oath to “first, do no harm”.
The journey from the bench to the bedside for a potential treatment is one that is long, arduous, and often filled with setbacks. Unfortunately, there are those affected with various diseases that do not have the luxury of time. People who have suffered brain or spinal cord damage, or have been diagnosed with neurological disease, are often frustrated by the lack of treatments available to help them. That frustration can make them susceptible to the false promises made by predatory clinics, which operate outside of FDA oversight and offer “stem cell” treatments that are unproven and cost upwards of $50,000. In the midst of a global pandemic, some of these predatory clinics are even promoting false cures for COVID-19.
In an effort to better understand how often people gravitate to these predatory clinics, a phenomenon known as stem cell tourism, Dr. Jaime Imitola and a team of researchers at UConn Health conducted a nationwide survey of academic neurologists’ experiences in stem cell tourism complications. The study also evaluated the level of physician preparation to counsel and educate patients. These neurologists will typically have patients come to them asking for permission, a kind of “clearance” in their eyes, to get these unapproved stem cell treatments.
The results of the survey were very revealing. Of the neurologists who responded to the survey, one in four had a patient with complications related to stem cell therapy, which includes infections, strokes, spinal tumors, seizures, and even death. Additionally, 73% of neurologists responding to the survey said they felt that having more educational tools to discuss the issue with patients would be helpful.
In a press release, Dr. Imitola elaborated on the importance of this study.
“It is really shocking that only 28% of board-certified neurologists feel completely prepared to discuss this important issue with their patients…The ultimate goal of this research is to be able to determine the extent of the complications and the readiness of neurologists to counsel patients. All of us are interested in bringing real stem cells to the clinic, but this process is arduous and requires a great level of rigor and reproducibility.”
Dr. Imitola and his team also plan on starting a national patient registry, where physicians can report complications from stem cell tourism procedures. This would not only provide a better sense of the problem at hand, it would gather data that physicians could use to better educate patients.
The full results to this study were published in Annals of Neurology.
CIRM has produced a short video and other easy to digest information on questions people should ask before signing up for any clinical trial. You can find those resources here.
CIRM has also published findings in Stem Cells Translational Medicine that discuss the three R’s–regulated, reliable, and reputable–and how these can help protect patients with uniform standards for stem cell treatments .
While most people probably wouldn’t put 2020 in their list of favorite years, it’s certainly turning out to be a good one for jCyte. Earlier this year jCyte entered into a partnership with global ophthalmology company Santen Pharmaceuticals worth up to $252 million. Then earlier this week they announced some encouraging results from their Phase 2b clinical trial.
Let’s back up a bit and explain what jCyte does and why it’s so important. They have developed a therapy for retinitis pigmentosa (RP), a rare vision destroying disease that attacks the light sensitive cells at the back of the eye. People are often diagnosed when they are in their teens and most are legally blind by middle age. CIRM has supported this therapy from its early stages into clinical trials.
This latest clinical trial is one of the largest of its kind anywhere in the world. They enrolled 84 patients (although only 74 were included in the final analysis). The patients had vision measuring between 20/80 and 20/800. They were split into three groups: one group was given a sham or placebo treatment; one was given three million human retinal progenitor cells (hRPCs), the kind attacked by the disease; and one was given six million hRPCs.
In an article in Endpoints News, jCyte’s CEO Paul Bresge said there was a very specific reason for this approach. “We did enroll a very wide patient population into our Phase IIb, including patients that had vision anywhere from 20/80 to 20/800, just to learn which patients would potentially be the best responders.”
The results showed that the treatment group experienced improved functional vision and greater clarity of vision compared to the sham or placebo group. Everyone had their vision measured at the start and again 12 months later. For the placebo group the mean change in their ability to read an eye chart (with glasses on) was an improvement of 2.81 letters; for the group that got three million hRPCs it was 2.96 letters, and for the group that got six million hRPCs it was 7.43 letters.
When they looked at a very specific subgroup of patients the improvement was even more dramatic, with the six million cell group experiencing an improvement of 16.27 letters.
Dr. Henry Klassen, one of the founders of jCyte, says the therapy works by preserving the remaining photoreceptors in the eye, and helping them bounce back.
“Typically, people think about the disease as a narrowing of this peripheral vision in a very nice granular way, but that’s actually not what happens. What happens in the disease is that patients lose like islands of vision. So, what we’re doing in our tests is actually measuring […] islands that the patients have at baseline, and then what we’re seeing after treatment is that the islands are expanding. It’s similar to the way that one would track, let’s say a tumor, in oncology of course we’re looking for the opposite effect. We’re looking for the islands of vision to expand.”
One patient did experience some serious side effects in the trial but they responded well to treatment.
The team now plan on carrying out a Phase 3 clinical trial starting next year. They hope that will provide enough evidence showing the treatment is both safe and effective to enable them to get approval from the US Food and Drug Administration to make it available to all who need it.
In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, there has been a desire to continue to conduct ongoing clinical trials while maintaining social distancing as much as possible. Clinical trial participants have been hesitant to attend routine check-ups and monitoring due to the risk of exposure and health-care workers are stretched beyond their capacity treating COVID-19 patients. As a result of this, many clinical trials have been put on hold.
Since the coronavirus began to spread, Science 37, a company that supports virtual clinical trials conducted mostly online, began to receive hundreds of inquiries every week from pharmaceutical companies, medical centers, and individual investigators. These inquiries revolve around how best to transition to a virtual clinical trial structure, where consultations are performed online and paperwork and data are collected remotely as much as possible.
In an article published in the journal Nature, Jonathan Cotliar, chief medical officer of Science 37, discusses the impact that COVID-19 has had on the company.
“It’s exponentially accelerated the adoption curve of what we were already doing. That’s been a bit surreal.”
One example of a virtual clinical trial was conducted at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis by Dr. David Boulware and his colleagues. They conducted a randomized, controlled, virtual trial of the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine to find out if it was effective at protecting people from COVID-19 (the results found that it was not). The trial included more than 800 participants and sent them medicine by FedEx delivery while monitoring their health via virtual appointments.
It is anticipated that even as the coronavirus pandemic and social distancing measures come to an end, virtual clinical trials will continue to be used in the future. Patient advocates have long pushed for these kinds of trials to ease the burden of clinical trial participation, which tends to be more challenging for underrepresented and underserved communities. As a result of the increase in virtual trials, the FDA has released guidelines for conducting virtual trials in order to streamline the process. It is possible that virtual trials might speed up enrollment of participants, which could help speed up the drug-development process while still maintaining rigorous standards.
A few weeks ago we held a Facebook Live “Ask the Stem Cell Team About Parkinson’s Disease” event. As you can imagine we got lots of questions but, because of time constraints, only had time to answer a few. Thanks to my fabulous CIRM colleagues, Dr. Lila Collins and Dr. Kent Fitzgerald, for putting together answers to some of the other questions. Here they are.
Q:It seems like we have been hearing for years that stem cells can help people with Parkinson’s, why is it taking so long?
A: Early experiments in Sweden using fetal tissue did provide a proof of concept for the strategy of replacing dopamine producing cells damaged or lost in Parkinson’s disease (PD) . At first, this seemed like we were on the cusp of a cell therapy cure for PD, however, we soon learned based on some side effects seen with this approach (in particular dyskinesias or uncontrollable muscle movements) that the solution was not as simple as once thought.
While this didn’t produce the answer it did provide some valuable lessons.
The importance of dopaminergic (DA) producing cell type and the location in the brain of the transplant. Simply placing the replacement cells in the brain is not enough. It was initially thought that the best site to place these DA cells is a region in the brain called the SN, because this area helps to regulate movement. However, this area also plays a role in learning, emotion and the brains reward system. This is effectively a complex wiring system that exists in a balance, “rewiring” it wrong can have unintended and significant side effects.
Another factor impacting progress has been understanding the importance of disease stage. If the disease is too advanced when cells are given then the transplant may no longer be able to provide benefit. This is because DA transplants replace the lost neurons we use to control movement, but other connected brain systems have atrophied in response to losing input from the lost neurons. There is a massive amount of work (involving large groups and including foundations like the Michael J Fox Foundation) seeking to identify PD early in the disease course where therapies have the best chance of showing an effect. Clinical trials will ultimately help to determine the best timing for treatment intervention.
Ideally, in addition to the cell therapies that would replace lost or damaged cells we also want to find a therapy that slows or stops the underlying biology causing progression of the disease.
So, I think we’re going to see more gene therapy trials including those targeting the small minority of PD that is driven by known mutations. In fact, Prevail Therapeutics will soon start a trial in patients with GBA1 mutations. Hopefully, replacing the enzyme in this type of genetic PD will prevent degeneration.
And, we are also seeing gene therapy approaches to address forms of PD that we don’t know the cause, including a trial to rescue sick neurons with GDNF which is a neurotrophic factor (which helps support the growth and survival of these brain cells) led by Dr Bankiewicz and trials by Axovant and Voyager, partnered with Neurocrine aimed at restoring dopamine generation in the brain.
A small news report came out earlier this year about a recently completed clinical trial by Roche Pharma and Prothena. This addressed the build up in the brain of what are called lewy bodies, a problem common to many forms of PD. While the official trial results aren’t published yet, a recent press release suggests reason for optimism. Apparently, the treatment failed to statistically improve the main clinical measurement, but other measured endpoints saw improvement and it’s possible an updated form of this treatment will be tested again in the hopes of seeing an improved effect.
Finally, I’d like to call attention to the G force trials. Gforce is a global collaborative effort to drive the field forward combining lessons learned from previous studies with best practices for cell replacement in PD. These first-in-human safety trials to replace the dopaminergic neurons (DANs) damaged by PD have shared design features including identifying what the best goals are and how to measure those.
And the Summit PD trial, Dr Jeanne Loring of Aspen Neuroscience.
Taken together these should tell us quite a lot about the best way to replace these critical neurons in PD.
As with any completely novel approach in medicine, much validation and safety work must be completed before becoming available to patients
The current approach (for cell replacement) has evolved significantly from those early studies to use cells engineered in the lab to be much more specialized and representing the types believed to have the best therapeutic effects with low probability of the side effects (dyskinesias) seen in earlier trials.
If we don’t really know the cause of Parkinson’s disease, how can we cure it or develop treatments to slow it down?
PD can now be divided into major categories including 1. Sporadic, 2. Familial.
For the sporadic cases, there are some hallmarks in the biology of the neurons affected in the disease that are common among patients. These can be things like oxidative stress (which damages cells), or clumps of proteins (like a-synuclein) that serve to block normal cell function and become toxic, killing the DA neurons.
The second class of “familial” cases all share one or more genetic changes that are believed to cause the disease. Mutations in genes (like GBA, LRRK2, PRKN, SNCA) make up around fifteen percent of the population affected, but the similarity in these gene mutations make them attractive targets for drug development.
CIRM has funded projects to generate “disease in a dish” models using neurons made from adults with Parkinson’s disease. Stem cell-derived models like this have enabled not only a deep probing of the underlying biology in Parkinson’s, which has helped to identify new targets for investigation, but have also allowed for the testing of possible therapies in these cell-based systems.
iPSC-derived neurons are believed to be an excellent model for this type of work as they can possess known familial mutations but also show the rest of the patients genetic background which may also be a contributing factor to the development of PD. They therefore contain both known and unknown factors that can be tested for effective therapy development.
I have heard of scientists creating things called brain organoids, clumps of brain cells that can act a little bit like a brain. Can we use these to figure out what’s happening in the brain of people with Parkinson’s and to develop treatments?
There is considerable excitement about the use of brain organoids as a way of creating a model for the complex cell-to-cell interactions in the brain. Using these 3D organoid models may allow us to gain a better understanding of what happens inside the brain, and develop ways to treat issues like PD.
The organoids can contain multiple cell types including microglia which have been a hot topic of research in PD as they are responsible for cleaning up and maintaining the health of cells in the brain. CIRM has funded the Salk Institute’s Dr. Fred Gage’s to do work in this area.
If you go online you can find lots of stem cells clinics, all over the US, that claim they can use stem cells to help people with Parkinson’s. Should I go to them?
In a word, no! These clinics offer a wide variety of therapies using different kinds of cells or tissues (including the patient’s own blood or fat cells) but they have one thing in common; none of these therapies have been tested in a clinical trial to show they are even safe, let alone effective. These clinics also charge thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars these therapies, and because it’s not covered by insurance this all comes out of the patient’s pocket.
These predatory clinics are peddling hope, but are unable to back it up with any proof it will work. They frequently have slick, well-designed websites, and “testimonials” from satisfied customers. But if they really had a treatment for Parkinson’s they wouldn’t be running clinics out of shopping malls they’d be operating huge medical centers because the worldwide need for an effective therapy is so great.
Here’s a link to the page on our website that can help you decide if a clinical trial or “therapy” is right for you.
Is it better to use your own cells turned into brain cells, or cells from a healthy donor?
This is the BIG question that nobody has evidence to provide an answer to. At least not yet.
Let’s start with the basics. Why would you want to use your own cells? The main answer is the immune system. Transplanted cells can really be viewed as similar to an organ (kidney, liver etc) transplant. As you likely know, when a patient receives an organ transplant the patient’s immune system will often recognize the tissue/organ as foreign and attack it. This can result in the body rejecting what is supposed to be a life-saving organ. This is why people receiving organ transplants are typically placed on immunosuppressive “anti-rejection “drugs to help stop this reaction.
In the case of transplanted dopamine producing neurons from a donor other than the patient, it’s likely that the immune system would eliminate these cells after a short while and this would stop any therapeutic benefit from the cells. A caveat to this is that the brain is a “somewhat” immune privileged organ which means that normal immune surveillance and rejection doesn’t always work the same way with the brain. In fact analysis of the brains collected from the first Swedish patients to receive fetal transplants showed (among other things) that several patients still had viable transplanted cells (persistence) in their brains.
Transplanting DA neurons made from the patient themselves (the iPSC method) would effectively remove this risk of the immune system attack as the cells would not be recognized as foreign.
CIRM previously funded a discovery project with Jeanne Loring from Scripps Research Institute that sought to generate DA neurons from Parkinson’s patients for use as a potential transplant therapy in these same patients. This project has since been taken on by a company formed, by Dr Loring, called Aspen Neuroscience. They hope to bring this potential therapy into clinical trials in the near future.
A commonly cited potential downside to this approach is that patients with genetic (familial) Parkinson’s would be receiving neurons generated with cells that may have the same mutations that caused the problem in the first place. However, as it can typically take decades to develop PD, these cells could likely function for a long time. and prove to be better than any current therapies.
Creating cells from each individual patient (called autologous) is likely to be very expensive and possibly even cost-prohibitive. That is why many researchers are working on developing an “off the shelf” therapy, one that uses cells from a donor (called allogeneic)would be available as and when it’s needed.
When the coronavirus happened, it seemed as if overnight the FDA was approving clinical trials for treatments for the virus. Why can’t it work that fast for Parkinson’s disease?
While we don’t know what will ultimately work for COVID-19, we know what the enemy looks like. We also have lots of experience treating viral infections and creating vaccines. The coronavirus has already been sequenced, so we are building upon our understanding of other viruses to select a course to interrupt it. In contrast, the field is still trying to understand the drivers of PD that would respond to therapeutic targeting and therefore, it’s not precisely clear how best to modify the course of neurodegenerative disease. So, in one sense, while it’s not as fast as we’d like it to be, the work on COVID-19 has a bit of a head start.
Much of the early work on COVID-19 therapies is also centered on re-purposing therapies that were previously in development. As a result, these potential treatments have a much easier time entering clinical trials as there is a lot known about them (such as how safe they are etc.). That said, there are many additional therapeutic strategies (some of which CIRM is funding) which are still far off from being tested in the clinic.
The concern of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is often centered on the safety of a proposed therapy. The less known, the more cautious they tend to be.
As you can imagine, transplanting cells into the brain of a PD patient creates a significant potential for problems and so the FDA needs to be cautious when approving clinical trials to ensure patient safety.
When you have worked with a group of people over many years the relationship becomes more than just a business venture, it becomes personal. That’s certainly the case with jCyte, a company founded by Drs. Henry Klassen and Jing Yang, aimed at finding a cure for a rare form of vision loss called retinitis pigmentosa. CIRM has been supporting this work since it’s early days and so on Friday, the news that jCyte has entered into a partnership with global ophthalmology company Santen was definitely a cause for celebration.
The partnership could be worth up to $252 million and includes an immediate payment of $62 million. The agreement also connects jCyte to Santen’s global business and medical network, something that could prove invaluable in bringing their jCell therapy to patients outside the US.
Here in the US, jCyte is getting ready to start a Phase 2 clinical trial – which CIRM is funding – that could prove pivotal in helping it get approval from the US Food and Drug Administration.
As Dr. Maria Millan, CIRM’s President and CEO says, we have been fortunate to watch this company steadily progress from having a promising idea to developing a life-changing therapy.
“This is exciting news for everyone at jCyte. They have worked so hard over many years to develop their therapy and this partnership is a reflection of just how much they have achieved. For us at CIRM it’s particularly encouraging. We have supported this work from its early stages through clinical trials. The people who have benefited from the therapy, people like Rosie Barrero, are not just patients to us, they have become friends. The people who run the company, Dr. Henry Klassen, Dr. Jing Yang and CEO Paul Bresge, are so committed and so passionate about their work that they have overcome many obstacles to bring them here, an RMAT designation from the Food and Drug Administration, and a deal that will help them advance their work even further and faster. That is what CIRM is about, following the science and the mission.”
Paul Bresge, jCyte’s CEO says they couldn’t have done it without CIRM’s early and continued investment.
“jCyte is extremely grateful to CIRM, which was established to support innovative regenerative medicine programs and research such as ours. CIRM supported our early preclinical data all the way through our late stage clinical trials. This critical funding gave us the unique ability and flexibility to put patients first in each and every decision that we made along the way. In addition to the funding, the guidance that we have received from the CIRM team has been invaluable. jCell would not be possible without the early support from CIRM, our team at jCyte, and patients with degenerative retinal diseases are extremely appreciative for your support.”
Here is Rosie Barrero talking about the impact jCell has had on her life and the life of her family.
To help with the coronavirus pandemic, many scientists are repurposing previously developed approaches or treatments to see if they can be used to treat patients with COVID-19. Capricor Therapeutics, lead by Dr. Linda Marbán, is using cardiosphere derived cells (CDCs), which are stem cells derived from heart tissue, to treat critically ill patients with COVID-19.
When a patient contracts the virus, their body produces cytokines, proteins that play an important role in the immune response. Unfortunately, having too many cytokines, known as a “cytokine storm”, leads to a severe immune reaction that can cause pneumonia, organ failure, and death. CDCs in previous studies have been shown to help regulate the immune response and cytokines, which could help patients with COVID-19.
Over the course of one month, six critically ill patients with COVID-19, five of whom were on mechanical ventilators, were treated with CDCs. In these compassionate care cases, five male patients and one female patient received treatment. Of the five patients on ventilator support, four patients no longer required ventilator support within just one to four days after treatment. Although these results are promising, it is important to remember that this treatment is in very early testing and will need to demonstrate significant improvement in larger patient groups.
Following a review of the results of this small study, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved treatment of up to an 20 additional COVID-19 patients.
In a press release, Dr. Marbán discuses the results of the compassionate care study and treatment of additional COVID-19 patients.
“As the global medical community continues to come together in its battle against COVID-19, the results of our initial compassionate care cases are extremely promising and what we had anticipated. We look forward to continuing to treat additional patients under our recently approved expanded access program Investigational New Drug application.”
This past Friday, the CIRM Board approved funding for its first clinical study for COVID-19. In addition to this, the Board also approved two discovery stage research projects, which support promising new technologies that could be translated to enable broad use and improve patient care. Before we go into more detail, the two awards are summarized in the table below:
The discovery grant for $150,000 was given to Dr. Gay Crooks at UCLA to study how specific immune cells called T cells respond to COVID-19. The goal of this is to inform the development of vaccines and therapies that harness T cells to fight the virus. Typically, vaccine research involves studying the immune response using cells taken from infected people. However, Dr. Crooks and her team are taking T cells from healthy people and using them to mount strong immune responses to parts of the virus in the lab. They will then study the T cells’ responses in order to better understand how T cells recognize and eliminate the virus.
This method uses blood forming stem cells and then converts them into specialized immune cells called dendritic cells, which are able to devour proteins from viruses and chop them into fragments, triggering an immune response to the virus.
In a press release from UCLA, Dr. Crooks says that, “The dendritic cells we are able to make using this process are really good at chopping up the virus, and therefore eliciting a strong immune response”
The discovery grant for $149,998 was given to Dr. Brigitte Gomberts at UCLA to study a lung organoid model made from human stem cells in order to identify drugs that can reduce the number of infected cells and prevent damage in the lungs of patients with COVID-19. Dr. Gomberts will be testing drugs that have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for other purposes or have been found to be safe in humans in early clinical trials. This increases the likelihood that if a successful drug is found, it can be approved more rapidly for widespread use.
In the same press release from UCLA, Dr. Gomberts discusses the potential drugs they are evaluating.
“We’re starting with drugs that have already been tested in humans because our goal is to find a therapy that can treat patients with COVID-19 as soon as possible.”