Confusing cancer to kill it

Kipps

Thomas Kipps, MD, PhD: Photo courtesy UC San Diego

Confusion is not a state of mind that we usually seek out. Being bewildered is bad enough when it happens naturally, so why would anyone actively pursue it? But now some researchers are doing just that, using confusion to not just block a deadly blood cancer, but to kill it.

Today the CIRM Board approved an investment of $18.29 million to Dr. Thomas Kipps and his team at UC San Diego to use a one-two combination approach that we hope will kill Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL).

This approach combines two therapies, cirmtuzumab (a monoclonal antibody developed with CIRM funding, hence the name) and Ibrutinib, a drug that has already been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for patients with CLL.

As Dr. Maria Millan, our interim President and CEO, said in a news release, the need for a new treatment is great.

“Every year around 20,000 Americans are diagnosed with CLL. For those who have run out of treatment options, the only alternative is a bone marrow transplant. Since CLL afflicts individuals in their 70’s who often have additional medical problems, bone marrow transplantation carries a higher risk of life threatening complications. The combination approach of  cirmtuzumab and Ibrutinib seeks to offer a less invasive and more effective alternative for these patients.”

Ibrutinib blocks signaling pathways that leukemia cells need to survive. Disrupting these pathways confuses the leukemia cell, leading to its death. But even with this approach there are cancer stem cells that are able to evade Ibrutinib. These lie dormant during the therapy but come to life later, creating more leukemia cells and causing the cancer to spread and the patient to relapse. That’s where cirmtuzumab comes in. It works by blocking a protein on the surface of the cancer stem cells that the cancer needs to spread.

It’s hoped this one-two punch combination will kill all the cancer cells, increasing the number of patients who go into complete remission and improve their long-term cancer control.

In an interview with OncLive, a website focused on cancer professionals, Tom Kipps said Ibrutinib has another advantage for patients:

“The patients are responding well to treatment. It doesn’t seem like you have to worry about stopping therapy, because you’re not accumulating a lot of toxicity as you would with chemotherapy. If you administered chemotherapy on and on for months and months and years and years, chances are the patient wouldn’t tolerate that very well.”

The CIRM Board also approved $5 million for Angiocrine Bioscience Inc. to carry out a Phase 1 clinical trial testing a new way of using cord blood to help people battling deadly blood disorders.

The standard approach for this kind of problem is a bone marrow transplant from a matched donor, usually a family member. But many patients don’t have a potential donor and so they often have to rely on a cord blood transplant as an alternative, to help rebuild and repair their blood and immune systems. However, too often a single cord blood donation does not have enough cells to treat an adult patient.

Angiocrine has developed a product that could help get around that problem. AB-110 is made up of cord blood-derived hematopoietic stem cells (these give rise to all the other types of blood cell) and genetically engineered endothelial cells – the kind of cell that lines the insides of blood vessels.

This combination enables the researchers to take cord blood cells and greatly expand them in number. Expanding the number of cells could also expand the number of patients who could get these potentially life-saving cord blood transplants.

These two new projects now bring the number of clinical trials funded by CIRM to 35. You can read about the other 33 here.

 

 

 

Advertisements

CIRM weekly stem cell roundup: stomach bacteria & cancer; vitamin C may block leukemia; stem cells bring down a 6’2″ 246lb football player

gastric

This is what your stomach glands looks like from the inside:  Credit: MPI for Infection Biology”

Stomach bacteria crank up stem cell renewal, may be link to gastric cancer (Todd Dubnicoff)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that two-thirds of the world’s population is infected with H. pylori, a type of bacteria that thrives in the harsh acidic conditions of the stomach. Data accumulated over the past few decades shows strong evidence that H. pylori infection increases the risk of stomach cancers. The underlying mechanisms of this link have remained unclear. But research published this week in Nature suggests that the bacteria cause stem cells located in the stomach lining to divide more frequently leading to an increased potential for cancerous growth.

Tumors need to make an initial foothold in a tissue in order to grow and spread. But the cells of our stomach lining are replaced every four days. So, how would H. pylori bacterial infection have time to induce a cancer? The research team – a collaboration between scientists at the Max Planck Institute in Berlin and Stanford University – asked that question and found that the bacteria are also able to penetrate down into the stomach glands and infect stem cells whose job it is to continually replenish the stomach lining.

Further analysis in mice revealed that two groups of stem cells exist in the stomach glands – one slowly dividing and one rapidly dividing population. Both stem cell populations respond similarly to an important signaling protein, called Wnt, that sustains stem cell renewal. But the team also discovered a second key stem cell signaling protein called R-spondin that is released by connective tissue underneath the stomach glands. H. pylori infection of these cells causes an increase in R-spondin which shuts down the slowly dividing stem cell population but cranks up the cell division of the rapidly dividing stem cells. First author, Dr. Michal Sigal, summed up in a press release how these results may point to stem cells as the link between bacterial infection and increased risk of stomach cancer:

“Since H. pylori causes life-long infections, the constant increase in stem cell divisions may be enough to explain the increased risk of carcinogenesis observed.”

vitamin-c-1200x630

Vitamin C may have anti-blood cancer properties

Vitamin C is known to have a number of health benefits, from preventing scurvy to limiting the buildup of fatty plaque in your arteries. Now a new study says we might soon be able to add another benefit: it may be able to block the progression of leukemia and other blood cancers.

Researchers at the NYU School of Medicine focused their work on an enzyme called TET2. This is found in hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), the kind of stem cell typically found in bone marrow. The absence of TET2 is known to keep these HSCs in a pre-leukemic state; in effect priming the body to develop leukemia. The researchers showed that high doses of vitamin C can prevent, or even reverse that, by increasing the activity level of TET2.

In the study, in the journal Cell, they showed how they developed mice that could have their levels of TET2 increased or decreased. They then transplanted bone marrow with low levels of TET2 from those mice into healthy, normal mice. The healthy mice started to develop leukemia-like symptoms. However, when the researchers used high doses of vitamin C to restore the activity levels of TET2, they were able to halt the progression of the leukemia.

Now this doesn’t mean you should run out and get as much vitamin C as you can to help protect you against leukemia. In an article in The Scientist, Benjamin Neel, senior author of the study, says while vitamin C does have health benefits,  consuming large doses won’t do you much good:

“They’re unlikely to be a general anti-cancer therapy, and they really should be understood based on the molecular understanding of the many actions vitamin C has in cells.”

However, Neel says these findings do give scientists a new tool to help them target cells before they become leukemic.

Jordan reed

Bad toe forces Jordan Reed to take a knee: Photo courtesy FanRag Sports

Toeing the line: how unapproved stem cell treatment made matters worse for an NFL player  

American football players are tough. They have to be to withstand pounding tackles by 300lb men wearing pads and a helmet. But it wasn’t a crunching hit that took Washington Redskins player Jordan Reed out of the game; all it took to put the 6’2” 246 lb player on the PUP (Physically Unable to Perform) list was a little stem cell injection.

Reed has had a lingering injury problem with the big toe on his left foot. So, during the off-season, he thought he would take care of the issue, and got a stem cell injection in the toe. It didn’t quite work the way he hoped.

In an interview with the Richmond Times Dispatch he said:

“That kind of flared it up a bit on me. Now I’m just letting it calm down before I get out there. I’ve just gotta take my time, let it heal and strengthen up, then get back out there.”

It’s not clear what kind of stem cells Reed got, if they were his own or from a donor. What is clear is that he is just the latest in a long line of athletes who have turned to stem cells to help repair or speed up recovery from an injury. These are treatments that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and that have not been tested in a clinical trial to make sure they are both safe and effective.

In Reed’s case the problem seems to be a relatively minor one; his toe is expected to heal and he should be back in action before too long.

Stem cell researcher and avid blogger Dr. Paul Knoepfler wrote he is lucky, others who take a similar approach may not be:

“Fortunately, it sounds like Reed will be fine, but some people have much worse reactions to unproven stem cells than a sore toe, including blindness and tumors. Be careful out there!”

FDA creates a forum for patients to guide its decision making

FDA

It’s not hard to find people who don’t like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the government agency that, among other things, regulates medical therapies. In fact, if you type “do people like the FDA?” into an internet search engine you’ll quickly find out that for a lot of people the answer is “no”.

But the Agency is trying to change and deserves credit for taking seriously many of the criticisms that have been levelled at it over the years and trying to address them.

The latest example is the news that the FDA has set a date for the first-ever meeting of its first-ever Patient Engagement Advisory Committee (PEAC). On its website, the FDA says the PEAC will be focused on patient-related issues:

“The PEAC is a forum for the voice of patients. It will be asked to advise on complex issues related to medical devices and their impact on patients. The goal of PEAC is to better understand and integrate patient perspectives into our oversight, to improve communications with patients about benefits, risks, and clinical outcomes related to medical devices, and to identify new approaches, unforeseen risks or barriers, and unintended consequences from the use of medical devices.”

In the past, the FDA has created forums to allow patients to talk about the impact of a disease on their daily life and their views on treatment options. But those were considered by many to be little more than window dressing, providing a sounding boards for patients but not actually producing any tangible benefits or changes.

The FDA also has patient representatives who take part in FDA advisory committee meetings, but the PEAC is the first time it has ever had a committee that was solely focused on patients and their needs. The nine core members of the PEAC all have experience either as patients or patient advocates and care-givers for patients. A really encouraging sign.

We tip our CAP to the FDA

At CIRM we support anything that ensures that patients not only have a seat at the table, but also that their voices are heard and taken seriously. That’s why for every clinical trial we fund (and even some pre-clinical projects too) we create what we call a Clinical Advisory Panel or CAP (we do love our acronyms).

Each CAP consists of three to five members, with a minimum of one Patient Representative, one External Advisor and one CIRM Science Officer. The purpose of the CAP is to make recommendations and provide guidance and advice to the Project Team running the trial.

Having a Patient Representative on a CAP ensures the patient’s perspective is included in shaping the design of the clinical trial, making sure that the trial is being carried out in a way that has the patient at the center. Patients can ask questions or raise issues that researchers might not think about, and can help the researchers not only do a better job of recruiting the patients they need for the trial, but also keeping those patients involved. We believe a trial designed around the patient, and with the patient in mind, is much more likely to be successful.

In announcing the formation of the PEAC the FDA said:

“Patients are at the heart of what we do. It makes sense to establish an advisory committee built just for them.”

I completely agree.

My only regret is that they didn’t call it the Patient Engagement Advisory Committee for Health, because then the acronym would have been PEACH. And this is certainly a peach of an idea, one worthy of support.

Related Links:

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Why Stem Cell Advocates Texans for Cures say “Right to Try” Legislation Should be Fought

Texans for Cures 

This week in Washington DC a delegation from the stem cell advocacy group Texans for Cures is meeting with members of Congress from both parties. The focus of the meetings are three bills promoting “Right to Try” legislation. Supporters of the bills say they will empower patients battling terminal illness. Texans for Cures say, quite the contrary, that these laws will endanger patients. In this guest blog, Texans for Cures explain why they feel these laws are bad.

In 2014, the Goldwater Institute published a policy report titled, “Everyone Deserves the Right to Try: Empowering the Terminally Ill to Take Control of their Treatment.”[i] The report calls for states to pass “Right to Try” legislation as a means to reclaim patients’ medical autonomy and right to determine their own medical treatment.

This policy recommendation is built on the theory that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should not be able to restrict terminal patients’ access to potentially life-saving treatments so long as the treatment has been tested for basic safety. While this idea may seem immediately appealing, the policy undermines medical research in several ways that are harmful to the development of new treatments.

Texans for Cures opposes this legislation because it harms the sound development of treatments for future patients on the mere chance that it may provide relief to current patients that have received a terminal diagnosis. In short, Right to Try policies ignore the attendant risks and overemphasize the potential benefits.

draft_bill_legislation_law

“Right to Try” Model Legislation and State Enacted Variants

The Goldwater Institute’s policy report included model legislation for interested legislators, which it summed up as follows:

Simply stated, Right to Try allows a patient to access investigational medications that have passed basic safety tests without interference by the government when the following conditions are met:

  1. The patient has been diagnosed with a terminal disease;
  2. The patient has considered all available treatment options;
  3. The patient’s doctor has recommended that the investigational drug, device, or biological product represents the patient’s best chance at survival;
  4. The patient or the patient’s guardian has provided informed consent; and
  5. The sponsoring company chooses to make the investigational drug available to patients outside the clinical trial.

Since the Goldwater Institute published this policy report in 2014, 33 states have enacted Right to Try laws.[ii] These laws contain minor variations from the model legislation, but each operates similarly to limit the FDA’s oversight roll.

Right to Try is Loosely Grounded in the Constitution and May Require Federal Action

Due to the fact that these laws may infringe on the FDA’s authority over drug development and distribution, the policy report attempts to ground Right to Try in one’s constitutional right to liberty. This constitutional underpinning is loose and is not firmly supported by Supreme Court precedent.[iii] With the constitutional basis of Right to Try resting on a weak foundation, it is important for Right to Try proponents to pass a complimentary Right to Try statute on the federal level in Congress.

There are three bills actively working through the Congressional process that would prohibit the FDA or any other federal agency from interfering with a patient’s Right to Try: H.R. 878 by Representative Biggs,[iv] H.R. 2368 by Representative Fitzpatrick,[v] and S. 204 by Senator Johnson.[vi] Each of these bills shares three common provisions, while H.R. 2368 has two additional provisions:

Common Provisions:

  1. Prohibition on federal action
  2. No liability
  3. No use of outcomes

Provisions Unique to H.R. 2368:

  1. Manufacturers are not required to make treatments available
  2. Permits manufacturers to receive compensation or recover costs

All three of the federal bills would remove the FDA’s ability to intervene in state Right to Try programs. They also create a liability shield for any producer, manufacturer, distributor, prescriber, dispenser, possessor, or user participating in the program. And finally, each prohibits the use of outcomes from patients participating in Right to Try as a criteria for FDA review of the treatment. This means that harmed patients would have limited or no legal recourse, and the FDA may need another Act of Congress to grant them the authority to intervene in any programs that prove to be dangerous. However, it may be difficult to know if these programs are harming patients or not, because the bills do not provide any mechanism for tracking outcomes and using that information for oversight.

Each bill is drafted in a way that would remove FDA oversight authority and would allow states to proceed with Right to Try policies and grants states broad discretion to tailor these programs without federal oversight. However, H.R. 2368 contains two additional provisions that would compliment and potentially override state statute. First, the bill gives manufacturers the authority to deny patients access to investigational treatments, which is consistent with the Goldwater Institute’s model legislation. Second, the bill allows manufacturers to receive compensation or recover costs involved in making the drug available to patients. This second provision is particularly problematic in that it would allow manufacturers to charge patients for unproven treatments unless they were explicitly prohibited from doing so by state law.

Single pill

How Right to Try Laws Structurally Harm the Research Process

Right to Try laws create a number of problematic incentives and penalties that would likely harm the long term development of new therapies. First and foremost, under Right to Try, patients will be able to bypass the clinical trial process, request investigational treatments, and pay the cost of the drug, rather than enter into a clinical trial. Given that clinical trials may involve the use of placebos, Texans for Cures is concerned that patients may choose to exercise Right to Try rather than participate in a clinical trial, because under Right to Try the patient avoids the possibility of receiving a placebo.

Additionally, there is no mechanism in the proposed bills for tracking outcomes of patients participating in Right to Try, and there is no mechanism for government intervention if Right to Try proves to be unreasonably risky.

Right to Try seeks to shield all participants from liability, meaning that patients who are harmed will have limited or no legal recourse, even if manufacturers or physicians are negligent. Furthermore, Right to Try laws typically allow manufacturers to recover the cost of manufacturing the treatment for participating patients, but cost is not defined. Does cost include the cost of research and development or is it exclusively the cost of creating that specific treatment? The ambiguity surrounding this term is a cause for concern, because companies may be tempted to use this ambiguity to cover a broader sets of costs than the authors intended.

Conclusion

Texans for Cures opposes this legislative effort because the program could potentially harm patients and, if it does, the law does not provide adequate safeguards or remedies. Additionally, the law does not require any monitoring of outcomes and is therefore unscientific in its approach to treatments that are currently undergoing clinical research.

The FDA is already working to ease the burdens associated with Expanded Access programs, which achieve the end that Right to Try desires: providing access to research drugs for terminal patients. The difference is that Expanded Access has additional safeguards and a mechanism for FDA intervention if treatment is found to be dangerous or harmful to the clinical trial process.

Finding scientifically sound treatments for patients in need is the primary concern of Texans for Cures. Texans for Cures sympathizes with, and its members have similarly experienced, the pain of losing loved ones. The hope and emotion involved in Right to Try laws is not to be taken lightly, but it is precisely because strong emotions can cloud our judgment that we, as a society, must approach the clinical trial process with a clear mental state. Texans for Cures believes that Right to Try will harm the long term development of new treatments and therefore asks for your help in fighting this legislative effort.

Footnotes:

[1] Christina Corieri, “Everyone Deserves the Right to Try: Empowering the Terminally Ill to Take Control of their Treatment,” Goldwater Institute (2014), https://goldwater-media.s3.amazonaws.com/cms_page_media/2015/1/28/Right%20To%20Try.pdf

2 KHN Morning Briefing, “‘Right to Try’ Advocates Help Pass Laws In 33 States As Movement Gains National Foothold,” Kaiser Health News (2017), http://khn.org/morning-breakout/right-to-try-advocates-help-pass-laws-in-33-states-as-movement-gains-national-foothold/

3 The Goldwater Institute’s sole source for constitutional grounding for this law comes from a concurrence by Justice Douglas in Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 218 (1973), where he noted that individuals have a “right to care for one’s health and person.” The Goldwater Institute appears to recognize the precarious footing of their model legislation, stating in their policy report, “Although the right of terminal patients to access investigational medications has not yet been recognized by the Supreme Court, it is consistent with and can be supported by existing precedent.”

[1] H.R. 878 by Representative Biggs, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/878/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22right+to+try%22%5D%7D&r=2

[1] H.R. 2368 by Representative Fitzpatrick, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2368/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22right+to+try%22%5D%7D&r=1

[1] S. 204 by Senator Johnson, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/204/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22right+to+try%22%5D%7D&r=3

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.

‘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.”

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.

4 things to know about stem cell clinical trials [Video]

Every day, we receive phone calls and emails from people who are desperately seeking our help. Sometimes they reach out on their own behalf, though often it’s for a family member or close friend. In every case, someone is suffering or dying from a disorder that has no available cure or effective treatment and they look to stem cell treatments as their only hope.

It’s heartbreaking to hear these personal stories that are unfolding in real time. Though they contact us from a wide range of places about a wide range of disorders, their initial set of questions are often similar and go something like this:

  • “Where can I find stem cell clinical trial for my condition?”
  • “What are my chances of being cured?”
  • “How much does it cost to be in a clinical trial?”
  • “How can I be sure it’s safe?”

We think anyone thinking about taking part in a clinical trial should consider these important questions. So, in addition to providing answers as we receive them through phone calls and emails, we wanted to find a way to reach out to as many people as possible. The result? The four-minute animation video you can watch below:

As mentioned in the video, the answers to these questions are only the tip of the iceberg for finding out if a particular clinical trial is right for you. The website, A Closer Look at Stem Cells, produced by the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), is an excellent source for more advice on what things you should know before participating in a stem cell clinical trial or any experimental stem cell treatment.

And visit the Patient Resources section of our website for even more practical information including our growing list of CIRM-funded clinical trials as well as trials supported by our Alpha Stem Cell Clinic Network.

World Sickle Cell Day: A View from the Front Line

June 19th is World Sickle Cell Day. Sickle cell disease is an inherited blood disorder that causes normally round red blood cells to take on an abnormal sickle shape, resulting in clogged arteries, severe pain, increased risk of stroke and reduced life expectancy. To mark the occasion we asked Nancy M. Rene to write a guest blog for us. Nancy is certainly qualified; she is the grandmother of a child with sickle cell disease, and the co-founder of Axis Advocacy, a non-profit advocating for those with sickle cell disease and their families.

Nancy ReneOn this World Sickle Cell Day, 2017, we can look back to the trailblazers in the fight against Sickle Cell Disease.  More than 40 years ago, the Black Panther Party established the People’s Free Medical Clinics in several cities across the country. One of the functions of these free clinics: to screen people for sickle cell disease and sickle cell trait. This life-saving screening began  in 1971.

Around that same time, President Richard Nixon allocated $10 million to begin the National Sickle Cell Anemia Control Act. This included counseling and screening, educational activities, and money for research.

In the early part of the twentieth century, most children with sickle cell died before their fifth birthday. With newborn screening available nationwide, the use of penicillin to prevent common infections, and the finding that hydroxyurea was useful in fighting the disease, life expectancy began to improve.

For much of the twentieth century, people with sickle cell disease felt that they were fighting the fight alone, knowledgeable doctors were scarce and insurance was often denied.

Making progress

As we moved into the twenty-first century, patients and families found they had some powerful allies. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) joined the battle.  In 2016 the NIH held its tenth annual international conference on sickle cell disease that featured speakers from all over the world.  Participants were able to learn about best practices in Europe, Africa, India, and South America.

Sickle Cell centers at Howard University, the Foundation for Sickle Cell Disease Research, and other major universities across the country are pointing the way to the best that medicine has to offer.

Last year, the prestigious American Society of Hematology (ASH) launched an initiative to improve understanding and treatment of sickle cell disease.  Their four-point plan includes education, training, advocacy, and expanding its global reach.

Just last month, May 2017, the FDA looked at Endari, developed by Emmaus Medical in Torrance, California.  It is the first drug specifically developed for sickle cell disease to go through the FDA’s approval process. We should have a decision on whether or not the drug goes to market in July.

The progress that had been made up to the beginning of the twenty-first century was basically about alleviating the symptoms of the disease: the sickling, the organ damage and the pervasive anemia. But a cure was still elusive.

But in 2004, California’s Stem Cell Agency, CIRM, was created and it was as if the gates had opened.

Researchers had a new source of funding to enable  them to work on Sickle Cell Disease and many other chronic debilitating diseases at the cellular level. Scientists like Donald Kohn at UCLA, were able to research gene editing and find ways to use autologous bone marrow transplants to actually cure people with sickle cell. While some children with sickle cell have been cured with traditional bone marrow transplants, these transplants must come from a matched donor, and for most patients, a matched donor is simply not available. CIRM has provided the support needed so that researchers are closing in on the cure. They are able to share strategies with doctors and researchers throughout the world

And finally, support from the federal government came with the passage of the Affordable Care Act and adequate funding for the NIH, CDC, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and FDA.

Going backwards

And yet, here we are, World Sickle Cell Day, 2017.

Will this be a case of one step forward two steps back?

Are we really going back to the time when people with Sickle Cell Disease could not get health insurance because sickle cell is a pre-existing condition, to the time when there was little money and no interest in research or professional training, to a time when patients and their families were fighting this fight alone?

For all of those with chronic disease, it’s as if we are living a very bad dream.

Time to wake up

For me, I want to wake up from that dream.  I want to look forward to a future where patients and families, where Joseph and Tiffany and Marissa and Ken and Marcus and all the others, will no longer have to worry about getting well-informed, professional treatment for their disease.

Where patients will no longer fear going to the Emergency Room

Where doctors and researchers have the funding they need to support them in their work toward the cure,

Where all children, those here in the United States along with those in Africa, India, and South America, will have access to treatments that can free them from pain and organ damage of sickle cell disease.

And where all people with this disease can be cured.