The Past, the Present, and the Uncertain Future of Stem Cell Research

Ronnie, a boy who was born without a functioning immune system but who is thriving today because of CIRM funded research

When CIRM was created in 2004 the field of stem cell research was still very much in its infancy. Fast forward 15 years and it’s moving ahead at a rapid pace, probably faster than most scientists would have predicted. How fast? Find out for yourself at a free public event at UC San Diego on May 28th from 12.30 to 1.30p.

In the last 15 years CIRM has funded 53 clinical trials in everything from heart disease and stroke, to spinal cord injury, vision loss, sickle cell disease and HIV/AIDS.

UCSD was one of the first medical centers chosen to host a CIRM Alpha Stem Cell Clinic – a specialist center with the experience and expertise to deliver stem cell therapies to patients – and to date is running more than a dozen clinical trials for breast cancer, heart failure, leukemia and chronic lower back pain.

Clearly progress is being made. But the field is also facing some challenges. Funding at the federal level for stem cell research is under threat, and CIRM is entering what could be its final phase. We have enough money left to fund new projects through this year (and these are multi-year projects so they will run into 2021 or 2022) but unless there is a new round of funding we will slowly disappear. And with us, may also disappear the hopes of some of the most promising projects underway.

If CIRM goes, then projects that we have supported and nurtured through different phases of research may struggle to make it into a clinical trial because they can’t get the necessary funding.

Clearly this is a pivotal time in the field.

We will discuss all this, the past, the present and the uncertain future of stem cell research at the meeting at UC San Diego on May 28th. The doors will open at noon for registration (snacks and light refreshments will also be available) and the program runs from 12.30p to 1.30p.

The speakers are:

  • Dr. Catriona Jamieson, Director of the UC San Diego Health CIRM Alpha Stem Cell Clinic and Sanford Stem Cell Clinical Center.
  • Dr. Maria Millan, President and CEO of CIRM
  • Dr. David Higgins, CIRM Board member and Patient Advocate for Parkinson’s Disease.

And of course, we want to hear from you, so we’ll leave plenty of time for questions.

Free parking is available.

Go here for more information about the event and how you can register

Free free to share this with anyone you think might be interested in joining us and we look forward to seeing you there.

CIRM & NHLBI Create Landmark Agreement on Curing Sickle Cell Disease

CIRM Board approves first program eligible for co-funding under the agreement

Adrienne Shapiro, co-founder of Axis Advocacy, with her daughter Marissa Cors, who has Sickle Cell Disease.

Sickle Cell disease (SCD) is a painful, life-threatening blood disorder that affects around 100,000 people, mostly African Americans, in the US. Even with optimal medical care, SCD shortens expected lifespan by decades.  It is caused by a single genetic mutation that results in the production of “sickle” shaped red blood cells.  Under a variety of environmental conditions, stress or viral illness, these abnormal red blood cells cause severe anemia and blockage of blood vessels leading to painful crisis episodes, recurrent hospitalization, multi-organ damage and mini-strokes.    

On April 29th the governing Board of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) approved $4.49 million to Dr. Mark Walters at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital in Oakland to pursue a gene therapy cure for this devastating disease. The gene therapy approach uses CRISPR-Cas9 technology to correct the genetic mutation that leads to sickle cell disease. This program will be eligible for co-funding under the landmark agreement between CIRM and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the NIH.

This CIRM-NHLBI agreement was finalized this month to co-fund cell and gene therapy programs under the NIH “Cure Sickle Cell” initiative.  The goal is to markedly accelerate the development of cell and gene therapies for SCD. It will deploy CIRM’s resources and expertise that has led to a portfolio of over 50 clinical trials in stem cell and regenerative medicine.     

“CIRM currently has 23 clinical stage programs in cell and gene therapy.  Given the advancements in these approaches for a variety of unmet medical needs, we are excited about the prospect of leveraging this to NIH-NHLBI’s Cure Sickle Cell Initiative,” says Maria T. Millan, M.D., the President and CEO of CIRM. “We are pleased the NHLBI sees value in CIRM’s acceleration and funding program and look forward to the partnership to accelerate cures for sickle cell disease.”

“There is a real need for a new approach to treating SCD and making life easier for people with SCD and their families,” says Adrienne Shapiro, the mother of a daughter with SCD and the co-founder of Axis Advocacy, a sickle cell advocacy and education organization. “Finding a cure for Sickle Cell would mean that people like my daughter would no longer have to live their life in short spurts, constantly having their hopes and dreams derailed by ER visits and hospital stays.  It would mean they get a chance to live a long life, a healthy life, a normal life.”

CIRM is currently funding two other clinical trials for SCD using different approaches.  One of these trials is being conducted at City of Hope and the other trial is being conducted at UCLA.

California’s Stem Cell Agency Accelerates Treatments to Patients

The following article is an Op Ed that appeared in today’s print version of the San Francisco Chronicle

SanFranChronicle_Web

Biotechnology was born in California in the 1970s based on the discovery out of one of its universities and California is responsible for an industry that has impacted the lives of billions of people worldwide. In 2004, the voters of California approved Proposition 71, creating the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine and setting the state on the path to becoming a global leader in stem cell research. Today the therapies resulting from the institute’s work are not just changing lives, they are already saving lives.

Lives like Evie Vaccaro, who is alive today because of a treatment CIRM is funding. Vaccaro was born with SCID, also known as “bubble baby disease,” an immune disorder that often kills babies in their first two years. Vaccaro and dozens of other babies were given stem cell treatments thanks to the institute. All are showing improvement; some are now several years past treatment and considered cured.

An accident left Jake Javier from Danville paralyzed from the chest down on the eve of his high school graduation. Javier was treated in a CIRM-funded clinical trial. Today he has regained the use of his arms and hands, is driving a car and is a sophomore at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Five other patients treated at the same time as Javier have all experienced improvements meaning that instead of needing round-the-clock care, they can lead independent lives.

A study by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development estimated it takes at least 10 years and $2.6 billion to develop one successful drug. In 14 years, and with just $3 billion, CIRM has funded 1,000 different projects, enrolled 900 patients, and supported 49 different clinical trials targeting diseases such as cancer, kidney failure and leukemia. Four of these programs have received an expedited designation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, meaning they could get faster approval to help more patients

We have created a network of world class medical clinics that have expertise in delivering treatments to patients. The CIRM Alpha Clinics offer treatments based on solid science, unlike the unlicensed clinics sprouting up around California that peddle unproven and potentially harmful therapies that cost patients thousands of dollars.

CIRM has:

  • Supported the creation of 12 stem-cell research facilities in California
  • Attracted hundreds of top-tier researchers to California
  • Trained a new generation of stem-cell scientists
  • Brought clinical trials to California — for example, one targeting ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease
  • Deployed rigorous scientific standards and support so our programs have a “seal of approval” to attract $2.7 billion in additional investments from industry and other sources.

We recently have partnered with the National Institutes of Health to break down barriers and speed up the approval process to bring curative treatments to patients with Sickle Cell Disease.

Have we achieved all we wanted to? Of course not. The first decade of CIRM’s life was laying the groundwork, developing the knowledge and expertise and refining processes so that we can truly accelerate progress. As a leader in this burgeoning field of regenerative medicine, CIRM needs to continue its mission of accelerating stem-cell treatments to patients with unmet medical needs.

Dr. Maria T. Millan is President and CEO and Jonathan Thomas, JD, PhD, is the Board Chairman of the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine. 

 

 

Overcoming one of the biggest challenges in stem cell research

Imagine you have just designed and built a new car. Everyone loves it. It’s sleek, fast, elegant, has plenty of cup holders. People want to buy it. The only problem is you haven’t built an assembly line to make enough of them to meet demand. Frustrating eh.

Overcoming problems in manufacturing is not an issue that just affects the auto industry (which won’t make Elon Musk and Tesla feel any better) it’s something that affects many other areas too – including the field of regenerative medicine. After all, what good is it developing a treatment for a deadly disease if you can’t make enough of the therapy to help the people who need it the most, the patients.

As the number of stem cell therapies entering clinical trials increases, so too does the demand for large numbers of high quality, rigorously tested stem cells. And because each of those therapies is unique, that places a lot of pressure on existing manufacturing facilities to meet the demand.

IABS panel

Representatives from the US FDA, Health Canada, EMA, FDA China, World Health Organization discuss creating a manufacturing roadmap for stem cell therapies: Photo Geoff Lomax

So, with that in mind CIRM teamed up with the International Alliance for Biological Standardization (IABS) to hold the 4th Cell Therapy Conference: Manufacturing and Testing of Pluripotent Stem Cells to try and identify the key problems and chart out solutions.

The conference brought together everyone who had a stake in this issue, including leading experts in cell manufacturing, commercial sponsors developing stem cell treatments, academic researchers, the World Health Organization, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), international regulatory bodies as well as patient and patient advocates too (after all, who has a greater stake in this).

Commercial sponsors and academic researchers presented case studies of how they worked through the development of manufacturing process for their stem cell treatments.

Some key points quickly emerged:

  • Scale up and quality control of stem cell manufacturing is vital to the development of stem cell treatments.
  • California is a world leader in stem cell manufacturing.
  • There have been numerous innovations in cell manufacturing that serve to support quality, quantity, performance and cost control.
  • The collective experience of the field is leading to standardization of definitions (so we all use the same language), standardization of processes to release quality cells, manufacturing and standardization of testing (so we all meet the same safety requirements).
  • Building consensus among stakeholders is important for accelerating stem cell treatments to patients.

Regulatory experts emphasized the importance of thinking about manufacturing early on in the research and product development phase, so that you can avoid problems in later stages.

There were no easy answers to many of the questions posed, but there was agreement on the importance of developing a stem cell glossary, a common set of terms and definitions that we can all use. There was also agreement on the key topics that need to continue to be highlighted such as safety testing, compatibility, early locking-in of quality processes when feasible, and scaling up.

In the past our big concern was developing the therapies. Now we have to worry about being able to manufacture enough of the cells to meet demand. That’s progress.

A technical summary is being developed and we will announce when it is available.

 

 

Stem Cell Roundup: Protein shows promise in treating deadliest form of breast cancer: mosquito spit primes our body for disease

Triple negative breast cancerTriple negative breast cancer is more aggressive and difficult to treat than other forms of the disease and, as a result, is more likely to spread throughout the body and to recur after treatment. Now a team at the University of Southern California have identified a protein that could help change that.

The research, published in the journal Nature Communications, showed that a protein called TAK1 allows cancer cells from the tumor to migrate to the lungs and then form new tumors which can spread throughout the body. There is already an FDA-approved drug called OXO that has been shown to block TAK1, but this does not survive in the blood so it’s hard to deliver to the lungs.

The USC team found a way of using nanoparticles, essentially a tiny delivery system, to take OXO and carry it to the lungs to attack the cancer cells and stop them spreading.

triple_negative_breast_cancer_particle_graphic-768x651In a news release Min Yu, the principal investigator on the team, said that although this has only been tested in mice the results are encouraging:

“For patients with triple-negative breast cancer, systemic chemotherapies are largely ineffective and highly toxic. So, nanoparticles are a promising approach for delivering more targeted treatments, such as OXO, to stop the deadly process of metastasis.”

Mosquito spit and your immune system

Mosquito

Mosquito bite: Photo courtesy National Academy of Sciences

Anyone who has ever been bitten by a mosquito knows that it can be itchy and irritable for hours afterwards. But now scientists say the impact of that bite can last for much longer, days in fact, and even help prime your body for disease.

The scientists say that every time a mosquito bites you they inject saliva into the bite to keep the blood flowing freely. But that saliva also has an impact on your immune system, leaving it more vulnerable to diseases like malaria.

OK, so that’s fascinating, and really quite disgusting, but what does it have to do with stem cells? Well, researchers at the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) Malaria and Vector Research Laboratory in Phnom Penh, Cambodia engrafted human stem cells into mice to study the problem.

They found that mice with the human stem cells developed more severe symptoms of dengue fever if they were bitten by a mosquito than if they were just injected with dengue fever.

In an article in Popular Science Jessica Manning, an infectious disease expert at the NIH, said previously we had no idea that mosquito spit had such a big impact on us:

“The virus present in that mosquito’s saliva, it’s like a Trojan horse. Your body is distracted by the saliva [and] having an allergic reaction when really it should be having an antiviral reaction and fighting against the virus. Your body is unwittingly helping the virus establish infection because your immune system is sending in new waves of cells that this virus is able to infect.”

The good news is that if we can develop a vaccine against the saliva we may be able to protect people against malaria, dengue fever, Zika and other mosquito-borne diseases.

Stem Cell Roundup: better model of schizophrenia, fasting boosts stem cells, and why does our hair gray.

Stem cell photo of the week:
Recreating brain cell interactions for studying schizophrenia

169585_web

Salk researchers used stem cells to derive CA3 pyramidal neurons (green), including a rare subtype of the cells (red). Image: Salk Institute

Our pick for the stem cell image of the week is from the laboratory of Rusty Gage at the Salk Institute. The team generated multiple types of nerve cells from stem cells to more closely represent the interactions that occur in the brain. They’re using this system to show how the communication between these nerve cells becomes faulty in people with schizophrenia. A Salk Institute press release provides more details about their study which was published in Cell Stem Cell.

Regenerative power of intestinal stem cells maintained via fasting
For many decades, researchers have known that restricting food intake in mice can extend life span. Why it happens hasn’t been well understood. This week, a team at MIT uncovered a possible explanation: fasting increases the regenerative power of stem cells.

May3_2018_MIT_StemCellDiet2247912117

Intestinal stem cells from mice that fasted for 24 hours, at right, produced much more substantial intestinal organoids than stem cells from mice that did not fast, at left.
Image: Maria Mihaylova and Chia-Wei Cheng, MIT

The report, published in Cell Stem Cell, focused on the well-studied intestinal stem cell, which renews the intestinal lining every five days. As we age, the intestinal stem cell’s regenerative abilities wane and damage to the intestinal lining takes longer to repair.

Mice were fasted for 24 hours and then their intestinal stem cells were retrieved and grown into mini-intestine organoids in petri dishes. According to Maria Mihaylova, PhD, one of the lead authors, the results of the experiment were very clear:

“It was very obvious that fasting had this really immense effect on the ability of intestinal crypts to form more organoids, which is stem-cell-driven,” Mihaylova said in a press release. “This was something that we saw in both the young mice and the aged mice, and we really wanted to understand the molecular mechanisms driving this.”

Mihaylova and the team went on to show that fasting caused the stem cells to burn fat instead of carbohydrates for their energy needs. Inhibiting the gene pathways that flip this metabolic switch also blocks the regenerative capacity of fasting. On the other hand, molecules that boost the gene pathways mimic the effects of fasting without changing food intake. This intriguing finding could potentially have clinical applications for cancer patients who suffer intestinal injury from the toxic effects of chemotherapy drugs but who certainly aren’t in a condition to fast.

Premature graying, our immune system and stem cells: a surprising link. (Kevin McCormack)
As someone whose hair went gray at a relatively young age – well, it seemed young to me! – this next story naturally caught my eye. It highlights how our immune systems may play a key role in determining our hair color and, in particular, when that hair turns gray.

Our bodies are constantly shedding hairs and replacing them with new ones. Normally stem cells called melanocytes help ensure the new hairs have your original color, be it black, blonde, brunette or red.

Researchers at the National Institutes of Health and the University of Alabama, Birmingham, found that when the body is attacked by a virus, our immune system kicks in and respond by producing interferon to fight off the infection. However, when a protein called MITF, that is involved in regulating how cells use interferon, fails to work properly it can also affect melanocytes causing them to lose their pigmentation. Without that pigmentation the new hairs are gray.

The study, which appears in the journal PLOS Biology, is too late to help me and my gray hair – particularly as it was done in mice – but it could pave the way for further research that identifies how genes that control pigment in our hair and skin also control our immune system.

Turning the corner with the FDA and NIH; CIRM creates new collaborations to advance stem cell research

FDAThis blog is part of the Month of CIRM series on the Stem Cellar

A lot can change in a couple of years. Just take our relationship with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

When we were putting together our Strategic Plan in 2015 we did a survey of key players and stakeholders at CIRM – Board members, researchers, patient advocates etc. – and a whopping 70 percent of them listed the FDA as the biggest impediment for the development of stem cell treatments.

As one stakeholder told us at the time:

“Is perfect becoming the enemy of better? One recent treatment touted by the FDA as a regulatory success had such a high clinical development hurdle placed on it that by the time it was finally approved the standard of care had evolved. When it was finally approved, five years later, its market potential had significantly eroded and the product failed commercially.”

Changing the conversation

To overcome these hurdles we set a goal of changing the regulatory landscape, finding a way to make the system faster and more efficient, but without reducing the emphasis on the safety of patients. One of the ways we did this was by launching our “Stem Cell Champions” campaign to engage patients, patient advocates, the public and everyone else who supports stem cell research to press for change at the FDA. We also worked with other organizations to help get the 21st Century Cures Act passed.

21 century cures

Today the regulatory landscape looks quite different than it did just a few years ago. Thanks to the 21st Century Cures Act the FDA has created expedited pathways for stem cell therapies that show promise. One of those is called the Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) designation, which gives projects that show they are both safe and effective in early-stage clinical trials the possibility of an accelerated review by the FDA. Of the first projects given RMAT designation, three were CIRM-funded projects (Humacyte, jCyte and Asterias)

Partnering with the NIH

Our work has also paved the way for a closer relationship with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is looking at CIRM as a model for advancing the field of regenerative medicine.

In recent years we have created a number of innovations including introducing CIRM 2.0, which dramatically improved our ability to fund the most promising research, making it faster, easier and more predictable for researchers to apply. We also created the Stem Cell Center  to make it easier to move the most promising research out of the lab and into clinical trials, and to give researchers the support they need to help make those trials successful. To address the need for high-quality stem cell clinical trials we created the CIRM Alpha Stem Cell Clinic Network. This is a network of leading medical centers around the state that specialize in delivering stem cell therapies, sharing best practices and creating new ways of making it as easy as possible for patients to get the care they need.

The NIH looked at these innovations and liked them. So much so they invited CIRM to come to Washington DC and talk about them. It was a great opportunity so, of course, we said yes. We expected them to carve out a few hours for us to chat. Instead they blocked out a day and a half and brought in the heads of their different divisions to hear what we had to say.

A model for the future

We hope the meeting is, to paraphrase Humphrey Bogart at the end of Casablanca, “the start of a beautiful friendship.” We are already seeing signs that it’s not just a passing whim. In July the NIH held a workshop that focused on what will it take to make genome editing technologies, like CRISPR, a clinical reality. Francis Collins, NIH Director, invited CIRM to be part of the workshop that included thought leaders from academia, industry and patients advocates. The workshop ended with a recommendation that the NIH should consider building a center of excellence in gene editing and transplantation, based on the CIRM model (my emphasis).  This would bring together a multidisciplinary disease team including, process development, cGMP manufacturing, regulatory and clinical development for Investigational New Drug (IND) filing and conducting clinical trials, all under one roof.

dr_collins

Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the NIH

In preparation, the NIH visited the CIRM-funded Stem Cell Center at the City of Hope to explore ways to develop this collaboration. And the NIH has already begun implementing these suggestions starting with a treatment targeting sickle cell disease.

There are no guarantees in science. But we know that if you spend all your time banging your head against a door all you get is a headache. Today it feels like the FDA has opened the door and that, together with the NIH, they are more open to collaborating with organizations like CIRM. We have removed the headache, and created the possibility that by working together we truly can accelerate stem cell research and deliver the therapies that so many patients desperately need.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CIRM & NIH: a dynamic duo to advance stem cell therapies

NIH

National Institutes of Health

There’s nothing more flattering than to get an invitation, out of the blue, from someone you respect, and be told that they are interested in learning about the way you work, to see if it can help them improve the way they work.

That’s what happened to CIRM recently. I will let Randy Mills, who was our President & CEO at the time, pick up the story:

“Several weeks ago I got a call from the head of the National Heart. Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) asking would we be willing to come out to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and talk about what we have been doing, the changes we have made and the impact they are having.”

Apparently people at the NIH had been reading our Strategic Plan and our Annual Report and had been hearing good things about us from many different individuals and organizations. We also heard that they had been motivated to engage more fully with the regenerative medicine community following the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act.

We were expecting a sit down chat with them but we got a lot more than that. They blocked out one and a half days for us so that we had the time to engage in some in-depth, thoughtful conversations about how to advance the field.

collins-portrait_1

Dr. Francis Collins, NIH Director

The meeting was kicked off by both Francis Collins, the NIH Director, and Gary Gibbons, the NHLBI Director. Then the CIRM team – Dr. Mills, Dr. Maria Millan, Gabe Thompson and James Harrison – gave a series of presentations providing an overview of how CIRM operates, including our vision and strategic priorities, our current portfolio, the lessons learned so far, our plans for the future and the challenges we face.

The audience included the various heads and representatives from the various NIH Institutes who posed a series of questions for us to answer, such as:

  • What criteria do we use to determine if a project is ready for a clinical trial?
  • How do we measure success?
  • How have our strategies and priorities changed under CIRM 2.0?
  • How well are those strategies working?

The conversation went so well that the one day of planned meetings were expanded to two. Maria Millan, now our interim President & CEO, gave an enthusiastic summary of the talks

“The meetings were extremely productive!  After meeting with Dr. Collins’ group and the broader institute, we had additional sit down meetings.   The NIH representatives reported that they received such enthusiastic responses from Institute heads that they extended the meeting into a second day. We met with with the National Institutes of Dental and Craniofacial Research, Heart, Lung and Blood, Eye Institute, Institute on Aging, Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, Diabetes, and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.  We covered strategic and operational considerations for funding the best science in the stem cell and regenerative medicine space.  We explored potential avenues to join forces and leverage the assets and programs of both organizations, to accelerate the development of regenerative medicine and stem cell treatments.”

This was just a first meeting but it laid the groundwork for what we hope will be a truly productive partnership. In fact, shortly after returning from Washington, D.C., CIRM was immediately invited to follow-up NIH workgroups and meetings.

As this budding partnership progresses we’ll let you know how it’s working out.

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.

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.