The story behind the book about the Stem Cell Agency

DonReed_BookSigning2018-35

Don Reed at his book launch: Photo by Todd Dubnicoff

WHY I WROTE “CALIFORNIA CURES”  By Don C. Reed

It was Wednesday, June 13th, 2018, the launch day for my new book, “CALIFORNIA CURES: How the California Stem Cell Research Program is Fighting Your Incurable Disease!”

As I stood in front of the audience of scientists, CIRM staff members, patient advocates, I thought to myself, “these are the kind of people who built the California stem cell program.” Wheelchair warriors Karen Miner and Susan Rotchy, sitting in the front row, typified the determination and resolve typical of those who fought to get the program off the ground. Now I was about to ask them to do it one more time.

My first book about CIRM was “STEM CELL BATTLES: Proposition 71 and Beyond. It told the story of  how we got started: the initial struggles—and a hopeful look into the future.

Imagine being in a boat on the open sea and there was a patch of green on the horizon. You could be reasonably certain those were the tops of coconut trees, and that there was an island attached—but all you could see was a patch of green.

Today we can see the island. We are not on shore yet, but it is real.

“CALIFORNIA CURES” shows what is real and achieved: the progress the scientists have made– and why we absolutely must continue.

For instance, in the third row were three little girls, their parents and grandparents.

One of them was Evangelina “Evie” Vaccaro, age 5. She was alive today because of CIRM, who had funded the research and the doctor who saved her.

Don Reed and Evie and Alysia

Don Reed, Alysia Vaccaro and daughter Evie: Photo by Yimy Villa

Evie was born with Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID) commonly called the “bubble baby” disease. It meant she could never go outside because her immune system could not protect her.  Her mom and dad had to wear hospital masks to get near her, even just to give her a hug.

But Dr. Donald Kohn of UCLA operated on the tiny girl, taking out some of her bone marrow, repairing the genetic defect that caused SCID, then putting the bone marrow back.

Today, “Evie” glowed with health, and was cheerfully oblivious to the fuss she raised.

I was actually a little intimidated by her, this tiny girl who so embodied the hopes and dreams of millions. What a delight to hear her mother Alysia speak, explaining  how she helped Evie understand her situation:  she had “unicorn blood” which could help other little children feel better too.

This was CIRM in action, fighting to save lives and ease suffering.

If people really knew what is happening at CIRM, they would absolutely have to support it. That’s why I write, to get the message out in bite-size chunks.

You might know the federal statistics—133 million children, women and men with one or more chronic diseases—at a cost of $2.9 trillion dollars last year.

But not enough people know California’s battle to defeat those diseases.

DonReed_BookSigning2018-22

Adrienne Shapiro at the book launch: Photo by Todd Dubnicoff

Champion patient advocate Adrienne Shapiro was with us, sharing a little of the stress a parent feels if her child has sickle cell anemia, and the science which gives us hope:  the CIRM-funded doctor who cured Evie is working on sickle cell now.

Because of CIRM, newly paralyzed people now have a realistic chance to recover function: a stem cell therapy begun long ago (pride compels me to mention it was started by the Roman Reed Spinal Cord Injury Research Act, named after my son), is using stem cells to re-insulate damaged nerves in the spine.  Six people were recently given the stem cell treatment pioneered by Hans Keirstead, (currently running for Congress!)  and all six experienced some level of recovery, in a few cases regaining some use of their arms hands.

Are you old enough to remember the late Annette Funicello and Richard Pryor?  These great entertainers were stricken by multiple sclerosis, a slow paralysis.  A cure did not come in time for them. But the international cooperation between California’s Craig Wallace and Australia’s Claude Bernard may help others: by  re-insulating MS-damaged nerves like what was done with spinal cord injury.

My brother David shattered his leg in a motorcycle accident. He endured multiple operations, had steel rods and plates inserted into his leg. Tomorrow’s accident recovery may be easier.  At Cedars-Sinai, Drs. Dan Gazit and Hyun Bae are working to use stem cells to regrow the needed bone.

My wife suffers arthritis in her knees. Her pain is so great she tries to make only one trip a day down and up the stairs of our home.  The cushion of cartilage in her knees is worn out, so it is bone on bone—but what if that living cushion could be restored? Dr. Denis Evseenko of UCLA is attempting just that.

As I spoke, on the wall behind me was a picture of a beautiful woman, Rosie Barrero, who had been left blind by retinitis pigmentosa. Rosie lost her sight when her twin children were born—and regained it when they were teenagers—seeing them for the first time, thanks to Dr. Henry Klassen, another scientist funded by CIRM.

What about cancer? That miserable condition has killed several of my family, and I was recently diagnosed with prostate cancer myself. I had everything available– surgery, radiation, hormone shots which felt like harpoons—hopefully I am fine, but who knows for sure?

Irv Weissman, the friendly bear genius of Stanford, may have the answer to cancer.  He recognized there were cancer stem cells involved. Nobody believed him for a while, but it is now increasingly accepted that these cancer stem cells have a coating of protein which makes them invisible to the body’s defenses. The Weissman procedure may peel off that “cloak of invisibility” so the immune system can find and kill them all—and thereby cure their owner.

What will happen when CIRM’s funding runs out next year?

If we do nothing, the greatest source of stem cell research funding will be gone. We need to renew CIRM. Patients all around the world are depending on us.

The California stem cell program was begun and led by Robert N. “Bob” Klein. He not only led the campaign, was its chief writer and number one donor, but he was also the first Chair of the Board, serving without pay for the first six years. It was an incredible burden; he worked beyond exhaustion routinely.

Would he be willing to try it again, this time to renew the funding of a successful program? When I asked him, he said:

“If California polls support the continuing efforts of CIRM—then I am fully committed to a 2020 initiative to renew the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM).”

Shakespeare said it best in his famous “to be or not to be” speech, asking if it is “nobler …to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles—and by opposing, end them”.

Should we passively endure chronic disease and disability—or fight for cures?

California’s answer was the stem cell program CIRM—and continuing CIRM is the reason I wrote this book.

Don C. Reed is the author of “CALIFORNIA CURES: How the California Stem Cell Program is Fighting Your Incurable Disease!”, from World Scientific Publishing, Inc., publisher of the late Professor Stephen Hawking.

For more information, visit the author’s website: www.stemcellbattles.com

 

SCID kid scores big on TV

Evie at book signing

One of the stories I never tire of telling is about Evie Vaccaro. She’s the little girl who was born with a fatal immune condition called severe combined immunodeficiency or SCID. Children with this condition have no immune system, no protection against infections, and often die in the first two years of life. But thanks to a stem cell therapy Evie was cured.

Evie is now five years old. A happy, healthy and, as we discovered last week, a very energetic kid. That’s because Evie and her family came to CIRM to celebrate the launch of Don Reed’s new book, “California Cures! How the California Stem Cell Program is Fighting Your Incurable Disease”.

Don Reed and Evie and Alysia

Don Reed with Alysia and Evie Vaccaro – Photo courtesy Yimy Villa

Don’s book is terrific – well, it’s about CIRM so I might be biased – but Evie stole the show, and the hearts of everyone there.

KTVU, the local Fox News TV station, did a couple of stories about Evie. Here’s one of them.

We will have more on Don Reed’s book later this week.

CIRM invests in stem cell clinical trial targeting lung cancer and promising research into osteoporosis and incontinence

Lung cancer

Lung cancer: Photo courtesy Verywell

The five-year survival rate for people diagnosed with the most advanced stage of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is pretty grim, only between one and 10 percent. To address this devastating condition, the Board of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) today voted to invest almost $12 million in a team from UCLA that is pioneering a combination therapy for NSCLC.

The team is using the patient’s own immune system where their dendritic cells – key cells in our immune system – are genetically modified to boost their ability to stimulate their native T cells – a type of white blood cell – to destroy cancer cells.  The investigators will combine this cell therapy with the FDA-approved therapy pembrolizumab (better known as Keytruda) a therapeutic that renders cancer cells more susceptible to clearance by the immune system.

“Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer death for men and women, leading to 150,000 deaths each year and there is clearly a need for new and more effective treatments,” says Maria T. Millan, M.D., the President and CEO of CIRM. “We are pleased to support this program that is exploring a combination immunotherapy with gene modified cell and antibody for one of the most extreme forms of lung cancer.”

Translation Awards

The CIRM Board also approved investing $14.15 million in four projects under its Translation Research Program. The goal of these awards is to support promising stem cell research and help it move out of the laboratory and into clinical trials in people.

Researchers at Stanford were awarded almost $6 million to help develop a treatment for urinary incontinence (UI). Despite being one of the most common indications for surgery in women, one third of elderly women continue to suffer from debilitating urinary incontinence because they are not candidates for surgery or because surgery fails to address their condition.

The Stanford team is developing an approach using the patient’s own cells to create smooth muscle cells that can replace those lost in UI. If this approach is successful, it provides a proof of concept for replacement of smooth muscle cells that could potentially address other conditions in the urinary tract and in the digestive tract.

Max BioPharma Inc. was awarded almost $1.7 million to test a therapy that targets stem cells in the skeleton, creating new bone forming cells and blocking the destruction of bone cells caused by osteoporosis.

In its application the company stressed the benefit this could have for California’s diverse population stating: “Our program has the potential to have a significant positive impact on the lives of patients with osteoporosis, especially in California where its unique demographics make it particularly vulnerable. Latinos are 31% more likely to have osteoporosis than Caucasians, and California has the largest Latino population in the US, accounting for 39% of its population.”

Application Title Institution CIRM funding
TRAN1-10958 Autologous iPSC-derived smooth muscle cell therapy for treatment of urinary incontinence

 

 

Stanford University

 

$5,977,155

 

TRAN2-10990 Development of a noninvasive prenatal test for beta-hemoglobinopathies for earlier stem cell therapeutic interventions

 

 

Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute

 

$1,721,606

 

TRAN1-10937 Therapeutic development of an oxysterol with bone anabolic and anti-resorptive properties for intervention in osteoporosis  

MAX BioPharma Inc.

 

$1,689,855

 

TRAN1-10995 Morphological and functional integration of stem cell derived retina organoid sheets into degenerating retina models

 

 

UC Irvine

 

$4,769,039

 

TELL ME WHAT I NEED TO KNOW: A Patient Advocate’s guide to being a Patient Advocate

A few weeks ago I was at the CIRM Alpha Stem Cell Clinic Network Symposium at UCLA and was fortunate enough to hear Gianna McMillan speak about patient advocacy. It was a powerful, moving, funny, and truly engaging talk. I quickly realized I wanted to blog about her talk and so for the first few minutes I was busy taking notes as fast as I could.  And then I realized that a simple blog could never do justice to what Gianna was saying, that what we needed was to run the whole presentation. So here it is.

Gianna McMillan

Gianna McMillan at the CIRM Alpha Stem Cell Clinic Symposium: Photo courtesy UCLA

TELL ME WHAT I NEED TO KNOW

Gianna McMillan, MA – Patient/Subject Advocate, Bioethics Institute at Loyola Marymount University

Stem cell research and regenerative medicine are appealing topics because patients, families and society are weary of inelegant medical interventions that inflict, in some cases, as much harm as benefit. We are tired of putting poison in our loved ones to kill their cancer or feeling helpless as other diseases attack our own bodily functions. California, full of dreamers and go-getters, has enthusiastically embraced this new technology—but it is important to remember that all biomedical research— even in a new field as exciting and inspiring as stem cell therapeutics – must adhere to basic premises. It must be valid science and it must be based on an ethical partnership with patients and research subjects.

In the world of research ethics, I wear a lot of hats. I have been a subject, a care-giver, an Institutional Review Board (IRB) member (someone who actually reviews and approves research studies before they are allowed to proceed), and I have worked with the government on regulatory committees. These days I am finishing my doctoral studies in Bioethics, and while I love the interplay of philosophy and ethical principles, I most truly identify as an in-the-trenches Patient/Subject Advocate. I am compelled to champion patients who struggle with new and devastating diagnoses, hoping desperately for a cure, and who might be faced with decisions about participating in research for their own benefit and for the greater good of science.

In the old days, doctors made decisions on behalf of their patients— who, meekly grateful for the guidance, did whatever they were told. It is a little different now. Patients are better informed, often do their own homework, and demand to be an integral part of their treatment plan. The world of research has undergone similar changes. Instead of investigators “doing things to research subjects”, best practices involve patients in the design of clinical trials. Patients and experienced subjects help decide what specific questions should be the focus of the research; they identify endpoints in the research that are meaningful to the patient population being studied; and they assist in devising tools for patient-reported outcomes and delivery of study results.

The investigator and the research subject have come to be seen as partners.

While the evolution of this important relationship is healthy and wonderful, it should not be assumed that this is an equal partnership. Why? Because subjects are always at a disadvantage.  I realize that this might be an uncomfortable concept. Physician-investigators in charge of the study might want to qualify this statement it by insisting “but we do our best to accommodate their needs”. Subjects would also rather not admit this—because it is hard to make a decision with confidence while simultaneously acknowledging, “I am really at a disadvantage here.”

However, I have learned the hard way that an honest partnership requires addressing some uncomfortable realities.

A short personal story illustrates what I am talking about. When my oldest son was five years old, he was diagnosed with malignant brain cancer. Before meeting with our son’s treatment team for the first time, my husband and I decided that my husband, articulate and concise, would take the lead. He had a legal pad, with a list of questions… each question and answer would take us down the page until, at last, we would use all the information to make a decision—a life or death decision – on behalf of our young child.

In the meeting, the neurosurgeon pointed at brain scans and explained a few things. And then radiologist drew pictures of machines and treatment angles. The oncologist described risks and benefits and side effects. Then we all looked expectantly at my husband—because it was his turn. This lovely man opened his mouth. And closed his mouth. And then burst into tears, holding that legal pad over his chest like a shield. He could not speak. After a few seconds of horrified silence, I stammered out what few questions I could remember. The doctors answered, of course. Their mouths moved, and I leaned in and nodded while making eye contact – but I have no idea what they said.  All I heard was a loud white noise that filled my skull and my husband’s raspy breathing, and my own voice crying out in my head – “Oh my God! My child! My child!”

The point of this story is to illustrate that good people, educated and prepared, ready to bring their best selves to make the most important decision they would ever make, one that would affect the life of a beloved child— these people could not function. Despite this, in just a few days’ time, we were introduced to a research study, one that might cure our child while limiting the damage to his growing brain.  No matter how well-intentioned the research team was—no matter how desirous they were of a “partnership” with us, we were at such a distinct disadvantage, that the relationship we had with these investigators could not be categorized as one “among equals”.

Even now, more than twenty years later, it is painful for me to reflect on this. But I have learned, working with hundreds of families whose children went into clinical trials, that if we can be honest about the dysfunctional nature of this situation, we might take some action to improve it. Let me be specific about the ways research subjects are at a disadvantage.

  1. They often don’t speak the language of the disease.
  2. They are unfamiliar with the process of research.
  3. They are wrestling with emotions: despair, denial, anger and hope.
  4. Their life has been disrupted – and there are consequences.

Compare this with the research team, who knows the lingo, designed the research plan, is not personally affected by the scenario and well, this is business as usual: enroll a subject, let’s get going! How is the notion of “partnership” affected by such unequal circumstances?

Is a meaningful “partnership” even possible?

I say, yes! And this notion of “partnership” is especially important as new technologies come to invade intimate qualities of “self” and the building blocks of what makes each of us human. However, we need to be realistic about what this partnership looks like. It is not equal.  I am going to take a stand here and say that the partner who has the advantage (in this case, the researcher/scientist) is morally obligated to meaningfully address the disadvantage of the other party. This bears repeating. The partner who has the advantage is morally obligated to meaningfully address the disadvantage of the other party.

Over the years, families and subjects have told me what they want and need from the doctors and researchers they work with. They say:

  1. Tell me what I need to know.
  2. Tell me in a way I can hear it.
  3. Tell me again and again.

Let me expand on these a bit. First, if I am a patient new to a diagnosis, a treatment or research—I probably do not know what I do not know. Help me learn vocabulary, procedures, and systems. Tell me about the elements of informed consent so that I recognize them when I see them in the documents you want me to sign. Explain the difference between “standard of care” and “experimental treatment”. Help me understand the research question in the context of the disease (in general) and my own ailment (in particular). Give me the words to ask the questions that I should be asking.

Secondly, there are many different ways of sharing this information: print, video, websites, peer mentors, nurse-educators, and research team members. Hit the topic from all sides and in multiple formats. Thirdly, please realize that there is a learning curve for me— and it is closely tied to my emotional journey with my predicament. I may not be able to absorb certain facts at the very beginning, but a few weeks later I might be mentally and cognitively in a different place. And obviously, I might be an inexperienced research subject when I sign the consent form— but a few months later I will be vastly more sophisticated and at that time, I need the opportunity to ask my more considered and context-savvy questions.

I want to point out that researchers have access to a deep well of wisdom – a resource that can advise and support ethical actions that will help their disadvantaged partners: researchers can ask their experienced subjects for advice.

Remember those hundreds of families I worked with, whose children ultimately enrolled in clinical trials? These experienced parents say:

  • Let me tell you what I needed to know.
  • Let me tell you how I needed to hear it.

Getting input from these experienced subjects and caregivers does two things.

First, the research team is leveraging the investment they have already made in the participants of their studies; and secondly — very importantly — they are empowering the previously disadvantaged partner. Experienced subjects can to share what they have learned or give suggestions to the research team. Physicians and researchers might even build a stable of peer mentors who might be willing to help newbies learn about the process.

Everything I have said applies to all avenues of clinical research, but these are especially important considerations in the face of new and exciting science. It took a long time for more traditional research practices to evolve into an investigator/subject partnership model. Stem cell research and regenerative medicine has the opportunity to do this from the very start—and benefit from previous lessons learned.

When I was preparing my remarks for today, someone casually mentioned that I might talk about the “importance of balancing truth-telling in the informed consent process with respect for the hope of the family.” I would like to unequivocally state that the very nature of an “informed consent process” requires 100% truth, as does respect for the family—and that this does not undermine our capacity for hope. We place our hope in this exciting new science and the doctors and researchers who are pioneers. We understand that there are many unknowns in this new field. Please be honest with us so that we might sort out our thoughts and our hopes for ourselves, in our own contexts.

What message would I wish the scientists here, today, to take away with them?      Well, I am putting on my Patient/Subject Advocate hat, and in my Patient/Subject Advocate voice, I am saying: “Tell me what I need to know!”

 

 

Stem Cell Agency’s supporting role in advancing research for rare diseases

Orchard

The recent agreement transferring GSK’s rare disease gene therapies to Orchard Therapeutics was good news for both companies and for the patients who are hoping this research could lead to new treatments, even cures, for some rare diseases. It was also good news for CIRM, which played a key role in helping Orchard grow to the point where this deal was possible.

In a news releaseMaria Millan, CIRM’s President & CEO, said:

“At CIRM, our value proposition is centered around our ability to advance the field of regenerative medicine in many different ways. Our funding and partnership has enabled the smooth transfer of Dr. Kohn’s technology from the academic to the industry setting while conducting this important pivotal clinical trial. With our help, Orchard was able to attract more outside investment and now it is able to grow its pipeline utilizing this platform gene therapy approach.”

Under the deal, GSK not only transfers its rare disease gene therapy portfolio to Orchard, it also becomes a shareholder in the company with a 19.9 percent equity stake. GSK is also eligible to receive royalties and commercial milestone payments. This agreement is both a recognition of Orchard’s expertise in this area, and the financial potential of developing treatments for rare conditions.

Dr. Millan says it’s further proof that the agency’s impact on the field of regenerative medicine extends far beyond the funding it offers companies like Orchard.

“Accelerating stem cell therapies to patients with unmet medical needs involves a lot more than just funding research; it involves supporting the research at every stage and creating partnerships to help it fulfill its potential. We invest when others are not ready to take a chance on a promising but early stage project. That early support not only helps the scientists get the data they need to show their work has potential, but it also takes some of the risk out of investments by venture capitalists or larger pharmaceutical companies.”

CIRM’s early support helped UCLA’s Don Kohn, MD, develop a stem cell therapy for severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). This therapy is now Orchard’s lead program in ADA-SCID, OTL-101.

Sohel Talib, CIRM’s Associate Director Therapeutics and Industry Alliance, says this approach has transformed the lives of dozens of children born with this usually fatal immune disorder.

“This gene correction approach for severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) has already transformed the lives of dozens of children treated in early trials and CIRM is pleased to be a partner on the confirmatory trial for this transformative treatment for patients born with this fatal immune disorder.”

Dr. Donald B. Kohn UCLA MIMG BSCRC Faculty 180118Dr. Kohn, now a member of Orchard’s scientific advisory board, said:

“CIRM funding has been essential to the overall success of my work, supporting me in navigating the complex regulatory steps of drug development, including interactions with FDA and toxicology studies that enhanced and helped drive the ADA-SCID clinical trial.”

CIRM funding has allowed Orchard Therapeutics to expand its technical operations footprint in California, which now includes facilities in Foster City and Menlo Park, bringing new jobs and generating taxes for the state and local community.

Mark Rothera, Orchard’s President and CEO, commented:

“The partnership with CIRM has been an important catalyst in the continued growth of Orchard Therapeutics as a leading company transforming the lives of patients with rare diseases through innovative gene therapies. The funding and advice from CIRM allowed Orchard to accelerate the development of OTL-101 and to build a manufacturing platform to support our development pipeline which includes 5 clinical and additional preclinical programs for potentially transformative gene therapies”.

Since CIRM was created by the voters of California the Agency has been able to use its support for research to leverage an additional $1.9 billion in funds for California. That money comes in the form of co-funding from companies to support their own projects, partnerships between outside investors or industry groups with CIRM-funded companies to help advance research, and additional funding that companies are able to attract to a project because of CIRM funding.

Stem Cell Roundup: Improving muscle function in muscular dystrophy; Building a better brain; Boosting efficiency in making iPSC’s

Here are the stem cell stories that caught our eye this week.

Photos of the week

TGIF! We’re so excited that the weekend is here that we are sharing not one but TWO amazing stem cell photos of the week.

RMI IntestinalChip

Image caption: Cells of a human intestinal lining, after being placed in an Intestine-Chip, form intestinal folds as they do in the human body. (Photo credit: Cedars-Sinai Board of Governors Regenerative Medicine Institute)

Photo #1 is borrowed from a blog we wrote earlier this week about a new stem cell-based path to personalized medicine. Scientists at Cedars-Sinai are collaborating with a company called Emulate to create intestines-on-a-chip using human stem cells. Their goal is to create 3D-organoids that represent the human gut, grow them on chips, and use these gut-chips to screen for precision medicines that could help patients with intestinal diseases. You can read more about this gut-tastic research here.

Young mouse heart 800x533

Image caption: UCLA scientists used four different fluorescent-colored proteins to determine the origin of cardiomyocytes in mice. (Image credit: UCLA Broad Stem Cell Research Center/Nature Communications)

Photo #2 is another beautiful fluorescent image, this time of a cross-section of a mouse heart. CIRM-funded scientists from UCLA Broad Stem Cell Research Center are tracking the fate of stem cells in the developing mouse heart in hopes of finding new insights that could lead to stem cell-based therapies for heart attack victims. Their research was published this week in the journal Nature Communications and you can read more about it in a UCLA news release.

Stem cell injection improves muscle function in muscular dystrophy mice

Another study by CIRM-funded Cedars-Sinai scientists came out this week in Stem Cell Reports. They discovered that they could improve muscle function in mice with muscular dystrophy by injecting cardiac progenitor cells into their hearts. The injected cells not only improved heart function in these mice, but also improved muscle function throughout their bodies. The effects were due to the release of microscopic vesicles called exosomes by the injected cells. These cells are currently being used in a CIRM-funded clinical trial by Capricor therapeutics for patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

How to build a better brain (blob)

For years stem cell researchers have been looking for ways to create “mini brains”, to better understand how our own brains work and develop new ways to repair damage. So far, the best they have done is to create blobs, clusters of cells that resemble some parts of the brain. But now researchers at the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at UCLA have come up with a new method they think can advance the field.

Their approach is explained in a fascinating article in the journal Science News, where lead researcher Bennet Novitch says finding the right method is like being a chef:

“It’s like making a cake: You have many different ways in which you can do it. There are all sorts of little tricks that people have come up with to overcome some of the common challenges.”

Brain cake. Yum.

A more efficient way to make iPS cells

17yamanaka-master768

Shinya Yamanaka. (Image source: Ko Sasaki, New York Times)

In 2006 Shinya Yamanaka discovered a way to take ordinary adult cells and reprogram them into embryonic-like stem cells that have the ability to turn into any other cell in the body. He called these cells induced pluripotent stem cells or iPSC’s. Since then researchers have been using these iPSC’s to try and develop new treatments for deadly diseases.

There’s been a big problem, however. Making these cells is really tricky and current methods are really inefficient. Out of a batch of, say, 1,000 cells sometimes only one or two are turned into iPSCs. Obviously, this slows down the pace of research.

Now researchers in Colorado have found a way they say dramatically improves on that. The team says it has to do with controlling the precise levels of reprogramming factors and microRNA and…. Well, you can read how they did it in a news release on Eurekalert.

 

 

 

CIRM-Funded Scientist is Developing a Stem Cell Therapy that Could Cure HIV

Photo Illustration by the Daily Beast

This week, UCLA scientist Scott Kitchen made the news for his efforts to develop a CIRM-funded stem cell gene therapy that could potentially cure patients infected with HIV. Kitchen’s work was profiled in the Daily Beast, which argued that his “research could significantly up survival rates from the virus.”

Scott Kitchen, UCLA Medicine

Kitchen and a team of scientists at the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine are genetically modifying blood-forming, hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) to express chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) that target HIV-infected cells. CARs are protein complexes on the surface of cells that are designed to recognize specific types of cells and are being developed as powerful immunotherapies to fight cancer and HIV infection.

These CAR-expressing HSCs can be transplanted into patients where they develop into immune cells called T cells and natural killer (NK) cells that will destroy cells harboring HIV. This strategy also aims to make patients resistant to HIV because the engineered immune cells will stick around to prevent further HIV infection.

By engineering a patient’s own blood-forming stem cells to produce an unlimited supply of HIV-resistant immune cells that can also eradicate HIV in other cells, Kitchen and his team are creating the possibility for a life-long, functional cure.

Dr. Kelly Shepard, Senior Science Officer of Discovery and Translation Research at CIRM, reflected on significance of Kitchen’s research in an interview:

Kelly Shepard

“This unique approach represents a two-pronged strategy whereby a patient’s own stem cells are engineered not only to be protected from new HIV infection, but also to produce HIV-specific CAR T cells that will seek out and destroy existing and new pools of HIV infection in that patient, ideally leading to a lifelong cure.”

Kitchen and his team are currently testing this stem cell-based CAR-T therapy against HIV in a large-animal model. Their latest findings, which were published recently in the journal PLOS Pathogens, showed that stem cell-derived human CAR T cells were effective at reducing the amount of HIV virus (called the viral load) in their animal-model. They also saw that the CAR T cells survived for more than two years without causing any toxic side effects. This work was funded by an earlier CIRM award led by another CIRM grantee, Dr. Jerome Zack, who is research collaborator of Kitchen’s.

In December 2017, Kitchen received a $1.7 million CIRM Discovery Stage Quest award so that the team can continue to optimize their stem cell CAR T therapy in animal models. Ultimately, they hope to gain insights into how this treatment could be further developed to treat patients with HIV.

Currently, there is no widely available cure for HIV and standard antiretroviral therapies are expensive, difficult for patients to manage and have serious side effects that reduce life expectancy. CIRM has awarded almost $75 million in funding to California scientists focused on developing novel stem cell-based therapies for HIV to address this unmet medical need. Three of these awards support early stage clinical trials, while the rest support earlier stage research projects like Kitchen’s.

CIRM Communications Director, Kevin McCormack, was quoted at the end Daily Beast article explaining CIRM’s strategy for tackling HIV:

“There are a lot of researchers working on developing stem cell therapies for HIV. We fund different approaches because at this stage we don’t know which approach will be most effective, and it may turn out that it’s ultimately a combination of these approaches, or others, that works.”

UCLA scientists make sensory nerves from human stem cells for the first time

Being able to tell the difference between hot and cold or feeling the embrace of a loved one are experiences that many of us take for granted in our daily lives. But paralyzed patients who have lost their sense of touch don’t have this luxury.

Sensory nerves are cells in the spinal cord that send signals from outside of the body to the brain where they are translated into senses like touch, temperature and smell. When someone is paralyzed, their sensory nerves can be damaged, preventing these sensory signals from reaching the brain and leaving patients at risk for severe burns or not knowing when they’ve cut themselves because they can’t feel the pain.

A Journey to Restore Touch

A group of scientists led by Dr. Samantha Butler at the  Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at UCLA are on a research journey to restore the sense of touch in paralyzed patients and people with sensory neuron damage. In their earlier work, which we blogged about back in September, the team discovered that signaling proteins called BMPs played an important role in the development of sensory nerve cells in chicken embryos.

With the help of CIRM-funding, Butler and her team have made significant progress since this earlier study, and today, we bring you an exciting update on their latest findings published in the journal Stem Cell Reports.

Using a similar strategy to their previous study, Butler and her team attempted to make sensory nerve cells from human stem cells in a dish. They exposed human pluripotent stem cells to a specific BMP protein, BMP4, and a chemical called retinoic acid. This combination treatment created two types of sensory nerve cells: Dl1 cells, which allow you to sense your body’s position and movement, and Dl3 cells, which allow you to feel pressure.

Human embryonic stem cell-derived neurons (green) showing nuclei in blue. Left: with retinoic acid added. Right: with retinoic acid and BMP4 added, creating proprioceptive sensory nerve cells (pink). (Image source: UCLA Broad Stem Cell Research Center/Stem Cell Reports)

This is the first time that researchers have reported the ability to make sensory nerve cells from human stem cells. Another important finding was that the UCLA team was able to make sensory nerve cells from both human embryonic stem cells and human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which are pluripotent stem cells derived from a patient’s own cells. The latter finding suggests a future where paralyzed patients can be treated with personalized cell-based therapies without the need for immune suppressing drugs.

Feeling the Future

This study, while still in its early stages, is an important step towards a future where paralyzed patients can regain feeling and their sense of touch. Restoring a patient’s ability to move their limbs or walk has dominated the field’s focus, but Butler argues in a UCLA news release that restoring touch is just as important:

Samantha Butler

“The field has for a long time focused on making people walk again. Making people feel again doesn’t have quite the same ring. But to walk, you need to be able to feel and to sense your body in space; the two processes really go hand in glove.”

 

Butler and her team are continuing on their journey to restore touch by transplanting the human sensory nerve cells into the spinal cords of mice to determine whether they can incorporate into the spine and function properly. If the transplanted cells show promise in animal models, the team will further develop this cell-based therapy for clinical trials.

Butler concluded,

“This is a long path. We haven’t solved how to restore touch but we’ve made a major first step by working out some of these protocols to create sensory interneurons.”

Progress to a Cure for Bubble Baby Disease

Welcome back to our “Throwback Thursday” series on the Stem Cellar. Over the years, we’ve accumulated an arsenal of exciting stem cell stories about advances towards stem cell-based cures for serious diseases. Today we’re featuring stories about the progress of CIRM-funded clinical trials for the treatment of a devastating, usually fatal, primary immune disease that strikes newborn babies.

evangelina in a bubble

Evie, a former “bubble baby” enjoying life by playing inside a giant plastic bubble

‘Bubble baby disease’ will one day be a thing of the past. That’s a bold statement, but I say it with confidence because of the recent advancements in stem cell gene therapies that are curing infants of this life-threatening immune disease.

The scientific name for ‘bubble baby disease’ is severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). It prevents the proper development of important immune cells called B and T cells, leaving newborns without a functioning immune system. Because of this, SCID babies are highly susceptible to deadly infections, and without treatment, most of these babies do not live past their first year. Even a simple cold virus can be fatal.

Scientists are working hard to develop stem cell-based gene therapies that will cure SCID babies in their first months of life before they succumb to infections. The technology involves taking blood stem cells from a patient’s bone marrow and genetically correcting the SCID mutation in the DNA of these cells. The corrected stem cells are then transplanted back into the patient where they can grow and regenerate a healthy immune system. Early-stage clinical trials testing these stem cell gene therapies are showing very encouraging results. We’ll share a few of these stories with you below.

CIRM-funded trials for SCID

CIRM is funding three clinical trials, one from UCLA, one at Stanford and one from UCSF & St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, that are treating different forms of SCID using stem cell gene therapies.

Adenosine Deaminase-Deficient SCID

The first trial is targeting a form of the disease called adenosine deaminase-deficient SCID or ADA-SCID. Patients with ADA-SCID are unable to make an enzyme that is essential for the function of infection-fighting immune cells called lymphocytes. Without working lymphocytes, infants eventually are diagnosed with SCID at 6 months. ADA-SCID occurs in approximately 1 in 200,000 newborns and makes up 15% of SCID cases.

CIRM is funding a Phase 2 trial for ADA-SCID that is testing a stem cell gene therapy called OTL-101 developed by Dr. Don Kohn and his team at UCLA and a company called Orchard Therapeutics. 10 patients were treated in the trial, and amazingly, nine of these patients were cured of their disease. The 10th patient was a teenager who received the treatment knowing that it might not work as it does in infants. You can read more about this trial in our blog from earlier this year.

In a recent news release, Orchard Therapeutics announced that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has awarded Rare Pediatric Disease Designation to OTL-101, meaning that the company will qualify for priority review for drug approval by the FDA. You can read more about what this designation means in this blog.

X-linked SCID

The second SCID trial CIRM is funding is treating patients with X-linked SCID. These patients have a genetic mutation on a gene located on the X-chromosome that causes the disease. Because of this, the disease usually affects boys who have inherited the mutation from their mothers. X-linked SCID is the most common form of SCID and appears in 1 in 60,000 infants.

UCSF and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital are conducting a Phase 1/2 trial for X-linked SCID. The trial, led by Dr. Brian Sorrentino, is transplanting a patient’s own genetically modified blood stem cells back into their body to give them a healthy new immune system. Patients do receive chemotherapy to remove their diseased bone marrow, but doctors at UCSF are optimizing low doses of chemotherapy for each patient to minimize any long-term effects. According to a UCSF news release, the trial is planning to treat 15 children over the next five years. Some of these patients have already been treated and we will likely get updates on their progress next year.

CIRM is also funding a third clinical trial out of Stanford University that is hoping to make bone marrow transplants safer for X-linked SCID patients. The team, led by Dr. Judy Shizuru, is developing a therapy that will remove unhealthy blood stem cells from SCID patients to improve the survival and engraftment of healthy bone marrow transplants. You can read more about this trial on our clinical trials page.

SCID Patients Cured by Stem Cells

These clinical trial results are definitely exciting, but what is more exciting are the patient stories that we have to share. We’ve spoken with a few of the families whose children participated in the UCLA and UCSF/St. Jude trials, and we asked them to share their stories so that other families can know that there is hope. They are truly inspiring stories of heartbreak and joyful celebration.

Evie is a now six-year-old girl who was diagnosed with ADA-SCID when she was just a few months old. She is now cured thanks to Don Kohn and the UCLA trial. Her mom gave a very moving presentation about Evie’s journey at the CIRM Bridges Trainee Annual Meeting this past July.  You can watch the 20-minute talk below:

Ronnie’s story

Ronnie SCID kid

Ronnie: Photo courtesy Pawash Priyank

Ronnie, who is still less than a year old, was diagnosed with X-linked SCID just days after he was born. Luckily doctors told his parents about the UCSF/St. Jude trial and Ronnie was given the life-saving stem cell gene therapy before he was six months old. Now Ronnie is building a healthy immune system and is doing well back at home with his family. Ronnie’s dad Pawash shared his families moving story at our September Board meeting and you can watch it here.

Our mission at CIRM is to accelerate stem cell treatments to patients with unmet medical needs. We hope that by funding promising clinical trials like the ones mentioned in this blog, that one day soon there will be approved stem cell therapies for patients with SCID and other life-threatening diseases.

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.