Category Archives: Stem Cell Therapy

The California stem cell agency is huddling with industry, scientists and public as it wades through a revision of its strategic plan to determine how to spend its remaining $1.4 billion before the cash runs out.

CIRM officials have held at least 10 meetings with a variety of groups, including three public sessions. The next public hearing is Thursday in Los Angeles at the CIRM board meeting.

The revision comes as the agency wrestles with the increasing need to generate results that will resonate with California voters. CIRM's original $3 billion, which consists of cash borrowed by the state, will run out in roughly 2017. The agency is considering mounting a ballot campaign for another multibillion dollar bond measure. The agency is also under examination by the prestiguous Institute of Medicine and is likely to hear recommendations for changes from that report next fall.

Ellen Feigal, senior vice president for research and development, summarized stakeholder comments so far on CIRM's plans in a 13-page documment prepared for the meeting at Cedars-Sinai. She identified several key themes from stakeholders, including the need to find "alternate funding resources," presumably non-public financing. Feigal also cited a need to make the grant funding process more transparent, apparently reflecting complaints from industry. But she noted that stakeholders have said the agency has made "great initial progress" in its first seven years.

Here are four of the five themes Feigal identified. The fifth dealt mentioned CIRM's progress.

• "CIRM needs to become more aggressive in finding alternate funding resources and to implement greater creativity in identifying the types of organizations that may be able to contribute to the sustainability of CIRM's work"
• "Robust public affairs tactics are necessary, and CIRM needs to better communicate the organizational initiatives, as well as educate the public more broadly."
• "Greater transparency in the funding process is needed, and there is a great need for the process to be less bureaucratic and easier to navigate."
• "CIRM needs to provide greater opportunities for networking and breed collaborative projects that unite academic and industry as well as researchers across geographic reasons."

Feigal also mentioned a number of recommendations from industry, which has been less than happy with its meager share of CIRM funding. The suggestions included creation of "communications bridges" and better communication of the funding process. Also recommended was a "split review process – (academic vs. industry)" and a faster approval process that takes into account the high "burn rate" of cash at biotech companies. Another industry suggestion was creation of an "in-house champion" to help businesses navigate the CIRM funding process.

Feigal will come back to the board in January with a draft revision. It is scheduled to be approved March 21. The final plan will be shipped off to the IOM panel studying CIRM. It is scheduled to conclude its work next fall.

Interested parties can email their comments on the plan to CIRM (info@cirm.ca.gov) or speak at CIRM board meetings. The specific address for Thursday's meeting can be found on the agenda. A teleconference location is also available at UC San Francisco, where members of public can take part.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

The $3 billion California stem cell agency has played a role in bringing two star researchers to the Golden State through its $44 million recruitment program and is about ready to bring in a third.

Next Thursday in Los Angeles, CIRM's governing board is expected to approve a $5.6 million grant to an unidentified scientist to lure him or her to an unidentified California institution.

The funds will go for the researcher's efforts to develop "a regeneration-based functional restoration treatment for spinal cord injury," according to a summary of reviewer comments on the CIRM web site. The grant was scored at 86 by scientific reviewers.

The summary quoted the researcher as saying,

"We recently made breakthrough discoveries in identifying key biological mechanisms stimulating the re-growth of injured axons in the adult nervous system, which led to unprecedented extents of axon regeneration in various CNS injury models. While our success was compelling, we found that many regenerated axons were stalled at the lesion sites by the injury-induced glial scars. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the regenerated axons can form functional synaptic connections when they grow into the denervated spinal cord. This proposed research program is aimed at solving these obstacles by using human stem cell technologies."

The summary said,

"The PI was described by reviewers as a superb scientist and emerging leader with outstanding accomplishments and exceptional promise. The candidate has already made key contributions to the understanding of mechanism underlying axonal regeneration that have significantly advanced the field of neuroregeneration. He/she has been extremely productive, publishing a number of seminal papers in the highest profile journals including Science, Nature, Neuron and Nature Neuroscience."

The stem cell agency's recruitment efforts have helped to bring Peter Coffey ($4.9 million from CIRM)from the UK to UC Santa Barbara and Robert Wechsler-Reya ($6 million)- to Sanford Burnham in La Jolla from Duke University.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

A Canadian bioethicist is raising ethical questions about Geron's hESC trial that have implications for the attempt by the California stem cell agency to salvage the once-vaunted effort.

Writing yesterday on the Hastings Center Bioethics Forum, Francoise Baylis of Dalhousie University said,

"It is one thing to close a trial to further enrollment for scientific reasons, such as a problem with trial design, or for ethical reasons, such as an unanticipated serious risk of harm to participants. It is quite another matter to close a trial for business reasons, such as to improve profit margins."

Geron last month said it was ending the trial because of financial reasons and to pursue development of its cancer treatments. CIRM awarded Geron a $25 million loan just last May and was surprised by the Geron move. The $3 billion state research program is now attempting to find a buyer/partner for Geron's hESC business.

Baylis noted that Stephen Kelsey, chief medical officer of the Menlo Park, Ca., firm, has been quoted as saying that the results of Geron trial – now with five patients instead of the projected 10 – "will be a fair reflection of what would have happened if we had completed the study."

Baylis wrote,

"This statement is deeply problematic, however."

Baylis, a professor and the Canada Research Chair in the departments of philosophy and of obstetrics and gynecology at Dalhousie, continued,

"No clinical trial should involve too few or too many participants. It is important that the trial not be underpowered and thus unable to generate scientific knowledge. It is equally important than no more research participants than necessary be exposed to potential research risks. If only five participants were needed to generate the scientific knowledge, then why would Geron and the F.D.A. have agreed to expose additional persons to the potential harms of trial participation?

"On the other hand, if Kelsey’s statement is false, and the findings from five research participants will be underpowered, then they may have been exposed to the potential harms of trial participation without the potential for benefit in the form of scientific knowledge."

She concluded,

"In either case, the scenario forces us to consider what measures should be taken with respect to future trials funded in the private sector so that participants are not left stranded. Perhaps regulators and institutional review boards should critically examine whether a company has both the financial (and other) resources and the will to complete a trial under review before granting regulatory or ethics approval.  If there are doubts about this, then either the trial should not be approved, or there should be stringent disclosure requirements so that prospective research participants are aware of the possibility that research may stop mid-trial for financial reasons."

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

The California stem cell agency is proposing to pump $30 million into new research involving reprogrammed adult stem cells and another $27 million into fresh efforts to speed development of clinical therapies.

In a memo prepared for the CIRM directors meeting next week in Los Angeles, the agency's staff said the $30 million effort could generate "disease-in-a-dish models" that "have the potential to make drug discovery faster, more efficient and more personalized to individual patients."

The "disease-in-a-dish" plan was dubbed a "human pluripotent stem cell (hPSC) initiative" by the staff. The goal is to generate high quality stem cell-based tools for use by the researchers and drug developers.

The proposal includes four elements, one of which is collaboration with the NIH to develop cell lines from patients with Huntington’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. No cost was specified on that effort. Also recommended to directors was a $4 million disease line award round, a $16 million core hiPSC derivation round and a $10 million stem cell bank round. The RFAs would go out in May of next year with funding expected early in 2013.

The staff memo on the initiative did not mention human embryonic stem cells, but a spokeswoman for the agency said they were not excluded from the effort.

The other new grant proposals up next week grew out of a recommendations from a blue-ribbon panel that CIRM organized last year to examine its operations. One element in the plan is a $12 million "bridging fund" that would apply only to current CIRM-funded projects in three areas: disease team grants, some early translational projects and clinical development projects. The bridging fund would provide up to $3 million for up to one year for each recipient, if CIRM President Alan Trounson approves the project. Trounson would be assisted in his evaluation by staff and external consultants, if necessary.

The second part of the response to the review panel's finding is an "external innovation initiative" to support collaborative efforts of CIRM grantees to work with teams that CIRM said are "making extraordinary progress outside California."

The $15 million program would provide awards as often as two times a year. The maximum amount on each award was not specified.

Ellen Feigal, CIRM's vice president of research and development, said in a memo to directors that examples of potential projects included collaborative efforts with the NIH and work with the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and its disease-focused programs.

Some of the latest CIRM initiatives are open to biotech businesses. Others are open only to non-profit or academic researchers.

(Editor's note: An earlier version of this item did not include the sentence dealing with human embryonic stem cells.)

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Could this be a trend?

The California stem cell agency, working under the direction of a new chairman, has once again posted a handsome amount of background material well in advance of its regular board meeting – in this case the Dec. 8 session at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles.

For the past several years, the agency has failed to post in a timely fashion important information on many decisions to be made by agency directors, making it virtually impossible for interested parties to plan to attend meetings or prepare thoughtful suggestions or recommend possible changes.

That situation has begun to change under Chairman Jonathan Thomas, a Los Angeles bond financier, who controls the board agenda and who was elected to his post at the end of June. In August, the agency also posted in a timely fashion a healthy dollop of information on matters to come before the board.

For December's meeting, the agenda contains links to information on a proposed $5.6 million recruitment award to lure a star researcher to the Golden State, an update on CIRM's proposed changes in its strategic plan, two new initiatives totalling $27 million that would accelerate progress to the clinic, grant administration changes that could affect the hundreds of CIRM grant recipients and proposed new scientific members for the group that makes the de facto decisions on which scientists receive CIRM cash.

We will have more on the details of all this later, but readers who have a special interest might want to dip in early. All the background information can be found via the agenda, which also says a remote site in San Francisco will be available for participation of those who cannot make it to Los Angeles.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

From Canada last week came a stem cell "reality check" that pulled together a professional football quarterback, a Yankee baseball pitcher, a Republican presidential hopeful and Geron.

Timothy Caulfield, U. of Alberta Photo

What do they all have in common? Stem cell therapy, answered Timothy Caulfield, a Canadian academic, writing on the Canadian version of the Huffington Post. Declaring that stem cell treatments are being ballyhooed as a "miracle cure" and "elixir of life," Caulfield wrote,

"But does it actually work? I think not -- at least not yet."

Caulfield is not one of your stereotypical opponents of stem cell research. In fact, he describes himself as a "believer" in the likelihood of development of effective stem cell therapies. Caulfield also springs from a deep academic background. He is research director of the Health Law Institute at the University of Alberta and has published a plethora of scholarly articles related to stem cell research.

Caulfield wrote that Geron's abandonment of hESC research "underscores the cavernous gap between the well-publicized (and completely legitimate) promise of stem cell research and actual, efficacious, therapies."

He said the California company's decision "generated both shock and anger. And for the patients hoping for a near-future cure, it was nothing less than heartbreaking."

Caulfield continued,

"Not only did the company decide to stop this particular trial, it decided to get out of the field of stem cell therapies altogether. So definitive was the decision that Geron gave back millions of public research dollars(to the California stem cell agency)."

Caulfield warned, however,

"We need to be careful not to over-interpret the Geron pull out. This is one company and one trial. There are now a few other clinical experiments in the pipeline (emphasis on a few), such as one to treat a form of blindness. And we must remember that not all things that are called 'stem cell therapies' are the same. "

Caulfield continued with his "reality check,"

"First, ignore the hype. I believe there is little evidence that any of the often advertised stem cell therapies, embryonic or otherwise, work. Yes, there are a handful of decades-old treatments ….

"(Peyton) Manning, (Bartolo) Colon and (Rick)Perry may have had a positive experience (the placebo effect is a powerful thing, after all), but, to date, I believe good clinical evidence simply does not exist.

"Second, despite the hope of many, it isn't going to be easy to make money off stem cell research -- at least with a treatment that is scientifically legitimate, appropriately tested and approved by the relevant regulatory agencies (three characteristics missing from most of the stem cell therapies currently offered in clinics around the world). "Economic growth has often been one of the ways that the huge public investment in stem cell research has been justified. Just a few weeks ago, for example, the UK government announced that it was committing millions in a stem cell research centre with the hope that it will help drive the UK economic recovery.

"But the ability of emerging stem cell technologies to stimulate the economy and create jobs is far from certain. Indeed, economics is the explicit reason for the Geron pull out. The company press release stated that the decision was made after a strategic review of the costs, timelines and 'clinical, manufacturing and regulatory complexities associated' with this kind of research. In other words, stem cell research is not, from the perspective of this company, worth it."

Caulfield concluded,

"I don't mean to be a downer. In fact, I believe that stem cell research holds tremendous potential. I remain fully confident that, one day, therapies will emerge. But the inappropriate hype associated with this area hurts policy debates, leads to unmet expectations, and has the potential to mislead the public about the actual state of the science. The Geron story is a sober reminder that promise is not reality, even in a field as exciting as stem cell research."

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

It was brief but pointed comment on the differences in the stem cell world of 2004 compared to the stem cell world of 2011.

Larry Ebert, a patent attorney, made the remark on his blog, IPBiz. He was writing about an observation on this website that without George Bush and his restrictions on federal hESC research, there would have been no California stem cell agency.

Ebert said,

"IPBiz notes that when the California voters voted Prop. 71 in, scientists thought Huang Woo Suk's work on hESC was real. In 2011, the current state of the art is still not up to what Huang Woo Suk falsely reported in the journal Science. Californiastemcellreport should give Huang Woo Suk some credit for the passage of Prop. 71."

Consider Woo Suk duly credited.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss