Category Archives: Stem Cell Clinic


A new era: After winding path and safety scares, gene therapy enters the clinic – Sydney Morning Herald

What weve dreamed about for several decades now is becoming reality, says Professor Ian Alexander, head of the gene therapy research unit at the Childrens Medical Research Institute. We are about to see a big rush of these therapies coming into the clinic. Its really started screaming upwards in the last few years its exponential.

We stand on the very tip of the iceberg. The first gene therapy was approved in China in 2004; over the next 10 years, global regulators approved just four more. In just the past 18 months, regulators have approved five treatments with two more awaiting final approval and another 3633 therapies in the pipeline, according to tracking by the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy.

Were at the stage where there is a huge bulge coming down the clinical trial pipeline. Its almost exceeding capacity, says Dr Thomas Edwards, head of retinal gene therapy research at the Centre for Eye Research Australia. Its an exciting time for patients, it wasnt long ago we had nothing for them.

Many of the drugs we have, such as penicillin or Tamiflu, work by killing bacteria or viruses. Vaccination uses a dead virus to prime the immune system. Synthetic hormones like insulin treat the bodys own shortages. Chemicals in pill form, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, float through the bloodstream, enter our cells and change our chemistry.

Gene therapy is different. Rather than alter our chemistry, it treats us by changing our genotype, the way our DNA is expressed.

It is a new paradigm. It offers the first possibility of curing diseases at their root genetic cause and the possibility of a lifelong cure, says Rasko. And we are seeing that now in patients.

Loading

Understanding Zolgensma gives you an idea of how different this new medical era will be.

Every time you go to scroll an article or turn the page in a newspaper, your brain converts that thought to a signal. It runs down your spinal cord to motor neurons, cells that reside in the cord but project thin tendrils out into the flesh. These tendrils called axons carry commands from neuron to muscle.

Like every cell in your body, each motor neuron carries a full copy of your genome, separated across 23 pairs of chromosomes and locked tight in the cells nucleus.

On chromosome five is a short stretch of genetic code known as SMN1. This gene is a blueprint for a protein crucial to the motor neurons function.

SMN1 is in an unfortunate place. The stretch of chromosome it lies in is prone to errors. Make a coding error in SMN1 and you blur the blueprint. The motor neurons struggle to build their crucial protein and soon start dying.

Without motor neurons, the signals from the brain to eat, to move, even to breathe stop getting through. In about 1 in every 10,000 babies born in Australia every year, this gene has an error.

Zolgensma, marketed by Novartis, comes in a small syringe, just 50 milliltres. Inside the syringe, in fluid, is a genetically-modified adeno-associated virus, the organic machines that make the treatment possible.

As far as science can tell, AAVs are harmless to humans. They infect us without us ever knowing. Scientists slice out the part of the viruss genetic code and replace it with a copy of SMN1. Inside the body, it crosses from the blood to the spinal cord and quickly infects motor neuron cells. Its the perfect vehicle, says Associate Professor Michelle Farrar, a paediatric neurologist who led a clinical trial of the drug at Sydney Childrens Hospitals Network.

Loading

The virus enters the nucleus the vault where DNA is kept and releases its copy of the SMN1 gene. Unlike Gattaca-style genetic editing, the new gene is not incorporated into the patients DNA but floats nearby. Extra genetic code attached to the gene instructs the cell to activate it and start churning out copies of the key protein the motor neurons need.

Unlike most cells in the body, motor neurons dont divide; youre born with all you have. This is why losing them is so dangerous but it also means that if you can repair the faulty gene, you should have a therapy that works long-term. Some patients are now eight years post-treatment with no sign its wearing off, says Farrar.

Zolgensma does come with risks: serious liver injury or failure. Two patients on one of the drugs key clinical trials had signs of liver damage; a third had swelling on the brain requiring surgery.

Indeed, liver damage remains a problem with many gene treatments, with multiple deaths reported in clinical trials.

It remains unclear why. But the therapies rely on treating one disease by essentially infecting a patient with a benign virus, and when you put something in the blood a lot of it is going to end filtered out by the liver. One theory: in some people the immune system might spot and attack the build-up of virus in the liver, leading to extreme systemic inflammation and death.

Safety concerns have dogged gene therapy ever since the death of Jesse Gelsinger the young man who, in 1999, became the face of the treatments limitations after he died while participating in a clinical trial.

His death was a very sobering experience for the field, says Alexander from the Childrens Medical Research Institute a sign that scientists understood far less than they thought. There was a mismatch between the technology and the understanding.

Rasko is tougher on his colleagues. In 1999, when Jesse passed, essentially the whole field stunk. Everyone was accused of overhyping, and no one was delivering.

In response, the field curtailed its ambition and pivoted toward diseases that are a better match for the quickly developing technology.

Early treatments were held up because of the struggle to deliver enough of the gene without provoking a huge immune response. By switching to adeno-associated viruses small viruses that infect humans and some other primate species scientists found they could deliver more genetic code while reducing the immune response. And the field started hunting for conditions that seemed a better match for gene therapy.

Zolgensma and Spark Therapeutics Luxturna, approved for government subsidy in March, both use the same adeno-associated virus to target cells that are easy to access and do not divide.

Luxturna treats a genetic cause of blindness by supplying a replacement copy of a defective gene to cells in the retina, allowing them to make a protein crucial for sight.

The gene is small and easy to package in the virus. And the eye, you can get at it relatively easy surgically, says Eye Research Australias Edwards. And [the retina] has immune-privilege the virus does not cause a widespread immune reaction.

Both Zolgensma and Luxturna are extraordinarily expensive, raising the question of whether gene therapy will be a medicine of the rich. Experts are hopeful that wont be the case.

Some of the early therapies will be for small groups, but eventually a gene therapy that can be used by many people will come online, says Professor Robyn Jamieson, head of the eye genetics research unit at the Childrens Medical Research Institute. Those economies of scale will push the price down for everyone.

And now the technology has been proven to work, competition among biotechs to develop new therapies is fierce. They are jaw-droppingly expensive now, says Rasko, but over time that competition should pull costs down.

And new facilities to make the viral machines at the heart of the treatment will also come online. This year NSW invested $25 million in a pilot factory to make viral vectors in Westmead.

None of this can come quickly enough for the hundreds of thousands of families across Australia living with genetic illnesses.

Shes very stubborn, very strong-willed, Adriana Baron says of her daughter, Mariana. And that helped her.Credit:Simon Schluter

To get Mariana the treatment she needed, Adriana had to battle first to get a diagnosis, then get approved for the treatment, and then get government funding to bring it into the country. But shes a fighter, just like her daughter.

Shes very stubborn, very strong-willed. And that helped her, says Adriana. If she wants to do things on her own, she tells you, I dont need any help, she does it herself.

Liam Mannixs Examine newsletter explains and analyses science with a rigorous focus on the evidence. Sign up to get it each week.

More:
A new era: After winding path and safety scares, gene therapy enters the clinic - Sydney Morning Herald

Our voice here is a moral voice – Martha’s Vineyard Times

The Marthas Vineyard Hebrew Center recently held a forum to discuss how to mitigate the fallout from the recently overturned Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court, and to highlight the chief notion of the discourse advocacy for reproductive justice.

The Hebrew Center cares about this issue, and about pro choice, and abortion justice, began Rabbi Caryn Broitman, from a religious perspective.

Reaching far beyond the particulars of a decision to terminate a pregnancy, Broitman emphasized the need for women to be able to make their own choices concerning their own bodies, and stressed additional need to support the autonomy that comes with a person taking various socially and medically geared avenues.

The Hebrew Centers support for womens reproductive rights is not of political motivation, explained Broitman. Our voice here is a moral voice. It is a life voice. And its a spiritual, religious voice.

Broitman cited Israels ultra orthodox chief rabbi who said publicly in 1948 that theres no legal reason to prevent an abortion.

Jewish value of reproductive justice, said Broitman, is significant; for it is encompassed by the greater need to take care of ones body and ensure health and wellbeing. [Therefore,] women and pregnant people dont need to offer an excuse or reason to justify their abortion. Its our healthcare.

The Womens Centers, a leading organization for abortion care research work including stem cell research sees around 40,000 clients per year and has been a frequent target for anti-abortion terrorism, mainly as a response to its success in womens rights advocacy.

Elizabeth Barnes, former Chappy resident and president of the Womens Centers one of the largest abortioin providers nationwide spoke to the Hebrew Center crowd about her work. Barnes noted that current moment, women from Alabama and Tennessee where abortion has been deemed illegal have been provided access to the procedure through efforts by the organization to transport them to New Jerseys centers.

Barnes harkened back to her early days working for the cause, in a clinic in Pennsylvania, having started the job at the same time that two women, both of whom were her age, and also hailing from New England, were shot and killed in Brooklyn because of their association with a womens clinic.

Following the incident, Barnes said her family questioned her career path, expressing concerns over her safety; but Barnes could not be dissuaded because the work was too important.

Barnes made note that the shooting affirmed that importance, provoking women and supporters of reproductive justice to continue the efforts to maintain health equality. The directed violence, said Barnes, didnt work people persisted.

Barnes said through the evolution of the medicine of abortion, have, overtime, created an incredible community of brilliant thinkers who are saving peoples lives in complex abortion and materntity work, with the caveat of if given the opportunity.

Barnes relayed countless stories of women who have had to face numerous obstacles in their efforts to secure access to noninvasive medical abortions via oral pill, some traveling over 18 hours in order to terminate their five, six, or seven week pregnancy.

Some states, that have not banned abortion fully, still enact absurd waiting periods, in many cases resulting in doubling the amount of weeks a woman remains pregnant.

But, abortion is just part of the story, said Barnes, noting that Roe V. Wade was overturned in the midst of a nationwide diaper and baby formula shortage, further shedding light on the health access disparity women continuously endure.

The United States maternal mortality rate, Barnes said, is horrific, especially among women of color, and regardless of income.

Barnes said that despite abortion being legal in Massachusetts, theres a lot of progress yet to be made including on the Vineyard, which currently lacks access to even early, first trimester abortions. Barnes noted one particular instance, which left a few-weeks-pregnant woman who had already chosen to terminate, pregnant for longer, bringing with it all forms of distress. It begs the question of how a community can enhance its role as a womens health supporter, provider, and safe haven.

Marthas Vineyard is indeed a special place, said Barnes, but we are not special when advocating for abortion work. We need to get on it.

According to Talmudic texts written law and traditions of Judaism Broitman relayed that the essence of life is that which is after birth. Theres no question about it, she said.

Because of this understanding, it is the mothers life that takes precedence; not that of an unborn fetus. Life, explained Broitman, does not equate a fetus or potential life within a persons body to all of life.

Accentuating the traditional view of the importance of womens lives and health, Barnes offered a quote by well-known Rabbi Moses Sofer: No woman should have to save the world by destroying herself.

Continue reading here:
Our voice here is a moral voice - Martha's Vineyard Times

Stem Cell Clinic in Mexico That Successfully Treated Gordie Howe Launches Massive Program For American and Canadian Stroke Patients – PR Newswire

Novastem's unique stem cell protocol is not FDA-approved which is why patients must travel to Mexico to receive it.

Howe had several small strokes in the summer of 2014, and in October, he suffered a serious one. At 86, his right side was paralyzed and he could not remember the names of his children, New York magazine reported.

The stem cells migrated to his brain where they multiplied, ultimately helping his brain recover from the damage caused by the stroke; Howe's condition improved within 24 hours and Howe was finally able to walk.

The treatment was not FDA-approved, which is why Howe had to go to Tijuana, Mexico for the treatment.

"To my mind, the relationship between his stem cell treatment and his response was very clear," Murray Howe told USA TODAY Sports on Feb. 26, 2015. "It was literally eight hours. I've been a practicing physician for 28 years now, and I've taken care of many stroke patients. All of his caregivers all of them had taken care of stroke patients. None of them had ever seen anything like this."

Now, as of July 2022, Dr Vanessa Felix, the clinical director at Novastem, has developed a protocol that is widely available for patients, specially the ones that have been told by their primary care physicians that there's no hope left for their case.

"With the growing demand for alternative stroke treatments, Novastem has been receiving more and more patients looking for the exact same treatment Gordie Howe received in 2015. We have since then evolved into a different, more stable and replicable protocol that can help patients suffering from the stroke symptoms." comments Dr Felix.

Novastem's unique stem cell protocol is not FDA-approved which is why patients interested in receiving it must travel to Tijuana, Mexico. Novastem is located twenty five minutes south of San Diego International Airport, which makes it an ideal location for travelers worldwide. To learn more, please visit novastem.com.

Media Contact: Rafael Cuadras 619-617-7884 [emailprotected]

SOURCE Novastem

See the original post here:
Stem Cell Clinic in Mexico That Successfully Treated Gordie Howe Launches Massive Program For American and Canadian Stroke Patients - PR Newswire

Did COVID derail FDA stem cell clinic plan? – The Niche

The FDA stem cell clinic problem just continues to grow, while the agency has been oddly quiet in this space for more than a year.

Its been a major disappointment, particularly as in recent years FDA leadership had implied that bold action was coming. Their own words spiked expectations that the agency would tackle unproven stem cell clinics in a bold way.

Whats going on and why the disconnect between words and actions lately?

Many of these unproven clinic firms unambiguously market unapproved drug products, seemingly in clear violation of the law. Some have been doing so for many years. We now know about numerous people hurt by specific clinics and indirectly by suppliers. Unproven stem cell therapy risksare clearer now than ever.

It was therefore refreshing to see FDA leaders use unprecedented language to describe the problem over the past 3-4 years. It seemed clear how seriously they took it. The expectation from the stem cell field was some kind of major action at least on the most egregious of the clinics.

The FDA further raised expectations when more than a year ago it let a discretionary period for firms marketing stem cells expire. No discretionary period means clinics have one less excuse.

Yet very little has actually happened on the unproven clinic front.

Maybe one or a few warning letters a year.Some untitled letters, which lack bite. Actually in 2022 the agency branch in charge of biologics, CBER, has only issued one untitled letter so far, at least thats in the public domain. See screenshot below. By comparison, last year by this time it had issued nine such letters. Clearly there is no shortage of firms that could receive untitled and even warning letters. Its not as though the FDA has run out of firms to send letters to.

How big is the problem now?

My colleague Leigh Turner and I published the first data on stem cell clinic numbers in the U.S. back in 2016. It shook people up. FDA officials told me it made a concrete difference to have data on clinics. Those numbers were in the hundreds.

Since that time, clinic numbers have grown again several-fold.

Leigh more recently documented over two thousand stem cell clinics in the U.S. Not all of these clinics are clearly noncompliant its clearly a vast problem that requires quick, strong action.

The leaderships own past words suggested some big steps were coming. Then Commissioner Steve Hahn and CBER Director Peter Marks wrote a 2020JAMA piece that was blunt. It ended this way (emphasis mine in the following quotes):

It is time for unproven and unapproved regenerative medicine products to be identified and recognized for what they frequently are: uncontrolled experimental procedures at a cost to patients, both financially and physically. Patients and their caregivers should feel empowered to report adverse events to help make sure that purveyors of unproved products are identified, and the FDA can take appropriate action to bring them into compliance and thereby help protect more patients from harm. This goes to the core of the mission to which the FDA is committed: promoting and protecting the public health.

A year earlier, Marks and then Commissioner Scott Gottlieb issued a strong statement on stem cell clinics on the FDA website. The key phrase was this:

And we will not shy away from taking further steps when we see bad actors taking advantage of patients, and putting them at serious risk, for their own financial profit.

Again, no shortage of bad actors out there for the agency to act on.

Then a few months later the FDA issued a warning on stem cell clinics including this strongly-worded passage:

some patients seeking cures and remedies are vulnerable to stem cell treatments that are illegal and potentially harmful. And the FDA is increasing its oversight and enforcement to protect people from dishonest and unscrupulous stem cell clinics

Illegal is a very strong word for the agency to use. Again, this seemingly totally conflicts with the little that has happened in the way of FDA action lately.

So why the minimal enforcement actions in the past thirteen months, especially since theres no enforcement discretion these days? Seems like a paradox to me. There might be some complexities here.

What about COVID? A recent JDSUPRA piece reporting on statements at events byFDA Chief Counsel Mark Razaand Dr. Wilson Bryan suggests COVID could have been a delaying factor. The piece is entitled, Unapproved stem cell therapies remains a top FDA enforcement priority. Heres a key quote:

Coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic, we expect to see more enforcement activity around claims/promotion of stem cell products and manufacturing compliance and quality of such products, likely to be focused on scenarios that present the highest or significant potential risk to patients and consumers.

This is just one possibility. I hope theyre right though. Also from the same piece:

At a recent regenerative medicine webinar, CBER Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies (OTAT) Director Wilson Bryan, M.D.,saidhis office has been increasingly notifying, warning, and taking legal enforcement actions against manufacturers, clinics, and individuals administering unapproved regenerative medicine therapies.

Does increasingly refer to the past 3 or years or just more recently? The link embedded in that quote also goes to FDA text that has some very strong language from Bryan just last year on some clinics and activities being illegal.

From Raza:

Speaking Tuesday at the Food and Drug Law Institute (FDLI) Annual Conference, Mark Raza, FDA Acting Chief Counsel, discussed the investigations priorities for FDAs Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC), including its focus on stopping stem cell clinics that put patients at risk.

That sounds encouraging.

Beyond possible COVID issues or delays, another possible scenario here is that more has been going on behind the scenes on clinics. The FDA just hasnt told us about it or it hasnt reached fruition. Maybe theres a whole lot of investigations ongoing?

What else might explain the FDAs concerning lull?

Cell Surgical Network Lawsuit. There is that seeminglynever-ending court case with the FDA seeking permanent injunction on a California-centered stem cell clinic chain. Is the agency waiting to see the verdict? In a way that court case only or mainly pertains to so-called fat stem cell clinics. There are many hundreds of noncompliant clinics that seem unrelated to that case. Numerous suppliers too.

The FDA also only relatively recently got a new Commissioner. Robert Califf came on board again for a second term just four months ago. Sometimes a change in leadership can delay groundbreaking action by an agency for at least a little while.

Whatever has been going on, this lull has serious risks to the public. Also, Id say its not great for the agency either if it is seen to seemingly be passive on non-compliant and in some cases obviously unlawful stem cell marketing. Its especially bad timing for an enforcement discretion period to end and then almost nothing happen for more than a year after that.

Visit link:
Did COVID derail FDA stem cell clinic plan? - The Niche

Akari Therapeutics Announces First Patient to Complete Course of Treatment in the Phase III Part A Clinical Trial of Investigational Nomacopan in…

Akari Therapeutics Plc

NEW YORK and LONDON, July 07, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Akari Therapeutics, Plc (Nasdaq: AKTX), a late-stage biotechnology company focused on developing advanced therapies for autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, today announced that a patient has completed the course of investigational nomacopan treatmentin the open-label, multi-center Phase IIIPart Aclinical trial in pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant-related thrombotic microangiopathy (HSCT-TMA). Nomacopan is a bispecific recombinant inhibitor of complement C5 and leukotriene B4 (LTB4).

Three patients with severe (nephrotic range proteinuria and elevated soluble C5b-9) HSCT-TMA have been enrolled in the clinical trial. One patient completed more than 60 days of nomacopan treatment and subsequently was discharged from the hospital. Another patient died from multi-organ failureunrelated to nomacopan treatment.Dosing has begun in the third patient.

This is promising news for children and families facing hematopoietic stem cell transplant-related TMAs who have unmet needs that are significant and urgent because there are no approved treatment options, said Rachelle Jacques, President and CEO of Akari Therapeutics. Recruitment into a study of treatment for a rare and emergent complication of stem cell transplants in children has inherent challenges, and it is testament to the passion and commitment of everyone involved that this important Phase III clinical trial is progressing on behalf of patients and their families.

Nomacopan was granted Orphan Drug and Fast Track designations by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for pediatric HSCT-TMA. Data from the Phase III Part A study of nomacopan in HSCT-TMA will inform the pivotal Phase III Part B study that will be the basis for potential regulatory submissions in the U.S. and Europe.

The six-year-old patient who was discharged wastreated at a clinical trial site in Manchester, England by investigator Rob Wynn, M.D. Thrombotic microangiopathy following a stem cell transplant procedure is a rare but devastating complication made even more tragic because there are currently no approved treatments, said Professor Rob Wynn, of Royal Manchester Childrens Hospital, part of Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust. As we advance this important clinical trial and offer treatment to children in Manchester where formerly there was none, we are bringing new hope to families who are in desperate need, and to other clinicians who very much want to offer a treatment option.

Story continues

Thrombotic microangiopathy following a stem cell transplant procedure is a rare but serious complication of HSCT that appears to involve complement activation, inflammation, tissue hypoxia and blood clots, leading to progressive organ damage and death. The mortality rate in patients who develop severe transplant-related TMAs is 80%.1 Currently, there are no approved treatment options in the U.S. or Europe.

Sites are open and recruiting in the U.S, U.K., and Poland for the Phase III Part A clinical trial of investigational nomacopan in pediatric patients who have undergone allogeneic or autologous HSCT and develop HSCT-TMA within a year of transplant. Patient dosing is underway in the multi-center, open-label study that has a recruitment goal of seven pediatric patients over six months old.

The primary study endpoints are either independence of red blood cell transfusion or urine protein creatinine ratio of 2 mg/mg maintained over 28 days immediately prior to any scheduled clinical visit up to Week 24. According to the study protocol, patients may discontinue therapy sooner than 24 weeks, if one, or both, of the primary endpoint components has been met and the treating clinician determines there is no longer a need for continued treatment with nomacopan. Patients who have achieved the primary endpoint and are no longer receiving nomacopan will have a follow-up clinic visit 30 days after the last dose, at 24 weeks and for long-term follow-up at one and two years.

References

Rosenthal J. Hematopoietic cell transplantation-associated thrombotic microangiopathy: a review of pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment.J Blood Med. 2016;7:181-186. Published 2016 Sep 2. doi:10.2147/JBM.S102235

About Akari Therapeutics

Akari Therapeutics, plc (Nasdaq: AKTX) is a biotechnology company focused on developing advanced therapies for autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Akari's lead asset, investigational nomacopan, is a bispecific recombinant inhibitor of C5 complement activation and leukotriene B4 (LTB4) activity. The Akaripipeline includes two late-stage programs for bullous pemphigoid (BP) and thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA), as well as earlier stage research and development programs in eye and lung diseases with significant unmet need. For more information about Akari, please visit akaritx.com.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements in this press release constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward- looking statements reflect our current views about our plans, intentions, expectations, strategies and prospects, which are based on the information currently available to us and on assumptions we have made. Although we believe that our plans, intentions, expectations, strategies and prospects as reflected in or suggested by those forward- looking statements are reasonable, we can give no assurance that the plans, intentions, expectations or strategies will be attained or achieved. Furthermore, actual results may differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements and will be affected by a variety of risks and factors that are beyond our control. Such risks and uncertainties for our company include, but are not limited to: needs for additional capital to fund our operations, our ability to continue as a going concern; uncertainties of cash flows and inability to meet working capital needs; an inability or delay in obtaining required regulatory approvals for nomacopan and any other product candidates, which may result in unexpected cost expenditures; our ability to obtain orphan drug designation in additional indications; risks inherent in drug development in general; uncertainties in obtaining successful clinical results for nomacopan and any other product candidates and unexpected costs that may result there; difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials; failure to realize any value of nomacopan and any other product candidates developed and being developed in light of inherent risks and difficulties involved in successfully bringing product candidates to market; inability to develop new product candidates and support existing product candidates; the approval by the FDA and EMA and any other similar foreign regulatory authorities of other competing or superior products brought to market; risks resulting from unforeseen side effects; risk that the market for nomacopan may not be as large as expected risks associated with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic; inability to obtain, maintain and enforce patents and other intellectual property rights or the unexpected costs associated with such enforcement or litigation; inability to obtain and maintain commercial manufacturing arrangements with third- party manufacturers or establish commercial scale manufacturing capabilities; the inability to timely source adequate supply of our active pharmaceutical ingredients from third party manufacturers on whom the company depends; unexpected cost increases and pricing pressures and risks and other risk factors detailed in our public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, including our most recently filed Annual Report on Form 20-F filed with the SEC. Except as otherwise noted, these forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release and we undertake no obligation to update or revise any of these statements to reflect events or circumstances occurring after this press release. We caution investors not to place considerable reliance on the forward-looking statements contained in this press release.

For more information

Investor Contact: Mike Moyer LifeSci Advisors (617) 308-4306 mmoyer@lifesciadvisors.com

Media Contact: Eliza Schleifstein Schleifstein PR (917) 763-8106 eliza@schleifsteinpr.com

Read this article:
Akari Therapeutics Announces First Patient to Complete Course of Treatment in the Phase III Part A Clinical Trial of Investigational Nomacopan in...

Next-day manufacture of a novel anti-CD19 CAR-T therapy for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia: first-in-human clinical study | Blood Cancer Journal…

Preclinical evaluation of FasT CAR-T cells FasT CAR-T (F-CAR-T) proliferation in vitro

To characterize the in vitro proliferative capacity of F-CAR-T cells, F-CAR-T and C-CAR-T cells were manufactured in parallel (Supplementary Methods, and Fig. S1) using T-cells from 6 B-ALL patients. To investigate the ex vivo proliferation of F-CAR-T, frozen CD19 F-CAR-T and C-CAR-T cells from each patient were thawed and stimulated with irradiated CD19-expressing K562 cells. The number of CD19-targeting CAR-T cells was then determined during the course of cell expansion in vitro. As shown in Fig. 1A, upon CD19 antigen stimulation, F-CAR-T proliferation was much more robust compared to C-CAR-T proliferation. On day 17 post co-culture, F-CAR-T expanded 1205.61226.3 fold (MeanSD), while C-CAR-T expanded only 116.437.2 fold (MeanSD), (p=0.001). To characterize the mechanism underlying the superior proliferative ability of F-CAR-T, we purified CD19+ CAR-T cells from both F-CAR-T and C-CAR-T. The expression of genes involved in cell proliferation, cell cycle, and apoptosis was analyzed using Nanostring (detailed gene sets are in Table S2). Gene expression profiles showed higher F-CAR-T expression scores for genes associated with cell cycle regulation (F-CAR-T vs. C-CAR-T, p<0.01) and lower expression scores for apoptosis-related genes (F-CAR-T vs. C-CAR-T, p<0.05) in F-CAR-T cells (Fig. S2A).

A Ex vivo cell proliferation of F-CAR-T and C-CAR-T derived from B-ALL patients (n=6) (***P=0.001, F-CAR-T vs. C-CAR-T, d17, unpaired student two-tailed t-test). B Tscm, Tcm, and Tem were characterized by surface staining of CD45RO and CD62L and analyzed with flow cytometry (***P<0.001 comparing F-CAR-T and C-CAR-T). C T-cell exhaustion was characterized by PD-1, LAG3, and TIM-3 staining; Statistical analyses of the percentage of PD1+ LAG3+ Tim3+ (***P<0.001, comparing F-CAR-T and C-CAR-T), unpaired student two-tailed t-test). D RTCA assay was used to examine the specific killing of HeLa-CD19 cells. Growth of target HeLa-CD19 or HeLa cells were monitored dynamically. E CD19+ target Nalm6-Luc cells or F Raji-Luc cells were co-cultured with either F-CAR-T or C-CAR-T for 6h. Target cell killing efficacy was calculated by luciferase activity. NS, P>0.05 F-CAR-T vs. C-CAR-T (unpaired student t-test, two-tailed). F-CAR-T FasT CAR-T, C-CAR-T conventional CAR-T, Tcm (CD45RO+CD62L+) T central memory cells, Tem (CD45RO+CD62L) T effector memory cells, Tscm (CD45ROCD62L+) T stem cell memory, PD1 programmed cell death protein 1, TIM-3 T cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain containing-3, LAG3 lymphocyte-activation gene 3, RTCA real-time cell analyzer, E:T effector cells: target cells, NT normal T-cell.

Phenotypes of unstimulated F-CAR-T from three healthy donors were analyzed by flow cytometry. The CD45ROCD62L+ population was 45.7%2.2% which was comparable to the un-transduced T-cells (data not shown). Upon stimulation with CD19+ tumor cells for 9 days, C-CAR-T central memory cells (Tcm, CD45RO+CD62L+ and effector memory cells (Tem, CD45RO+CD62L) were 56.62%11.97% and 40.48%9.70%, respectively, among the C-CAR-T cells (Fig. 1B and Figs. S2B and S2). In contrast, Tcm cells (87.92%4.36%) was predominant in F-CAR-T, with only a small fraction of Tem (7.84%3.79%). In addition, F-CAR-T cells demonstrated more abundant T stem cell memory (Tscm) (3.841.22% vs 2.342.48%, p<0.05) than C-CAR-T cells. We also examined the exhaustion status of the stimulated CAR-T cells. A higher percentage of PD-1+LAG3+Tim3+T-cells were detected in the C-CAR-T (11.19%2.54%) compared to F-CAR-T (3.59%2.51%, p<0.001) (Fig. 1C). Together these data indicated that the F-CAR-T exhibited a younger phenotype and was less exhausted compared to C-CAR-T.

We used a real-time cell analyzer (RTCA) assay to measure the cytotoxicity of F-CAR-T and C-CAR-T against CD19+ cells in vitro. F-CAR-T and C-CAR-T killing of Hela-CD19 target cells were comparable using this assay (Fig. 1D). Similar levels of IFN- and IL-2 production were also observed (Fig. S2D). In a luciferase-based cytotoxicity assay, CD19+ B leukemia cell lines, Raji and Nalm6, were both effectively killed to similar or better levels at different E:T ratios (Fig. 1E, F).

To compare the in vivo cytotoxicity of F-CAR-T and C-CAR-T, severe immunodeficient NOG mice were engrafted with Raji-luciferase cells. One week after the tumor grafts were established, F-CAR-T and C-CAR-T were intravenously injected at various doses. The engrafted tumors progressed aggressively in control groups with either vehicle alone or control T-cells (Fig. 2A). In contrast, F-CAR-T or C-CAR-T treatment greatly suppressed tumor growth in a dose-dependent manner (Fig. 2A). In the high dose group (2106/mice), both F-CAR-T and C-CAR-T eliminated the tumor rapidly. However, in the low dose group (5105/mice), F-CAR-T showed more effective tumor-killing compared to C-CAR-T. On day 20, mice in the low dose F-CAR-T group became tumor-free, while C-CAR-T treated mice exhibited tumor relapse (Fig. 2A). We examined the CAR-T cell expansion in vivo after infusion. As shown in Fig. 2B, both F-CAR-T and C-CAR-T began to expand in the peripheral blood 7 days after infusion. C-CAR-T cell numbers reached their peak on day 14 and receded on day 21. In contrast, the F-CAR-T cell number peaked on day 21 and declined to a baseline level on day 28. F-CAR-T not only persisted longer but also underwent 26 folds greater expansion than C-CAR-T (Fig. 2B).

A Raji-Luc cell engraftment NOG mice were given high dose (2106/mice, n=3) and low dose (5105/mice, n=3) F-CAR-T/C-CAR-T along with control groups. Tumor growth was monitored with IVIS scan once every 3 days; B CAR-T expansion in peripheral blood of mice was analyzed by flow cytometry (n=6). ***P<0.001 for F-CAR-T HD vs. C-CAR-T HD; F-CAR-T LD vs. C-CAR-T LD; F-CAR-T HD vs. F-CAR-T LD; C-CAR-T HD vs. C-CAR-T LD (two-way ANOVA statistical analysis); C Schematic of the Nalm6 (1106) xenograft model, CAR-T (2106) infused 1 day after cyclophosphamide (20mg/kg) treatment. Bone marrow infiltration of F-CAR-T was analyzed 10 days after CAR-T infusion (n=3); D CD45+CD2 F-CAR-T vs. C-CAR-T in peripheral blood of mice were analyzed by flow cytometry; *P<0.05 (unpaired student two-tailed t-test). IVIS in vivo imaging system, PB peripheral blood, i.v. intravenous, HD high dose, LD low dose, Cy cyclophosphamide; *p<0.05; #: number.

We examined the BM infiltration of F-CAR-T cells after infusion into Nalm6-bearing mice (Fig. 2C). A larger population of CAR-T cells was observed 10 days after infusion in BM in F-CAR-T infused group than that in the C-CAR-T group (p<0.05) (Fig. 2D), suggesting F-CAR-T cells possessed a better BM homing capability than C-CAR-T.

The chemokine receptor CXCR4 is known to be critical for BM homing of T-cells [25, 26]. Indeed, a higher percentage of CXCR4+ T cells were detected in F-CAR-T than in the C-CAR-T. Interestingly, this phenotype was more pronounced for CD4+ T cells than CD8+ T cells (Fig. S3A). In a two-chamber system, more F-CAR-T cells could be detected in the lower chamber than their C-CAR-T counterparts (Fig. S3B).

Between Jan. 2019 and Oct. 2019, 25 pediatric and adult patients with CD19+R/R B-ALL were enrolled onto our phase 1 trial, including two patients who had relapsed following a prior allo-HSCT. Patient characteristics are detailed in Table 1. The median age of patients was 20 (range: 344) years old. Twenty patients were >14 years old, and five were 14 years old. The median percentage of pre-treatment BM blasts was 9.05% (range: 0.1982.9%). As our pre-clinical studies demonstrated that F-CAR-T cells had a superior expansion capability as compared to C-CAR-T, we infused a relatively low doses of F-CAR-T cells, ranging from 104105 cells/kg: 3.0104 cells/kg (n=2), 6.5 (5.867.43)104 cells/kg (n=9), 1.01 (1.01.16)105 cells/kg (n=12), 1.52(1.471.56)105 cells/kg (n=2), (Fig. S4). The median time from apheresis to the infusion of CD19+F-CAR-T cells was 14 days (range: 1220). Although the manufacturing time of F-CAR-T was next day, the quality control time and detailed final product releases including sterility testing require a minimum of 710 days to complete. In addition, transportation of cell products requires approximately two days. Of the 25 patients who received CD19 F-CAR-T infusion, 22 (88%) received bridging chemotherapy between apheresis and lymphodepleting chemotherapy to control rapid disease progression (Table S3).

F-CAR-T cells were manufactured successfully for all patients. The mean transduction efficiency of F-CAR-T was 35.4% (range: 13.170.3%) (Fig. S5A). Both CD4+/CAR+ (mean, 49.6%; range: 13.673.2%) and CD8+/CAR+ (mean, 41.5%; range: 20.677.7%) subsets were present in the CD3+CAR+ T cell subsets of all products. The mean proportion of Tscm, Tem, and Tcm cells in the CD3+CAR+ T cell subsets of all products was 23.3% (range: 3.5545.3%), 33.2% (range: 17.267.9%), and 36.1% (range: 20.758.1%), respectively (Fig. S5B). F-CAR-T products exerted significant IFN- release and cytotoxic effects against the CD19+ cell line HELA-CD19 (Fig. S5, C, D).

All 25 infused patients experienced adverse events (AEs) of any grade, with 25 (100%) experiencing grade 3 or higher adverse events. No grade 5 events related to F-CAR-T treatment were observed (Table 2).

CRS occurred in 24 (96%) patients with 18 (72%) grade 12 CRS,6 (24%) of grade 3, and no grade 4 or higher CRS (Fig. S6). In the >14 years old group, 16/20 (80%) patients developed mild CRS, and only 2/20 (10%) developed grade 3 CRS. For 14 years old patients, 2/5 (40%) had mild CRS, yet 3/5 (60%) experienced grade 3 CRS (Table S4). ICANS was observed in 7 (28%) patients, with 2 (8%) grade 3 ICANS occurring in patients >14 years old and 5 (20%) grade 4 ICANS all occurring in patients 14 years old. No grade 5 ICANS was developed (Fig. S7 and Table S4). The most frequent presentation of CRS was fever, particularly a high fever of >39C. The first onset of CRS symptoms occurred between day 3 and 8 post-CAR-T infusion with a median onset at day 4 (range: 110 days). The most common symptoms of ICANS were seizure (5/7) and depressed consciousness (5/7). The median time to ICANS onset from CAR-T cell infusion was 7 days (range: 58), and the median time to resolution was 2 days (Fig. S7). All CRS and ICANS events were managed including early intervention when fever of 39C persisted for 24h. Sixteen (64%) patients received tocilizumab with a median total dose of 160mg (range: 160320mg). Twenty-one (84%) patients received corticosteroids including dexamethasone (median total dose, 43mg; range: 4127mg) and or methylprednisolone (median total dose, 190mg; range: 401070mg). The vast majority of these patients discontinued corticosteroids within 2 weeks. The change in IL-6, IFN-, IL-10, and GM-CSF levels after infusion are selectively shown in Fig. S8. The peak levels of these four cytokines were observed between day 710. Among all 21 cytokines examined, only post-infusion IL-6 levels were associated with moderate to severe CRS and/or ICANS (Figs. S9 and S10).

Superior in vivo proliferation and persistence of F-CAR-T compared to C-CAR-T cells were observed regardless of dose levels. The median peak level was reached on day 10 (range: 714 days) with 1.9105 transgene copies/g of genomic DNA (range: 0.225.2105 transgene copies/g of genomic DNA) by qPCR and 83 F-CAR-T cells per l blood (range: 42102 F-CAR-T cells per l blood) by FCM (Fig. 3A, B). No significant differences were observed among the different dose groups in the mean F-CAR-T copies peak (Fig. 3C). Importantly, there was no significant difference in the mean F-CAR-T copies peak between patients who received corticosteroids compared to those who did not (Fig. 3D).

A F-CAR-T cells in peripheral blood by qPCR. Purple, dose level 1; black, dose level 2; blue, dose level 3; red, dose level 4; B F-CAR-T cells in peripheral blood by flow cytometry. Purple, dose level 1; black, dose level 2; blue, dose level 3; red, dose level 4; C Comparison of the mean peak copy number of F-CAR-T cells in peripheral blood at each dose level. Statistical significance was determined by the MannWhitney test. D Comparison of the mean peak copy number of F-CAR-T cells in peripheral blood with or without steroids. Statistical significance was determined by the MannWhitney test.

Fourteen days after F-CAR-T cell infusion, all patients achieved morphologic CR including 2/25 with CR and 23/25 CR with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi), which further improved to 11/25 CR and 14/25 CRi 28 days post F-CAR-T (Table 1 and Fig. 4). More importantly, 23/25 (92%) had the minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative remission on day 14 and day 28 after F-CAR-T treatment. Patients achieving remission through CAR-T were given the option to proceed to allo-HSCT. With a median time of 54 days (range: 4581 days) post F-CAR-T infusion, 20 of 23 patients with MRD-negative status decided to pursue consolidative allo-HSCT including one patient who received a 2nd transplant. As of 18 October 2021, with a median follow-up duration of 693 days (range: 84973 days) among the 20 patients who had received allo-HSCT, one patient relapsed on day 172 and died 3 months after relapse, and four patients died from transplant-related mortality (TRM) including infection (n=3) and chronic GVHD (n=1) on day 84, day 215, day 220, and day 312, respectively. The other 15 patients remained in MRD-negative CR with a median remission duration of 734 days (range: 208973) except for one who became MRD-positive on day 294 with CD19+ disease. Among the other three patients (F05, F06, F16), one remained in MRD-negative CR on day 304, one remained in MRD-negative CR until day 303, received allo-HSCT but died from an infection on day 505, and one was lost to follow-up after day 114. Two patients who had MRD-positive CR after infusion withdrew from the study on day 42 and day 44, respectively, to seek other studies.

Clinical outcomes and consolidative allo-HSCT for the 25 patients who were treated with F-CAR-T therapy are shown. On day 28, 23/25 patients achieved MRD-negative CR/CRi. With a median time of 54 days (range: 4581) post F-CAR-T infusion, 20 of 23 patients with MRD-negative status received consolidative allo-HSCT. Among the 20 patients, 1 patient (F23) relapsed on day 172 and died 3 months after relapse. Four patients (F04, F09, F11, F12) died from transplant-related mortality (TRM) including infection (n=3) and chronic GVHD (n=1) on day 84, day 215, day 220, and day 312, respectively. The remaining 15 patients were in MRD-negative CR except for one (F18) who became MRD-positive on day 294. Among the other 3 patients (F05, F06, F16), 1 remained MRD-negative CR on day 304, 1 remained in MRD-negative CR until day 303, received allo-HSCT, and subsequently died from an infection on day 505. One patient was lost to follow-up after day 114. MRD minimal residual disease, CR complete remission, Allo-HSCT allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

F-CAR-T/T ratio in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was evaluated by FCM in 13/25 patients with available samples (Table S5). Between days 10 and 32, 9 patients were found to have considerable F-CAR-T penetration in their CSF, ranging from 40.65 to 79.2%, including 4 who developed severe ICANS. Among the other 4 patients, F-CAR-T cell abundance in the CSF ranged from 1.29% to 3.57%, and none experienced severe ICANS. Patients with higher levels of CAR-T in PB on day 10 consistently had higher levels of CAR-T in CSF with the exception of patient F15. Notably, CAR-T cells were still detectable in the CSF on day 101 with a 2.36% CAR-T/T ratio in patient F06, who also had undetectable circulating CAR-T cells at the same time.

In addition, concentrations of seven cytokines (IL-1b, IL-6, IL-10, IFN-, TNF-, MCP-1, and GM-CSF) in CSF samples from the above 10 of 13 patients were measured. Specifically, IL-1b was not detected in any of the 10 patients, and only one patient had detectable GM-CSF. For the other five cytokines, patients with severe ICANS had higher IL-6 levels in contrast to patients without severe ICANS, and the difference between the median level of IL-6 among these two groups of patients was statistically significant (Fig. S11). We did not observe significant differences among the other 4 cytokines between the two groups of patients. No clear relation between the CSF cytokine levels and the F-CAR-T/T % was observed.

Continued here:
Next-day manufacture of a novel anti-CD19 CAR-T therapy for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia: first-in-human clinical study | Blood Cancer Journal...

How abortion ruling could affect IVF and embryonic research – The Almanac Online

by Sue Dremann / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Fri, Jul 1, 2022, 11:33 am

The U.S. Supreme Court's June 24 ruling ending federal abortion rights under Roe v. Wade could inspire groups that seek to protect embryos to urge greater restrictions on in vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryonic stem cell research, according to Henry T. (Hank) Greely, director of the Stanford Law School Center for Biomedical Ethics.

Assisted reproductive technologies such as IVF aren't constitutionally protected and neither is preimplantation genetic testing, which screens for certain traits and DNA-caused conditions in embryos that haven't yet been implanted in the uterus, he said in a recent interview prior to the landmark ruling.

The court's ruling doesn't ban these technologies, which assist people seeking to have children, but it is likely to inspire some groups and states to seek to preserve unused embryos or ban embryonic stem cell research, Greely said.

His paper about the potential short- and long-term impacts of the decision is in preprint publication and is expected to be published in the Journal of Law and Biosciences in the coming weeks. In the short term, the technologies that embryo-protection groups might seek to ban or limit might be an alternative for women who can no longer receive an abortion in their home state.

Prenatal testing currently can determine if the fetus has a serious DNA defect that would cause disease or disability; a woman can then decide whether to continue with or terminate the pregnancy. That choice would likely disappear in states that restrict abortions, Greely said.

But a genetic testing technique that is used during in vitro fertilization could be utilized to prevent IVF pregnancies with fetal abnormalities. Preimplantation genetic testing, or PGT, screens out embryos with DNA-causing birth defects before the embryos are transferred to the uterus. The procedure can determine with a high degree of accuracy whether an embryo would develop into a baby who might have one of a large number of conditions. The decision not to transfer an embryo with genes that could cause a disability, condition or trait isn't illegal in the U.S., he said.

In states where abortion is illegal, it's likely there would be an increased interest in using PGT. The embryos are screened while outside the womb and prior to implantation and pregnancy.

"I think some people, some couples will say, well, if we have an embryo for the pregnancy that would have a severe disability as a child, our state wouldn't allow us to abort it. So let's go through preimplantation," he said.

But Greely doesn't think using PGT will skyrocket after the court's abortion decision. The technique requires that prospective parents use IVF, which is unpleasant and risky due to egg harvesting, he said.

IVF is also expensive. Most couples seeking the technique do so due to infertility and the decision isn't made lightly. Anyone with enough money to afford IVF would likely be able to afford to travel to another state for an abortion, he said.

Greely thinks it is unlikely embryo-protection groups would advocate for any kind of legislation that has a negative effect on IVF, however.

"Americans like IVF; almost everybody knows somebody or will know somebody who's either gone through IVF or who's actually the product of IVF. Two percent of the babies born every year in the U.S. with the product of IVF, and particularly the wealthier people are, the more likely they are to have either used IVF or know somebody who uses IVF, and also, the more likely they are to be politically powerful," he said.

There's a certain sort of law Greely thinks might be politically viable: limiting the selection or deselection of an embryo for IVF for a specific reason such as race, gender or disability.

"We've already seen it in abortion state statutes. A lot of abortion laws ban abortion for the purpose of discriminating on race, sex or disability status. And some of them explicitly say Down syndrome status.

"I can imagine the disability community coming together with protection groups to try to pass laws banning using PGT to select against embryos based on race, sex or disability. The important part of that would probably be disability and maybe even with the focus just on Down syndrome, which has a very strong support group and has some political sympathy," he said.

There isn't much political support for eliminating embryos that would have a fatal disease, however, he said.

"There's a more attractive case for protecting embryos that might become people with Down syndrome compared to protecting embryos that might become babies who would die within a year from Tay-Sachs disease," he said.

The court's decision on Roe v. Wade could invigorate efforts to pass new legislation to protect embryos outside the uterus among people who believe embryos are viable far earlier than at the 15 weeks in the Mississippi case that challenged Roe v. Wade. Some groups have claimed that human life starts far earlier and even at fertilization, which would make, in their view, all embryos for IVF "viable" regardless of whether they are implanted in the womb.

In the normal medical standard of care, no more than two embryos should be transferred into a woman's uterus at a time to minimize the chances of multiple pregnancies, Greely noted in his paper.

Most IVF cycles produce more than two eggs. Prospective parents can choose to have the extra embryos frozen for possible later use, donated to other couples, designated for research or destroyed and discarded.

Some legislation advocated by embryo-protection groups could limit or change the practice, he said. With the exception of Louisiana, there are no limitations on destroying embryos that aren't implanted, he said, though some other states have considered the legislation.

"The only limitation that I know of is the Louisiana law where you're not allowed to destroy embryos. So leftover embryos are kept frozen indefinitely in IVF clinics there," he said.

Legislation could lead clinics to build facilities to freeze and store unused embryos in perpetuity, he said, adding that the Louisiana law hasn't caused IVF clinics to close.

Embryo-protection groups might also try to get a law passed that's similar to a 2004 Italian law, which was subsequently limited by a court decision, Greely noted.

"They said you have to transfer for possible implantation every viable embryo you make, which means in Italy they typically only make one or two embryos at a time.

The embryo-protection groups "might try that, but all that would do is make IVF more difficult or expensive, and I don't think there's going to be political support for it. I don't think there'll be enough political support for it for people to adopt it," he said.

Greely noted that there could potentially be a significant change in embryo research as opposed to clinical treatments in an IVF clinic.

"Actually, embryo research in particular has really nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. As a matter of law, Roe v. Wade never protected embryo research, but I think it's connected in terms of the political dynamics after the death of Roe v. Wade," Greely said.

There's a good chance that at some stage, states will pass laws that eliminate human embryo research, in part because it is a huge issue, he said. Embryonic stem cells are taken from embryos created and then not used for pregnancy at IVF clinics.

"Twenty years ago, a number of states banned it; a number of states like California encouraged that research. But research into Type 1 diabetes and other major diseases has been disappointing.

"I think it has been useful, but there have been no miracles from it so far," he said.

The discovery in 2007 of a method to turn regular body cells into cells that can become any cell type in the human body makes the argument for using embryonic stem cells less compelling, he noted in his paper. Called induced pluripotent stem cells or iPSCs, these cells take away some of the urgency about using embryonic stem cells.

But iPSCs aren't exactly like human embryonic stem cells, Greely noted. Researchers would likely argue that human embryos are still required for research on embryonic development that would lead to ways for couples to succeed in having babies.

iPSCs might also play a role in the same types of research, since scientists have been creating "embryo-like things" or "embryo models" that provide more information about human embryonic development, he wrote.

How these laws might affect funding for embryonic research is also unknown.

The federal government has had little appetite for funding embryonic research and has refused to fund research that "destroys, discards, or knowingly subject(s) to risk of injury of death" embryos, Greely noted in his paper.

Yet, the federal government doesn't limit or ban the research itself; its actions have solely been about research it funds. Federal funds can be used for research on cells created from embryos that were destroyed somewhere else, he noted.

At least 11 states, however, have banned (or effectively banned) human embryo research on cells created from destroyed embryos that came from somewhere else, he wrote.

Some states allow such research, including California, Connecticut, Michigan, Montana and New York, Greely noted. California in particular continues to support stem cell research without a ban on the use of embryonic cells. In 2020, the state's voters passed Proposition 14 for $5.5 billion in bonds to advance the research.

Read more from the original source:
How abortion ruling could affect IVF and embryonic research - The Almanac Online

Inside an abortion clinic when the Supreme Court overturned Roe – Oil City Derrick

My assignment was to illustrate a story on how blue states might receive an influx of abortion patients from neighboring red states after Roe v. Wade was overturned. That's why I was in New Mexico last Thursday, when many thought the Supreme Court would issue its ruling.

I had emailed two clinics, including the doctors who worked there. After many email exchanges, the Center for Reproductive Health at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque agreed to let me come. The doctors and staff welcomed me, granting me more access than I had expected.

Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

kAmx 2CC:G65 2E g 2]>] H:E9 t=:K236E9 v:3D@?[ >J 6D4@CE 7C@> E96 F?:G6CD:EJ[ H2:E:?8 7@C >6 😕 E96 A2C<:?8 =@E] x D@@? >6E 2 ?6H 72>:=J A9JD:4:2? 2?5 @E96C >65:42= DE277]k^Am

kAm(92E F?7@=565 @G6C E92E 52J 2?5 E96 ?6IE 6>3@5J E96 492==6?86D @7 36:?8 2 A9@E@;@FC?2=:DE 😕 DF49 D:EF2E:@?D 9@H E@ A@CEC2J C62=:EJ 244FC2E6=J 3FE 4@>A2DD:@?2E6=J[ AC6D6CG:?8 D@>6 AC:G24J 7@C DF3;64ED 😕 E96:C >@DE A6CD@?2= 2?5 GF=?6C23=6 >@>6?ED]k^Am

kAm(:E9:? 2 76H >:?FE6D[ x H2D 23=6 E@ A9@E@8C2A9 2 adJ62C@=5 A2E:6?E 5FC:?8 96C F=EC2D@F?5 AC@465FC6] %9@F89 D96 5:5?VE H2?E 96C 7246 D9@H?[ E96 A9@E@D 2C6 :?E:>2E6 2?5 E6== 2 DE@CJ]k^Am

kAmpE gib` 2]>] >J A9@?6 3682? E@ G:3C2E6]k^Am

kAmx =@@<65 5@H? 2E E96 42==6C xs[ 2?5 :E H2D @FC w@FDE@? 3FC62F 49:67 |@==J w6??6DDJu:D<6 @? E96 =:?6]k^Am

kAmQx E9:?< x 42? 86E FD :?E@ 2? 23@CE:@? 4=:?:4 :? $2? p?E@?:@[ %6I2D[ E@>@CC@H[Q D96 D2:5]k^Am

kAmx? 2 H9:DA6C65 E@?6[ x D2:5[ Q(6 ?665 E@ 8@]Qk^Am

kAm(6 5:5?VE 6 r@FCE H@F=5 :DDF6 :ED CF=:?8] }@E9:?8 H2D 46CE2:?] x H2D E9:?<:?8 E@ >JD6=7 9@H :>A@CE2?E 2?5 9:DE@C:4 :E H@F=5 36 E@ 36 :?D:56 2 4=:?:4 H96? E96 564:D:@? 42>6 5@H?[ 6DA64:2==J 😕 2 C65 DE2E6]k^Am

kAmx AFE >J A9@?6 :?E@ >J 324< A@4<6E 2?5 BF:4<=J 962565 324< E@ E96 DE277 H@C< 2C62[ H96C6 x A9@E@8C2A965 E96 5@4E@C 2?5 96C C6D:56?E G:6H:?8 2? F=EC2D@F?5 @7 2 bhJ62C@=5 H@>2? H9@ H2D D66<:?8 2? 23@CE:@?] %96 H@>2? 2=C625J 925 7@FC 49:=5C6?]k^Am

kAm%96 H@>2? 28C665 E@ =6E >6 A9@E@8C2A9 96C AC@465FC6 H:E9@FE C6G62=:?8 96C :56?E:EJ] x 6?E6C65 E96 6I2> C@@>[ H96C6 `hg_D >FD:4 H2D A=2J:?8 D@7E=J E9C@F89 46:=:?8 DA62<6CD] %96 C@@> H2D 52C< 6I46AE 7@C E96 D>2== 2?5 3C:89E 6I2> C@@> =:89E]k^Am

kAmx H2?E65 E@ 42AEFC6 E96 >@@5 @7 E96 @?6 =:89E D@FC46[ D@ x 25;FDE65 E96 x$~ @? >J 42>6C2j E92E 4@?EC@=D E96 2>@F?E @7 =:89E =6E :?] x DE@@5 2E E96 324< @7 E96 C@@>] %96 2?8=6 5:5 ?@E C6G62= E96 H@>2?VD :56?E:EJ]k^Am

kAm%96 5@4E@C 2?5 96C C6D:56?E H@C<65 :? E2?56> 2D 2 ?FCD6 2DD:DE65 5FC:?8 E96 AC@465FC6]k^Am

kAmQpC6 J@F 5@:?8 ~znQ E96 5@4E@C 2D<65 E96 A2E:6?E @? E96 6I2> E23=6] %96 H@>2? 24

kAmpE @?6 A@:?E[ E96 ?FCD6 96=5 E96 A2E:6?EVD 92?5 2?5 86?E=J CF3365 96C 9625]k^Am

kAm|J pAA=6 (2E49 3682? E@ G:3C2E6]k^Am

kAmQx ?665 E@ =62G6 D@@?[Q D2:5 E96 E6IE >6DD286 7C@> v:3D@?[ >J 6D4@CE :?D:56 E96 4=:?:4] $96 H2D H2:E:?8 @FED:56 E96 6I2> C@@>]k^Am

kAmQs@ J@F >:?5 :7 x DE2J 😕 96C6 d >@C6 >:?D 2?5 >2J36 p?86=2 42? 6D4@CE >6 @FEnQ x HC@E6 324<]k^Am

kAmQ&?7@CEF?2E6=J[ E92EVD ?@E E96 A@=:4J] x 92G6 E@ 36 H:E9 J@F[Q D96 C6A=:65k^Am

kAmQb >@C6 >:?FE6D[ @<2JnQk^Am

kAmx H2?E65 E@ DE2J F?E:= E96 6?5 @7 E96 H@>2?VD AC@465FC6[ 3FE 27E6C b >:?FE6D x E:AE@65 @FE @7 E96 C@@>]k^Am

kAmx 8@E 😕 >J C6?E2= 42C 2?5 5C@G6 E@ 2 D925J A2C<:?8 DA@E] x ?66565 E@ 86E 4@?7:C>2E:@? E92E x 925 A6C>:DD:@? E@ A9@E@8C2A9 :?D:56 E96 %6I2D 4=:?:4 E96 ?6IE >@C?:?8 2?5 7:?5 2 H2J E@ 86E E96C6 E92E ?:89E]k^Am

kAmx =67E 2 G@:46>2:= 7@C E96 p?5C62 v2==68@D[ 6I64FE:G6 5:C64E@C @7 E96 4=:?:4 😕 $2? p?E@?:@[ 2?5 D6?E 96C 2 E6IE >6DD286]k^Am

kAmx H2:E65] %6? >:?FE6D A2DD65]k^Am

kAm%96?[ 2 E6IE 7C@> p?5C62 2CC:G65] p7E6C 2 324< 2?5 7@CE9[ D96 28C665 E@ =6E FD 4@>6 E@ E96 4=:?:4 7:CDE E9:?8 😕 E96 >@C?:?8] x 962565 E@ E96 2:CA@CE] xE H@F=5 E2<6 >6 D:I 9@FCD E@ 86E 7C@> p=3FBF6CBF6 E@ $2? p?E@?:@ E92E ?:89E]k^Am

kAm(96? x 2CC:G65 2E E96 p=2>@ (@>6?VD #6AC@5F4E:G6 $6CG:46D 2E h 2]>] uC:52J[ A2E:6?ED H6C6 2=C625J =:?65 FA @FED:56 E96 5@@C]k^Am

kAm!C@E6DE6CD H6C6 D4C62>:?8 E9C@F89 2 >682A9@?6 @? E96 D:56H2=< ?62C E96 4=:?:4]k^Am

kAmQ*@F 5@?VE 92G6 E@ 8@ :?PQ E96 24E:G:DED A=62565 H:E9 E96 H@>6?] Q%96J >FC56C 323:6DPQk^Am

kAm|@==J 2?5 x H6C6 6D4@CE65 :?E@ 2 324< @77:46 E@ >66E sC] p=2? qC2:5[ E96 4=:?:4VD @H?6C] %96? 2E hi`b[ 6G6CJE9:?8 492?865]k^Am

kAmqC2:5VD 52F89E6C[ v2==68@D[ A@<65 96C 9625 :? E96 5@@C]k^Am

kAmQxEVD @FE] %96 564:D:@?VD @FE[Q D96 D2:5] QuF== @G6CEFC?]Qk^Am

kAmqC2:5 4FCD65] %96? 96 3682? E@ E62C FA] x H2D 23=6 E@ D?2A @?6 7C2>6 @7 qC2:5 2D E96 E62CD 42>6] %96?[ 96 =@@<65 2E >6 DE6C?=J 2?5 D2:5[ Qr@>6 @?PQk^Am

kAmx @>6?E x 925 E@ AFE >J 42>6C2 5@H?] x H2?E65 E@ 42AEFC6 9:D 6>@E:@?D 2E E92E >@>6?E[ 3FE 2E E96 D2>6 E:>6 x 5:5?VE H2?E E@ 2?86C qC2:5 2?5 9FCE >J 492?46D @7 DE2J:?8 😕 E96 4=:?:4 =@?86C]k^Am

kAm|J >:?5 H2D C24:?8] x ?66565 E@ 86E E@ E96 H2:E:?8 C@@>[ H96C6 A2E:6?ED H6C6 F?2H2C6 @7 H92E 925 ;FDE 92AA6?65]k^Am

kAmxE H2D 2 56=:42E6 32=2?46 7@C >6] x AC@>:D65 E96 4=:?:4 25>:?:DEC2E@C x H@F=5 C6DA64E A2E:6?E 4@?7:56?E:2=:EJ 2?5 ?@E A9@E@8C2A9 2?J A2E:6?ED H9@ 5:5 ?@E 8:G6 FD A6C>:DD:@? E@ 5@ D@] tG6? E9@F89 E9:D H2D 2 9:DE@C:4 >@>6?E[ x 925 E@ DE:4< E@ >J AC@>:D6]k^Am

kAm~? >J H2J E@ E96 H2:E:?8 C@@>[ x A9@E@8C2A965 2 DE277 >6>36C[ H9@ H2D G:D:3=J FAD6E]k^Am

kAmqC2:5 6?E6C65 E96 H2:E:?8 C@@> H:E9 v2==68@D 3J 9:D D:56] pD x A9@E@8C2A965 qC2:5 7C@> 24C@DD E96 C@@>[ A2E:6?ED AFE E96:C 9625D 5@H? 😕 5:DEC6DD 2D 96 DA@<6]k^Am

kAmQ%96 $FAC6>6 r@FCE ;FDE @G6CEFC?65 #@6 G6CDFD (256] %96JVG6 E2<6? 2H2J J@FC C:89E E@ 49@@D6 H92E E@ 5@ H:E9 J@FC 3@5J[Q 96 D2:5 E@ E96 H@>6?]k^Am

kAmQ&?7@CEF?2E6=J[ >J 92?5D 2C6 E:65[Q qC2:5 D2:5[ 6IA=2:?:?8 E96 C:D

kAm%96 4=:?:4 4@F=5 ?@ =@?86C AC@G:56 23@CE:@? D6CG:46D]k^Am

kAmx >@G65 @G6C E@ H96C6 x D2H 2 A2E:6?E[ D:EE:?8 H:E9 2 3=2?< DE2C6] (:E9 >J 42>6C2 @? D:=6?E >@56[ x A9@E@8C2A965 96C] pD D96 =67E E96 4=:?:4[ x 7@==@H65 96C @FED:56 E@ 86E 96C ?2>6] $96 D2:5 x 4@F=5 FD6 96C 7:CDE ?2>6[ {:K]k^Am

kAmpD E96 62C=J >@C?:?8 A2E:6?ED 7:=65 @FE @7 E96 4=:?:4 DEF??65[ >@C6 7:=65 😕 F?2H2C6 E92E 😕 23@CE:@? H2D :==682= ?@H 😕 %6I2D]k^Am

kAm!2E:6?E pAC:= #66D6[ c`[ 2CC:G65 6I24E=J @?6 9@FC 27E6C E96 564:D:@?] $96 2=C625J 92D E9C66 49:=5C6?]k^Am

kAmp? 6>@E:@?2= DE2776C E@=5 96C E96 ?6HD]k^Am

kAmQ$@ H6 92G6 E@ 8@ @FE @7 DE2E6nQ #66D6 2D<65] Q%9:D :D :?D2?6]Qk^Am

kAm#66D6 H2D 23@FE E@ =62G6 H96? D96 ?@E:465 E92E E96 DE2776C H9@ 925 96=A65 96C H2D 4CJ:?8] $96 9F8865 E96 DE2776C]k^Am

kAmQ*@F 8FJD 92G6 5@?6 D@ >F49 8@@5 H@C< 7@C A6@A=6] $@ <66A E92E :? J@FC 962CE[Q #66D6 D2:5] Qs@?VE 8:G6 FA E96 7:89E]Qk^Am

kAmp?@E96C A2E:6?E[ H9@ H2D 2=D@ FAD6E[ D2E 😕 2 H2:E:?8 C@@> 492:C 2?5 4C:65 2D 2 DE2776C EC:65 E@ 4@>7@CE 96C] x A9@E@8C2A965 96C E9C@F89 E96 8=2DD 😕 E96 C646AE:@?:DEVD 2C62]k^Am

kAm%H@ 9@FCD 27E6C #@6 H2D @G6CEFC?65[ E96 H2:E:?8 C@@> 2E p=2>@ (@>6?VD #6AC@5F4E:G6 $6CG:46D H2D 6>AEJ]k^Am

kAmk^Am

kAma_aa {@D p?86=6D %:>6D] ':D:E k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^HHH]=2E:>6D]4@>^Qm=2E:>6D]4@>k^2m] s:DEC:3FE65 3J k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^HHH]EC:3F?64@?E6?E286?4J]4@>Qm%C:3F?6 r@?E6?E p86?4J[ {{r]k^2mk^Am

Read the original:
Inside an abortion clinic when the Supreme Court overturned Roe - Oil City Derrick

Mayo Clinic uses stem cell therapy to treat arthritis in knee

Researchers at Mayo Clinic's campus in Florida have conducted the world's first prospective, blinded and placebo-controlled clinical study to test the benefit of using bone marrow stem cells to reduce arthritic pain and disability in knees.

It is the first time that the belief that stem cells can provide substantial and possible regenerative relief in an ailing joint has been put to the test in such a rigorous fashion. The researchers say such testing is needed because there are at least 600 stem cell clinics in the U.S. offering one form of stem cell therapy or another to an estimated 100,000-plus patients, who pay thousands of dollars, out of pocket, for the treatment, which has not undergone demanding clinical study.

The findings in The American Journal of Sports Medicine represent another first patients not only had a dramatic improvement in the knee that received stem cells, but also in their other knee, which also had painful arthritis but received only a saline control injection. Each of the 25 patients enrolled in the study had two bad knees, but did not know which knee received the stem cells.

Given that the stem cell-treated knee was no better than the control-treated knee both were dramatically better than before the study began the researchers say the stem cells' effectiveness remains somewhat uninterpretable. They are only able to conclude the procedure is safe to undergo as an option for knee pain, but they cannot yet recommend it for routine arthritis care.

Our findings can be interrupted in ways that we now need to test one of which is that bone marrow stem cell injection in one ailing knee can relieve pain in both affected knees in a systemic or whole-body fashion, says the study's lead author, Shane A. Shapiro, M.D., a Mayo Clinic orthopedic physician.

See the original post here:
Mayo Clinic uses stem cell therapy to treat arthritis in knee

First-of-its-Kind Stem Cell and Gene Therapy Highlighted at Annual Stem Cell Meeting – Newswise

Newswise LOS ANGELES (June 9, 2022) --Investigators from Cedars-Sinai will present the latest novel stem cell and regenerative medicine research at the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) Annual Meeting, which is being held in person and virtually June 15-19 in San Francisco.

At this years scientific forum,Clive Svendsen, PhD, a renowned scientist and executive director of theCedars-SinaiBoard of Governors Regenerative Medicine Institute, willassume the role as treasurerfor the organization. In this position, he will be working with leading scientists, clinicians, business leaders, ethicists, and educators to pursue the common goal of advancing stem cell research and its translation to the clinic.

Along with taking on this leadership role, Svendsens work on a combination stem cell-gene therapy for the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, afatal neurological disorder known as ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease, was selected as a Breakthrough Clinical Advances abstract and one ofthe years most compelling pieces of stem cell science. Svendsen will present data from the first spinal cord trial and a synopsis of the ongoing cortical trial and the potential impact this may have on this devastating disease.

The breakthrough oral session, A new trial transplanting neural progenitors modified to release GDNF into the motor cortex of patients with ALS, takes place on Thursday, June 16, from 5:15 to 7 p.m. The presentation is part of the Biotech, Pharma and AcademiaBringing Stem Cells to Patients Clinical Applications track.

Through this highly collaborative work, we hope to develop new therapeutic options for patients with such a debilitating and deadly disease, said Svendsen, who is also the Kerry and Simone Vickar Family Foundation Distinguished Chair in Regenerative Medicine.

All abstracts are embargoed until the start of each individual presentation.

Additional noteworthy presentations featuring Cedars-Sinai investigators at ISSCR 2022 include:

FollowCedars-Sinai Academic Medicineon Twitterfor more on the latest basic science and clinical research from Cedars-Sinai.

Original post:
First-of-its-Kind Stem Cell and Gene Therapy Highlighted at Annual Stem Cell Meeting - Newswise