Jazz plays itself into cell therapy – Vantage

Approval of the first Car-T therapy, Novartiss Kymriah, brought with it a concomitant green light for Roches rheumatoid arthritis drug Actemra for treating cytokine release syndrome (CRS), a frequent side effect of Car-T. Now Jazz Pharmaceuticals wants in on the act, starting a 35-subject study of its drug Defitelio to treat the side effect of neurotoxicity associated with Gileads Car-T therapy Yescarta. Defitelio is approved for treating a rare complication of stem cell transplantation, and the thinking is that its mechanism of cathepsin G inhibition could help prevent endothelial cell damage, protecting the CNS and minimising neurotoxicity. Little is known about why some Car-T patients experience neurotoxicity, but this is thought to be related to CRS. The logic behind Actemras useis that the drug blocks IL-6, one of the most highly elevated cytokines in CRS. Advantages for Defitelio could be arguable safety while its label cites haemorrhage risk it does not have Actemras boxed warning over infections and slightly longer patent life. Still, as Defitelio is a small molecule it might end up being genericised before the US sees biosimilar versions of Actemra.

More here:
Jazz plays itself into cell therapy - Vantage

Gnaw on the Remake of David Cronenberg’s ‘Rabid’ This December [Trailer] – Bloody Disgusting

Ahead of its U.S. Premiere at Screamfest next week (Oct. 15), Scream Factory! has announced a release date forJenandSylvia SoskasRabid, their remake of the 1977 film from David Cronenberg.

While we really would have enjoyed an October release for Rabid, the film will open in theaters and on VOD platforms Friday the 13th of December.

Meagan reviewed Rabid, calling it a love letter to Cronenberg and Canada, further adding that the gore and makeup effects are worth the price of admission, and so is this new iteration of Rose.

Heres a brand new trailer.

In the film, After aspiring fashion designer Rose (Laura Vandervoort) suffers a disfiguring traffic accident she undergoes a radical and untested stem-cell treatment. The experimental transformation is a miraculous success, transforming her into a ravishing beauty. But she soon develops an uncontrollable sexual appetite, resulting in several torrid encounters, which sees her lovers become rabid carriers of death and disease. As the illness mutates and the contagion spreads out of control, all hell breaks loose as the infected rampage through the city on a violent and gruesome killing spree.

Ben Hollingsworthalso stars as Brad, a fashion photographer withHanneke Talbot(Playing Dead) portraying Roses best friend Chelsea; andMackenzie Gray(Legion, Riverdale) is arrogant fashion designer Gunter.Rabidwill also feature WWE superstarsCM Punkas Billy and his wife, New York Times best-selling authorAJ Mendezas Kira.

View original post here:
Gnaw on the Remake of David Cronenberg's 'Rabid' This December [Trailer] - Bloody Disgusting

Advanced Research Report on Animal Stem Cell Therapy Market 2019 Potentially Growing Significant Business Opportunities with top companies U.S. Stem…

Crystal Market Research authorities conduct a triangulated approach of primary and secondary research on Global Animal Stem Cell Therapy Market and carry out an in-depth analysis of multiple factors, including Animal Stem Cell Therapy technological developments and the demand-supply shifts in various markets across the globe to accurately forecast the industrys growth possibilities. To assist clients to frame effective tactics for growth on global Animal Stem Cell Therapy market for the period of 2019 to 2025.

It offers market insights from the statistics, gathered from reliable Animal Stem Cell Therapy market informants such as manufacturers, channel partners, decision makers, and regulatory bodies. Based on various clients stipulations, Animal Stem Cell Therapy also produces customized reports, which will help local vendors and global players cement their position in the chemicals and materials market.

Click Here for Get Sample Copy of this Report @https://www.crystalmarketresearch.com/report-sample/HC084561

The Animal Stem Cell Therapy market outline segment of the report investigates progression, for example, drivers, limitations, and opportunities that, at present, strongly affect the market and could impact the market in future also. Animal Stem Cell Therapy market share analysis has been given in the report with a particular ultimate objective to explain the power of contention between market players working over the globe.

Get it in discounted Price: https://www.crystalmarketresearch.com/check-discount/HC084561

Get Customized Research Report: https://www.crystalmarketresearch.com/customization/HC084561

Contacts Us:

Judy | 304 South Jones Blvd, Suite 1896

Las Vegas NV 89107

United States

E-mail: sales@crystalmarketresearch.com | Ph: +1-888-213-4282

The rest is here:
Advanced Research Report on Animal Stem Cell Therapy Market 2019 Potentially Growing Significant Business Opportunities with top companies U.S. Stem...

Stem Cell Therapy Market 2019: Prosperous Growth, Recent Trends and Demand by Top Key Vendors like Osiris Therapeutics, MEDIPOST Co., Anterogen Co.,…

Global Stem Cell Therapy Market Report assistances industry leaders to make confident capital investment decisions, develop strategic plans, optimize their business portfolio, innovate successfully and operate safely and sustainably. The report also offers a detailed summary of the industry including definitions, classifications, growth factors, applications and market chain structure, revenue development in terms of volume with respect to the Stem Cell Therapy market.

The report also embraces the absolute growth revenue value of the Stem Cell Therapy market across the globe over the forecast period 2019-2026. The Stem Cell Therapy Market is anticipated to surpass more than US$ xxx million by 2026 at a CAGR of xx% in the given forecast period.

Request Sample Copy of this Report @: https://www.qyreports.com/request-sample/?report-id=132668

Top Key Vendors:

Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. (U.S.), MEDIPOST Co., Ltd. (South Korea), Anterogen Co., Ltd. (South Korea), Pharmicell Co., Ltd. (South Korea), Holostem Terapie Avanzate S.r.l. (Italy).

Key reason to purchase Stem Cell Therapy Market report:

As the demand for new innovative solutions increases and more startups arise in the space which leads to growth and excessive demand for the Stem Cell Therapy Market in 2019 to 2025. This research report consists of the worlds crucial region market share, size (volume), trends including the product profit, price, Value, production, capacity, capability utilization, supply, and demand and industry growth rate.

Get 40% Discount on this Premium Report @: https://www.qyreports.com/request-sample/?report-id=132668

The market in Asia Pacific is expected to witness the fastest growth in the Global Stem Cell Therapy market over the forecast period. Recent and upcoming Global opportunities have been analyzed across several Global regions, such as North America, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, Europe, and India.

Finally, all aspects of the Global Stem Cell Therapy Market are quantitatively as well qualitatively assessed to study the Global as well as regional market comparatively. This market study presents essential information and accurate data about the market providing a complete statistical study of this market on the basis of market drivers, limitations and its future prospects. The report supplies the international economic competition with the assistance of Porters Five Forces Analysis and SWOT Analysis.

Table of Contents

Global Stem Cell Therapy Market Research Report

Chapter 1 Stem Cell Therapy Market Overview

Chapter 2 Global Economic Impact on Industry

Chapter 3 Global Market Competition by Manufacturers

Chapter 4 Global Manufacture, Income (Value) by Region

Chapter 5 Global Supply (Production), Consumption, Export, Import by Regions

Chapter 6 Global Manufacture, Revenue (Price), Trend by Type

Chapter 7 Global Market Analysis by Application

Chapter 8 Manufacturing Cost Analysis

Chapter 9 Industrial Chain, Sourcing Strategy and Downstream Purchasers

Continue to TOC

For More Information: https://www.qyreports.com/enquiry-before-buying/?report-id=132668

About Us Qyreports:

We at, Qyreports, a leading market research report published accommodate more than 4,000 celebrated clients worldwide putting them at advantage in todays competitive world with our understanding of research. Our list of customers includes prestigious Chinese companies, multinational companies, SMEs and private equity firms whom we have helped grow and sustain with our fact-based research. Our business study covers a market size of over 30 industries offering unfailing insights into the analysis to reimagine your business. We specialize in forecasts needed for investing in a new project, to revolutionize your business, to become more customer centric and improve the quality of output.

Contact:

QYReports

Jones John

(Sales Manager)

204, Professional Centre,

7950 NW 53rd Street, Miami, Florida 33166

+(1) 786-292-8164

sales@qyreports.com

http://www.qyreports.com

See the article here:
Stem Cell Therapy Market 2019: Prosperous Growth, Recent Trends and Demand by Top Key Vendors like Osiris Therapeutics, MEDIPOST Co., Anterogen Co.,...

BEYOND LOCAL: Expert recommends ‘path of cautious optimism’ about the future of stem cell treatment – CollingwoodToday

This article, written byKatharine Sedivy-Haley, University of British Columbia, originally appeared on The Conversation and is republished here with permission:

When I was applying to graduate school in 2012, it felt like stem cells were about to revolutionize medicine.

Stem cells have the ability to renew themselves, and mature into specialized cells like heart or brain cells. This allows them to multiply and repair damage.

If stem cell genes are edited to fix defects causing diseases like anemia or immune deficiency, healthy cells can theoretically be reintroduced into a patient, thereby eliminating or preventing a disease. If these stem cells are taken or made from the patient themselves, they are a perfect genetic match for that individual, which means their body will not reject the tissue transplant.

Because of this potential, I was excited that my PhD project at the University of British Columbia gave me the opportunity to work with stem cells.

However, stem cell hype has led some to pay thousands of dollars on advertised stem cell treatments that promise to cure ailments from arthritis to Parkinsons disease. These treatments often dont help and may harm patients.

Despite the potential for stem cells to improve medicine, there are many challenges as they move from lab to clinic. In general, stem cell treatment requires we have a good understanding of stem cell types and how they mature. We also need stem cell culturing methods that will reliably produce large quantities of pure cells. And we need to figure out the correct cell dose and deliver it to the right part of the body.

Embryonic, 'induced and pluripotent

Stem cells come in multiple types. Embryonic stem cells come from embryos which makes them controversial to obtain.

A newly discovered stem cell type is the induced pluripotent stem cell. These cells are created by collecting adult cells, such as skin cells, and reprogramming them by inserting control genes which activate or induce a state similar to embryonic stem cells. This embryo-like state of having the versatile potential to turn into any adult cell type, is called being pluripotent.

However, induced pluripotent and embryonic stem cells can form tumours. Induced pluripotent stem cells carry a particularly high risk of harmful mutation and cancer because of their genetic instability and changes introduced during reprogramming.

Genetic damage could be avoided by using younger tissues such as umbilical cord blood, avoiding tissues that might contain pre-existing mutations (like sun-damaged skin cells), and using better methods for reprogramming.

Stem cells used to test drugs

For now, safety concerns mean pluripotent cells have barely made it to the clinic, but they have been used to test drugs.

For drug research, it is valuable yet often difficult to get research samples with specific disease-causing mutations; for example, brain cells from people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Researchers can, however, take a skin cell sample from a patient, create an induced pluripotent stem-cell line with their mutation and then make neurons out of those stem cells. This provides a renewable source of cells affected by the disease.

This approach could also be used for personalized medicine, testing how a particular patient will respond to different drugs for conditions like heart disease.

Vision loss from fat stem cells

Stem cells can also be found in adults. While embryonic stem cells can turn into any cell in the body, aside from rare newly discovered exceptions, adult stem cells mostly turn into a subset of mature adult cells.

For example, hematopoietic stem cells in blood and bone marrow can turn into any blood cell and are widely used in treating certain cancers and blood disorders.

A major challenge with adult stem cells is getting the right kind of stem cell in useful quantities. This is particularly difficult with eye and nerve cells. Most research is done with accessible stem cell types, like stem cells from fat.

Fat stem cells are also used in stem cell clinics without proper oversight or safety testing. Three patients experienced severe vision loss after having these cells injected into their eyes. There is little evidence that fat stem cells can turn into retinal cells.

Clinical complications

Currently, stem cell based treatments are still mostly experimental, and while some results are encouraging, several clinical trials have failed.

In the brain, despite progress in developing treatment for genetic disorders and spinal cord injury, treatments for stroke have been unsuccessful. Results might depend on method of stem cell delivery, timing of treatment and age and health of the patient. Frustratingly, older and sicker tissues may be more resistant to treatment.

For eye conditions, a treatment using adult stem cells to treat corneal injuries has recently been approved. A treatment for macular degeneration using cells derived from induced pluripotent stem cells is in progress, though it had to be redesigned due to concerns about cancer-causing mutations.

A path of cautious optimism

While scientists have good reason to be interested in stem cells, miracle cures are not right around the corner. There are many questions about how to implement treatments to provide benefit safely.

In some cases, advertised stem cell treatments may not actually use stem cells. Recent research suggests mesenchymal stem cells, which are commonly isolated from fat, are really a mixture of cells. These cells have regenerative properties, but may or may not include actual stem cells. Calling something a stem cell treatment is great marketing, but without regulation patients dont know what theyre getting.

Members of the public (and grad students) are advised to moderate their excitement in favour of cautious optimism.

Katharine Sedivy-Haley, PhD Candidate in Microbiology and Immunology, University of British Columbia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Here is the original post:
BEYOND LOCAL: Expert recommends 'path of cautious optimism' about the future of stem cell treatment - CollingwoodToday

The Patient Perspective On Patient Centricity Insights From A Veteran Of 5 Clinical Trials – Clinical Leader

By Lori Abrams

Those who know me understand the value I put on bringing the voice of the patient and caregiver into the drug development process. They also know that I believe that todays terminology phrases like patient-centricity, patient at the center, and other sexy mottos is sometimes used by organizations to show the world that the patient is at the forefront of everything they do. But are they really? Is patient feedback on a protocol enough to prove that their voices are heard? Is providing input on an informed consent what a patient really wants to do? Maybe.

How often has an organization asked the patient and caregiver how they would like to contribute to a drug development program? If they could do anything to help bring a drug to the market, what would that look like? Moreover, if a trial participant could provide ongoing feedback that improved the patient experience, what would they contribute, and how might the trial change?

Lets try it now. I am humbled to introduce readers to Amy Butler. Together, we are going to try to shed some light on the drug development process from the perspective of a brave woman who has participated in five clinical trials. First, a brief summary of Amys experience

Amy was a medical assistant for a large obstetrics and gynecology practice near her home in McHenry, IL, where she lives with her husband and two children (along with two cats, a quacker parrot, and a corgi puppy). Advocacy has always been a part of her life, as she has a brother who is developmentally disabled. But she never expected that her biggest challenge as an advocate would be to try to save her own life.

In 2014, at 44 years of age, Amy was diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer with metastasis to the liver. At the Mayo Clinic, she had a right hemicolectomy and liver resection, along with a prophylactic hysterectomy because she discovered through genetic testing that she had a CHEK2 variant. She underwent six months of Folfox chemotherapy with Avastin and was deemed cancer-free. Nine months later, a follow-up scan revealed that she had metastatic disease in both lungs. She began Folfiri with Avastin; however, after about 10 months, scans started showing progression in her lungs.

Against her Mayo Clinic oncologists advice, she began looking into clinical trials. Fortunately, her support group Colontown (see related article) provided her with science-based information about clinical trials. Her local oncologist referred her to the University of Chicago. Over the next two years, she participated in four clinical trials. Three of the trials were immunotherapy in combination with other drugs and one was an antibody trial. Due to progression, she returned to her local oncologist and revisited standard chemotherapy for a few months, with no success. Recently, Amy was approved to start her fifth clinical trial.

Amy was kind enough to answer my questions about her journey, providing an unvarnished look at clinical trials from a patients perspective and shedding light on aspects of the clinical trial process in desperate need of improvement.

Lori Abrams: You were at the Mayo Clinic and clinical trial participation was not supported. Can you describe what occurred and why?

Amy Butler: I was at Mayo Clinic for a follow-up visit and my oncologist was going over my latest CT scan results. The scans showed that my cancer was progressing while on Folfiri chemotherapy. Upon hearing this news, I told my oncologist that I thought it was time to look into clinical trials. He didnt agree with me. His recommendation was I should take a break from chemotherapy, as I was completely worn out from treatment. He felt that after a month off I would be strong enough to start treatment again in hopes of keeping my cancer at bay. Knowing that I had a mutation in the KRAS gene, I understood that I had fewer treatment options and this terrified me. I didnt want to settle; I wanted more options. After further discussion, I was told that Mayo Clinic had no clinical trials to offer me and there was no mention of any other facilities that I should consult with.

Abrams: How did it feel when you were not offered alternative options to standard care by your Mayo oncologist? What were your next steps?

Butler: It was terrible; I felt so alone. Here I was at one of the countrys premier medical facilities, and all Im offered was to continue standard of care chemotherapy, even though it clearly wasnt working anymore. My next step was to see my local oncologist and discuss my recent scans with him. This conversation was quite different from my conversation at Mayo Clinic. My local oncologist really listened to my concerns about continuing with the same chemotherapy treatments and when I asked him about clinical trials, he was on board. I walked out of that appointment with a referral to the University of Chicago. Two weeks later, I was signing a consent form for my first clinical trial.

Abrams: How and when did you find Colontown?

Butler: When I was diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer in 2014, I followed all the rules. One of those rules was to stay off the internet. In 2016, when I learned that the cancer had metastasized to my lungs, I threw that rule out the window and began looking for answers. I came across a blog called Adventures in Living Terminally Optimistic by Tom Marsilje. Tom was an oncology researcher who was also diagnosed with colon cancer at a young age. I was inspired by Toms blog; it filled me with hope again. On his blog, Tom mentioned many colon cancer support groups. I was overwhelmed with the amount of support out there. I couldnt believe that my doctors never mentioned or recommended them.

I contacted Tom and we had a great discussion about new treatments coming for colon cancer patients. He talked to me about the different support groups and recommended that I join Colontown.

Abrams: Colontown helped you understand clinical trials. What type of information did they provide? Did they provide navigation to clinical trials? How did they help you to better understand your disease?

Butler: Colontown became my lighthouse in the dark. First, let me explain how Colontown works. When you join Colontown, the administrators invite you to join private patient-lead neighborhoods. Each neighborhood is based on the stage, tumor mutations, and metastatic disease. The clinical trial neighborhoods are broken down into groups based on microsatellite instability (MSI) status as well as mutations.

Through Colontown, I was educated about what my MSI status (mine being microsatellite stable, or MSS) and my KRAS mutation meant. Not only was I able to grasp my disease, I also met wonderful people who were going through the same thing. Within the MSS clinical trial neighborhood there is a link to the Late Stage Trial Finder that was curated by Fight CRC and created by Marsilje, a scientist and Colontown member.

Abrams: You have participated in five clinical trials. Were you asked to provide feedback (good or bad) before, during, or after your participation?

Butler: The answer to this is a resounding no. The only feedback Im asked to provide is what my side effects are during treatment.

Abrams: If you could be an advisor to drug development process at a company, what would that look like?

Butler: I believe that a patient has the right to know the results of any specialized testing that was done. Ive had to have multiple lung biopsies in clinical trials, and I wasnt told why or what they were looking for. Ive had blood draws where 15 tubes of blood were taken, and I have no idea if anything interesting was found. I think patients deserve to get some results. Pharmaceutical companies should issue symptom diaries for the trials because a patient may forget how they were feeling by the time of their next appointment. A patient wants to know how their participation helped in the clinical trial.

Abrams: Were the results of the first four studies shared with you after the study closed? Did any of the sites ever reach out with results?

Butler: No; sadly, Ive never heard any results from the clinical trials Ive participated in. I feel that the facility site should get the results and share it with the patients who participated in them.

Abrams: Would you describe some of the best practices that made you feel safe, valued, and appreciated at a clinical trial site?

Butler: The facilities nurse navigators are amazing. They are your sounding board and liaison between the patient, doctors, and pharmaceutical company. The nurses who administer the treatments are some of the kindest people that I have ever met. In one of the clinical trials I participated in, I was required to stay near the facility for 10 days for daily blood draws. This meant that I couldnt go home because I lived too far away. When I went to the clinic on a Saturday for my blood draw, one of the nurses brought her puppy and they were waiting outside for me. She knew that I was homesick, and her cuddly puppy gave me the boost I needed to get through my stay.

Abrams: Conversely, would you describe experiences that made your participation difficult and or frustrating?

Butler: Overall, the waiting time is the most frustrating part of participating in a clinical trial, especially in the larger clinics. The waiting time between the signed consent and the start date, time spent sitting in waiting rooms for blood draws and CTs, and anxiously waiting for test results.

Abrams: If you could provide feedback to a sponsor (pharmaceutical company) on how to design and execute a better clinical trial for people with cancer, what would you tell them?

Butler: I would ask the pharmaceutical companies to send surveys to the treatment sites for patients to fill out periodically. This would give the patients an opportunity to give their opinions while still remaining unidentified. I would like the sponsors to make it easier for the patients to get results of the clinical trial that they participated in.

Abrams: Have you heard the phrases I mentioned above? Patient-centricity, patient at the center, etc.? What do they mean to you?

Butler: Yes, I am familiar with those terms. For me, patient-centricity means that I have some control in my clinical trial journey. Not only am I being treated, but I am being cared about. Im not just a number.

Abrams: Amy, what do you want people to know about clinical trials and/or participating in clinical trials that we have not discussed?

Butler: I think that clinical trials should be part of the discussion early on in a patients cancer journey. Too many patients are waiting until its too late to start clinical trials because they are made to feel that its taboo to bring it up to their oncologist. I want the pharmaceutical companies to never lose sight that we are people who are desperately trying to beat cancer, or at least be able to live longer with cancer. We cant afford to waste time.

Abrams: This is Amys journey, not mine. Therefore, Amy will provide the ending to this article. I hope you have been touched by Amys words, strength, and courage. Together, we can continue to improve clinical research for the patients. They are our friends, our family members, and ourselves.

Butler: Although my participation in clinical trials has not cured me, I do believe they have extended my life. I was given a 30 percent chance to live five years when I was diagnosed, and here I am almost five years later. My disease has recently taken a dark turn, as I just learned that my fifth clinical trial has failed. My tumors have grown and now I have bone involvement. My treatment options are dwindling, but I refuse to give up because when it gets down to it, I just want to live.

Postscript: On the day of discontinuation of clinical trial No. 5, Amy decided that going back to a standard course of therapy was not going to be her path. She inquired about an NIH clinical trial. The oncologist agreed that this was a good idea. Once again, Amy left a doctors office with a good idea, but without a referral or contact name or number. However, there is good news. The following week, she was screened for a trial at NIH, and eight days later, she was accepted to be a patient participant.

About The Author:

Lori Abrams is senior director of Patient Advocacy, a new division at WCG Clinical. She previously was in R&D at Bristol-Myers Squibb for 20 years, the last five as director of Diversity and Patient Engagement. This group integrated the voice of the patient and caregiver into the clinical trial process, developed relationships in the disease-based and minority-focused communities, and helped colleagues understand the challenges of those living with diseases. You can email her at labrams@wcgclinical.com.

View post:
The Patient Perspective On Patient Centricity Insights From A Veteran Of 5 Clinical Trials - Clinical Leader

Saving rhinos with stem cells; $5.5 billion stem cell ballot measure readied – The San Diego Union-Tribune

The San Diego Zoos project to save the northern white rhino is now researching how to make sperm and egg cells to help resurrect the nearly extinct species, a zoo scientist said Thursday.

Marisa Korody, a conservation genetics scientist at the zoos Institute for Conservation research, gave the update to a scientific audience at the Sanford Consortium for Regenerative Medicine in La Jolla.

ICR scientists have developed induced pluripotent stem cells from frozen tissue samples, Korody said. These cells act like embryonic stem cells. In theory, they can be converted into nearly any cell type in the body.

A number of tests have confirmed that these are true pluripotent stem cells, she said, displaying a video of beating heart cells, or cardiomyocytes, made from the cells.

In theory, sperm and egg cells can be united to produce embryos, which can be implanted into closely related southern white rhino females, serving as surrogate mothers. Six of these are now being trained at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park.

But making these gametes is complicated, she said. They require supporting structures to mature properly, and nobody knows how to determine if they do mature properly. This means the zoo and colleagues are performing original science.

So-called primordial germ cells, the common ancestor of eggs and sperm, have arisen spontaneously. But they need to be reliably generated under controlled circumstances.

All rhino species and subspecies are endangered due to habitat loss and poaching for their horns, Korody said. Its our fault, we really need to help these species, she said.

On the positive side, Korody said the dozen or so tissue samples from northern white rhinos contains enough genetic diversity to bring back a viable population.

This is known because that diversity is greater than that in the southern white rhino, which rebounded from near-extinction to a population of about 18,000.

A long-discussed state initiative to refund Californias stem cell program with $5.5 billion has at last begun.

Backers filed the initiative Thursday, according to the California Stem Cell Report, which closely tracks the program, called the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, or CIRM. If it gets 633,212 valid signatures, the initiative will appear on the November 2020 ballot.

CIRM was founded by the passage of Proposition 71 in 2004. It got $3 billion from the sale of state bonds. It has been severely criticized for overpromising the speed at which stem cell treatments would get to patients. Advocates said the agency has had to go slow because of safety reasons.

Theres also the question of whether the agency should get more money, or whether its work should be transferred to private entities. California has the biggest biomedical industry in the nation, but it also has billions in state liabilities for purposes such as pensions. Critics say the state needs to address these unfunded liabilities.

Robert N. Klein, a real estate investment banker who led the original campaign to create CIRM, said in a recent interview that the new funding was necessary to ensure that therapies now in the clinic can reach patients.

The initiative sets aside $1.5 billion for research and development of treatments for neurological conditions, such as Alzheimers disease, Parkinsons disease, and stroke. It also provides money to help disadvantaged patients receive these treatments, Klein said.

Patients who live far away from major academic centers may have difficulty arranging to stay nearby while awaiting or receiving treatment, Klein said.

Initiative supporters need to convince the public that the $5.5 billion from state bonds is a wise use of public money. Earlier this week, a study from University of Southern California professors said that it was.

CIRM, funded with $3 billion from state bonds, has yielded $10.7 billion of additional gross output, or sales revenue, the study said. In addition, more than 56,000 full-time jobs were created. Go to http://j.mp/cirmeireport for the study.

The agency said the study and another report were funded by $206,000 from CIRM, which said the study was independent.

However, the California Stem Cell Report said the study didnt convince critics of the agency, who said the agency has received enough money as it is.

See the article here:
Saving rhinos with stem cells; $5.5 billion stem cell ballot measure readied - The San Diego Union-Tribune

BEYOND LOCAL: Expert recommends ‘path of cautious optimism’ about the future of stem cell treatment – ThoroldNews.com

This article, written byKatharine Sedivy-Haley, University of British Columbia, originally appeared on The Conversation and is republished here with permission:

When I was applying to graduate school in 2012, it felt like stem cells were about to revolutionize medicine.

Stem cells have the ability to renew themselves, and mature into specialized cells like heart or brain cells. This allows them to multiply and repair damage.

If stem cell genes are edited to fix defects causing diseases like anemia or immune deficiency, healthy cells can theoretically be reintroduced into a patient, thereby eliminating or preventing a disease. If these stem cells are taken or made from the patient themselves, they are a perfect genetic match for that individual, which means their body will not reject the tissue transplant.

Because of this potential, I was excited that my PhD project at the University of British Columbia gave me the opportunity to work with stem cells.

However, stem cell hype has led some to pay thousands of dollars on advertised stem cell treatments that promise to cure ailments from arthritis to Parkinsons disease. These treatments often dont help and may harm patients.

Despite the potential for stem cells to improve medicine, there are many challenges as they move from lab to clinic. In general, stem cell treatment requires we have a good understanding of stem cell types and how they mature. We also need stem cell culturing methods that will reliably produce large quantities of pure cells. And we need to figure out the correct cell dose and deliver it to the right part of the body.

Embryonic, 'induced and pluripotent

Stem cells come in multiple types. Embryonic stem cells come from embryos which makes them controversial to obtain.

A newly discovered stem cell type is the induced pluripotent stem cell. These cells are created by collecting adult cells, such as skin cells, and reprogramming them by inserting control genes which activate or induce a state similar to embryonic stem cells. This embryo-like state of having the versatile potential to turn into any adult cell type, is called being pluripotent.

However, induced pluripotent and embryonic stem cells can form tumours. Induced pluripotent stem cells carry a particularly high risk of harmful mutation and cancer because of their genetic instability and changes introduced during reprogramming.

Genetic damage could be avoided by using younger tissues such as umbilical cord blood, avoiding tissues that might contain pre-existing mutations (like sun-damaged skin cells), and using better methods for reprogramming.

Stem cells used to test drugs

For now, safety concerns mean pluripotent cells have barely made it to the clinic, but they have been used to test drugs.

For drug research, it is valuable yet often difficult to get research samples with specific disease-causing mutations; for example, brain cells from people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Researchers can, however, take a skin cell sample from a patient, create an induced pluripotent stem-cell line with their mutation and then make neurons out of those stem cells. This provides a renewable source of cells affected by the disease.

This approach could also be used for personalized medicine, testing how a particular patient will respond to different drugs for conditions like heart disease.

Vision loss from fat stem cells

Stem cells can also be found in adults. While embryonic stem cells can turn into any cell in the body, aside from rare newly discovered exceptions, adult stem cells mostly turn into a subset of mature adult cells.

For example, hematopoietic stem cells in blood and bone marrow can turn into any blood cell and are widely used in treating certain cancers and blood disorders.

A major challenge with adult stem cells is getting the right kind of stem cell in useful quantities. This is particularly difficult with eye and nerve cells. Most research is done with accessible stem cell types, like stem cells from fat.

Fat stem cells are also used in stem cell clinics without proper oversight or safety testing. Three patients experienced severe vision loss after having these cells injected into their eyes. There is little evidence that fat stem cells can turn into retinal cells.

Clinical complications

Currently, stem cell based treatments are still mostly experimental, and while some results are encouraging, several clinical trials have failed.

In the brain, despite progress in developing treatment for genetic disorders and spinal cord injury, treatments for stroke have been unsuccessful. Results might depend on method of stem cell delivery, timing of treatment and age and health of the patient. Frustratingly, older and sicker tissues may be more resistant to treatment.

For eye conditions, a treatment using adult stem cells to treat corneal injuries has recently been approved. A treatment for macular degeneration using cells derived from induced pluripotent stem cells is in progress, though it had to be redesigned due to concerns about cancer-causing mutations.

A path of cautious optimism

While scientists have good reason to be interested in stem cells, miracle cures are not right around the corner. There are many questions about how to implement treatments to provide benefit safely.

In some cases, advertised stem cell treatments may not actually use stem cells. Recent research suggests mesenchymal stem cells, which are commonly isolated from fat, are really a mixture of cells. These cells have regenerative properties, but may or may not include actual stem cells. Calling something a stem cell treatment is great marketing, but without regulation patients dont know what theyre getting.

Members of the public (and grad students) are advised to moderate their excitement in favour of cautious optimism.

Katharine Sedivy-Haley, PhD Candidate in Microbiology and Immunology, University of British Columbia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

View original post here:
BEYOND LOCAL: Expert recommends 'path of cautious optimism' about the future of stem cell treatment - ThoroldNews.com

Microbiome research needs a gut check – The Globe and Mail

Timothy Caulfield is a Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy at the University of Alberta and host of A Users Guide to Cheating Death

It happened with stem-cell research. Ditto genetics and precision medicine. And now we are seeing it play out with microbiome research. Good science is being exploited to market bunk products and ideas.

Gut hype is everywhere.

Story continues below advertisement

The pattern is now familiar, as highlighted by what happened with regenerative medicine. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, stem-cell research started receiving a massive amount of media coverage. It was presented as a potentially revolutionizing field of study. This hyped language was then exploited by clinics around the world to push unproven and dangerous stem-cell therapies. And now regulators, including the the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the U.S. and Health Canada, are trying to contain the mess.

Microbiome research is headed down the same path, but at an accelerated pace.

There is no doubt that the human microbiome the vast collection of microorganisms that live on and in all of us plays an important role in our health and well-being. Researchers around the world are now studying the complex relationship between the microbiome and a range of conditions, including obesity, depression and cardiovascular disease. This is a genuinely exciting area of scientific inquiry with great promise. Indeed, Im involved with an interdisciplinary research team, led by the University of British Columbias Stuart Turvey, exploring the impact of the microbiome on the development of childhood asthma.

But it is still early days for microbiome research. There are, in fact, only a few microbiome-related interventions that are ready for the clinic, such as the use of probiotics to help prevent diarrhea when taking antibiotics and fecal transplants for the treatment of a particular severe intestinal infection. Despite this reality, the idea that the microbiome is relevant to our health in ways that are immediately applicable to the massive wellness industry has permeated pop culture incredibly quickly. (A Google Trends analysis of the word microbiome in the United States reveals an increase in interest starting around 2013.) The ubiquity of microbiome-related products and promises often framed in the rhetoric of gut health has led to growing concern that the research is being inappropriately hyped.

As with stem cells, the language of microbiome research is now being used to legitimize some potentially harmful and thoroughly unproven alternative therapies, including the idea that we need to do regular colonics (basically, an enema) to cleanse and detox our bodies.

As is so often the case, proponents of these kinds of alternative gut-health practices want the best of both worlds. They want to situate the therapy as both ageless wisdom (many ancient civilizations practised inner cleansing) and rooted in modern, cutting-edge science (colonic hydrotherapy helps to detoxify the colon and increase peristaltic activity). And they claim it has both amorphous wellness benefits (youre feeling lighter, your futures brighter) and can treat serious health conditions (one of the most important high-blood-pressure natural remedies).

But despite the use of ancient anecdotes and science-y, microbiome-infused language, there is absolutely no evidence to support the practice or the too-good-to-be-true claims. Indeed, studies have found that while colon cleanses can affect the gut microbiome it is, after all, a pretty dramatic assault on your innards the change doesnt last. After a few weeks, our gut reverts back to its precolonic state.

Story continues below advertisement

Story continues below advertisement

The language of gut health and microbiome research is also used to sell a range of foods and supplements. While research continues, there is still little evidence to support the use of probiotics by healthy individuals. As noted in a recent commentary in the journal The Lancet: increasing evidence suggests that both commercial and clinical use of probiotics is outpacing the science. And there may be situations where probiotics might even be harmful, adversely affecting the way our body reacts to some drugs. But the lack of evidence to support the claims of health benefit hasnt stopped the rapid expansion of the probiotic industry, which is estimated to be worth almost US$74-billion by 2024.

But perhaps the most absurd example of the twisting of microbiome research is the marketing surrounding the raw water phenomenon. Over the past few years, a number of bottled water companies have started offering water that is straight from the natural source, such as a stream or spring. It is untreated and unfiltered. One of the arguments for the practice is the idea that drinking raw water improves microbiome health because it contains healthy microbes and minerals removed by public water-treatment facilities. This is, of course, beyond absurd (as are the ridiculous prices people are willing to pay). The production and distribution of clean water is one of the single greatest public-health achievements. Raw water kills more than 500,000 people a year.

In this era of misinformation, scientists must take extra care not to hype their work. Indeed, we need the scientific community particularly those working in these emerging and genuinely exciting fields of study to speak up when science is being misrepresented. We need credible voices to explain what is and isnt currently possible.

And we all need to be aware that science-y language is often used to market bunk.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Read more here:
Microbiome research needs a gut check - The Globe and Mail

BEYOND LOCAL: Expert recommends ‘path of cautious optimism’ about the future of stem cell treatment – GuelphToday

This article, written byKatharine Sedivy-Haley, University of British Columbia, originally appeared on The Conversation and is republished here with permission:

When I was applying to graduate school in 2012, it felt like stem cells were about to revolutionize medicine.

Stem cells have the ability to renew themselves, and mature into specialized cells like heart or brain cells. This allows them to multiply and repair damage.

If stem cell genes are edited to fix defects causing diseases like anemia or immune deficiency, healthy cells can theoretically be reintroduced into a patient, thereby eliminating or preventing a disease. If these stem cells are taken or made from the patient themselves, they are a perfect genetic match for that individual, which means their body will not reject the tissue transplant.

Because of this potential, I was excited that my PhD project at the University of British Columbia gave me the opportunity to work with stem cells.

However, stem cell hype has led some to pay thousands of dollars on advertised stem cell treatments that promise to cure ailments from arthritis to Parkinsons disease. These treatments often dont help and may harm patients.

Despite the potential for stem cells to improve medicine, there are many challenges as they move from lab to clinic. In general, stem cell treatment requires we have a good understanding of stem cell types and how they mature. We also need stem cell culturing methods that will reliably produce large quantities of pure cells. And we need to figure out the correct cell dose and deliver it to the right part of the body.

Embryonic, 'induced and pluripotent

Stem cells come in multiple types. Embryonic stem cells come from embryos which makes them controversial to obtain.

A newly discovered stem cell type is the induced pluripotent stem cell. These cells are created by collecting adult cells, such as skin cells, and reprogramming them by inserting control genes which activate or induce a state similar to embryonic stem cells. This embryo-like state of having the versatile potential to turn into any adult cell type, is called being pluripotent.

However, induced pluripotent and embryonic stem cells can form tumours. Induced pluripotent stem cells carry a particularly high risk of harmful mutation and cancer because of their genetic instability and changes introduced during reprogramming.

Genetic damage could be avoided by using younger tissues such as umbilical cord blood, avoiding tissues that might contain pre-existing mutations (like sun-damaged skin cells), and using better methods for reprogramming.

Stem cells used to test drugs

For now, safety concerns mean pluripotent cells have barely made it to the clinic, but they have been used to test drugs.

For drug research, it is valuable yet often difficult to get research samples with specific disease-causing mutations; for example, brain cells from people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Researchers can, however, take a skin cell sample from a patient, create an induced pluripotent stem-cell line with their mutation and then make neurons out of those stem cells. This provides a renewable source of cells affected by the disease.

This approach could also be used for personalized medicine, testing how a particular patient will respond to different drugs for conditions like heart disease.

Vision loss from fat stem cells

Stem cells can also be found in adults. While embryonic stem cells can turn into any cell in the body, aside from rare newly discovered exceptions, adult stem cells mostly turn into a subset of mature adult cells.

For example, hematopoietic stem cells in blood and bone marrow can turn into any blood cell and are widely used in treating certain cancers and blood disorders.

A major challenge with adult stem cells is getting the right kind of stem cell in useful quantities. This is particularly difficult with eye and nerve cells. Most research is done with accessible stem cell types, like stem cells from fat.

Fat stem cells are also used in stem cell clinics without proper oversight or safety testing. Three patients experienced severe vision loss after having these cells injected into their eyes. There is little evidence that fat stem cells can turn into retinal cells.

Clinical complications

Currently, stem cell based treatments are still mostly experimental, and while some results are encouraging, several clinical trials have failed.

In the brain, despite progress in developing treatment for genetic disorders and spinal cord injury, treatments for stroke have been unsuccessful. Results might depend on method of stem cell delivery, timing of treatment and age and health of the patient. Frustratingly, older and sicker tissues may be more resistant to treatment.

For eye conditions, a treatment using adult stem cells to treat corneal injuries has recently been approved. A treatment for macular degeneration using cells derived from induced pluripotent stem cells is in progress, though it had to be redesigned due to concerns about cancer-causing mutations.

A path of cautious optimism

While scientists have good reason to be interested in stem cells, miracle cures are not right around the corner. There are many questions about how to implement treatments to provide benefit safely.

In some cases, advertised stem cell treatments may not actually use stem cells. Recent research suggests mesenchymal stem cells, which are commonly isolated from fat, are really a mixture of cells. These cells have regenerative properties, but may or may not include actual stem cells. Calling something a stem cell treatment is great marketing, but without regulation patients dont know what theyre getting.

Members of the public (and grad students) are advised to moderate their excitement in favour of cautious optimism.

Katharine Sedivy-Haley, PhD Candidate in Microbiology and Immunology, University of British Columbia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The rest is here:
BEYOND LOCAL: Expert recommends 'path of cautious optimism' about the future of stem cell treatment - GuelphToday