5 questions facing gene therapy in 2022 – BioPharma Dive

Four years ago, a small Philadelphia biotech company won U.S. approval for the first gene therapy to treat an inherited disease, a landmark after decades of research aimed at finding ways to correct errors in DNA.

Since then, most of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies have invested in gene therapy, as well as cell therapies that rely on genetic modification. Dozens of new biotech companies have launched, while scientists have taken forward breakthroughs in gene editing science to open up new treatment possibilities.

But the confidence brought on by such advances has also been tempered by safety setbacks and clinical trial results that fell short of expectations. In 2022, the outlook for the field remains bright, but companies face critical questions that could shape whether, and how soon, new genetic medicines reach patients. Here are five:

Food and Drug Administration approval of Spark Therapeutics' blindness treatment Luxturna a first in the U.S. came in 2017. A year and a half later, Novartis' spinal muscular atrophy therapy Zolgensma won a landmark OK.

But none have reached market since, with treatments from BioMarin Pharmaceutical and Bluebird bio unexpectedly derailed or delayed.

That could change in 2022. Two of Bluebird's treatments, for the blood disease beta thalassemia and a rare brain disorder, are now under review by the FDA, with target decision dates in May and June. BioMarin, after obtaining more data for its hemophilia A gene therapy, plans to soon approach the FDA about resubmitting an application for approval.

Others, such as CSL Behring and PTC Therapeutics, are also currently planning to file their experimental gene therapies with the FDA in 2022.

Approvals, should they come, could provide important validation for their makers and expand the number of patients for whom genetic medicines are an option. In biotech, though, approvals aren't the end of the road, but rather the mark of a sometimes challenging transition from research to commercial operations. With price tags expected to be high, and still outstanding questions around safety and long-term benefit, new gene therapies may prove difficult to sell.

A record $20 billion flowed into gene and cell therapy developers in 2020, significantly eclipsing the previous high-water mark set in 2018.

Last year, the bar was set higher still, with a total of $23 billion invested in the sector, according to figures compiled by the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine. About half of that funding went toward gene therapy developers specifically, with a similar share going to cell-based immunotherapy makers.

Driving the jump was a sharp increase in the amount of venture funding, which rose 73% to total nearly $10 billion, per ARM. Initial public offerings also helped, with sixteen new startups raising at least $50 million on U.S. markets.

Entering 2022, the question facing the field is whether those record numbers will continue. Biotech as a whole slumped into the end of last year, with shares of many companies falling amid a broader investment pullback. Gene therapy developers, a number of which had notable safety concerns crop up over 2021, were hit particularly hard.

Moreover, many startups that jumped to public markets hadn't yet begun clinical trials roughly half of the 29 gene and cell therapy companies that IPO'd over the past two years were preclinical, according to data compiled by BioPharma Dive. That can set high expectations companies will be hard pressed to meet.

Generation Bio, for example, raised $200 million in June 2020 with a pipeline of preclinical gene therapies for rare diseases of the liver and eye. Unexpected findings in animal studies, however, sank company shares by nearly 60% last December.

Still, the pace of progress in gene and cell therapy is fast. The potential is vast, too, which could continue to support high levels of investment.

"I think fundamentally, investment in this sector is driven by scientific advances, and clinical events and milestones," said Janet Lambert, ARM's CEO, in an interview. "And I think we see those in 2022."

The potential of replacing or editing faulty genes has been clear for decades. How to do so safely has been much less certain, and concerns on that front have set back the field several times.

"Safety, safety and safety are the first three top-of-mind risks," said Luca Issi, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets, in an interview.

Researchers have spent years making the technology that underpins gene therapy safer and now have a much better understanding of the tools at their disposal. But as dozens of companies push into clinical trials, a number of them have run into safety problems that raise crucial questions for investigators.

In trials run by Audentes Therapeutics and by Pfizer (in separate diseases), study volunteers have tragically died for reasons that aren't fully understood. UniQure, Bluebird bio and, most recently, Allogene Therapeutics have reported cases of cancer or worrisome genetic abnormalities that triggered study halts and investigations.

While the treatments being tested were later cleared in the three latter cases, the FDA was sufficiently alarmed to convene a panel of outside experts to review potential safety risks last fall. (Bluebird recently disclosed a new hold in a study of its sickle cell gene therapy due to a patient developing chronic anemia.)

The meeting was welcomed by some in the industry, who hope to work with the FDA to better detail known risks and how to avoid them in testing.

"[There's] nothing better than getting people together and talking about your struggles, and having FDA participate in that," said Ken Mills, CEO of gene therapy developer Regenxbio, in an interview. "The biggest benefit probably is for the new and emerging teams and people and companies that are coming into this space."

Safety scares and setbacks are likely to happen again, as more companies launch additional clinical trials. The FDA, as the recent meeting and clinical holds have shown, appears to be carefully weighing the potential risks to patients.

But, notably, there hasn't been a pullback from pursuing further research, as has happened in the past. Different technologies and diseases present different risks, which regulators, companies and the patient community are recognizing.

"We're by definition pushing the scientific envelope, and patients that we seek to treat often have few or no other treatment options," said ARM's Lambert.

Last June, Intellia Therapeutics disclosed early results from a study that offered the first clinical evidence CRISPR gene editing could be done safely and effectively inside the body.

The data were a major milestone for a technology that's dramatically expanded the possibility for editing DNA to treat disease. But the first glimpse left many important questions unanswered, not least of which are how long the reported effects might last and whether they'll drive the kind of dramatic clinical benefit gene editing promises.

Intellia is set to give an update on the study this quarter, which will start to give a better sense of how patients are faring. Later in the year the company is expecting to have preliminary data from an early study of another "in vivo" gene editing treatment.

In vivo gene editing is seen as a simpler approach that could work in more diseases than treatments that rely on stem cells extracted from each patient. But it's also potentially riskier, with the editing of DNA taking place inside the body rather than in a laboratory.

Areas like the eye, which is protected from some of the body's immune responses, have been a common first in vivo target by companies like Editas Medicine. But Intellia and others are targeting other tissues like the liver, muscle and lungs.

Later this year, Verve Therapeutics, a company that uses a more precise form of gene editing called base editing, plans to treat the first patient with an in vivo treatment for heart disease (which targets a gene expressed in the liver.)

"The future of gene editing is in vivo," said RBC's Issi. His view seems to be shared by Pfizer, which on Monday announced a $300 million research deal with Beam Therapeutics to pursue in vivo gene editing targets in the liver, muscle and central nervous system.

With more and more cell and gene therapy companies launching, the pipeline of would-be therapies has grown rapidly, as has the number of clinical trials being launched.

Yet, many companies are exploring similar approaches for the same diseases, resulting in drug pipelines that mirror each other. A September 2021 report from investment bank Piper Sandler found 21 gene therapy programs aimed at hemophilia A, 19 targeting Duchenne muscular dystrophy and 18 going after sickle cell disease.

In gene editing, Intellia, Editas, Beam and CRISPR Therapeutics are all developing treatments for sickle cell disease, with CRISPR the furthest along.

As programs advance and begin to deliver more clinical data, companies may be forced into making hard choices.

"[W]e think investors will place greater scrutiny as programs enter the clinic and certain rare diseases are disproportionately pursued," analysts at Stifel wrote in a recent note to investors, citing Fabry disease and hemophilia in particular.

This January, for example, Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Avrobio stopped work on a treatment for Fabry that was, until that point, the company's lead candidate. The decision was triggered by unexpected findings that looked different than earlier study results, but Avrobio also cited "multiple challenging regulatory and market dynamics."

Continue reading here:
5 questions facing gene therapy in 2022 - BioPharma Dive

What it’s like in academic family medicine: Shadowing Dr. Rouhbakhsh – American Medical Association

As a medical student, do you ever wonder what its like to specialize in academic family medicine? Meet AMA member Rambod A. Rouhbakhsh, MD, a featured academic family physician in the AMAsShadow Me Specialty Series, which offers advice directly from physicians about life in their specialties. Check out his insights to help determine whether a career in academic family medicine and preventive medicine might be a good fit for you.

The AMAsSpecialty Guidesimplifies medical students specialty selection process, highlight major specialties, detail training information, and provide access to related association information. It is produced byFREIDA, the AMA Residency & Fellowship Database.

Learn more with the AMA about family medicine and preventive medicine.

Shadowing Dr. Rouhbakhsh

Specialty: Family medicine; occupational and environmental medicine.

Practice setting: Academic family medicine residency; clinical research.

Years in practice:17.

A typical day and week in my practice: My days are split into discreet roles. Mondays are my teaching days. Tuesdays are recruitment and admin days. Wednesdays are program and institutional development days. Thursdays and Fridays are my clinical research days.

My day typically starts with a morning report at 7:30 a.m. and formally ends at 5 p.m. Informally, I find most of my meaningful work is done after hours. Now that I am in a leadership position, I rarely find quiet time to actually create a work product. As such, I tend to be most productive during my boys soccer practice when I can sit in my car and work on the computer.

How the year unfolds in my practice: When I began my career in academic family medicine, I started as clinical faculty, so my work revolved primarily around teaching residents in clinic. Now, as the program director, I spend more time doing administrative work, which translates to meetings, recruiting new residents, and developing faculty.

The year for us begins in July when we welcome our new residents. The interns spend much of July in orientation, during which we help them transition from medical student to resident physician. We organize orientation activities, compose introductory didactics, and help ease our interns into their new jobs. Also in July, we transition our new PGY-2 residents to senior residents who take on teaching and supervisory responsibilities for our new interns.

In August, we start prepping for recruitment season, which officially kicks off when we receive ERAS applications in September. We also tend to do outreach talks to our local medical schools in August and September. From early October through December, we interview prospective students and find matches for our residency program. We receive thousands of applications from medical students, but we only offer interviews to 60 applicants. To arrive at that point, we spend a significant portion of September reading applications.

October through December is dominated by the actual interviews. In pre-COVID times, these were more festive events with dinners and lunches. Now that they are virtual, it is less time-consuming, but also less fun. Throughout the fall and winter, we focus on our graduating PGY-3 residents to make sure they have met their requirements and assist them in finding jobs.

In January, faculty have more time to meet, and this is when we do cumulative evaluations of our residents and engage in program enhancement activities. We typically elect a chief resident for the upcoming year during this time. January through March is also when we spend extra time on research and academic projects.

Then in March we get our Match list. We welcome our incoming residents and start prepping them for orientation in July. Most of our focus in the spring is on our graduating senior residents. We organize wellness activities and plan for graduation. We also do our year-end cumulative evaluations for residents, faculty, and the program itself in late spring.

Interspersed throughout the academic year, we teach in clinic, in hospital, and during didactics. There are also myriad committee meetings and ad-hoc opportunities and issues that arise. For instance, new research collaborations frequently occur since we are literally across the street from the University of Southern Mississippi and across town from William Carey University. These opportunities are exciting, but sometimes they stretch our bandwidth.

The most challenging and rewarding aspects of academic family medicine: Teaching is fantastic, especially teaching residents. These young doctors are on the top tier of the education hierarchy. They are typically the smartest people I know, and I feel privileged to help them attain their post-graduate training. These are intelligent, motivated people who approach education with vigor and enthusiasm.

They are also inquisitive enough to challenge and grow my personal fund of knowledge. If there is something that we dont know collectively, residents will research it and come back to teach the entire group. These are high-powered education machines who can accomplish seemingly anything they put their minds to.

Academic family medicine is exceedingly rewarding, not just because it involves teaching, but because academic family medicine can be situated in community-based hospitals, allowing you greater flexibility to live where you wish. For example, if I had wanted to do academic neurosurgery or cardiology, I would have to be in the one medical school in Mississippi which is in Jackson.

Community-based family medicine residency programs are the bulk of academic family medicine. I am truly grateful for that because it allows me to live in a great place like Hattiesburg and not necessarily in a metropolitan area. Teaching is a remarkable joy, and I would encourage anyone who enjoys that to consider academic family medicine.

How life in academic family medicine has been affected by the global pandemic: Some of the societal effects of the pandemic have actually helped us. Being able to conduct virtual interviews with our program applicants has allowed us to draw more people and has provided us the opportunity to do more interviews in a less time-intensive and less costly way.

For example, we interviewed a woman from Ohio last year, and Im quite certain she wouldnt have flown to Mississippi for the interview. And she ended up being a match for our program, which has been fantastic for us. Also, we are now telemedicine-savvy practitioners, which is here to stay. Lastly, it has forced us to become better epidemiologists, virologists, and occupational hygienists.

How my lifestyle matches, or differs from, what I had envisioned: My life today is very different than my days as a clinical doctor. The hours are about the same, but the pace is different. My work is cognitively more challenging in academics, but it is less intense. When I was in clinic every day, I felt a rush of intensity that for me was requisite to be an efficient clinician. I dont feel that as often now. As a clinic doctor, I felt like a sprinter. Now, I feel a bit more like a marathon runnerespecially during meeting-heavy days.

Additionally, I do clinical research and run clinical trials for three half-days per week. As the principal investigator, I supervise sub-investigators, review charts, and see our trial patients. We have several ongoing trials, including COVID-19 vaccine trials, a meningococcal vaccine trial, a hypertension medication trial, a diabetes medication trial, and a pediatric migraine trial. Keeping all the protocols straight can be challenging, but it is not as intensive as a typical family medicine clinic day.

Books every medical student interested in family medicine should be reading:

The online resource students interested in family medicine should follow: My number one recommendation is UpToDate. It is the most comprehensive reference source I know of. I also suggest students sign up for recurring news that is delivered to their inbox regularly. My favorites are the New England Journal of Medicines Journal Watch, the AMAs Morning Rounds Daily, and the American Academy of Family Physicians Family Medicine Smart Brief.

Quick insights I would give students who are considering family medicine: The gift of family medicineand the curse to a degreeis its flexibility and its breadth. It can be daunting to feel like you havent mastered one aspect of the specialty. However, it is an evergreen challenge and provides enormous opportunities. It led me to preventive and occupational medicine and ultimately to academic family medicine. Family medicine is like a pluripotent stem cellit has limitless potential.

In family medicine, you can become whatever you want to become. It gives you sufficient background to discover your passions, which sometimes may be being a true generalist and having your hand in everything all the time. In that way, this specialty is extremely rewarding because it gives you the most tools to take care of the largest group of people in the most practical way.

When the pandemic broke out, my background in family medicine allowed me to dig deep into studying COVID-19. Again, its this type of training that allows you to go down these pathways with relative ease because you are so broadly trained.

Mantra or song to describe life in family medicine: At the beginning of my career, I would have to say Hustlin, by Rick Ross. Now, in midcareer, I cant think of a song. But I do have a mantra. I try to remind myself of the wisdom of impermanence: Everything changes.

Read more:
What it's like in academic family medicine: Shadowing Dr. Rouhbakhsh - American Medical Association

How Abu Dhabi’s ADQ is creating the UAE’s largest healthcare platform – Mobihealth News

Abu Dhabis ADQ has kicked off the new year with one of its biggest healthcare mergers yet.

The asset owner and investor considered one of the GCCs largest holding companies has announced that it has entered into an agreement to consolidate several companies within Pure Health, a UAE-based integrated healthcare solutions provider.

Companies set to become part of Pure Health include Abu Dhabi Health Services Company (SEHA), the National Health Insurance Company PJSC better known as Daman Tamouh Healthcare, Yas Clinic Group, and Abu Dhabi Stem Cell Center.

The merger which is subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals, ADQ confirmed will reportedly result in creating the largest healthcare provider in the UAE.

Pure Health will be instrumental in transforming the provision of healthcare as we consolidate several companies into the platform, said H.E. Mohamed Hassan Alsuwaidi, CEO of ADQ. We are further driving efficiencies to establish the UAEs largest healthcare network, underpinned by clinical excellence, through elevated services, optimised healthcare spend[ing], and improved efficiencies across the value chain.

Combining the strength of clinical powerhouses and the UAEs leading health insurer will develop a scalable healthcare platform for growth.

THE LARGER CONTEXT

Established in 2018, ADQs portfolio includes businesses in healthcare and pharma, energy and utilities, food and agriculture, and mobility and logistics.

Pure Health, meanwhile, offers a diversified services portfolio that comprises healthcare informatics, hospital management, laboratory services including COVID-19 PCR testing and medical supplies.

Following completion of this merger, ADQ will become the largest shareholder in Pure Health. The companys other shareholders are Alpha Dhabi Holding, International Holding Company (IHC), AH Capital and Ataa Financial Investments.

WHY IT MATTERS

Offering the largest integrated healthcare ecosystem means that Pure Health will significantly contribute to the UAEs healthcare landscape and deliver on the countrys mission to elevate the health and wellbeing of citizens and residents, ADQ said in a statement. Patients will benefit from access to greater clinical expertise and healthcare services across the spectrum of care.

In March of last year, ADQ transferred ownership of its healthcare support service entities Rafed and Union71 to Pure Health.

ON THE RECORD

Pure Health remains committed to delivering convenient, accessible, and transparent healthcare as we become the largest integrated healthcare services platform in the UAE, said Farhan Malik, CEO and Managing Director of Pure Health. We believe that healthcare is too important to remain the same.

Our north star is to enable greater longevity of humankind, and we will constantly work towards a healthier and longer life for the people of UAE.

Read the original here:
How Abu Dhabi's ADQ is creating the UAE's largest healthcare platform - Mobihealth News

Exclusive: Ronnie Coleman on Recent Weight Gain, Current Strength, and Health Progress – BarBend

Fans of bodybuilding are familiar with the health struggles that have plagued eight-time Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman in recent years. Coleman has endured over a dozen surgeries to his neck and back and, as a result, walks with crutches. Through it all, Coleman maintains a positive spirit and remains optimistic thanks in part to two stem cell treatments, which are starting to pay off.

Coleman joined co-host Giles Thomas in a recent episode of the Aint Nothing but a Podcast show. In the video, released on Dec. 29, 2021, Coleman says that hes beginning to feel like his old self again, and his weight gain reflects his health improvements.

Sporting a Ronnie Coleman Signature Series shirt that showed off his noticeable arm improvement, the Texas native his home revealed that hes back up to 285 pounds. And if youre having trouble believing that Coleman weighs close to what he did in his competitive prime, youre not alone.

I weighed myself five times on the scale downstairs, and I thought maybe its because Im downstairs,' Coleman said on the podcast episode. I was freaking out, so I went upstairs, and [that scale] was the same. I was like wow.'

BarBend reached out to the 2016 International Sports Hall of Fame inductee directly to follow up on what he revealed on his podcast. Coleman was happy to share more about his progress, including what he considers the best improvement of all the return of his signature leg size.

Thats the thing Im most proud of, Coleman tells BarBend. My legs had atrophied a whole lot since 2016 when I went in and had my first surgery 2017, same thing, 2018, 2019, 2020, same thing. I was just about to give up on it, you know. Then, suddenly, about four months ago, I started feeling a pump in my legs. And then I noticed the size had come back, and the atrophy was gone. I was geeked!

The man considered the most legendary bodybuilder of all time wasnt just known for being big. His freakish feats of strength including an 800-pound back squat and deadlift only added to the mystique he brought to the stage.

While Coleman isnt going to be moving that kind of weight anytime soon, hes been more active on social media, sharing training clips, such as the one below in which he performed a set of leg extensions on Dec. 12, 2021.

Coleman isnt leg-pressing 2,300 pounds as he did in his prime, but he is throwing more 45s on the machine nowadays than during his recovery.

Im back up to doing five plates, one each side, up from three per side a few months ago, Coleman says.

The eight-time Mr. Olympias improvements arent exclusively in the lower body. Coleman shared that hes getting stronger on numerous lifts in the gym. For example, Coleman is moving weight, performing 20 reps of rear lateral raises. The new size is evident, and his trademark smile was on full display during the set (see below).

My strength has come up a whole lot. Im going to say that its up about 40 percent.

He used the flat dumbbell press as another example, saying that he is now working with 70-pound dumbbells for his sets of 20 reps, which he does for every lift. He is training six days a week, as he did during his reign as the number one bodybuilder on the planet.

Returning leg strength is undoubtedly a strong sign that Colemans physical health is improving. That said, the former police officer mentions that itll still be a while before hes able to ditch the crutches.

My feet are still numb, and my quads are still numb, but theyre not quite as numb. I can start to feel them a little bit, he says. Once Im able to relieve this numbness, I will stand a much better chance of balancing myself.

Coleman says that the stem cell specialist told him that nerve regeneration takes about two years. As Coleman explains on the podcast, the specialists claim was verified when the numbness in his neck went away after two years, almost to the day. Coleman is confident that the same will happen with his lower extremities.

I thought about what the doctor said, and he was right. Thats what Im looking at now. It will be about two years before I get my full mobility and balance back. Then I can work on walking unassisted.

With his most recent stem cell treatment having taken place on Dec. 27, 2021, Coleman is optimistic that hell keep on progressing. This positive news caps off a good year overall for the 57-year-old icon.

In September, he was honored with the Arnold Classic Lifetime Achievement award by fellow Mr. Olympia Arnold Schwarzenegger. As great as that honor was, hes even more excited to get back out to events and meet fans now that he is in better shape and spirits I cant wait!

Featured Image: @ronniecoleman8 on Instagram

The rest is here:
Exclusive: Ronnie Coleman on Recent Weight Gain, Current Strength, and Health Progress - BarBend

Therapeutic Solutions International Successfully Treats No Option Patients with its JadiCell Stem Cell Therapy While Advancing Preparations for Phase…

Get inside Wall Street with StreetInsider Premium. Claim your 1-week free trial here.

Company Accelerating Clinical Progress in Response to Omicron Outbreak by Pre-Trial Implementation in Real Life Clinical Situations Leveraging Right to Try Exemption

OCEANSIDE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Therapeutic Solutions International (TSOI) announced today successful treatment of 15 recent patients under the Right to Try Law with the Companys universal donor JadiCell adult stem cell product. All patients displayed no adverse events and demonstrated subjective and objective levels of improvement.

There were 12 COVID-19 patients who underwent a profound recovery despite advanced stage of disease, while the retired Navy SEAL that was previously publicly disclosed1 along with two other retired SEALS, had a significant decrease in biomarkers associated with Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), as well as psychological improvement at the two month follow up.

We are making progress in preparing for the upcoming Phase III clinical trial of JadiCells for treatment of COVID-19. This includes negotiation with the contract research organization, site recruitment and selection, as well as organization of trial logistics, said James Veltmeyer, Chief Medical Officer of the Company. Despite this, COVID-19 and variants of concern such as omicron, have the potential to wreak severe chaos on our healthcare system. We have literally saved lives with JadiCells and believe in making the treatment available as soon as possible under appropriate conditions.

Under the Right to Try Law, companies are allowed to provide experimental therapies that have passed Phase I clinical trials to patients who in the opinion of the physician have no therapeutic options available to them.

We plan to continue clinical implementation and data collection in a real time setting using JadiCells for patients whose physicians deem they qualify under Right to Try, said Timothy Dixon, President and CEO of Therapeutic Solutions International. Nothing makes me feel better as CEO of this Company than seeing firsthand our product saving lives. Now the mission is to make it available on a large scale, which we will.

About Therapeutic Solutions International, Inc.

Therapeutic Solutions International is focused on immune modulation for the treatment of several specific diseases. The Company's corporate website is http://www.therapeuticsolutionsint.com, and our public forum is https://board.therapeuticsolutionsint.com/.

1 Therapeutic Solutions International Successfully Treats Veteran Navy SEAL Suffering from Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy with JadiCell Adult Stem Cells Under Right to Try Law

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211230005155/en/

Timothy G. Dixon ir@tsoimail.com

Source: Therapeutic Solutions International

Go here to read the rest:
Therapeutic Solutions International Successfully Treats No Option Patients with its JadiCell Stem Cell Therapy While Advancing Preparations for Phase...

Mesenchymal stem/stromal cell-based therapies for severe viral pneumonia: therapeutic potential and challenges – DocWire News

This article was originally published here

Intensive Care Med Exp. 2021 Dec 31;9(1):61. doi: 10.1186/s40635-021-00424-5.

ABSTRACT

Severe viral pneumonia is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality globally, whether due to outbreaks of endemic viruses, periodic viral epidemics, or the rarer but devastating global viral pandemics. While limited anti-viral therapies exist, there is a paucity of direct therapies to directly attenuate viral pneumonia-induced lung injury, and management therefore remains largely supportive. Mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (MSCs) are receiving considerable attention as a cytotherapeutic for viral pneumonia. Several properties of MSCs position them as a promising therapeutic strategy for viral pneumonia-induced lung injury as demonstrated in pre-clinical studies in relevant models. More recently, early phase clinical studies have demonstrated a reassuring safety profile of these cells. These investigations have taken on an added importance and urgency during the COVID-19 pandemic, with multiple trials in progress across the globe. In parallel with clinical translation, strategies are being investigated to enhance the therapeutic potential of these cells in vivo, with different MSC tissue sources, specific cellular products including cell-free options, and strategies to licence or pre-activate these cells, all being explored. This review will assess the therapeutic potential of MSC-based therapies for severe viral pneumonia. It will describe the aetiology and epidemiology of severe viral pneumonia, describe current therapeutic approaches, and examine the data suggesting therapeutic potential of MSCs for severe viral pneumonia in pre-clinical and clinical studies. The challenges and opportunities for MSC-based therapies will then be considered.

PMID:34970706 | DOI:10.1186/s40635-021-00424-5

More here:
Mesenchymal stem/stromal cell-based therapies for severe viral pneumonia: therapeutic potential and challenges - DocWire News

Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics (BCLI) Receives FDA Authorization for Expanded Dosing Program; Shares Higher – InvestorsObserver

News Home

Monday, December 27, 2021 10:53 AM | Kyle Depontes

Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. (BCLI)today announced plans for a dosing extension of NurOwn for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) participants who completed the Expanded Access Protocol (EAP).

Under the original EAP, participants who had completed the Phase 3 NurOwn trial and who met specific eligibility criteria had the opportunity to receive 3 doses of NurOwn.

Under the amended EAP, these eligible participants will receive up to 3 additional doses.

The company is also developing novel adult stem cell therapies for neurodegenerative disorders such as Progressive Multiple Sclerosis, and Parkinson's disease.

Shares of BCLI increased 1.19% to $3.76 as of Monday at 10:24am.

The expansion the Brainstorm's NurOwn trial will be an excellent opportunity for the company to test its technology through an expanded dosing program.

The NurOwn platform is a revolutionary technology that harnesses MSC-NTF cells, which are produced from autologous, bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) to deliver multiple NTFs and immunomodulatory cytokines directly to the site of damage to stabilize disease progression.

Robert Brown, Department of Neurology Chair at the University of Massachusetts and Principal Investigator, commented,"This dosing extension for the expanded access protocol is an appropriate next step following the new analysis and biomarkers results of the Phase 3 study."

"It is deeply appreciated by our ALS patients. Eligible patients now have the opportunity to receive as many as 9 doses of NurOwn in total, allowing additional data collection to better understand the potential benefits of longer-term treatment."

According to theFDA, EAPs, alternatively known as "compassionate use" programs, provide a pathway for appropriate patients to receive an investigational medicine for treatment of a serious disease outside of a clinical trial when no satisfactory alternative therapy options are available.

BCLI has a Fundamental Rank of 77. Find out what this means to you and get the rest of the rankings on BCLI!

Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc is a biotechnology company. The company is developing novel adult stem cell therapies for debilitating neurodegenerative disorders such as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease), Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (PMS), and Parkinson's disease (PD). Brainstorm's NurOwn, its proprietary process for the propagation of Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSC) and differentiation into neurotrophic factor-(NTF) secreting cells (MSC-NTF), and their transplantation at, or near, the site of damage, offers the hope of more effectively treating neurodegenerative diseases.

Friday, December 31, 2021 04:33 PM | MT Newswires

Friday, December 31, 2021 04:08 PM | MT Newswires

Friday, December 31, 2021 04:00 PM | MT Newswires

Friday, December 31, 2021 04:00 PM | MT Newswires

Friday, December 31, 2021 03:43 PM | MT Newswires

Friday, December 31, 2021 03:03 PM | MT Newswires

More here:
Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics (BCLI) Receives FDA Authorization for Expanded Dosing Program; Shares Higher - InvestorsObserver

Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy Market Size 2021 Analysis by Top Companies | Biolife Solutions,Thermo Fisher Scientific,Merck,Ge Healthcare …

New Jersey, United States,-Market Research Intellect has been analyzing technology and markets for Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy since 2018. Since then, through Research Analysis of companies, we have been very close to the latest research and market development.

In addition, Market Research Intellect works closely with many customers to help them better understand the technology and market environment and develop innovation and commercialization strategies.

Market Research Intellect offers a wealth of expertise in Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy Market analysis. We have been in this business for the past 20 years, and we have closely watched the rise and/or fall, success and/or disappointment of many emerging technologies during this time.

This gives us a uniquely experienced eye when it comes to analyzing emerging electronic materials technologies. This is very important because it helps build a realistic market and technology roadmap that reflects the true potential of technology based on its intrinsic characteristics and the true level of technology and commercial challenges it faces.

Get | Download Sample Copy with TOC, Graphs & List of [emailprotected]https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/download-sample/?rid=219043

In addition, market revenues based on region and country are provided in the report on Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapys. The authors of the report also shed light on the common business tactics adopted by actors. The main players in the global bCell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy market and their full profiles are included in the report. In addition, investment opportunities, recommendations and current trends in the global Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy market are mapped by the report. Thanks to this report, key players in the global Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy market will be able to make good decisions and plan their strategies accordingly to stay ahead of the curve.

The competitive landscape is an essential aspect that every key player must know. The report highlights the competitive scenario of the global Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy market to know the competition at the national and global levels. The market experts also presented the broad outlines of each major player in the global Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy market, taking into account key aspects such as business areas, production and product portfolio. In addition, the companies in the report are studied according to key factors such as company size, market share, market growth, revenues, production volume and profits.

The major players covered in Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy Markets:

Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy Market Breakdown by Type:

Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy Market breakdown by application:

The Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy market report has been separated according to separate categories, such as product type, application, end-user, and region. Each segment is evaluated on the basis of CAGR, share, and growth potential. In the regional analysis, the report highlights the prospective region, which is expected to generate opportunities in the global Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapys market in the coming years. This segmental analysis will surely prove to be a useful tool for readers, stakeholders and market participants in order to get a complete picture of the global Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapys market and its growth potential in the coming years.

Get | Discount On The Purchase Of This Report @ https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/ask-for-discount/?rid=219043

Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy Market Report Scope

Regional market analysis Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy can be represented as follows:

Each regional Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy sectors is carefully studied to understand its current and future growth scenarios. This helps players to strengthen their position. Use market research to get a better perspective and understanding of the market and target audience and ensure you stay ahead of the competition.

The base of geography, the world market of Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy has segmented as follows:

Key questions answered in the report:

For More Information or Query or Customization Before Buying, Visit @ https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/product/global-cell-freezing-media-for-cell-therapy-market-size-and-forcast/

Visualize Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy Market using Verified Market Intelligence:-

Verified Market Intelligence is our BI-enabled platform to tell the story of this market. VMI provides in-depth predictive trends and accurate insights into more than 20,000 emerging and niche markets to help you make key revenue impact decisions for a brilliant future.VMI provides a comprehensive overview and global competitive landscape of regions, countries, and segments, as well as key players in your market. Showcase your market reports and findings with built-in presentation capabilities, providing more than 70% of time and resources for investors, sales and marketing, R & D, and product development. VMI supports data delivery in Excel and interactive PDF formats and provides more than 15 key market indicators for your market.

Visualize Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy Market using VMI @ hhttps://www.marketresearchintellect.com/mri-intelligence/

The study explores in depth the profiles of the main market players and their main financial aspects. This comprehensive business analyst report is useful for all existing and new entrants as they design their business strategies. This report covers production, revenue, market share and growth rate of the Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy market for each key company, and covers breakdown data (production, consumption, revenue and market share) by regions, type and applications. Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy historical breakdown data from 2016 to 2020 and forecast to 2021-2029.

About Us: Market Research Intellect

Market Research Intellect provides syndicated and customized research reports to clients from various industries and organizations in addition to the objective of delivering customized and in-depth research studies.We speak to looking logical research solutions, custom consulting, and in-severity data analysis lid a range of industries including Energy, Technology, Manufacturing and Construction, Chemicals and Materials, Food and Beverages. Etc Our research studies assist our clients to make higher data-driven decisions, admit push forecasts, capitalize coarsely with opportunities and optimize efficiency by bustling as their belt in crime to adopt accurate and indispensable mention without compromise.Having serviced on the pinnacle of 5000+ clients, we have provided expertly-behaved assert research facilities to more than 100 Global Fortune 500 companies such as Amazon, Dell, IBM, Shell, Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Siemens, Microsoft, Sony, and Hitachi.

Contact us:Mr. Edwyne Fernandes US: +1 (650)-781-4080 UK: +44 (753)-715-0008 APAC: +61 (488)-85-9400 US Toll-Free: +1 (800)-782-1768

Website: https://www.marketresearchintellect.com/

Original post:
Cell Freezing Media for Cell Therapy Market Size 2021 Analysis by Top Companies | Biolife Solutions,Thermo Fisher Scientific,Merck,Ge Healthcare ...

NIH Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research | STEM Cell …

SUMMARY: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is hereby publishing final "National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research" (Guidelines).

On March 9, 2009, President Barack H. Obama issued Executive Order 13505: Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells. The Executive Order states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Director of NIH, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research, to the extent permitted by law.

These Guidelines implement Executive Order 13505, as it pertains to extramural NIH-funded stem cell research, establish policy and procedures under which the NIH will fund such research, and helps ensure that NIH-funded research in this area is ethically responsible, scientifically worthy, and conducted in accordance with applicable law. Internal NIH policies and procedures, consistent with Executive Order 13505 and these Guidelines, will govern the conduct of intramural NIH stem cell research.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These Guidelines are effective on July 7, 2009.

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT GUIDELINES: On April 23, 2009 the NIH published draft Guidelines for research involving hESCs in the Federal Register for public comment, 74 Fed. Reg. 18578 (April 23, 2009). The comment period ended on May 26, 2009.

The NIH received approximately 49,000 comments from patient advocacy groups, scientists and scientific societies, academic institutions, medical organizations, religious organizations, and private citizens. The NIH also received comments from members of Congress. This Notice presents the final Guidelines together with the NIH response to public comments that addressed provisions of the Guidelines.

Title of the Guidelines, Terminology, and Background:

Respondents felt the title of the NIH draft guidelines was misleading, in that it is entitled "National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research," yet addresses only one type of human stem cell. The NIH notes that although the Guidelines pertain primarily to the donation of embryos for the derivation of hESCs, one Section also applies to certain uses of both hESCs and human induced pluripotent stem cells. Also, the Guidelines discuss applicable regulatory standards when research involving human adult stem cells or induced pluripotent stem cells constitutes human subject research. Therefore, the title of the Guidelines was not changed.

Respondents also disagreed with the definition of human embryonic stem cells in the draft Guidelines, and asked that the NIH define them as originating from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst. The NIH modified the definition to say that human embryonic stem cells "are cells that are derived from the inner cell mass of blastocyst stage human embryos, are capable of dividing without differentiating for a prolonged period in culture, and are known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ layers."

Financial Gain

Respondents expressed concern that derivers of stem cells might profit from the development of hESCs. Others noted that because the stem cells eligible for use in research using NIH funding under the draft Guidelines are those cells that are subject to existing patents, there will be insufficient competition in the licensing of such rights. These respondents suggested that this could inhibit research, as well as increase the cost of any future clinical benefits. The Guidelines do not address the distribution of stem cell research material. It is, however, the NIH's expectation that stem cell research materials developed with NIH funds, as well as associated intellectual property and data, will be distributed in accordance with the NIHs existing policies and guidance, including "Sharing Biomedical Research Resources, Principles and Guidelines for Recipients of NIH Grants and Contracts" and "Best Practices for the Licensing of Genomic Inventions." http://www.ott.nih.gov/policy/policies_and_guidelines.aspx Even where such policies are not directly applicable, the NIH encourages others to refrain from imposing on the transfer of research tools, such as stem cells, any conditions that hinder further biomedical research. In addition, the Guidelines were revised to state that there should be documentation that "no payments, cash or in kind, were offered for the donated embryos."

Respondents were concerned that donor(s) be clearly "apprised up front by any researchers that financial gain may come from the donation and that the donor(s) should know up front if he/she will share in the financial gain." The Guidelines address this concern by asking that donor(s) was/were informed during the consent process that the donation was made without any restriction or direction regarding the individual(s) who may receive medical benefit from the use of the stem cells, such as who may be the recipients of cell transplants. The Guidelines also require that the donor(s) receive(s) information that the research was not intended to provide direct medical benefit to the donor(s); that the results of research using the hESCs may have commercial potential, and that the donor(s) would not receive financial or any other benefits from any such commercial development.

IRB Review under the Common Rule

Respondents suggested that the current regulatory structure of IRB review under the Common Rule (45 C.F.R. Part 46, Subpart A) addresses the core ethical principles needed for appropriate oversight of hESC derivation. They noted that IRB review includes a full review of the informed consent process, as well as a determination of whether individuals were coerced to participate in the research and whether any undue inducements were offered to secure their participation. These respondents urged the NIH to replace the specific standards to assure voluntary and informed consent in the draft Guidelines with a requirement that hESC research be reviewed and approved by an IRB, in conformance with 45 C.F.R. Part 46, Subpart A, as a prerequisite to NIH funding. Respondents also requested that the NIH create a registry of eligible hESC lines to avoid burdensome and repetitive assurances from multiple funding applicants. The NIH agrees that the IRB system of review under the Common Rule provides a comprehensive framework for the review of the donation of identifiable human biological materials for research. However, in the last several years, guidelines on hESC research have been issued by a number of different organizations and governments, and different practices have arisen around the country and worldwide, resulting in a patchwork of standards. The NIH concluded that employing the IRB review system for the donation of embryos would not ameliorate stated concerns about variations in standards for hESC research and would preclude the establishment of an NIH registry of hESCs eligible for NIH funding, because there would be no NIH approval of particular hESCs. To this end and response to comments, these Guidelines articulate policies and procedures that will allow the NIH to create a Registry. These Guidelines also provide scientists who apply for NIH funding with a specific set of standards reflecting currently recognized ethical principles and practices specific to embryo donation that took place on or after the issuance of the Guidelines, while also establishing procedures for the review of donations that took place before the effective date of the Guidelines.

Federal Funding Eligibility of Human Pluripotent Cells from Other Sources

Respondents suggested that the allowable sources of hESCs potentially available for federal funding be expanded to include hESC lines from embryos created expressly for research purposes, and lines created, or pluripotent cells derived, following parthenogenesis or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT). The Guidelines allow for funding of research using hESCs derived from embryos created using in vitro fertilization (IVF) for reproductive purposes and no longer needed for these purposes, assuming the research has scientific merit and the embryos were donated after proper informed consent was obtained from the donor(s). The Guidelines reflect the broad public support for federal funding of research using hESCs created from such embryos based on wide and diverse debate on the topic in Congress and elsewhere. The use of additional sources of human pluripotent stem cells proposed by the respondents involve complex ethical and scientific issues on which a similar consensus has not emerged. For example, the embryo-like entities created by parthenogenesis and SCNT require women to donate oocytes, a procedure that has health and ethical implications, including the health risk to the donor from the course of hormonal treatments needed to induce oocyte production.

Respondents noted that many embryos undergo Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD). This may result in the identification of chromosomal abnormalities that would make the embryos medically unsuitable for clinical use. In addition, the IVF process may also produce embryos that are not transferred into the uterus of a woman because they are determined to be not appropriate for clinical use. Respondents suggested that hESCs derived from such embryos may be extremely valuable for scientific study, and should be considered embryos that were created for reproductive purposes and were no longer needed for this purpose. The NIH agrees with these comments. As in the draft, the final Guidelines allow for the donation of embryos that have undergone PGD.

Donation and Informed Consent

Respondents commented in numerous ways that the draft Guidelines are too procedurally proscriptive in articulating the elements of appropriate informed consent documentation. This over-reliance on the specific details and format of the informed consent document, respondents argued, coupled with the retroactive application of the Guidelines to embryos already donated for research, would result in a framework that fails to appreciate the full range of factors contributing to the complexity of the informed consent process. For example, respondents pointed to several factors that were precluded from consideration by the proposed Guidelines, such as contextual evidence of the consent process, other established governmental frameworks (representing local and community influences), and the changing standards for informed consent in this area of research over time. Respondents argued that the Guidelines should be revised to allow for a fuller array of factors to be considered in determining whether the underlying ethical principle of voluntary informed consent had been met. In addition to these general issues, many respondents made the specific recommendation that all hESCs derived before the final Guidelines were issued be automatically eligible for Federal funding without further review, especially those eligible under prior Presidential policy, i.e., "grandfathered." The final Guidelines seek to implement the Executive Order by issuing clear guidance to assist this field of science to advance and reach its full potential while ensuring adherence to strict ethical standards. To this end, the NIH is establishing a set of conditions that will maximize ethical oversight, while ensuring that the greatest number of ethically derived hESCs are eligible for federal funding. Specifically, for embryos donated in the U.S. on or after the effective date of the Guidelines, the only way to establish eligibility will be to either use hESCs listed on the NIH Registry, or demonstrate compliance with the specific procedural requirements of the Guidelines by submitting an assurance with supporting information for administrative review by the NIH. Thus, for future embryo donations in the United States, the Guidelines articulate one set of procedural requirements. This responds to concerns regarding the patchwork of requirements and guidelines that currently exist.

However, the NIH is also cognizant that in the more than a decade between the discovery of hESCs and today, many lines were derived consistent with ethical standards and/or guidelines developed by various states, countries, and other entities such as the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). These various policies have many common features, rely on a consistent ethical base, and require an informed consent process, but they differ in details of implementation. For example, some require specific wording in a written informed consent document, while others do not. It is important to recognize that the principles of ethical research, e.g., voluntary informed consent to participation, have not varied in this time period, but the requirements for implementation and procedural safeguards employed to demonstrate compliance have evolved. In response to these concerns, the Guidelines state that applicant institutions wishing to use hESCs derived from embryos donated prior to the effective date of the Guidelines may either comply with Section II (A) of the Guidelines or undergo review by a Working Group of the Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD). The ACD, which is a chartered Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) committee, will advise NIH on whether the core ethical principles and procedures used in the process for obtaining informed consent for the donation of the embryo were such that the cell line should be eligible for NIH funding. This Working Group will not undertake a de novo evaluation of ethical standards, but will consider the materials submitted in light of the principles and points to consider in the Guidelines, as well as 45 C.F.R. Part 46 Subpart A. Rather than grandfathering, ACD Working Group review will enable pre-existing hESCs derived in a responsible manner to be eligible for use in NIH funded research.

In addition, for embryos donated outside the United States prior to the effective date of these Guidelines, applicants may comply with either Section II (A) or (B). For embryos donated outside of the United States on or after the effective date of the Guidelines, applicants seeking to determine eligibility for NIH research funding may submit an assurance that the hESCs fully comply with Section II (A) or submit an assurance along with supporting information, that the alternative procedural standards of the foreign country where the embryo was donated provide protections at least equivalent to those provided by Section II (A) of these Guidelines. These materials will be reviewed by the NIH ACD Working Group, which will recommend to the ACD whether such equivalence exists. Final decisions will be made by the NIH Director. This special consideration for embryos donated outside the United States is needed because donation of embryos in foreign countries is governed by the laws and policies of the respective governments of those nations. Although such donations may be responsibly conducted, such governments may not or cannot change their national donation requirements to precisely comply with the NIH Guidelines. The NIH believes it is reasonable to provide a means for reviewing such hESCs because ethically derived foreign hESCs constitute an important scientific asset for the U.S.

Respondents expressed concern that it might be difficult in some cases to provide assurance that there was a "clear separation" between the prospective donor(s) decision to create embryos for reproductive purposes and the donor(s) decision to donate the embryos for research purposes. These respondents noted that policies vary at IVF clinics, especially with respect to the degree to which connections with researchers exist. Respondents noted that a particular clinics role may be limited to the provision of contact information for researchers. A clinic that does not have any particular connection with research would not necessarily have in place a written policy articulating the separation contemplated by the Guidelines. Other respondents noted that embryos that are determined not to be suitable for medical purposes, either because of genetic defects or other concerns, may be donated prior to being frozen. In these cases, it is possible that the informed consent process for the donation might be concurrent with the consent process for IVF treatment. Respondents also noted that the initial consent for IVF may contain a general authorization for donating embryos in excess of clinical need, even though a more detailed consent is provided at the actual time of donation. The NIH notes that the Guidelines specifically state that consent should have been obtained at the time of donation, even if the potential donor(s) had given prior indication of a general intent to donate embryos in excess of clinical need for the purposes of research. Accordingly, a general authorization for research donation when consenting for reproductive treatment would comply with the Guidelines, so long as specific consent for the donation is obtained at the time of donation. In response to comments regarding documentation necessary to establish a separation between clinical and research decisions, the NIH has changed the language of the Guidelines to permit applicant institutions to submit consent forms, written policies or other documentation to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the Guidelines. This change should provide the flexibility to accommodate a range of practices, while adhering to the ethical principles intended.

Some respondents want to require that the IVF physician and the hESC researcher should be different individuals, to prevent conflict of interest. Others say they should be the same person, because people in both roles need to have detailed knowledge of both areas (IVF treatment and hESC research). There is also a concern that the IVF doctor will create extra embryos if he/she is also the researcher. As a general matter, the NIH believes that the doctor and the researcher seeking donation should be different individuals. However, this is not always possible, nor is it required, in the NIH's view, for ethical donation.

Some respondents want explicit language (in the Guidelines and/or in the consent) stating that the embryo will be destroyed when the inner cell mass is removed. In the process of developing guidelines, the NIH reviewed a variety of consent forms that have been used in responsible derivations. Several had extensive descriptions of the process and the research to be done, going well beyond the minimum expected, yet they did not use these exact words. Given the wide variety and diversity of forms, as well as the various policy, statutory and regulatory obligations individual institutions face, the NIH declines to provide exact wording for consent forms, and instead endorses a robust informed consent process where all necessary details are explained and understood in an ongoing, trusting relationship between the clinic and the donor(s).

Respondents asked for clarification regarding the people who must give informed consent for the donation of embryos for research. Some commenters suggested that NIH should require consent from the gamete donors, in cases where those individuals may be different than the individuals seeking reproductive treatment. The NIH requests consent from the individual(s) who sought reproductive treatment because this/these individual(s) is/are responsible for the creation of the embryo(s) and, therefore, its/their disposition. With regard to gamete donation, the risks are associated with privacy and, as such, are governed by requirements of the Common Rule, where applicable.

Respondents also requested clarification on the statement in the draft Guidelines noting that "although human embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos, such stem cells are not themselves human embryos." For the purpose of NIH funding, an embryo is defined by Section 509, Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. 111-8, 3/11/09, otherwise known as the Dickey Amendment, as any organism not protected as a human subject under 45 C.F.R. Part 46 that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells. Since 1999, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has consistently interpreted this provision as not applicable to research using hESCs, because hESCs are not embryos as defined by Section 509. This long-standing interpretation has been left unchanged by Congress, which has annually reenacted the Dickey Amendment with full knowledge that HHS has been funding hESC research since 2001. These guidelines therefore recognize the distinction, accepted by Congress, between the derivation of stem cells from an embryo that results in the embryos destruction, for which federal funding is prohibited, and research involving hESCs that does not involve an embryo nor result in an embryos destruction, for which federal funding is permitted.

Some respondents wanted to ensure that potential donor(s) are either required to put their "extra" embryos up for adoption before donating them for research, or are at least offered this option. The Guidelines require that all the options available in the health care facility where treatment was sought pertaining to the use of embryos no longer needed for reproductive purposes were explained to the potential donor(s). Since not all IVF clinics offer the same services, the healthcare facility is only required to explain the options available to the donor(s) at that particular facility.

Commenters asked that donor(s) be made aware of the point at which their donation decision becomes irrevocable. This is necessary because if the embryo is de-identified, it may be impossible to stop its use beyond a certain point. The NIH agrees with these comments and revised the Guidelines to require that donor(s) should have been informed that they retained the right to withdraw consent for the donation of the embryo until the embryos were actually used to derive embryonic stem cells or until information which could link the identity of the donor(s) with the embryo was no longer retained, if applicable.

Medical Benefits of Donation

Regarding medical benefit, respondents were concerned that the language of the Guidelines should not somehow eliminate a donor's chances of benefitting from results of stem cell research. Respondents noted that although hESCs are not currently being used clinically, it is possible that in the future such cells might be used for the medical benefit of the person donating them. The Guidelines are meant to preclude individuals from donating embryos strictly for use in treating themselves only or from donating but identifying individuals or groups they do or do not want to potentially benefit from medical intervention using their donated cells. While treatment with hESCs is one of the goals of this research, in practice, years of experimental work must still be done before such treatment might become routinely available. The Guidelines are designed to make it clear that immediate medical benefit from a donation is highly unlikely at this time. Importantly, it is critical to note that the Guidelines in no way disqualify a donor from benefitting from the medical outcomes of stem cell research and treatments that may be developed in the future.

Monitoring and Enforcement Actions

Respondents have expressed concern about the monitoring of funded research and the invocation of possible penalties for researchers who do not follow the Guidelines. A grantee's failure to comply with the terms and conditions of award, including confirmed instances of research misconduct, may cause the NIH to take one or more enforcement actions, depending on the severity and duration of the non-compliance. For example, the following actions may be taken by the NIH when there is a failure to comply with the terms and conditions of any award: (1) Under 45 CFR 74.14, the NIH can impose special conditions on an award, including but not limited to increased oversight/monitoring/reporting requirements for an institution, project, or investigator; and (2) under 45 CFR 74.62 the NIH may impose enforcement actions, including but not limited to withholding funds pending correction of the problem, disallowing all or part of the costs of the activity that was not in compliance, withholding further awards for the project, or suspending or terminating all or part of the funding for the project. Individuals and institutions may be debarred from eligibility for all Federal financial assistance and contracts under 2 CFR Part 376 and 48 CFR Subpart 9.4, respectively. The NIH will undertake all enforcement actions in accordance with applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.

These Guidelines apply to the expenditure of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds for research using human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) and certain uses of induced pluripotent stem cells (See Section IV). The Guidelines implement Executive Order 13505.

Long-standing HHS regulations for Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. 46, Subpart A establish safeguards for individuals who are the sources of many human tissues used in research, including non-embryonic human adult stem cells and human induced pluripotent stem cells. When research involving human adult stem cells or induced pluripotent stem cells constitutes human subject research, Institutional Review Board review may be required and informed consent may need to be obtained per the requirements detailed in 45 C.F.R. 46, Subpart A. Applicants should consult http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html .

It is also important to note that the HHS regulation, Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. Part 46, Subpart A, may apply to certain research using hESCs. This regulation applies, among other things, to research involving individually identifiable private information about a living individual, 45 C.F.R. 46.102(f). The HHS Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) considers biological material, such as cells derived from human embryos, to be individually identifiable when they can be linked to specific living individuals by the investigators either directly or indirectly through coding systems. Thus, in certain circumstances, IRB review may be required, in addition to compliance with these Guidelines. Applicant institutions are urged to consult OHRP guidances at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html

To ensure that the greatest number of responsibly derived hESCs are eligible for research using NIH funding, these Guidelines are divided into several sections, which apply specifically to embryos donated in the U.S. and foreign countries, both before and on or after the effective date of these Guidelines. Section II (A) and (B) describe the conditions and review processes for determining hESC eligibility for NIH funds. Further information on these review processes may be found at http://www.NIH.gov . Sections IV and V describe research that is not eligible for NIH funding.

These guidelines are based on the following principles:

As directed by Executive Order 13505, the NIH shall review and update these Guidelines periodically, as appropriate.

For the purpose of these Guidelines, "human embryonic stem cells (hESCs)" are cells that are derived from the inner cell mass of blastocyst stage human embryos, are capable of dividing without differentiating for a prolonged period in culture, and are known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ layers. Although hESCs are derived from embryos, such stem cells are not themselves human embryos. All of the processes and procedures for review of the eligibility of hESCs will be centralized at the NIH as follows:

The materials submitted must demonstrate that the hESCs were derived from human embryos: 1) that were created using in vitro fertilization for reproductive purposes and were no longer needed for this purpose; and 2) that were donated by donor(s) who gave voluntary written consent for the human embryos to be used for research purposes.

The Working Group will review submitted materials, e.g., consent forms, written policies or other documentation, taking into account the principles articulated in Section II (A), 45 C.F.R. Part 46, Subpart A, and the following additional points to consider. That is, during the informed consent process, including written or oral communications, whether the donor(s) were: (1) informed of other available options pertaining to the use of the embryos; (2) offered any inducements for the donation of the embryos; and (3) informed about what would happen to the embryos after the donation for research.

Prior to the use of NIH funds, funding recipients should provide assurances, when endorsing applications and progress reports submitted to NIH for projects using hESCs, that the hESCs are listed on the NIH registry.

This section governs research using hESCs and human induced pluripotent stem cells, i.e., human cells that are capable of dividing without differentiating for a prolonged period in culture, and are known to develop into cells and tissues of the three primary germ layers. Although the cells may come from eligible sources, the following uses of these cells are nevertheless ineligible for NIH funding, as follows:

Raynard S Kington, M.D., Ph.D. Acting Director, NIH

Continue reading here:
NIH Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research | STEM Cell ...

LifeBank Chain Announces Upcoming Gene and Cell Collaboration Platform With Disrupt Blockchain Technologies – Yahoo Finance

LifeBank Chain (LBC) focuses on research and development in the field of genetics and cell science, with the purposes of furthering human longevity and expanding access to genetics and cell treatments through cutting-edge technologies.

Gene and Cell Technology

JERUSALEM, Dec. 31, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- GENE & CELL MEDICINE LTD located in Israel and Singapore started a new project : LifeBank Chain (LBC). The project LBC plans to build a genetic and cell data collaboration platform.

Genetic research seeks to understand the process of trait inheritance from parents to offspring. The human genetic research is revealing the nature of human bioinformatics and giving scientists a powerful approach to study various health issues of human life.

Cell research focuses on stem cell and immune cell therapies, which are an extremely promising approach for the treatment of many diseases with an immune component including cancer, autoimmune disease, and chronic inflammation.

The wide applications of these new biological technologies in the medical field greatly reshaped the traditional pharmaceutical industry, whose focus was not only put on the treatment of disease as before but also on gene diagnosis and prevention, which opened the door to the world of personalized and precise medicine.

Blockchain is an emerging technology that has attracted increasing attention from both researchers and practitioners. The functionalities of blockchain technology and smart contracts provide an opportunity over large gene and cell data to support genetic and cell data integrity and security while giving patients control over their own data.

LBC plans to build a genetic and cell data collaboration platform incorporating an extensible cross-chain service system based on individual and institutional nodes. The platform product service layer abstracts all typical kinds of gene and cell blockchain applications and provides the full functions and implementation framework of typical applications.

Story continues

The goal of LifeBank Chain (LBC) is to establish a global-level service platform for sharing and utilizing human genetic and cell data through secured blockchain technologies. The LBC blockchain is designed to provide genetic and cell research industry partners with enterprise-level blockchain infrastructure, industry solutions, and secure, reliable, and flexible blockchain services. LBC will work together with medical practitioners to provide full-solution ancillary reagent services and provide flexible and pioneering tools to simplify therapy workflow at every step of the medical process.

LBC will form a professional and shared social organization -- LBC Life Alliance -- inviting life technology companies, scientific research institutes, medical institutions, etc. to jointly solve medical, health, disease, and public health problems, and jointly build the application standards of gene and stem cell medical technology on the blockchain, and contribute to the cause of human health.

LifeBank Chain enables healthcare professionals to manage the medical data and do research in an auditable, transparent and secure way on LBC's distributed network. LBC continues to closely monitor the evolution of genetics and cell therapy in different medical subspecialties around the world.

LifeBank Chain:

Official Website: https://lifebankchain.io

LBC on Twitter: https://twitter.com/lifebankchain Email : lbc@lifebankchain.io

Related Images

Image 1: Gene and Cell Technology

This content was issued through the press release distribution service at Newswire.com.

Attachment

Follow this link:
LifeBank Chain Announces Upcoming Gene and Cell Collaboration Platform With Disrupt Blockchain Technologies - Yahoo Finance