NY Times: Stem Cell Theory vs. Flourishing, Dubious Stem Cell Clinics

The New York Times this morning took a crack at coverage of the first-ever study of the wave of dubious stem cell clinics in America. The headline on the Times' prominently displayed story said,

"Stem Cell Therapies Are Still Mostly Theory, Yet Clinics Are Flourishing"

The starting point for the article by Gina Kolata was the study by UC Davis stem cell researcher Paul Knoepfler and bioethicist Leigh Turner of the University of Minnesota.  They reported on June 30 that nearly 600 dubious stem cell clinics have sprung up around the country. It is the first study to document the reach of these businesses. The report, published in the scientific journal Cell Stem Cell,  received heavy mainstream media coverage.

Kolata highlighted the tentative nature of stem cell research. She wrote,

 "In theory, stem cells might be a useful treatment for certain diseases that involve the loss of cells, like Type 1 diabetes, Parkinson’s or osteoarthritis. They are primitive cells that can develop into a range of mature cells and perhaps serve as replacements. But progress is slow. After a flurry of stem cell excitement two decades ago, almost all the research today is still in mice or petri dishes. The very few clinical trials that have begun are still in the earliest phase.

"The problem is that stem cell therapies are still mostly theory. So what is going on? How can there be clinics, even chains of clinics run by companies, offering stem cell treatment for almost any disease you can think of — sports injuries, arthritis, autism, cerebral palsy, stroke, muscular dystrophy, A.L.S., cancer?"

She said that the Knoepfler-Turner study showed "what can happen when regulations fall behind." 

And she noted the limits of federal regulation as well as the failure of state regulatory bodies to deal with the issue. 

Kolata's story was displayed online this morning on the main page of the New York Times. The media attention to the work by Knoepfler and Turner has significantly raised the visibility of the issues involving dubious stem cell "therapies."  A narrowly defined search on Google news this morning turned up nearly 11,000 citations, up from about 7,000 early this month.

The coverage certainly has increased the likelihood of some sort of additional regulatory action. However, such moves take time, and it is not realistic to expect a crackdown anytime soon. Indeed, it may require legislative changes at the federal and state levels.

As for the ethical and medical concerns raised by Knoepfler and Turner and the Times piece, one Times reader -- identified online only as Susan -- said,  

"So what? A lot of what the scientific/medical establishment tries to sell us is just theory. Studies of this and studies of that. A study will come out and 6 months later another study will come out debunking the first study. I believe the problem is that some of these science/medical 'experts' are under the delusion that 'one size fits all.' I disagree. What may kill one person may help another."

More Than a Minor Headache: The Stem Cell Snake Oil Problem vs. Legitimate Research

Just two weeks ago, the headlines from Bloomberg News offered a glowing view of the prospects for stem cell therapies and the industry. The story in the online publication, which counts nearly 9 million readers monthly, said,

"Stem cell crusader sparks new hope....Regenerative medicine could be a $120 billion industry by 2030"

But only three days later, that article was overwhelmed by a wave of stories with a much different flavor. They carried reports of unproven therapies, possibilities of fraud, lack of regulation and fearful, expensive consequences for desperate patients.

That theme continued even as recently as this past weekend as The Economist carried a piece headlined,

"A dish called hope: The flourishing, unregulated industry in expensive, experimental treatments"

So which is it? Hope for legitimate cures and oodles of cash for stem cell companies? Or "hope" for treatments that do not work and have sometimes damaged both the bodies and wallets of the patients?

The situation is more than a minor public relations headache for the supporters of stem cell research, be they patients, stem cell companies or the $3 billion California stem cell agency, which is on a campaign to ease federal regulation of stem cell clinical trials.

For all practical purposes, the public generally does not make much of distinction between the legitimate research conducted by institutions such as Stanford and the so-called "miracles" reported about the late hockey great Gordie Howe and others. It all goes into the same cognitive bag. The stories about mysterious and fearsome tumors found in little-known patients attract little widespread attention.

But UC Davis scientist Paul Knoepfler and bioethicist Leigh Turner of the University of Minnesota ripped open that bag with their study last month that reported for the first time that nearly 600 dubious stem cell clinics are peddling their unproven therapies across the country.  Their report supported the view that the stem cell field is rife with snake oil merchants. For the general public, which does not delve deeply into medical research, the perspective could well be described as, "You seen one stem cell therapy, you seen 'em all."

Does this mean that these clinics should be ignored and shoved quietly off into a corner in order to avoid besmirching legitimate efforts? Of course not. It certainly appears that the FDA and other  state regulatory bodies can do a better job. But stiffer regulations are not going to come anytime soon, despite an FDA hearing on the topic in September.

However, the situation DOES mean that folks like Knoepfler and Turner should continue to speak out along with many other scientists who do not want their efforts blackened by the snake oil men. Researchers can work with their institutions' PR departments to place op-ed pieces, find speaking engagements and gin up TV and radio interviews. Blogs, like the one produced by Knoepfler, can be started. The International Society for Stem Cell Research should revive its public education efforts to help patients and the general public understand the facts about stem cell research. It should also reinvigorate its warnings about dubious therapies, which were throttled back a few years ago, reportedly after legal threats were made.

California's stem cell agency has a special concern. It is trying to "de-risk" development of therapies  by a variety of means and lure biotech and Big Pharma into the stem cell game in a bigger way. This summer the agency is offering $75 million to entice a private partner into the state's first-ever, public-private partnership to create a stem cell cure.

The private sector has shied away from the stem cell business, as the stem cell agency's CEO, Randy Mills, has remarked on multiple occasions. One of the reasons involves the public climate and perception of the field. It is hard for companies to invest hundreds of millions of dollars or billions when the stem cell field is burdened with public perception and regulatory obstacles.

Selling the stem cell story in a realistic way is not necessarily an easy task. Nuances must be respected, but excitement is also needed. Balancing it all is a challenge for the men and women in the trenches. But without a good push, development of therapies will be slower, and, as Mills has noted, people will undoubtedly die who likely would have benefited from a more timely treatment.

A Scientist's Comment: Deal Directly with FDA Rather Criticizing It in the Media

The following comment on FDA regulation of stem cell research was submitted via email by a longtime scientist in the field, who asked to remain anonymous. 

"Many advertised  'stem cell' treatments use hematopoietic or blood stem cells which are run under a different set of regulations from pluripotent stem cells since they are umbrella-ed under regulations designed to cover blood transfusions and bone marrow transplants.  Pluripotent stem cells are very new, with many unknowns and the potential for triggering tumor growth.   In contrast, clinical use of blood stem cells has been ongoing for over 50 years with special regulations (or lack thereof) grandfathered in.   Unfortunately, the newly touted 'treatments' are not for homologous use of blood stem cells, are unlikely to be therapeutic and may even be dangerous. 

"The FDA has published new draft guidances addressing these issues that will be discussed in open forum this September.  I think it best to bring concerns about FDA regulations to these meetings and to initiate change by talking directly with the agency rather than criticizing them in the press or through Congress.  Like their oversight over the IRS and other federal agencies, Congress’s actions are counterproductive when they add broad, unfunded mandates while cutting funding at the same time.  But perhaps this is their way of shrinking the government and simultaneously dinging them for not doing their work.  A sure route to failure."

Influential Scientific Journal Rips Effort to Loosen Stem Cell Research Rules

The prestigious journal Nature today editorialized against easing federal regulation of stem cell treatments, a major blow to the campaign by the California stem cell agency to speed such therapies to the marketplace.

The headline on the piece said,

"FDA should stand firm on stem cell treatments."

The unsigned editorial declared that those who contend that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is holding back "effective therapies" are peddling a false narrative. Nature declared,

"The claim that regulation is too harsh wrongly implies that the FDA is holding back therapies that work. Critics point to decades of preclinical and clinical work with stem cells and the pipelines of stem-cell treatments. With circular logic, they argue that, because the treatments have not been approved, there is something wrong with the approval system."

The $3 billion California stem cell agency has been lobbying for months for changes in FDA regulation. Randy Mills, president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine(CIRM) as the agency is formally known, said back in December that "patients are dying" because the FDA is  being "so careful about safety."

Mills has said the fast-track process in Japan is worth considering. However, Nature said,

 "It is not a fit and proper model to export, chiefly because it grants 'conditional approval' to treatments with minimal safety data and little attention to efficacy."

Nature was also critical of the Regrow Act, a legislative effort to overturn the FDA's current processes. CIRM has not taken a position on that bill.

Nature concluded,

"The FDA should strive to keep this debate on the proper topic — how to create a more efficient system that still scientifically evaluates whether treatments are safe and efficacious. To fall short would be a setback for science, and for patients."

The journal's editorial did not mention CIRM or Mills by name. It did cite the recent article by UC Davis stem cell researcher Paul Knoepfler and Leigh Turner, an associate professor of bioethics at the University of Minnesota, documenting the existence of 570 dubious stem cell clinics in the United States.

'False Hopes, Sizable Profits' -- The Nation's Largely Unregulated Stem Cell Clinics

Locations of stem cell clinics identified in Knoepfler/Turner study
Graphic by Cell Stem Cell 

The biggest stem cell story in the country this week reported that at least 570 dubious stem cell clinics exist throughout the nation that could pose a danger to both the pocketbooks and health of patients.

California led the nation with 113 clinics, with Beverly Hills having the most (18) of any city. The clinics promise to cure or ease afflictions ranging from autism to Alzheimers through the use of scientifically untested treatments.

The study is the first effort to get a handle on the size of an industry that has been little regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but appears to promise almost miraculous results.

Results of the study were reported yesterday in the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Fox News, The Sacramento Bee and many other outlets.  A search at midday today on Google turned up 7,230 citations, including articles in France, Mexico and Italy.

One of the authors of the study from the journal Cell Stem Cell is Paul Knoepfler, a stem cell scientist at UC Davis.  He has long campaigned for more action dealing with some of these clinics. In September 2015, he wrote on his blog about what he called "predatory clinics."

"These clinics prey on vulnerable patients and their families. The clinics use hope as a marketing tool. A weapon.

"As the number of such clinics has mushroomed in the US and elsewhere the risk to both patients and to the larger stem cell community proportionately rises too. We are in a situation today where the dangers from such clinics have never been higher."

Co-author of the study, Leigh Turner of the University of Minnesota, said in an article in The Bee by Adam Ashton,

"The problem is that so much of the information that’s provided by the industry, so many of the marketing claims being made, they’re not particularly accurate. They’re not trustworthy, and they don’t have any meaningful science behind them."

In a story by Karen Kaplan in the Los Angeles Times, Turner said,

"There is an obvious need for the FDA, FTC (Federal Trade Commission), state medical boards and other regulatory bodies to play a more effective role in regulating the marketplace for stem cell interventions.' Without it, these clinics are able "to peddle false hope for sizable profits.'"

Randy Mills, president of California's $3 billion stem cell agency, said in The Bee that the Knoepfler/Turner study "highlighted a 'broken system' at the FDA that lets some clinics proceed with almost no oversight while requiring others to undergo studies that could tie up their services for decades. He said there are likely far more clinics offering stem cell therapies than Knoepfler and Turner identified, with many of them operating discreetly.

"'There’s so much stuff going on today, but it’s going on because that’s the system the FDA set up and that’s the system the FDA incentivizes,' he said."

Knoepfler noted a bit of irony yesterday concerning the study in a posting on his blog, The Niche. He wrote, 

"I’m glancing over at the (Scientific American) article (on the study) just now and BOOM I see an ad for a stem cell clinic appear at the top and it is even one of the ones in the database we created for our article. The ad is focused on selling stem cells to treat autism in children, an area that raises a lot of questions.

"How can it be a good thing to have an ad for a stem cell clinic right next to the article about the challenge of stem cell clinics in America? The way the web works these days, perhaps it isn’t so surprising that articles having anything to do with stem cells will often be accompanied by ads for stem cell clinics. This one just really stuck out to me today because of the context."

Google and other media outlets routinely place advertisements for these stem cell clinics on many Web sites and blogs, including this one. Some of the newspapers carrying stories about the Knoepfler study also carry ads for such clinics. 

California Stem Cell Hooha: Testy Media Exchange Triggered by Criticism of the State's Agency

A sharp exchange erupted this week on a mainstream California media site after the state's $3 billion stem cell agency was taken to task for lobbying the federal government to ease its regulation of research on stem cell therapies.

The flap involved allegations of lies and questionable motives. Along the way certain death was mentioned, and one writer was accused of "stealing hope" from seriously ill persons. Personal animus charges were raised along with questions about ill-informed rhetoric.

The hooha was set off by an op-ed piece by UC Davis stem cell scientist Paul Knoepfler who wrote an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle (see here and here). It chastized the agency and its president, Randy Mills, for a risky and "political" effort to change regulations by the federal Food and Drug Administration. Knoepfler said patients could be put at risk.

The piece triggered harsh comments that were carried by the Chronicle at the end of the article. In addition to Knoepfler, individuals involved in the exchange included Jeanne Loring, head of the stem cell program at the Scripps Institute in La Jolla; Judy Roberson, a Sacramento patient advocate for Huntington's disease, and a person identified only as "Jeff." He wrote,

"What's Knoepler's real beef?....Poor Paul is not getting the money from CIRM he used to get. So his attitude is 'screw patients,' I want my lab funded like it used to be. Nauseating!!!"

CIRM is the abbreviation for the formal name of the state stem cell agency, officially known as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Its board includes Jeff Sheehy, who told the California Stem Cell Report that he is not the Jeff commenting on Knoepfler's article.

The anonymous "Jeff" said, 

"Has any of (Knoepfler's) research led to a development candidate that might lead to a treatment in the future? Or is he just a stem cell scientist opining about something he knows very little or nothing about(the FDA)? Maybe he 'heard' something from somebody and that gave him just the hook he needed to attack CIRM and Mills, both of whom he obviously has personal animus towards."

Loring largely sided with Knoepfler. She also wrote,

"Jeff, why are you questioning Paul's motives? What are your motives? Do you work for CIRM? As you know, a person's profession doesn't define his/her sphere of knowledge. If something is important to you, you can research it and gain expertise."

Roberson, who favors the CIRM effort to loosen regulations to bring therapies into widespread use, said patient safety is important. She also said,

"But for patients and their families with a 100 percent fatal genetic disease like Huntington's disease, we can withstand some risk because we are facing a gut-wrenchingly long, gruesome death anyway. We have no chemotherapy, no surgery, no radiation and sadly, no hope. We have NOTHING! And we'll continue to have nothing for many more decades if the FDA continues doing business as usual."

Another reader, William Barnes, said,

"I suggest that Dr. Knoepfler consider how it feels to be suffering and near certain death and be denied a possible cure because Dr. Knoepfler doesn't think it's in their best interest....Let the individual patient decide! It’s their life! Why should the decision about someone’s life, possibly your loved one, be made by a distant and dispassionate academic?"

In addition to his research, Knoepfler produces a blog, The Niche, on stem cell science, regulation and policy. He took up the blog after a nasty bout with prostate cancer when he was in his 40s. Knoepfler is also the author of "Stem Cells: An Insider's Guide," a book aimed at helping patients understand stem cell science. 

The Case of the FDA's $330,000 Stem Cell Pigs

Judy Roberson at podium, Bob Klein, former chairman of the California stem cell agency at left, Claire Pomeroy, former
UC Davis vice chancellor and agency director at right. UC Davis photo

Judy Roberson is a registered nurse from Sacramento, Ca., who has long been active with the California stem cell agency on behalf of patients with Huntington's disease. She lost her husband to the always fatal, inherited brain disease, and members of her family are at risk.

Roberson appeared before the governing board of the $3 billion California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the agency is formally known, earlier this month to applaud its efforts and those of its CEO, Randy Mills, to persuade the federal Food and Drug Administration to ease its regulation of proposed stem cell therapies. Here is the text of her statement. 

"The Northern California Huntington's disease (HD)  advocacy community says BRAVO to President Randy Mills for his editorial directed at the FDA, "Give Us Our Cures."

"Over 40 HD advocates joined the CIRM Stem Cell Champion campaign in April, promoted by Kevin McCormack (the agency's director of communications), in the hopes that pressure from affected families will prompt the FDA to become open to stem cell therapies and allow the increased risks that naturally go along with new therapies.

"For people with Huntington's disease, which is 100 percent fatal and has zero therapies, we are willing to take on more risk since we're dying anyway.

"The FDA has delayed the fully enrolled, CIRM funded, first-in-human clinical trial using adult stem cells at UC Davis with Drs. Vicki Wheelock and Jan Nolta. The NIH RAC committee enthusiastically approved their novel therapeutic clinical trial. Then the FDA asked for additional animal studies, this time with three pigs at a cost of over $330,000 plus two years of additional research; costs will approach $1 million.

"One HD family from New York has funded one of the pigs, but this gap in funding has shelved this promising research!

"Devastated patients and their families see this add-on research requirement as a delay from the FDA, which means that this fully enrolled trial, with 24 patients who meet today's criteria will progress and may not qualify in two to four years even if this project later receives FDA approval to begin a phase one trial. FDA delays are killing us!

"We need a new FDA 2.0 because doing NOTHING is doing harm!"

California's Battle for Easing Regulation of Stem Cells Attracts Global Notice

Highlights
CIRM CEO Mills mentioned
FDA regulation/Regrow co-mingled
A tale of dubious stem cell treatments

California's $3 billion, 11-year-old effort to produce a stem cell therapy -- largely ignored by the mainstream media -- broke into global cyberspace today in a reasonably significant way.

The agency was featured in a piece on Buzzfeed, an online news operation that has chalked up more than 173 million unique visitors worldwide in the last 30 days.

The article by Dan Vergano focused on the efforts by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine or CIRM, as the agency is formally known, and others to persuade the FDA to ease up on regulations so that stem cell therapies can be more quickly developed.

Vergano wrote,

"Despite a decade of scientific hype, progress has been slow in proving that these new treatments actually work. Some scientists are particularly frustrated with the slow pace of FDA review. In a Fox News op-ed published last month, for example, C. Randal Mills, the head of the prestigious California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), called for the federal government to loosen its safety rules, promising “medical breakthroughs” for arthritis, back pain, and diabetes."

Mills has focused his efforts since last year on FDA regulation. But his campaign is being co-mingled in the media with the Regrow Act, an industry effort that the agency has not taken a position on.

Paul Knoepfler, a UC Davis stem cell researcher, also recently brought FDA regulation and Regrow together in a piece in the San Francisco Chronicle recently. Vergano interviewed Knoepfler for the Buzzfeed article,

"'We have been telling people to cut down the stem cell hype, and then we turn around and have this talk about miracles and beautiful medicine....Wishful thinking here could have a whole slew of dangerous consequences.' Most worrisome, (Knoepfler) said, is that desperately ill patients looking cures might end up with tumors instead."

Jim Gass, NYTimes photo by Carlos Moreno

One such case was chronicled this week by New York Times reporter Gina Kolata. Her hair-raising story told the tale of patient Jim Gass, a 66-year-old lawyer from San Diego. The article began,

"The surgeon gasped when he opened up his patient and saw what was in his spine. It was a huge mass, filling the entire part of the man’s lower spinal column.

"'The entire thing was filled with bloody tissue, and as I started to take pieces, it started to bleed,' said Dr. John Chi, the director of Neurosurgical Spine Cancer at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. 'It was stuck to everything around it.'"

"He added, 'I had never seen anything like it.'"

Stem Cells and the FDA: California's Lobbying for Easier Approval Triggers Opposition

The $3 billion California stem cell agency came in for some sharp criticism last week in an opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle that was written by a UC Davis stem cell researcher who said the agency is engaged in politicking that "risks doing much more harm than good."

Paul Knoepfler, the scientist who also produces "The Niche" stem cell blog,  wrote,

"The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) has become politically active under its new president, C. Randal “Randy” Mills. Mills is lobbying for a radical departure in how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vets experimental stem-cell therapies, but such politicking risks doing much more harm than good."

Knoepfler wrapped in an attack on federal legislation known as Regrow Act. Knoepfler said the proposal would "force the FDA to conditionally approve still experimental stem cell therapies with relatively little data supporting them."

Randy Mills at left, USC photo

Knoepfler reported that Mills said he was not anti-FDA. Knoepfler also noted that the agency has not taken a position on the Regrow Act.  Knoepfler said the FDA effort and the Regrow Act are part of a larger effort to weaken the FDA, which has been under regular criticism for decades for moving too slowly.

The stem cell agency's attempt to modify the way the FDA approaches potential stem cell therapies has been underway for months. The California Stem Cell Report carried news on the subject as long ago as last winter(see here and here.)

Mills initiated the lobbying effort with the FDA after an informal survey of California "stakeholders" showed that they perceived the FDA as the No. 1 obstacle to making stem cell therapies available for widespread use.

In an item on the agency's blog, The Stem Cellar, last December, Mills said that “patients are dying” because the federal government is “being so careful about safety,"

Yesterday, Knoepfler provided some personal insight -- a "backstory" -- on what led him to write about the all of this. His piece was carried on his blog and emphasized that he is a "big backer" of CIRM and still is. Knoepfler has received $2.2 million from CIRM. The CIRM web site has 60 links to mentions of Knoepfler on its Web site, including this one below. 

Knoepfler wrote,

"Most of the stem cell scientists that I have talked to (admittedly with a few notable exceptions that include some long time stem cell advocates and scholars) are opposed to CIRM’s lobbying on this front, but are uncomfortable speaking out."

Uncomfortable is a rather mild word for it based on the fact that the agency holds the key to a $3 billion vault containing the hopes of funding for the entire California stem cell community.

We should note that lobbying is not new to the agency. Its former chairman, Robert Klein, had a passion for it. At one point in 2009, he engineered the hiring of an exceedingly well-connected lobbyist named Tony Podesta for $200,000.  Mills has not ventured into that sort of game, however.

Knoepfler has much more to say on the subject of regulation, the need for it and the impact on patients and the dubious stem cell clinics that seem to be multiplying throughout the nation, despite the fact that the FDA has never approved a stem cell therapy for widespread use.

The California Stem Cell Report will be visiting the matters surrounding these issues and the California stem cell agency. Look for more here during the next week or so.

California's Stem Cell Agency Says FDA 'Chilling' Development of Stem Cell Therapies

CIRM graphic

The president of the $3 billion California stem cell agency hit the campaign trail this month but not to head off Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton or even Bernie Sanders.

Randy Mills targeted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency that has life-or-death power over the introduction of stem cell therapies. "Give us our cures" was Mills' message for federal regulators.

The most recent forum for Mills was Fox News. The headline on an opinion piece that he co-authored with former Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Frist,  said,

"Cell therapy reversed blindness for 47,000 patients in 2015. So why is it against the law?"

And in a presentation earlier this month to the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, D.C., Mills said that the current FDA "paradigm" for new stem cell therapies has been inconsistent, selective and chilling.

"By having a system that approves nothing after 15 years, we are neither protecting nor helping those in need."

Mills said that FDA regulations should "be scaled to more accurately reflect the risks, be balanced against the very real consequences of doing nothing and be fairly and consistently applied."

The campaign by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the stem cell agency is formally known, grew out of work last year on its strategic plan. A survey of stakeholders showed that 70 percent of them identified the FDA as an impediment to development of commercial therapies.

Kevin McCormack, senior director of communications for CIRM, wrote about Mills' piece on Fox on the agency's blog, The Stem Cellar. McCormack said,

"A lot of people are frustrated with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and its woefully slow process for approving stem cell therapies. That’s one of the reasons why we started the CIRM Stem Cell Champions campaign, to gather as many like-minded supporters of stem cell research as possible and help to change the way the FDA works, to create a more efficient approval process."

In his presentation in Washington, Mills was careful to point out that CIRM is not opposed to the FDA or its regulation. He said CIRM just wants better regulation that will help bring therapies to patients by speeding their approval and balancing risk.

In response to a question about how Fox News happened to carry the Mills' piece, McCormack, replied,

"It was something Randy and Senator Frist had been talking about doing for a while, and why not Fox News, it has a big audience."

Other big audiences for CIRM's message will be in the San Francisco Bay area next month: BIO, the annual biotech industry convention, which is expected to draw more than 15,000 from June 6 to June 9, and the annual meeting June 22-25 of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, which expects to see more than 4,000 attendees. CIRM is expected to have a strong presence, relatively speaking, at both events.

The stem cell agency says FDA practices lead to selective
enforcement of its regulations.                     CIRM graphic

Plug Pulled on Cancer Clinical Trial: Sudden End for $18 Million Push by California Stem Cell Agency

Caladrius stock price plummets -- Google graphic

California’s ambitious, $18 million effort to develop -- in relatively short order -- a stem cell therapy for a deadly form of skin cancer collapsed abruptly last week, apparently the victim of “excessively long development timelines.”

Caladrius Biosciences, Inc., the recipient of the California funding, terminated the late stage clinical trial, declaring that other treatments have outpaced its approach and that it is no longer “optimally leverage(d).”

The award last May marked a big advance for California’s $3 billion stem cell research program. It was the first phase three clinical trial for the agency, known formally as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine(CIRM).  A phase three clinical trial is the last step needed before federal approval for widespread use of a treatment. The award came as the agency is entering what could be the last years of its life and is pushing hard to fulfill the promises of the 2004 ballot initiative campaign that led to its creation.

CIRM, which is based in Oakland, Ca., is scheduled to run out of cash for new awards in 2020. The agency expects to intensify its efforts this year at developing a plan to replace the state bonds that it has used since 2004.

The $18 million award to Caladrius was made last spring with considerable ballyhoo. Jonathan Thomas, chairman of the agency’s governing board, said at the time that the  treatment had “the greatest chance of success for the people of California that we have funded.”

After the Caladrius announcement, Randy Mills, president of the agency, said in a news release,

“Ultimately this program suffered from the excessively long development timelines common in cell therapy, a fact that further underscores the need for CIRM to work hard to create faster development pathways as called for in our new strategic plan.”

CIRM’s statement also said,

“Only $3 million of the $17.7 million awarded by our governing board had been distributed to Caladrius, which matched that money with $3 million of its own. CIRM will now make the unused $14.7 million portion available to other applicants for investment into projects that accelerate stem cell therapies to patients with unmet medical needs.”

In a document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Caladrius, formerly known as NeoStem, said the end of the trial would lead to layoffs for about 40 employees in Irvine, Ca., the home of what once was California Stem Cell, Inc. That firm was acquired by Caladrius in 2014 for $124 million. It  was founded by Hans Kierstead of UC Irvine, who is senior vice president for research and chief science officer of Caladrius.

The company’s SEC filing said,

“The treatment paradigm in metastatic melanoma was transformed during the course of 2015 by the accelerating adoption of multiple immune checkpoint inhibitors used as monotherapy and in combination treatments. These new drugs have significantly improved outcomes in metastatic melanoma and therefore have altered the opportunity for a monotherapy such as CLBS20 in a landscape that is quickly converting to combination therapies. Therefore, we have concluded that, as designed, our current program in metastatic melanoma will not optimally leverage this asset..."

Cancellation of the phase three trial led to a sharp drop in Caladrius’ stock price. It closed at $1.08 on Jan. 6, the day prior to the announcement. Today, the stock closed at 65 cents. The 52 week high for the stock was $4.26 and the low 40 cents. The chair of Caladrius, Robin Smith, resigned on Dec. 23.

California’s stem cell agency is now participating in only one phase three trial, which is not yet recruiting patients. That effort involves a brain tumor program with ImmunoCellular of Calabasas, Ca. The agency is currently participating in a total of  15 clinical trials at various stages.

California Stem Cell Agency: FDA Stalling Development of Stem Cell Cures

The FDA is one of the favorite whipping boys in Washington, D.C., but it is not often that a state governmental agency also decides to thrash the body that is charged with assuring the safety of the nation’s drugs and medical treatments.

California’s $3 billion stem cell agency, however, is doing just that. As part of its new plan for spending its last $900 million, the agency is lambasting the FDA for standing in the way of speedy development of stem cell therapies.

The general chorus about the failings of the FDA is large. This morning a Google search on the term “FDA whipping boy” turned up 155,000 results. A search on the term “criticism FDA approval process” produced 569,000 results including an entire Wikipedia entry. Of course, not everyone agrees that the FDA is too stringent in its drug regulation. (See here and here.)

It should also be noted that stem cell therapies provide novel challenges, much more so than conventional, new drug offerings.

Nonetheless, here is the text of what the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine had to say about FDA in its new strategic plan, which is expected to be approved Dec. 17 in Los Angeles.

“FDA Challenges and Obstacles

“We heard a resounding chorus frommost stakeholders of the enormouschallenges with the regulatory burdensplaced on cell therapy in general, andstem cell therapy even more so, by theFDA. Instead of the ever growing bodyof work in cell therapy, with its overallexcellent safety record, making thepathway to approval smoother, it seemsto many that the requirements imposedby the FDA are increasing.

“A recent therapy touted by the FDAas a success had such a high clinicaldevelopment burden placed on it thatby the time it was finally approved,standard of care had evolved andits market was significantly reduced,leading to liquidation of the company.Companies, and sadly patients, mustgo outside the United States, as faraway as Japan, to find regulatoryagencies willing to work successfullytowards approval.

“Ultra-orphan diseases still must reachthe same statistical burden, whichrequires larger effect sizes than seenin the majority of approved, successfuldrugs and biologics. Everyone hastheir own list of how the FDA makesit seemingly impossible to take stemcell therapy through the regulatoryprocess. In 2014, Japan recognizedthe differences in regulatory approachesneeded for regenerative medicine andtook action. However, the FDA does notappear to have the same motivation. Infact, in a disturbing turn of events, FDAhas recently began providing certainmembers of the U.S. Congress withcompletely one-sided information on thedangers of cell therapies encounteredin clinical trials. However, FDA failedto provided any context or balancedinformation regarding the safety recordof cell therapies that comprises the vastmajority published clinical literature. TheFDA appears to be literally lobbyingagainst the very therapeutic modalitythey are responsible for promoting.

“CIRM needs to join with Congress,academia, and patients, to bring aboutreal change to meaningfully balancerisk-benefit in FDA regulations andmore importantly, the FDA’s behaviorand willingness to grant licensure toeffective therapies.”

Building a 'Beautiful Machine:' California's Last $900 Million for Stem Cell Research

Intense, passionate, zealous – some of the words that could have applied yesterday to the CEO of a California enterprise devoted to the dispassionate world of scientific research.  

Randy Mills, president of $3 billion California stem cell agency, started with what could have been a mind-numbing overview of a revision of the agency’s strategic plan – a subject that draws yawns from many.

Randy Mills at an earlier strategic plan event in La Jolla.
San Diego UT photo

Plus he was not talking directly to his key audience – the directors of the governing board of the stem cell agency, who were listening to him from 18 different teleconference locations.

Mills eased into his presentation, backed by 30 pages of PowerPoint slides. He was speaking by phone from room 3803 in the Sanford Consortium in La Jolla, a facility partially financed with $43 million in agency funds.

His pace and fire escalated as talked about transforming the agency and fabricating a “great, beautiful machine.”

He told the directors,

“We have created very beautiful pieces – but they have existed as pieces”

Now is the time, he said, for California to create a “giant engine that will accelerate the research in a way that exists nowhere else in the world”  – a “giant coordinated stem cell machine.”

Mills said the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the agency is formally known, is “by far the largest regenerative institute in the world.”  At the same time, it “needs to be better appreciated.” He promised to generate a “dramatic increase” in awareness of the agency.

Mills, who has been with the agency for about 16 months, skimmed over the numbers: $2 billion out the door, $900 million left for research awards, $400 million to go to clinical research, 50 new clinical trials.

Mills has already increased the speed of funding for clinical programs, dropping the time from years to months. But he wants to do more for what is called the translational stage – bringing developments out of  basic research into clinical phases in three years instead of eight.

Mills’ efforts yesterday were limited by time, however. The meeting was scheduled for only 90 minutes and the board had other business as well.

Individual board members had brief comments, including Jeff Sheehy, a communications manager from UC San Francisco. He raised questions about Mills’ plan to clear out obstacles at the FDA. Sheehy wanted to know more about how much it would cost and how it would be pursued.

Another asked whether there was a sufficient research base in California to achieve all that Mills proposed, a risk that Mills had identified in his PowerPoint slides. Yes, Mills said, it could be that CIRM will not be able to do 50 new clinical trials.

Mills’ report was a midpoint update on how the agency plans to spend its final $900 million in what could well be its last strategic plan.

The proposal will be examined once again by the Science Subcommittee of the agency’s governing board in November before it goes to the full board in December for approval.

The plan is likely to have a major impact on stem cell research in California and on the lives of hundreds of researchers. Only one scientist was present to comment yesterday at the meeting, Jeanne Loring of the Scripps Institute. She told Mills that his presentation was “terrific,” which sparked applause from about 20 patient advocates in the room at the Sanford Consortium.

As for the fate of the agency after 2020, when funds for new awards run out, CIRM Chairman Jonathan Thomas said that would be discussed at the December board meeting.

But as Mills noted, 

“We don’t have a lot of time left.” 

The agency is open for more comment from the public. Mills said suggestions, criticism, etc., can be sent to kmccormack@cirm.ca.gov.

More information about the strategic direction of the agency can be found here and here.

Those directly affected by CIRM spending – or who want to be affected by it -- would be well advised to listen to Mills’ presentation on a recording of the teleconference meeting. The recording can be found on the audiocast link on the meeting agenda, beginning at about 38 minutes into the meeting.

Cloaking Informed Consent in Clinical Trials: A California Stem Cell Case

Patients come first. That’s the rhetoric from biotech companies and agencies like the FDA, which has oversight responsibilities for clinical trials.

But when it comes down to specifics, the doors may close and little revealed publicly.

The case in point involves StemCells, Inc., which was charged last week in a lawsuit with endangering patients involved in its clinical trials. The suit was filed by an unhappy manager who was fired by the Newark, Ca., firm. StemCells, Inc., said the charges lack merit.

But the firm is mum when it comes to the question of whether it has informed its patients about the allegations and its response. Those are the folks whose brains are being injected with what is alleged to be a product that is being manufactured improperly. They are supposed to give informed consent to the treatment and obviously need to know when serious questions are raised about their therapy.

Queried by the California Stem Cell Report about whether the patients in its clinical trials had been informed of the allegations, Ken Stratton, general counsel for StemCells, Inc., said,

“StemCells, Inc. has no further comment on the ongoing litigation or Mr. Williams’ allegations.” 

The FDA and the attorney for the fired manager responded in much the same fashion. Asked whether his client, Rob Williams, or he has notified the FDA about the alleged problems, attorney Daniel Velton said,

“We can't comment on pending cases.”

The FDA said,

“As a matter of policy FDA cannot comment on whether or not we are investigating or have plans to investigate any allegations.”

Questioned further about the federal rules for giving patients the information they need to provide informed consent, Paul Richards, a spokesman for the FDA said,

“Participation in any clinical trial is associated with some level of risk as the safety of investigational products has not been fully assessed. FDA’s primary responsibility is to determine whether the theoretical risks of the proposed study are reasonable and acceptable in order for the study to proceed “It is the responsibility of the study sponsor to conduct an investigation properly, to ensure proper monitoring of the investigation and to ensure that the investigation is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols contained in the Investigational New Drug (IND) application.  The sponsor also ensures that FDA and all participating investigators are promptly informed of significant new adverse effects or risks with respect to the product being studied.

 “Additionally, the individual who actually conducts the clinical investigation (i.e. the investigator) is responsible for ensuring that the trial is conducted according to the signed investigator statement, the investigational plan, and applicable regulations.  The investigator is also responsible for protecting the rights, safety, and welfare of subjects under the investigator's care; and for the control of drugs under investigation. 

“In certain situations in which FDA alleges a clinical investigator has violated applicable regulations, FDA may initiate a clinical investigator disqualification proceeding.   FDA does maintain a publicly available database that provides information about disqualification actions.  Further background related to this topic is available at:  http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/ucm321308.htm”

No doubt seems to exist that the patients should be informed about the allegations in the lawsuit. However, implementation of the requirement is considerably less than transparent. How does the public know whether patients have actually been informed?  How do the patients themselves know whether they have been adequately informed? Trust us is the operative and dubious response.

One must ask whether these tight-lipped non-responses are in the best interests of patients, biomedical research, the government or even the companies. Patients and the public deserve more than lip-service to the process of informed consent. The parties involved in the StemCells, Inc., litigation, as well as the government, can do better. 

What possible harm could result from simply saying, “Yes, the patients have been told of the lawsuit and the company’s response.” Such a response might help to inspire confidence among persons considering clinical trials and help recruit the patients needed to test possible new therapies.

CIRM Leads National Effort to Forge 'Pathways' with FDA

California's $3 billion stem cell agency has created a broad-based, 43-member, interstate consortium of researchers and businesses to work with the FDA to develop “well-defined regulatory pathways for stem cell therapies.”

CIRM President Alan Trounson is high on the effort, which will be making another quasi-public appearance in just a few days. Last spring, Trounson told CIRM directors that he is “thrilled” with the initiative, which is spearheaded by CIRM General Counsel Elona Baum.

The next consortium program comes up on Sept. 28 – a “webinar” on preclinical considerations for stem cell therapies. The session, which requires advance registration, will feature Mercedes Serabian, chief of a key pharmacology/toxicology branch in the FDA; Robert Deans, senior vice president of Athersys, Inc., of Cleveland, Ohio, and Melissa Carpenter, a stem cell industry consultant and formerly with Geron of Menlo Park, Ca., StemCells, Inc.,of Palo Alto, Ca., and Novocell(now ViaCyte) of San Diego.

Baum has already conducted one webinar on issues on product characterization, which is now available for viewing on the CIRM Web site along with additional materials. Trounson said Baum “has been fantastic in getting the FDA along.”  Trounson told CIRM directors in April,

“If you were able to take the time to listen to these webinars, they're terrific. The information that's coming from the FDA and from the scientists is very, very helpful. And it's a learning process that's going both ways.”

The 43 members of the consortium include George Daley of Harvard, Irv Weissman of Stanford, Owen Witte of UCLA, Tom Okarma, CEO of Geron; Ed Field, president of Aldagen, Inc., of Durham, NC; John West, president of ViaCyte, Inc., of San Diego; William Caldwell of Advanced Cell Technology of Santa Monica, Ca.; Randy Mills, president of Osiris Therapeutics, Inc.,of Columbia, Md., and executives from Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, iPierian of South San Francisco, Ca.; Genzyme of Cambridge, Mass., and the WiCell Research Institute of Madison, Wi., among others.

On its CIRM-based Web site, the consortium said that the stem cell field will move “faster when interested parties share best practices and resources.” The consortium said,

“This group provides a forum for members to discuss amongst themselves or with the FDA issues of importance to the industry. The RMC's mission also includes serving as a technical resource during development of guidelines and standards.”

The consortium Internet site contains a wide range of links to FDA, ISSCR and other materials. In addition to the Sept. 28 webinar, the consortium has a link to a Nov. 2 FDA workshop on cell and gene therapy trials.

CIRM Creates FDA Committee

Gern Talk, a web site devoted to discussions of matters related to Geron, has picked up a recent piece by patient advocate Don Reed along with our report, "Harsher Realities," on the FDA hold on Geron's clinical trials.

Reed raised his previous concerns regarding the most recent FDA action. But he also had a note about a discussion involving the FDA hearings last month dealing with clinical trials and stem cells.

That discussion occurred at the meeting of the board of directors of the California stem cell agency. Reed said that Robert Klein, chairman of the California stem cell agency "expressed concern" about

"...a possibility that the FDA might put in a condition that embryonic stem cell trials might only be allowed for dying patients. This would be a disaster, meaning that human trials for embryonic stem cells to heal blindness as well as paralysis and other non-life-threatening conditions could not go forward. He asked for volunteers on the board to be on a special FDA committee. Board members Jeff Sheehy and Leeza Gibbons very kindly volunteered for the chore!

"But the overall response from almost everyone (and these are supporters of the research, good people, whose opinions I respect) was that the situation would be handled on the basis of scientific merit, and the safety of the patients, nothing more. Again and again people said, no, no, everything is fine, don’t worry."

Jesse Reynolds of the Center for Genetics and Society also had something to say on the Biopolitical Times on Geron:

"Those of us who support embryonic stem cell research should urge caution, not haste. A botched clinical trial will set the field back years, if not decades."