Text of StemCells, Inc., Comments on Trounson Compensation

Here is the text of remarks from Ken Stratton, president of StemCells, Inc., concerning the $443,500 in total compensation from the company to Alan Trounson.

"As stated in our SEC filings, Dr. Trounson was paid total cash compensation of $59,550 for the years 2014 and 2015, consistent with board practice. He has also been provided stock awards which were to vest over time. Dr. Trounson currently owns fewer than 20,000 shares of our common stock and to my knowledge, he has never sold any of his shares. His unvested equity awards will not continue to vest now that he has resigned from the board in connection with the Microbot deal."

Good Safety News in Asterias California Stem Cell Trial

Jake Javier and family -- Javier family photo

For 18-year-old Jake Javier, it's a small matter of 10 million stem cells. And hope.

Javier is one of the patients in a clinical trial backed by $14.3 million from California's stem cell agency, which announced today some good news about the safety of that research.

For Javier, however, the details about "efficacy cohorts" and "AST-OPC1" were a little more personal. The former high school football player is paralyzed from the chest down as the result of a swimming pool accident in June on the eve of his high school graduation.

Today he is one of a handful of patients enrolled in the spinal cord clinical trial by Asterias Biotherapeutics of Menlo Park, Ca., which picked up the human embryonic stem cell trial after it was abandoned by Geron in 2011.

The $3 billion stem cell agency announced today that Asterias "has cleared two key safety hurdles and been given approval to expand the therapy to a larger group of patients with a much higher dose of cells."

The next step is to insert 20 million stem cells into patients, up from the 10 million that Javier received.

Javier, who played football at San Ramon Valley High School, has been the subject of widespread media attention and fund-raising, including considerable reporting by San Francisco Bay Area television station KTVU.

Writing today on the stem cell agency's blog, The Stem Cellar, Kevin McCormack, senior director for communications, said,

"For people like Jake Javier this news is not about numbers or data, it’s personal. Earlier this summer Jake broke his neck at a pool party, celebrating graduating from high school. It left him paralyzed from the chest down with extremely limited use of his arms and hands. On July 7^th Jake was enrolled in the Asterias trial, and had ten million cells transplanted into his neck.

"It could be months, even as much as one year, before we know if those cells are having any beneficial effect on Jake. But at least for now we know they don’t seem to be having any negative effects."

McCormack wrote,

“Our focus is always on the patient, so making sure a potential therapy is safe is an important first step,” says C. Randal Mills, Ph.D., the President and CEO of CIRM. “I recently met with Jake Javier, a young man who was treated in this trial, and heard first-hand what he and his family are going through in the aftermath of his injury. But I also saw a young man with remarkable courage and determination. It is because of Jake, and the others who volunteer to take part in clinical trials, that progress is possible. They are true heroes.”

For more on Javier and the research see: Facebook and the stem cell agency progress report.

Left to right, Dr. Marco Lee, a member of the transplant team, Jake Javier,
 his mother, Isabelle, and Randy Mills, president of the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine, as the stem cell agency is formally known. 

'Unnerved' Researchers and Proliferation of Stem Cell Clinics: The Perspective from Los Angeles Times

The Los Angeles Times this past weekend picked up on the growing concern about the spread of dubious stem cell clinics triggered in many ways by a first-ever study by a UC Davis stem cell researcher. 

Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Michael Hiltzik wrote,

"The proliferation of clinics nationwide offering stem cell therapies unnerves many researchers, who fear that unrealistic public expectations could undermine their own credibility. Patients with hard-to-treat conditions such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s are easy marks who can be led to forgo established therapies in favor of unproven ones."

The headline on Hiltzik's piece said,

"These new stem cell treatments are expensive — and unproven"

Hiltzik interviewed a California lawyer who is working in the field. Hiltzik wrote,

"'Stem cell scientists include the best and the brightest doing great work, and I admire them,' says Janice Mulligan, a San Diego attorney currently assembling evidence for a potential class-action lawsuit against unnamed stem cell clinics. "At the other end of the scale, there’s snake oil.'"

Hiltzik also spoke to Paul Knoepfler, the UC Davis researcher who co-authored the study about stem cell clinics with Leigh Turner of the University of Minnesota. Hiltzik wrote,

"In an article just published in Stem Cells Translational Medicine, Knoepfler described his visit to one informational seminar sponsored by a clinic pitching a $5,999 stem cell treatment to about 30 attendees. Each was given a pack of forms to fill out, including a credit application. The spiel, he reported, featured personal anecdotes and 'questionable medical claims' — including the assertion that '90% of patients had a 50% or better improvement.'"

Odds for a Stem Cell Cure vs. Odds on Trump Winning the Election

The article explored one particular search for a cure for diabetes, but the headline was bleak.

"Will Embryonic Stem Cells Ever Cure Anything?"

The question came at the top of a piece by Aleszu Bajak in the Aug. 12, 2016, edition of the MIT Technology Review. 

Bajak quoted Doug Melton of Harvard as saying,

“The public definitely doesn’t appreciate that much of science is failure.”

Bajak, a veteran science writer and journalism instructor, continued with his own conclusion, 

"In fact, no field of biotechnology has promised more and delivered less in the way of treatments than embryonic stem cells." 

Hard, hard language that probably disturbs many in the field, including some at the California stem cell agency, which was founded on the promise of therapies from human embryonic stem cells(hESC). The agency has committed more than $2 billion to stem cell research since 2005 and is still looking for its first big score.

One can argue the fairness of the conclusion by Bajak, but it certainly seems tied to the excessive rhetoric that has surrounded the hESC field, particularly the $34 million ballot campaign that created the $3 billion state stem cell agency in 2004.

The rhetoric of the campaign came with a price. The agency is scheduled to run out of cash for new grants in 2020. Whether it can deliver on the campaign promises of 2004 will in large part determine whether it can conjure up additional funding.

The likeliest prospects for success today can be found in the list of clinical trials the agency is helping to fund and the scores of additional trials that it plans to assist in the next several years. They include efforts to deal with afflictions ranging from heart disease to diabetes.

By one widely cited measure, only one out of 10 conventional therapies entering clinical trials reaches the market place. Those are slim odds, ones that do not involve novel stem cell efforts, which are presumably more difficult. To put it another way, Donald Trump has better chances -- as of this writing -- of being elected president than of a clinical trial producing a stem cell cure.

Trump, however, is only going to have one chance. The California stem cell agency is expecting to take more than 50 shots at a therapy via its involvement in clinical trials over the next several years.

Nonetheless, it is a risky business, as venture capitalist Gregory Bonfiglio, pointed out to the California Stem Cell Report last December.  He said,

“There are risks inherent in the development of new, disruptive technology. The bigger risk is failing to deliver on their underlying promise to bring new regenerative therapies to patients…. The bigger risk is not doing anything.”

Digging into the 'Stem Cell Hard Sell:' Researcher Ventures Into 'Lion's Den'

A California stem cell researcher went "semi-undercover" recently and attended a commercial "educational seminar" that promoted stem cell treatments and handed out requests for credit information from those attending.

Paul Knoepfler -- UC Davis photo

Paul Knoepfler of UC Davis recorded his experience at the session in an article this week in the Stem Cells Translational Medicine, which was founded in 2011 with $600,000 from the California stem cell agency.

Knoepfler did not identify the stem cell clinic that conducted the session. He said he wanted instead to be able to use a "higher degree of frankness" in writing about the session. Knoepfler noted, however, that he was quickly spotted by one of the organizers, some of whom lurked around him during the session. Knoepfler wrote on his blog Monday, 

"It was an intense experience and one where I felt at risk. To some extent it is akin to  going into the lion’s den. I didn’t know what reaction I would get if I were recognized by those running the seminar, which in fact did happen. They did not seem happy at all that I was there even though I wasn’t disruptive in the least. I had hoped to ask a few questions from my place in the audience, but the format did not allow it. Still I wondered if I could be kicked out. That didn’t happen."

The clinic involved is one of at least 570 across the country. Earlier this summer, Knoepfler and Leigh Turner, a University of Minnesota bioethicist, were the first to report on the scope of what passes for the commercial stem cell clinic industry in the United States when they documented the existence of those clinics.

About 30 people attended the session Knoepfler was at, including some who obviously had "serious medical conditions." He wrote,

"The seminar team (mostly dressed in medical scrubs) handed out a clipboard to each attendee with three pieces of paper very much like those that one might be given on arriving at a new doctor's office. We were told to fill in our information and then to return the sheets back to them before we left. Notably, the top sheet was a credit application. On another page, the clinic asked for extensive personal information, including name, age, birthdate, address, e-mail and phone number. Additional questions asked about medical conditions, as well as medical tests that had already been conducted." 

Knoepfler said several medical claims were made during the meeting including that the treatments had no side effects, were safer than the normal standard of care, did not pose immune rejection problems, were federally approved and were specifically effective for arthritis and pain.

The price of the treatment was $5,999 but attendees could get $1,000 off "if you sign up today at the seminar." Attendees were told that the clinic was heavily booked already with a one to two month waiting period.

In the piece about his foray into the "lion's den," Knoepfler wrote,

“Given the growing realization that there are hundreds of stem cell clinics in the U.S. today in 2016 and the observation that many hold recruitment seminars, it is possible that thousands of members of the public each year are attending infomercial seminars that provide misleading or even outright factually incorrect information about stem cells and questionable medical claims. This could not only lead many patients to receive unnecessary, unsafe or ineffectual treatments, but it may also contribute to public confusion about stem cells and the field of stem cell clinical research. These seminars represent only one type of an assortment of recruitment methods, including Internet, radio, newspaper, and television ads for various clinics, which may also contain dubious statements. I believe that such stem cell clinic marketing poses a significant threat to public perception and understanding of the legitimate stem cell translational medicine field.”

Pigs and People: Growing Human Organs in Animals, Changes at the Federal Level

Last week's news that the federal government is moving to lift its ban on funding research involving human-animal hybrids is a bit of old hat in California.

The state's $3 billion stem agency has long been okay with such research and has well-established protocols to ensure that it is conducted ethically and safely.

Last year, the agency, formally known as California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), reported (see below) on its activities to the National Institutes of Health, declaring,

"CIRM has reviewed twelve protocols at seven different institutions where stem cells or neural progenitor cells were introduced into vertebrate animals. CIRM found that all protocols were reviewed and approved by a SCRO(standards review) committee consistent with CIRM requirements."

The Chimera of Arezzo -- photo by Joe deSousa

The announcement that the NIH is once again likely to fund the creation of chimeras -- organisms composed of genetically different cells -- received a significant amount of attention in the media. But none of the stories noted the origin of the word in Greek mythology, where it signified a fire-breathing female monster with a lion's head, a goat's body and a serpent's tail.

Sara Reardon of Nature wrote,

"Chimeras are a growing area of research. Currently, researchers use them to study early embryonic development and to create animal models of human diseases. But one major goal is to engineer animals to grow human organs. The organs could later be harvested from the adult animal and used for transplantation into a patient."

Kevin McCormack, senior director of communications for CIRM, told the California Stem Cell Report, last April,

"On a purely theoretical level CIRM has no objection to growing replacement organs or tissues in pigs, provided it met all CIRM’s rules and regulations. We fund research that does that all the time with mice and rats. Right now none of the research we fund is being used to do that."

Shen Ding -- Gladstone photo

Lenny Bernstein wrote in the Washington Post that researcher Shen Ding at the J. David Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco and who has received $6.7 million in research funding from CIRM, sounded a note of caution.

"While he does not favor the current (NIH) moratorium, Ding said, he believes scientists in this field must move slowly because 'we don't know how to precisely control where and how [cells] might contribute' to different organs."

Bernstein noted,

"The NIH imposed its temporary ban on funding last September, citing ethical concerns. These include worries over animals whose brains might contain human brain cells and what might happen if chimeras were able — and allowed — to reproduce."

The NIH is accepting comments over the next several weeks and then is expected to move forward with its proposal, perhaps with changes.

For Hank Greely, a Stanford law professor, it's about time. Last spring, he wrote an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times and said, 

"Today we face the possibility of babies getting organs grown in human/nonhuman chimeras — beasts that are pigs except for a single human organ. To the uninitiated, this may sound more like the dark arts than modern medicine, but pursuing careful research and potential clinical use of these chimeras is both proper and important."

  CIRM Statement to NIH re Chimera Research by DavidJensen on Scribd

The Human Egg Business: More Media Coverage of California Cash-for-Eggs Legislation

A renewed legislative effort in California to pay women for handing over their eggs for research is attracting more attention this year, including opposition from a former state senator sometimes called the mother of the state's stem cell agency.

Deborah Ortiz, former chair of the California Senate Health Committee, wrote an op-ed piece published this week in The Sacramento Bee. She noted that the stem cell agency prohibits paying women for their eggs. Ortiz wrote,

"I oppose AB 2531 (the number of the bill) on a number of grounds: First, we have very limited information on the long-term health effects of the egg retrieval process. Second, women who undergo egg retrieval are not research subjects in the traditional sense, as proponents assert. Finally, paying for women’s eggs for research purposes contradicts well-established national recommendations and state policy."

She continued,

"This is not an issue of equity with other research subjects. Women providing eggs for research are not comparable to research subjects in clinical trials. Their role is providing raw materials for pre-clinical research, rather than participating as subjects in medical research. And they are not afforded the safeguards or follow-up of subjects in clinical trials.

"Finally, AB 2531 conflicts with national recommendations and with policies in our state constitution. The 2010 guidelines of the National Academy of Science recommend that no payments beyond reimbursement for expenses be made for donating eggs for research."

Ortiz has been called the mother of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the agency is formally known, because of her early role in support of stem cell research and authorship of an initial measure to use bond funding to finance it.

The cash-for-eggs bill also drew attention from Michael Hiltzik, a Pulitzer prize-winning columnist at the Los Angeles Times. He said that the measure should not be approved. Hiltzik wrote,

"There is scant research on the long-term health risks of egg retrieval, and nothing in the bill that would encourage more. To paper over that fact, the measure’s advocates have engaged in a neat bit of obfuscation. Assemblywoman Autumn Burke (D-Marina del Rey), who is carrying the bill for the ASRM, labels it a 'pay equity' bill....

"But it’s not about equity or discrimination. What worries the bill’s critics is that the measure may allow women to be misled into taking uninformed health risks by the prospect of easy cash."

The legislation surfaced at Buzzfeed in a piece by Cora Lewis and Azeen Ghorayshi. They quoted Sean Tipton, a spokesman for the fertility industry group, American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), that is sponsor of the legislation.

“'It’s (the bill is) needed to correct a strange and outdated feature in California law.'...Women are paid when they donate eggs to make babies, and people are paid when they are research subjects, he noted. 'But if you combine the two, you can’t be compensated. I don’t think that makes any sense,' Tipton said."

Another piece appeared on the Undark web site. It was written by Diane Tober, an assistant professor at UC San Francisco. She wrote,

"As a researcher myself, I can sympathize with the seduction of discovery, and the lure of developing new technologies and treatments that stem cell research may offer society at large. The millions of dollars of funding available to support such research would also be enticing.

"But the history demonstrates that the burden of human experimentation has rested on the shoulders of the socially and economically disadvantaged. The focus of AB-2531 is to obtain eggs for research, but it ignores the need for research into the impacts of the myriad drugs and procedures used to coax and extract those eggs in the first place." 

Leading the drive against the measure, vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2013, is the Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley. It is circulating a flyer aimed at California lawmakers that says,

"This bill incentivizes invasive procedures that expose women to substantial short-term and unknown long-term health risks."

Brown has given no indication that he has changed his position on the measure.

Why Does It Matter? Clues for Scientists When Dealing with Reporters

Scientists -- like Boy Scouts -- should be prepared when that call comes in from one of the ink-stained wretches of the mainstream, print media or one of the harried online reporters who hardly have time to think.

Based on decades of experience on behalf of the folks who own the presses, I can tell you that is a good admonition. It was reinforced mightily by another few years on the opposite side of the reporters' notebook, where it became readily apparently that interviewees need to think carefully about the message they want to impart.

Today, I ran across some advice to journalists who aspire to query researchers. I am passing it along to the readers of the California Stem Cell Report, 99.9 percent of whom would never see it otherwise.

It helps give our readers a frame of reference and a clue to what to expect when a mass media opportunity comes knocking. So here it is, questions for journalists to ask scientists, as prepared by Elissa Yancey of the Poynter Institute, a well-respected Florida enterprise involved in journalism training.

• "Why does this study matter?
• "Why did you want to do this study?
• "How does this study relate to your other work?
• "What was your role in the study?
• "What surprised you the most?
• "Did you change any of your or your family’s habits as a result of anything you learned from this study?
• "What are the economic stakes of the study/topic from your perspective? Your employer's or funder's perspective? (i.e., whose profits / earnings might be harmed or helped by this study? Who is invested in it?)
• "What comes next? (More studies? Different funders? Legislation?)"

NYTimes: Fresh and Major Attention to Immunotheraphy and Cancer

The New York Times personalized its look at immunotherapy -- Times graphic

The New York Times this weekend unveiled a dramatic, special report on immunotherapy to treat cancer, a field in which California's stem cell agency has invested tens of millions of dollars.

The Times' work will undoubtedly focus greater public attention on the use of immunotherapies and generate a fresh surge of interest on the part of patients who are unfamiliar with the expensive treatment, which is very much in its infancy. The Times wrote,

"Harnessing the immune system to fight cancer, a medical dream for more than a century, is becoming a reality. Terminally ill patients who had slim chances of surviving have gone into remission and patients with inoperable tumors are gaining months or years. But so far, the new treatments work for only a minority patients, and doctors are not sure why. The treatments are prohibitively expensive, and not all patients have access to them."

The Times did not deal with any of the work specifically backed by California. But as recently as March, the $3 billion California Institute for Regenerative Medicine(CIRM), as the stem cell agency is formally known, made another investment in the field with more than $10 million to two researchers, William Murphy of UC Davis and Lili Yang of UCLA. (See Tran1-08533 and Tran1-08635 here.)

In February, Alex Lash of xconomy reported that a new immunotherapy firm has sprung from handsome support by the stem cell agency. He wrote,

"Forty Seven(the firm's name), emerged Wednesday with a program already in clinical trials, a rarity for an academic spinout. Stanford researchers led by Irving Weissman, the director of the school’s Institute of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine were able to begin testing the drug in humans thanks to $30 million in funding from California’s stem cell agency, known as CIRM."

Lash said that Forty Seven is named for the CD47 protein on tumor cells that its experimental cancer drugs target.

The agency also sponsored a webinar last year on immunotherapies with participation by the Food and Drug Administration and Kite Pharma of Santa Monica, Ca., and which covered such topics as safety and regulatory issues. The webinar is available here. Slides offered by Margo Roberts of Kite can be found here.

Here are links to the various Times stories.
Harnessing the immune system to fight cancer
What is immunotherapy
Immunotherapy offers hope to a cancer patient but no certainty

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."

Tracking California Stem Cell Awards: Diabetes to Dialysis

The California stem cell agency, as expected, yesterday pumped $10 million into a North Carolina firm for a kidney dialysis device and upped its stake in a San Diego diabetes therapy firm to $60 million.

The awards were first reported (see here and here) by the California Stem Cell Report last week, which will have more on the subject and other awards in the next day or two. Here is a link to the press release from the $3 billion agency. 

California Stem Cell Appeals: Zika, Parkinson's and 'Heart-on-a-Chip'

Three California researchers are asking the directors of the state's stem cell agency today to reject the decisions of its blue-ribbon scientific reviewers and grant them awards ranging up to $2 million.

The scientists are Alysson Muotri, director of the UC San Diego stem cell program; Birgitt Schuele, director of gene discovery and stem cell modeling at the Parkinson's Institute in Sunnyvale, and Kevin Healy, professor in the department of bioengineering at UC Berkeley.

Muotri is seeking $1 million from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), as the stem cell agency is known. Schuele has applied for $2 million and Healy $1 million.

Alysson Muotri, UCSD photo

In a letter to CIRM's board, Muotri said he is attempting to "set up a human stem cell platform to measure the impact of the Zika virus in the nervous system and to screen potential drugs to alleviate the neurological problems associated with the infection." His application (DISC2-09095) is aimed at filling "fundamental gaps" in Zika knowledge. Muotri, who is from Brazil, wrote,

"I never debated over a grant fund decision before . However, in this case I feel I have the responsibility to alert the ICOC (the CIRM board) about neglecting studies on what we call now the ' Zika virus syndrome.' I can tell by personal experience dealing with this virus in my own lab that this is one of the most dangerous infectious agent I (have) ever seen – one can witness the virus killing brain cells in less than a day."

Birgitt Schuele, TSN photo

Schuele's letter pointed out a new study that she said demonstrated the feasibility of her research (DISC2-08953) involving a therapy for Parkinson's disease. She also included additional information that she hoped would be persuasive to the CIRM board.

Kevin Healy
photo by Laura Peterson, AAAS

In his letter, Healy said his research is aimed at developing "patient specific ‘heart-on-a-chip’ diagnostics that will have a significant impact on the early screening of drugs used to manage hypertrophic cardiomyopathy . Currently, there are no drugs that target specific disease alleles of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy."

He said the main criticism of CIRM reviewers involved the "level of maturity of cardiomyocytes" in his proposed study (DISC2-08990). But he said he proposed using the same protocol as already used by a number of currently funded CIRM researchers.

All three applications were ranked below the cutoff line for funding, which was 85. The score for Healy was 83, Muotri 77 and Schuele 72.

CIRM has funded some applications in the past with lower scores than 85. But in the last two years, it has revised its review and scoring protocols. Since then it has not overridden reviewers' negative recommendations.

The board is scheduled to act on about $30 million in awards today in a telephonic meeting with public locations throughout the state. (See here and here. ) The public can participate in the meeting at those locations, whose addresses can be found on the meeting agenda. The session will be audiocast on the Internet and through an 800-number. Complete information about the Internet access and phone number can be found on the agenda.

Search for a Diabetes Cure: California Stem Cell Agency Hits $60 Million Mark with ViaCyte

The California stem cell agency next week is slated to award  an additional $4 million to ViaCyte, Inc., a San Diego firm that is working with the agency to develop a "virtual" cure for diabetes.

ViaCyte has already received $56 million over the years from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine(CIRM), as the agency is formally known. The latest award will be used to help prepare for a clinical trial for a new treatment for the highest risk diabetes patients.

In response to a query this morning from the California Stem Cell Report, Paul Laikind, president and CEO of ViaCyte, said that the new product, PEC-Direct, will deliver the same biologic component as used in the firm's current product, which is now in a clinical trial.

Laikind said PEC-Direct will allow direct vascularization, which "is expected to allow for a very robust engraftment and cellular performance."

Because the new device will require chronic immune suppression, Laikind said,

"It is being developed to treat patients with type 1 diabetes that are at high risk for acute complications such as severe hypoglycemic events associated with hypoglycemia unawareness syndrome."

(The full text of Laikind's remarks and research update can be found here.)

The agency's summary of the closed-door review of the Viacyte proposal said,

"There are over 100,000 people in the U.S. with type 1 diabetes so severe that they are at constant risk of hospitalization and/or death. Within months after administration, this product could naturally restore those patients’ blood sugar to normal healthy levels and save their lives." 

In addition to the $4 million, ViaCyte is putting up $994,343 of its own cash.

CIRM's blue-ribbon panel of scientific reviewers has already approved the award, which is part of a $30 million package of applications coming up next Thursday.  The governing board of the agency will ratify the approvals at its meeting next Thursday during a one-hour telephonic meeting.

The largest award, $10 million, will go to Humacyte, Inc., of North Carolina,  to produce an artificial vein for use in hemodialysis as reported yesterday on the California Stem Cell Report. More details of all the applications and review summaries can be found on the meeting agenda.

The session will be audiocast and carried on the Internet on a listen-only basis. Interested parties can participate in the meeting from telephonic locations throughout the state.

The main site for the meeting will be at the Sanford consortium in San Diego. Other locations include the agency's headquarters in Oakland and sites in Davis, South San Francisco(2), Napa, Los Gatos, Sacramento, Irvine, San Francisco and Los Angeles. For specific addresses and instructions for online access, see the agenda.

Text of ViaCyte's Statement on its New Proposed Diabetes Product

The California Stem Cell Report this morning queried Paul Laikind, the CEO of ViaCyte, Inc., of San Diego, about the company's upcoming $4 million award from the California stem cell agency and the award's relationship to the ViaCyte product known as VC-01. Here is the text of his response.

"ViaCyte is continuing development of VC-01 (what we now call PEC-EnCap).  PEC-EnCap is the first encapsulated allogeneic cell therapy to enter the clinic where the device is designed to protect the cells from the host adaptive immune system.

 "We have early clinical demonstration of the feasibility of the PEC-EnCap approach; the Encaptra Drug Delivery Device appears to be functioning as designed and we have shown engraftment and differentiation to beta cells is achievable at 12 weeks.  However, work is continuing to ensure a robust and consistent engraftment before we move to the second cohort of patients and seek to demonstrate efficacy.

 "We can’t overemphasize enough the importance the clinical results we are obtaining, not only for the further development of PEC-EnCap but for the stem cell-derived cell therapy field in general. This important work has, of course, received important support from CIRM. "In parallel with the development of PEC-EnCap we are preparing to initiate clinical development of VC-02 (PEC-Direct).  PEC-Direct delivers the same biologic component as PEC-EnCap, PEC-01 pancreatic progenitor cells, but does so in a device that allows direct vascularization.  This direct vascularization, based in part on what we have learned with PEC-EnCap during the clinical evaluation, is expected to allow for a very robust engraftment and cellular performance.

"Given the open nature of the device, patients implanted with PEC-Direct, as with other transplants, would require chronic immune suppression.  Thus it is being developed to treat patients with type 1 diabetes that are at high risk for acute complications such as severe hypoglycemic events associated with hypoglycemia unawareness syndrome.

 "This high risk patient population is the same population that would be eligible for cadaver islet transplants, a procedure that has been demonstrated as very effective but suffers from a severe lack of donor material and high cost.  PEC-Direct is expected to overcome these limitations by providing an unlimited supply of cells for transplant and a safer more optimized route of administration.

"ViaCyte remains committed to the development of PEC-EnCap which we view as a potentially transformational therapy for the majority of insulin utilizing patients with diabetes, both type 1 and type 2.  PEC-Direct represents a potentially nearer term therapy for the patients at the highest risk."

$10 Million California Stem Cell Award for Creation of a New 'Lifeline" for Kidney Disease Patients

A 2014 interview with Laura Niklason, whose firm, Humacyte, will receive a $10 million award from California. The interview was conducted at the Stem Cells Meeting on the Mesa in La Jolla, Ca.

Highlights
$10 million matched by Humacyte
Three clinical trial locations in California
Humacyte raised $150 million last year

The California stem cell agency is set to award nearly $10 million for a phase 3 clinical trial to produce a new type of "lifeline" for kidney disease patients undergoing hemodialysis.

The $10 million award to Humacyte, Inc., of Morrisville, N.C., will go for final testing and development of an artificial vein that is critical for kidney disease patients who need hemodialysis.

The $10 million will be matched by the privately held firm. The state funds can only be spent for work performed in California to test the vascular access device. Humacyte plans clinical trial sites in Sacramento, Long Beach and Irvine.  

Formal approval of the award is expected to come July 22  at a telephonic meeting of the $3 billion agency's board of directors.

The stem cell agency traditionally does not identify recipients of awards until its board formally ratifies the decisions of its reviewers, which it almost never overturns. The California Stem Cell Report determined the identity  of the recipient using public sources.

According to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases,

"A vascular access is a hemodialysis patient’s lifeline. A vascular access makes life-saving hemodialysis treatments possible. Hemodialysis is a treatment for kidney failure that uses a machine to send the patient’s blood through a filter, called a dialyzer, outside the body. The access is a surgically created vein used to remove and return blood during hemodialysis."

The Humacyte device, photo Humacyte

A summary of the closed-door review of the application described the product as a "human acellular vessel" that "has the potential for less frequent clotting, abandonment and infection." The summary said current technology is "fraught with complications."

Humacyte was founded in 2004 and raised $150 million last year in venture capital, according to an article last month by Meghana Keshavan on the STAT online biomedical news service. 

In the piece, Keshaven described the process of growing the vessels. She said each has "its own little plastic sack, which serves as a sort of womb for the vessel as it grows. Each bag’s connected to a central bioreactor tank that pumps out all the nutrients it needs — a carefully crafted 'soup' of vitamins, amino acids, and chemicals called cytokines that feed cells directions about how they’re supposed to grow."

Keshaven continued,    

"The lab-grown blood vessels are currently being studied in hemodialysis, a procedure that uses implanted veins as a conduit to remove waste from the blood of patients with kidney failure. Last month, promising results from a 60-patient midstage trial of Humacyte’s product were published in The Lancet."

Humacyte currently is recruiting 350 patients and expects to have preliminary results by July of next year. In response to a question this morning, Jeffrey Lawson, chief medical officer of the firm, said, 

Shannon Dahl,
co-founder Humancyte

Juliana Blum,
co-founder Humacyte

"We currently are engaged on using at least 3 clinical sites in California that should start enrolling patients (Sacramento, Long Beach and Irvine). We also have a number of manufacturing support programs based in California."

Founders of the firm include  Laura Niklason, professor of biomedical engineering and Yale, and Shannon Dahl and Juliana Blum, vice president of the firm.

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."

Monty Python, $3 billion and Stem Cells in the Golden State

Inquisition scene from Monty Python, photo CIRM/Daily Mail

The headline today from California was nearly irresistible:

"The Spanish Inquisition and a tale of two stem cell agencies"

Not only that, but the headline appeared over an article involving Monty Python, the $3 billion California stem cell agency and the lesser,  $38 million United Kingdom's Regenerative Medicine Platform(UKRMP). 

The "Inquisition" article ran on the California agency's blog. The author was Kevin McCormack, senior director of communications for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine(CIRM), as the agency is formally known. 

His topic? How the UK and California efforts have performed, according to an article by Stanford's Irv Weissman and Fiona Watt of King's College London, who is a member of the CIRM scientific advisory board, currently "on hold," according to McCormack.  The Watt-Weissman piece was recently published and buried behind a paywall in Cell Stem Cell.

McCormack noted that the article cited location and politics as important in both operations. He wrote, 

"CIRM was created by the voters of California in 2004, largely in response to President George W. Bush’s restrictions on the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. UKRMP, in contrast was created by the UK government in 2013 and designed to help strengthen the UK’s translational research sector....

"Inevitably the two agencies took very different approaches to funding, shaped in part by the circumstances of their birth – one as a largely independent state agency, the other created as a tool of national government.

"CIRM, by virtue of its much larger funding was able to create world-class research facilities, attract top scientists to California and train a whole new generation of scientists. It has also been able to help some of the most promising projects get into clinical trials. UKRMP has used its more limited funding to create research hubs, focusing on areas such as cell behavior, differentiation and manufacturing, and safety and effectiveness. Those hubs are encouraged to work collaboratively, sharing their expertise and best practices."

Irv Weissman, photo wapiti-waters

Weissman and Watt said it was "not unexpected" that CIRM still has not produced a therapy for widespread use. They cited the sometimes decades-long time frame for transforming basic research into a therapy.

Which is where Monty Python comes in, said McCormack. The two scientists picked up a famous line from the British comedy series:

“Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition – because our chief weapon is surprise.”

Fiona Watt, photo Watt Lab

McCormack wrote,

"They use that to highlight the surprises and uncertainty that stem cell research has gone through in the more than ten years since CIRM was created. They point out that a whole category of cells, induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, didn’t exist until 2006; and that few would have predicted the use of gene/stem cell therapy combinations. The recent development of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology shows the field is progressing at a rate and in directions that are hard to predict; a reminder that that researchers and funding agencies should continue to expect the unexpected."

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.