FDA Approves Stem Cell Study for Degenerative Disc Disease

By Pat Anson

The Food and Drug Administration has given the go-ahead for a late-stage clinical trial of an injectable stem cell product that could give new hope to millions of patients suffering from lower back pain caused by degenerative disc disease (DDD).  Up to 400 patients with mild to moderate DDD are expected to enroll in the Phase 3 study later this year.

The trial is being conducted by DiscGenics, a Utah-based biopharmaceutical company that is developing new cell-based therapies for musculoskeletal conditions. It’s one of the first late-stage studies of a stem cell product to win approval from the FDA, which has been openly skeptical of cell-based therapies due to lack of evidence proving their safety and efficacy in clinical trials.

The only stem cell therapies currently approved by the FDA are used to treat sickle cell disease and some cancers. Approval of a stem cell product to treat degenerative discs would be a big step forward for regenerative medicine, and give patients an alternative to fusions and other more invasive spinal procedures.

“The FDA has been very familiar with our process, our product, and the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for quite some time,” says Flagg Flanagan, CEO and Chairman of DiscGenics. “We feel really good about where we are in terms of the patient reported outcomes. But most importantly about the safety. We feel like this cell is extremely safe to be used on human patients and we're feeling really, really good that we can help a lot of people.”

Discgenics’ injectable disc cell therapy (IDCT) is a single-injection biologic treatment designed to halt the progression of lumbar DDD by regenerating the disc “from the inside out.” The active ingredients in IDCT are enriched stem cells known as discogenic cells, which are derived from donated adult human disc tissue.

IDCT has been granted regenerative medicine advanced therapy and Fast Track designations by the FDA. Approval of the Phase 3 study came just weeks after Discgenics released positive results from a combined Phase 1/Phase 2 human trial of IDCT, published in the International Journal of Spine Surgery.

In that study, 60 patients with mild to moderate DDD were randomly assigned to receive an injection of either low-dose discogenic cells, high-dose cells, or a placebo. After one year, patients in the high-dose group had an average reduction in pain intensity of nearly 63 percent, along with significant improvements in their disability and quality of life. The regeneration of discs, which was monitored through MRIs and other imaging tests, was sustained two years after the injection.

“Things even came out a little better than we even expected,” Flanagan told PNN. “We showed very good durability, out to two years with the high dose patients. Anecdotally, we continue to follow some of those high dose patients and we have data in a pretty good cohort out to three years. We have a couple (patients) out to four years and the durability still seems to hold pretty well.”

The Phase 3 trial will consist of two parallel studies of IDCT that will also be randomized and placebo-controlled. Like the two earlier trials, each study will last for two years to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of IDCT. The first participants are expected to be enrolled in the final quarter of 2024.

“We'll start looking for patients and reviewing patient profiles that want to apply for the study shortly,” Flanagan said. “I think this is something where we can help many, many patients hopefully avoid a surgical intervention with an injection in a treatment room.”

People interested in getting updates on the Phase 3 IDCT trial or volunteering for it can submit their contact information to DiscGenics here.

Mesoblast, an Australian company specializing in regenerative medicine, recently began enrolling U.S. patients with chronic low back pain in a Phase 3 study of its proprietary mesenchymal stem cells, which are derived from young and healthy adult donors.

Experimental Injection Could Reverse Spinal Cord Injuries

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

An experimental injection therapy that uses synthetic nanofibers to stimulate nerve cells could be used someday to reverse paralysis and repair damaged spinal cord tissues, according to a new study by researchers at Northwestern University.

In experiments on laboratory animals, the therapy successfully regenerated spinal cord nerves, reduced scar tissue and triggered the formation of new blood vessels. After a single injection, paralyzed mice regained the ability to walk within four weeks.

“Our research aims to find a therapy that can prevent individuals from becoming paralyzed after major trauma or disease,” said lead author Samuel Stupp, PhD, an expert in regenerative medicine and founding director of the Simpson Querrey Institute for BioNanotechnology (SQI) at Northwestern.

“For decades, this has remained a major challenge for scientists because our body’s central nervous system, which includes the brain and spinal cord, does not have any significant capacity to repair itself after injury or after the onset of a degenerative disease. We are going straight to the FDA to start the process of getting this new therapy approved for use in human patients, who currently have very few treatment options.”

Stupp and his colleagues used nanotechnology to develop synthetic nanofibers that mimic the natural environment around the spinal cord. Intensifying the motion of molecules within the nanofibers promotes the repair and regeneration of myelin, the insulating layer of axons that help nerve cells transmit electrical signals.

Researchers say the nanofibers biodegrade into nutrients for nerve cells within 12 weeks and completely disappear from the body without noticeable side effects. Their study, published in the journal Science, is the first in which researchers controlled the motion of molecules through changes in chemical structure to increase a therapy’s efficacy.

Nearly 300,000 people are currently living with a spinal cord injury in the United States. About 30% are hospitalized at least once a year after the initial injury and less than 3% of those with a severe injury ever recover basic physical functions. Life expectancy for patients with spinal cord injuries is significantly lower than healthy people and has not improved since the 1980s.

“Currently, there are no therapeutics that trigger spinal cord regeneration,” Stupp said in a news release. “I wanted to make a difference on the outcomes of spinal cord injury and to tackle this problem, given the tremendous impact it could have on the lives of patients.” 

The key behind Stupp’s breakthrough therapy is fine tuning the motion of molecules so that they can find and constantly engage with moving cellular receptors with bioactive signals. Injected as a liquid, the “dancing molecules” immediately form a gel in a complex network of nanofibers that mimic the extracellular matrix of the spinal cord.

“Receptors in neurons and other cells constantly move around,” Stupp said. “The key innovation in our research, which has never been done before, is to control the collective motion of more than 100,000 molecules within our nanofibers. By making the molecules move, ‘dance’ or even leap temporarily out of these structures, known as supramolecular polymers, they are able to connect more effectively with receptors.”

Stupp and his team found that fine-tuning the molecules’ motion within the nanofibers makes them more agile and results in greater therapeutic effect in paralyzed mice. They also confirmed that formulations of their therapy performed successfully in vitro tests with human cells, indicating increased bioactivity and cellular signaling.

Once connected to the nerve receptors, the dancing molecules trigger two cascading signals, both of which are critical to spinal cord repair. One signal induces myelin to rebuild around axons, which improves how nerve cells communicate with the brain. The second signal helps neurons survive after injury by promoting the regrowth of lost blood vessels that feed neurons and other cells for tissue repair. The therapy also reduces glial scarring, which acts as a physical barrier that prevents the spinal cord from healing. 

“The signals used in the study mimic the natural proteins that are needed to induce the desired biological responses. However, proteins have extremely short half-lives and are expensive to produce,” said first author Zaida Álvarez, a former research assistant in Stupp’s laboratory who is now a researcher scholar at SQI. “Our synthetic signals are short, modified peptides that — when bonded together by the thousands — will survive for weeks to deliver bioactivity. The end result is a therapy that is less expensive to produce and lasts much longer.”

While the new therapy could be used to treat paralysis after a major spinal cord injury, Stupp believes it could also be used to as a therapy for neurodegenerative diseases and strokes.

“The central nervous system tissues we have successfully regenerated in the injured spinal cord are similar to those in the brain affected by stroke and neurodegenerative diseases, such as ALS, Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease,” Stupp said. “Beyond that, our fundamental discovery about controlling the motion of molecular assemblies to enhance cell signaling could be applied universally across biomedical targets.”

You can learn more about Stupp’s research in this podcast and by watching this video:

Recent research at Yale University and Sapporo Medical University in Japan found that injections of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in patients paralyzed by spinal cord injuries led to significant improvement in their motor functions. In a small study, more than half of the paralyzed patients showed substantial improvements in function within weeks of being injected with autologous MSCs derived from their own bone marrow.

Positive Results From Stem Cell Trial for Knee Osteoarthritis

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A California stem cell company has announced positive results from a small, early-stage clinical trial of an experimental stem cell therapy for knee osteoarthritis.  

The Phase 1/2a trial conducted by Personalized Stem Cells (PSC) involved 39 patients with knee osteoarthritis who were given a single injection of autologous mesenchymal stem cells derived from their own body fat. Safety was the primary objective of the trial and there were no serious adverse events reported by the company.

The secondary objective of the trial was to assess the effectiveness of the therapy with the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), a survey that asks patients about their pain, other symptoms, daily function, quality of life, and recreational activities. Nearly 80% of study participants improved above the “minimal important change” (MIC), with an average improvement over baseline of 2.2 times the MIC.

Osteoarthritis is a progressive joint disorder caused by painful inflammation of soft tissue, which leads to thinning of cartilage and joint damage in the knees, hips, fingers and spine.

Results from the PSC study have been submitted to the FDA for review. The company hopes to get approval for a larger, Phase 2 randomized study of its stem cell therapy later this year.  

“We are pleased at the strong safety profile and efficacy results in this FDA-approved clinical study of stem cell therapy for knee osteoarthritis,” said PSC founder and CEO, Dr. Bob Harman. “We are proud to have reached this milestone in our first FDA approved clinical trial. This data supports our progress in the larger placebo-controlled clinical study.”

Veterinarians Already Using Stem Cells

While the FDA has approved hundreds of clinical trials of stem cells, it has not approved a single stem cell product as a treatment for arthritis or any orthopedic condition. That hasn’t stopped stem cell clinics from offering regenerative medicine to patients or veterinarians from using it on animals.

VetStem Biopharma, the parent company of PSC, pioneered the use of adipose derived stem cells in veterinary medicine. Its laboratory has processed stem cells for nearly 14,000 dogs, cats, horses and other animals for use by veterinarians in the U.S. and Canada.

“The 15 years of veterinary experience with adipose derived stem cell therapy of our parent company, VetStem Biopharma, provided the basis for our FDA study submission and approval and provided valuable insights into the study design and conduct,” said Harman.

In addition to the Phase 2 trial for osteoarthritis, PSC plans to pursue FDA approval for a stem cell trial to treat traumatic brain injuries in humans. A clinical study using PSC’s stem cell platform to treat respiratory distress syndrome in COVID-19 patients is currently underway.

New Drug Could Improve Effectiveness of Stem Cell Therapy

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Scientists have developed an experimental drug that can lure stem cells to damaged tissues and help them heal -- a discovery being touted as a major advancement in the field of regenerative medicine.

The findings, recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), could improve the effectiveness of stem cell therapy in treating spinal cord injuries, stroke, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative disorders. It could also expand the use of stem cells to treat conditions such as heart disease and arthritis. 

“The ability to instruct a stem cell where to go in the body or to a particular region of a given organ is the Holy Grail for regenerative medicine,” said lead author Evan Snyder, MD, director of the Center for Stem Cells & Regenerative Medicine at Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute in La Jolla, CA. “Now, for the first time ever, we can direct a stem cell to a desired location and focus its therapeutic impact.”

Over a decade ago, Snyder and his colleagues discovered that stem cells are drawn to inflammation -- a biological “fire alarm” that signals tissue damage has occurred. However, using inflammation as a therapeutic lure for stem cells wasn’t advisable because they could further inflame diseased or damaged organs, joints and other tissue.

To get around that problem, scientists modified CXCL12 -- an inflammatory molecule that Snyder’s team discovered could guide stem cells to sites in need of repair— to create a drug called SDV1a. The new drug works by enhancing stem cell binding, while minimizing inflammatory signals.

“Since inflammation can be dangerous, we modified CXCL12 by stripping away the risky bit and maximizing the good bit,” Snyder explained. “Now we have a drug that draws stem cells to a region of pathology, but without creating or worsening unwanted inflammation.”

To demonstrate its effectiveness, Snyder’s team injected SDV1a and human neural stem cells into the brains of mice with a neurodegenerative disease called Sandhoff disease. The experiment showed that the drug helped stem cells migrate and perform healing functions, which included extending lifespan, delaying symptom onset, and preserving motor function for much longer than mice that didn’t receive the drug. Importantly, the stem cells also did not worsen the inflammation.

Researchers are now testing SDV1a’s ability to improve stem cell therapy in a mouse model of ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, which is caused by a progressive loss of motor neurons in the brain. Previous studies conducted by Snyder’s team found that broadening the spread of neural stem cells helps more motor neurons survive — so they are hopeful that SDV1a will improve the effectiveness of neuroprotective stem cells and help slow the onset and progression of ALS. 

“We are optimistic that this drug’s mechanism of action may potentially benefit a variety of neurodegenerative disorders, as well as non-neurological conditions such as heart disease, arthritis and even brain cancer,” says Snyder. “Interestingly, because CXCL12 and its receptor are implicated in the cytokine storm that characterizes severe COVID-19, some of our insights into how to selectively inhibit inflammation without suppressing other normal processes may be useful in that arena as well.”

Snyder’s research is supported by the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Defense, National Tay-Sachs & Allied Disease Foundation, Children’s Neurobiological Solutions Foundation, and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM).

“Thanks to decades of investment in stem cell science, we are making tremendous progress in our understanding of how these cells work and how they can be harnessed to help reverse injury or disease,” says Maria Millan, MD, president and CEO of CIRM. “This drug could help speed the development of stem cell treatments for spinal cord injury, Alzheimer’s, heart disease and many other conditions for which no effective treatment exists.”

Stem Cell Osteoarthritis Studies Advance

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A Canadian doctor is recruiting patients for a "first of its kind" stem cell research project for osteoarthritis. The Phase II study could further advance the use of regenerative medicine in treating osteoarthritis, a joint disease for which treatment options are currently limited to pain medication, steroid injections or joint replacement surgery.

"This is a potential game changer in the management of osteoarthritis," says lead investigator Dr. Grant Pagdin.  "Evidence is building that regenerative procedures using the combination of biologic materials we are investigating here have the potential to reduce joint pain and improve function.” 

Pagdin is recruiting 255 Canadians with osteoarthritis from 19 to 79 years of age. The purpose of the study is to demonstrate the effectiveness of combining platelet-rich plasma (PRP) derived from a patient’s own blood with stem cells derived from their body fat (adipose tissue) or bone marrow.  

Participants will be randomly assigned to one of three groups that will receive injections of PRP and adipose stem cells, PRP and bone marrow stem cells, or PRP with both types of stem cells. Three injections of the biologic material will be made into an arthritic joint. Participants will then be followed for up to 24 months to see which treatment worked better

Meanwhile, a California stem cell company has announced that enrollment has officially ended for a similar study of stem cells. Thirty-eight patients with knee osteoarthritis have been recruited by Personalized Stem Cells (PSC) for a Phase I trial to have adipose stem cells injected into one knee. The study was originally set to have up to 125 patients, but was scaled back due to COVID-19 concerns.

"While stem cells have previously been used successfully in the treatment of osteoarthritis, our goal is to produce high quality data and ultimately receive FDA approval so that arthritic patients have access to PSC's quality tested stem cell treatments," Dr. Robert Harman, PSC’s CEO, said in a statement.

PSC hopes to submit results from the study to the FDA by the end of 2020, after which a Phase II blinded, placebo-controlled study will be launched.

In addition to the osteoarthritis knee study, PSC recently received FDA approval to launch a small clinical trial for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with stem cells. The company also plans to pursue FDA approval of stem cells for the treatment of back pain and traumatic brain injuries, as well as arthritis affecting other joints.

A small Phase II clinical trial recently found a single injection of adipose stem cells can significantly reduce osteoarthritis knee pain for up to a year with no serious side effects, according to findings published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine.

More than 27 million Americans live with osteoarthritis, a progressive condition caused by the breakdown of joint cartilage. Osteoarthritis causes pain, physical disability, lower quality of life, and is associated with early death and cardiovascular problems.

David vs. Goliath: California’s Stem Cell Program Demonizes Small Clinics

By A. Rahman Ford, PNN Columnist

In a recent article published in Stem Cells Translational Medicine, officials with the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) call for nationally uniform standards for stem cell products to facilitate the ”responsible delivery of regenerative medicine.”

Some of their recommendations are reasonable. However, CIRM’s insistence upon uniformity and their demonization of small stem cell clinics in a contrived narrative is sophomoric, disingenuous and counterproductive.

CIRM was created in 2004 when California voters passed Proposition 71, the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative. Supporters of Prop 71 lamented how the federal government had failed to provide adequate funding for stem cell research, so the state needed to step in and provide $295 million in bonds to advance stem cell treatments to patients with unmet medical needs.

CIRM is currently at a financial crossroads. To date, CIRM has funded over 1,000 research, training and community engagement projects. However, with its initial funding almost gone, it is now seeking an additional $5.5 billion through a ballot initiative. While CIRM has been strong in research, no CIRM-funded trial has won FDA approval. According to Nature, CIRM has funded 55 clinical trials but only one therapy is likely to hit the market any time soon.

Indeed, a 2018 San Francisco Chronicle investigation found that CIRM’s achievements “fall far short of what Prop. 71’s promoters promised.” Furthermore, “the bulk of CIRM grants have gone to basic research, training programs and building new laboratories, not to clinical trials testing the kind of potential cures and therapies the billions of dollars were supposed to deliver.”

Thus, while it’s noteworthy that CIRM-funded scientists have published over 330 scholarly articles in some of the top academic journals, practical results remain negligible to non-existent.

Promises Laid Upon False Premises

California’s scientific and physical infrastructure has benefited greatly from CIRM, but sick and disabled Californians have not. The fact that CIRM’s accomplishments have been so minimal makes their claims about acting in “the best interest of the patient” all the more curious.

Lead author Geoffrey Lomax, PhD, a Program Manager at CIRM, and colleagues argue that clinics offering stem cell treatments are in need of increased regulatory oversight. Toward that end, they recommend a new policy framework with technical, organizational and ethical benchmarks aimed at developing a standard of care for the stem cell industry. It pledges adherence to the FDA clinical trial process and chastises clinics for flaunting long-established rules for drug approval.

“There are documented examples of unproven stem cell interventions causing harm to patients. In the majority of examples, the intervention deviates from the norms of responsible medical practice. Numerous authoritative bodies have raised concerns over the potential for medical and financial harm to result from these practices,” Lomax wrote.

Generally speaking, some of their recommendations make sense. For example, they recommend that doctors, nurses and technicians providing stem cell treatments possess specialized training and expertise. They also recommend that providers educate and evaluate patents throughout the treatment process. Finally, the authors support the creation of a stem cell registry to facilitate the reporting of adverse events resulting from stem cell treatments.

However, these common-sense recommendations are overlaid by a rigid, forced adherence to an anachronistic model of medical treatment. This model is the FDA clinical trial process, which treats a patient’s own stem cells as “drugs.” That is unfortunate, because stem cell therapies are revolutionary, paradigm-shifting and defy old conceptions about drugs and medicine.

Perhaps the most glaring sin is CIRM’s demonization of small clinics offering stem cell treatments. These clinics are producing the real-world results that CIRM has not. This “us vs. them” approach occludes truth and impedes progress to the detriment of those most in need. It is unnecessary to diminish the value of others’ efforts to bolster or justify one’s own. Cooperation, not contrived competition, is in the best interest of patients.

Furthermore, forced uniformity in stem cell policy standards may not be the answer. Let us not forget that it was the state of California in 1996 that led the way on medical marijuana, amidst a cacophony of marijuana opponents who decried the potential for a “wild west” of rogue marijuana dispensaries that would prey upon desperate patients.

Now, years later, we see that none of those calamities materialized. For CIRM to now use the same argument and same invective toward stem cell clinics seems disingenuous and hypocritical.

Lomax fails to see that from the patient perspective the narrative is not “heroic” CIRM vs. the “villain” clinics, but more of a story of the “Goliath” CIRM vs. the “David” clinics. We all know how that story turned out.

A. Rahman Ford, PhD, is a lawyer and research professional. He is a graduate of Rutgers University and the Howard University School of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Howard Law Journal. Rahman lives with chronic inflammation in his digestive tract and is unable to eat solid food. He has received stem cell treatment in China.

Stem Cell Trial Significantly Reduced Osteoarthritis Knee Pain

By A. Rahman Ford, PNN Columnist

A small clinical trial has shown that a single injection of autologous stem cells derived from a patient’s own body fat can significantly reduce osteoarthritis knee pain for up to a year with no serious side effects, according to findings published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine.

A total of 39 osteoarthritis patients participated in the Phase 2 placebo-controlled trial. Some participants received injections into their knees of stromal vascular fraction (SVF) cells derived from adipose fat tissue, while others received placebo injections.

"Our randomized, controlled clinical trial is the first cellular therapy study for osteoarthritis to meet study endpoints using autologous adipose stromal cells for a point-of-care therapy. Eighty-eight percent of subjects responded greater than placebo at one year and reported a median 87% improvement in pain, stiffness and function," said William Cimino, PhD, CEO of GID BIO, which funded the study. GID BIO develops cellular therapies for degenerative musculoskeletal, dermal and other chronic diseases.

SVF therapy is controversial because it is not yet FDA-approved. Some stem cell clinics currently using SVF therapy are in the crosshairs of the FDA, with ongoing federal litigation in Florida and California. That’s what makes the new study findings significant.

"Publishing this data signifies real science and a breakthrough in regenerative medicine. We've completed a prior safety trial, an FDA-approved Phase 2b trial, and are now beginning a Phase 3 pivotal trial. Physicians will be able to use the SVF-2 technology to provide a cellular therapy option for patients," said principal investigator Jaime Garza, MD, Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at Tulane University School of Medicine.

Interestingly, Garza is a former star football player at Tulane whose fledgling NFL career was cut short by nagging knee injuries. As PNN has reported, regenerative cell therapies are increasing in popularity among NFL players and other professional athletes, who often have chronic pain from lingering injuries.

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent joint disease in the United States, affecting nearly 1 in 5 Americans aged 45 years and older. Since the mid-20th century, knee OA has doubled in prevalence, due primarily to age and obesity. Women are more likely than men to have knee OA and have more severe pain.

Total knee arthroplasty – a procedure that attempts to restore function by resurfacing the knee joint – is the only surgical intervention for knee OA. Other treatments include anti-inflammatory medications, physical therapy and steroid injections.  The FDA is also considering a new drug application for tanezumab, a biologic drug that blocks pain signals from reaching the brain.

“While current nonoperative modalities can offer symptomatic relief, these treatment modalities often fail, ultimately leading to knee arthroplasty. There is a need for more effective nonoperative knee OA treatment modalities, especially ones that may arrest or even reverse disease progression,” wrote Garza.

A. Rahman Ford, PhD, is a lawyer and research professional. He is a graduate of Rutgers University and the Howard University School of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Howard Law Journal. Rahman lives with chronic inflammation in his digestive tract and is unable to eat solid food. He has received stem cell treatment in China.

A Very Uncharitable Pew Stem Cell Policy Report

By A. Rahman Ford, PNN Columnist

The Pew Charitable Trust – an institution whose stated mission is to “encourage democratic participation” in accordance with its founders’ “emphasis on innovation” – has released a 52-page report on the FDA’s framework for regulating stem cells and regenerative medicine.

Far from democratic, the report is really a thinly-veiled hit piece on stem cell therapy – one of the few fields of medicine where innovation is actually occurring.

“In many cases, there is little reliable evidence to support claims that these so-called stem cell treatments will have any effect—or indeed that they contain stem cells at all, despite the claims made about them,” the Pew report found. “Beyond the potential physical, psychological, and financial harm to patients, the widespread availability of these unproven treatments could negatively affect the entire field of regenerative medicine.”

On its surface, the report’s professed aims of consumer safety and regulatory clarity are laudable and necessary. However, the report is clearly biased against stem cell clinics and fails to seriously consider the patient perspective in policymaking. And Pew’s curious selection of regenerative medicine “stakeholders” not only diminishes the report’s legitimacy, but reveals troubling undercurrents of industry and agency influence.

Ambiguity and Controversy in Regulatory Policy

The Pew report begins innocuously enough, by laying out the general landscape of regenerative medicine, federal regulation and FDA guidance. The report correctly notes the “complex and rapidly evolving” nature of regenerative medicine, as well as the legal ambiguity that pervades the FDA’s jurisdiction over enforcement.

The report accurately describes the controversy surrounding the FDA’s interpretation of “minimal manipulation” and “homologous use” standards, which determine whether a stem cell product is exempt from the agency’s pre-market approval requirements. It also notes that the FDA’s examples of what uses do or do not meet those standards – as stated in its guidance – are “inconsistent or arbitrary.”

The report’s recommendations are entirely based on stakeholder interviews. All 11 stakeholders supported the FDA’s crackdown on clinics, even though there are plenty of critics who think it is stifling innovation and patient access to stem cell therapy.

Rather than reduce regulation, Pew suggests that additional stakeholders like the Federal Trade Commission, National Institutes of Health and state governments should assist the FDA in its crackdown, adding even more layers of regulatory control.

The report also endorses the online censorship campaign against clinics and goes out of its way to essentially classify Texas and Alabama as “rogue states” for trying to actually expand the availability of stem cell therapy.

Rather than support a balanced and judicious approach that would both promote safety and innovations such as autologous stem cells, the report calls for “tighter control of the industry” to “lend legitimacy to the field and provide regulatory certainty, both of which are essential for developers seeking investment, as well as for payers that will eventually make insurance coverage decisions for these new treatments.”

To be sure, the resolution of regulatory ambiguity is a good thing for all parties. But the ambiguity should not be resolved in a manner that disadvantages the sick and disabled, as well as the small clinics that lack economic leverage to influence agency rule-making. Unfortunately, the Pew report privileges the wealth and influence of the healthcare industry in determining what policies are best. Patients and their interests are unceremoniously relegated to the back of the policy-making bus.

A Suspicious Selection of Stakeholders

As previously stated, the Pew report’s recommendations were derived from stakeholder interviews. Quite laughably, the report maintains that a “broad range of perspectives” were included. Of course, no practicing clinicians were included. Nor were any patient advocates interviewed. However, industry and academia were represented. In fact, one stakeholder was the former Chief Biotechnology Officer and Head of Scientific Strategy and Policy for Johnson & Johnson. Yes, that Johnson & Johnson.

The same Johnson & Johnson that, according to the New York Times, faces more than 100,000 lawsuits over its products. The same Johnson & Johnson that currently faces thousands of lawsuits over claims its baby powder has caused mesothelioma and ovarian cancer. The same Johnson & Johnson that recently agreed to pay a $117 million settlement for deceptive marketing of pelvic mesh implants and $8 billion for playing down the risks of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal. And yes, the same Johnson & Johnson that was found liable in the Oklahoma opioid trial.

So when the Pew report argues that stem cell clinics should be censored and persecuted for offering “dangerous” products and engaging in “deceptive” marketing practices, it is the absolute height of hypocrisy.

To make matters worse, that same former J&J “stakeholder” – who now sits on the board of biotech firm MacroGenics – worked for the FDA for 20 years reviewing and approving biologic products. This is the epitome of policymaking incest.

To appreciate the Pew report’s true motives, all one need do is peruse its references. The report’s end-notes are littered with citations to the work of the most public and commonly interviewed stem cell critics, all of whom are on the record as card-carrying regulationists.

Pew’s cherry-picking of sources reveals its true agenda. It is a meticulously-manicured industry-slanted propaganda piece masquerading as rational, objective stem cell policy.

A. Rahman Ford, PhD, is a lawyer and research professional. He is a graduate of Rutgers University and the Howard University School of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Howard Law Journal.

Rahman lives with chronic inflammation in his digestive tract and is unable to eat solid food. He has received stem cell treatment in China. 

The information in this column is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Elite Hospitals Offering Unproven Stem Cell Treatments

By Liz Szabo, Kaiser Health News

The online video seems to promise everything an arthritis patient could want.

The six-minute segment mimics a morning talk show, using a polished TV host to interview guests around a coffee table. Dr. Adam Pourcho extols the benefits of stem cells and “regenerative medicine” for healing joints without surgery. Pourcho, a sports medicine specialist, says he has used platelet injections to treat his own knee pain, as well as a tendon injury in his elbow. Extending his arm, he says, “It’s completely healed.”

Brendan Hyland, a gym teacher and track coach, describes withstanding intense heel pain for 18 months before seeing Pourcho. Four months after the injections, he says, he was pain-free and has since gone on a 40-mile hike.

“I don’t have any pain that stops me from doing anything I want,” Hyland says.

The video’s cheerleading tone mimics the infomercials used to promote stem cell clinics, several of which have recently gotten into hot water with federal regulators, said Dr. Paul Knoepfler, a professor of cell biology and human anatomy at the University of California-Davis School of Medicine.

But the marketing video wasn’t filmed by a little-known operator. It was sponsored by Swedish Medical Center, the largest nonprofit health provider in the Seattle area.

Swedish is one of a growing number of respected hospitals and health systems—including the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic and the University of Miami—that have entered the lucrative business of stem cells and related therapies. Typical treatments involve injecting patients’ joints with their own fat or bone marrow cells, or with extracts of platelets, the cell fragments known for their role in clotting blood. Many patients seek out regenerative medicine to stave off surgery, even though the evidence supporting these experimental therapies is thin at best, Knoepfler said.

Hospitals say they’re providing options to patients who have exhausted standard treatments. But critics suggest the hospitals are exploiting desperate patients and profiting from trendy but unproven treatments.

The Food and Drug Administration is attempting to shut down clinics that hawk unapproved stem cell therapies, which have been linked to several cases of blindness and at least 12 serious infections. Although doctors usually need preapproval to treat patients with human cells, the FDA has carved out a handful of exceptions, as long as the cells meet certain criteria, said Barbara Binzak Blumenfeld, an attorney who specializes in food and drug law at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney in Washington.

Hospitals like Mayo are careful to follow these criteria, to avoid running afoul of the FDA, said Dr. Shane Shapiro, program director for the Regenerative Medicine Therapeutics Suites at Mayo Clinic's campus in Florida.

‘Expensive Placebos’

While hospital-based stem cell treatments may be legal, there’s no strong evidence they work, said Leigh Turner, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Bioethics who has published a series of articles describing the size and dynamics of the stem cell market.

“FDA approval isn’t needed and physicians can claim they aren’t violating federal regulations,” Turner said. “But just because something is legal doesn’t make it ethical.”

For doctors and hospitals, stem cells are easy money, Turner said. Patients typically pay more than $700 a treatment for platelets and up to $5,000 for fat and bone marrow injections. As a bonus, doctors don’t have to wrangle with insurance companies, which view the procedures as experimental and largely don’t cover them.

“It’s lucrative. It’s easy to do. All these reputable institutions, they don’t want to miss out on the business. It preys on people’s desperation.”

— Dr. James Rickert

“It’s an out-of-pocket, cash-on-the-barrel economy,” Turner said. Across the country, “clinicians at elite medical facilities are lining their pockets by providing expensive placebos.”

Some patient advocates worry that hospitals are more interested in capturing a slice of the stem-cell market than in proving their treatments actually work.

“It’s lucrative. It’s easy to do. All these reputable institutions, they don’t want to miss out on the business,” said Dr. James Rickert, president of the Society for Patient Centered Orthopedics, which advocates for high-quality care. “It preys on people’s desperation.”

In a joint statement, Pourcho and Swedish defended the online video.

“The terminology was kept simple and with analogies that the lay person would understand,” according to the statement. “As with any treatment that we provide, we encourage patients to research and consider all potential treatment options before deciding on what is best for them.”

But Knoepfler said the guests on the video make several “unbelievable” claims.

At one point, Dr. Pourcho says that platelets release growth factors that tell the brain which types of stem cells to send to the site of an injury. According to Pourcho, these instructions make sure that tissues are repaired with the appropriate type of cell, and “so you don’t get, say, eyeball in your hand.”

Knoepfler, who has studied stem cell biology for two decades, said he has never heard of “any possibility of growing eyeball or other random tissues in your hand.” Knoepfler, who wrote about the video in February on his blog, The Niche, said, “There’s no way that the adult brain could send that kind of stem cells anywhere in the body.”

The marketing video debuted in July on KING-TV, a Seattle station, as part of a local lifestyles show called “New Day Northwest.”

Although much of the show is produced by the KING 5 news team, some segments—like Pourcho’s interview—are sponsored by local advertisers, said Jim Rose, president and general manager of KING 5 Media Group.

After being contacted by KHN, Rose asked Swedish to remove the video from YouTube because it wasn’t labeled as sponsored content. Omitting that label could allow the video to be confused with news programming. The video now appears only on the KING-TV website, where Swedish is labeled as the sponsor.

“The goal is to clearly inform viewers of paid content so they can distinguish editorial and news content from paid material,” Rose said. “We value the public’s trust.”

Increasing Scrutiny

Federal authorities have recently begun cracking down on doctors who make unproven claims or sell unapproved stem cell products.

In October, the Federal Trade Commission fined stem cell clinics millions of dollars for deceptive advertising, noting that the companies claimed to be able to treat or cure autism, Parkinson’s disease and other serious diseases.

In a recent interview Scott Gottlieb, the FDA commissioner, said the agency will continue to go after what he called “bad actors.”

With more than 700 stem cell clinics in operation, the FDA is first targeting those posing the biggest threat, such as doctors who inject stem cells directly into the eye or brain.

“There are clearly bad actors who are well over the line and who are creating significant risks for patients,” Gottlieb said.

“Products are being promoted that aren’t providing any proven benefits and where patients are paying out-of-pocket.”

— Scott Gottlieb, FDA Commissioner

Gottlieb, set to leave office April 5, said he’s also concerned about the financial exploitation of patients in pain.

“There’s economic harm here, where products are being promoted that aren’t providing any proven benefits and where patients are paying out-of-pocket,” Gottlieb said.

Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said there is a broad “spectrum” of stem cell providers, ranging from university scientists leading rigorous clinical trials to doctors who promise stem cells are “for just about anything.” Hospitals operate somewhere in the middle, Marks said.

“The good news is that they’re somewhat closer to the most rigorous academics,” he said.

The Mayo Clinic’s regenerative medicine program, for example, focuses conditions such as arthritis, where injections pose few serious risks, even if that’s not yet the standard of care, Shapiro said.

Rickert said it’s easy to see why hospitals are eager to get in the game.

The market for arthritis treatment is huge and growing. At least 30 million Americans have the most common form of arthritis, with diagnoses expected to soar as the population ages. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for arthritis generated more than $93 million in revenue in 2015, according to an article last year in The Journal of Knee Surgery.

“We have patients in our offices demanding these treatments,” Shapiro said. “If they don’t get them from us, they will get them somewhere else.”

Doctors at the Mayo Clinic try to provide stem cell treatments and similar therapies responsibly, Shapiro said. In a paper published this year, Shapiro described the hospital’s consultation service, in which doctors explain patients’ options and clear up misconceptions about what stem cells and other injections can do. Doctors can refer patients to treatment or clinical trials.

“Most of the patients do not get a regenerative [stem cell] procedure,” Shapiro said. “They don’t get it because after we have a frank conversation, they decide, ‘Maybe it’s not for me.’”

Lots of Hype, Little Proof

Although some hospitals boast of high success rates for their stem cell procedures, published research doesn’t back up those claims, Rickert said.

The Mayo Clinic website says that 40 to 70 percent of patients “find some level of pain relief.” Atlanta-based Emory Healthcare claims that 75 to 80 percent of patients “have had significant pain relief and improved function.” In the Swedish video, Pourcho claims “we can treat really any tendon or any joint” with PRP.

The strongest evidence for PRP is in pain relief for arthritic knees and tennis elbow, where it appears to be safe and perhaps helpful, said Dr. Nicolas Piuzzi, an orthopedic surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic.

But PRP hasn’t been proven to help every part of the body, he said.

PRP has been linked to serious complications when injected to treat patellar tendinitis, an injury to the tendon connecting the kneecap to the shinbone. In a 2013 paper, researchers described the cases of three patients whose pain got dramatically worse after PRP injections. One patient lost bone and underwent surgery to repair the damage.

“People will say, ‘If you inject PRP, you will return to sports faster,’” said Dr. Freddie Fu, chairman of orthopedic surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “But that hasn’t been proven.”

A 2017 study of PRP found it relieved knee pain slightly better than injections of hyaluronic acid. But that’s nothing to brag about, Rickert said, given that hyaluronic acid therapy doesn’t work, either. While some PRP studies have shown more positive results, Rickert notes that most were so small or poorly designed that their results aren’t reliable.

In its 2013 guidelines for knee arthritis, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons said it is “unable to recommend for or against” PRP.

“PRP is sort of a ‘buyer beware’ situation,” said Dr. William Li, president and CEO of the Angiogenesis Foundation, whose research focuses on blood vessel formation. “It’s the poor man’s approach to biotechnology.”

Tests of other stem cell injections also have failed to live up to expectations.

Shapiro published a rigorously designed study last year in Cartilage, a medical journal, that found bone marrow injections were no better at relieving knee pain than saltwater injections. Rickert noted that patients who are in pain often get relief from placebos. The more invasive the procedure, the stronger the placebo effect, he said, perhaps because patients become invested in the idea that an intervention will really help. Even saltwater injections help 70 percent of patients, Fu said.

A 2016 review in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery concluded that “the value and effective use of cell therapy in orthopaedics remain unclear.” The following year, a review in the British Journal of Sports Medicine concluded, “We do not recommend stem cell therapy” for knee arthritis.

Shapiro said hospitals and health plans are right to be cautious.

“The insurance companies don’t pay for fat grafting or bone-marrow aspiration, and rightly so,” Shapiro said. “That’s because we don’t have enough evidence.”

Rickert, an orthopedist in Bedford, Indiana, said fat, bone marrow and platelet injections should be offered only through clinical trials, which carefully evaluate experimental treatments. Patients shouldn’t be charged for these services until they’ve been tested and shown to work.

Orthopedists—surgeons who specialize in bones and muscles—have a history of performing unproven procedures, including spinal fusion, surgery for rotator cuff disease and arthroscopy for worn-out knees, Turner said. Recently, studies have shown them to be no more effective than placebos.

Misleading Marketing

Some argue that joint injections shouldn’t be marketed as stem cell treatments at all.

Piuzzi said he prefers to call the injections “orthobiologics,” noting that platelets are not even cells, let alone stem cells. The number of stem cells in fat and bone marrow injections is extremely small, he said.

Patients are attracted to regenerative medicine because they assume it will regrow their lost cartilage, Piuzzi said. There’s no solid evidence that the commercial injections used today spur tissue growth, Piuzzi said. Although doctors hope that platelets will release anti-inflammatory substances, which could theoretically help calm an inflamed joint, they don’t know why some patients who receive platelet injections feel better, but others don’t.

So, it comes as no surprise that many patients have trouble sorting through the hype.

Florida resident Kathy Walsh, 61, said she wasted nearly $10,000 on stem cell and platelet injections at a Miami clinic, hoping to avoid knee replacement surgery.

When Walsh heard about a doctor in Miami claiming to regenerate knee cartilage with stem cells, “it seemed like an answer to a prayer,” said Walsh, of Stuart, Florida. “You’re so much in pain and so frustrated that you cling to every bit of hope you can get, even if it does cost you a lot of money.”

The injections eased her pain for only a few months. Eventually, she had both knees replaced. She has been nearly pain-free ever since. “My only regret,” she said, “is that I wasted so much time and money.”

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

12 Patients Sickened by Contaminated Stem Cells

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

At least a dozen patients undergoing stem cell therapy developed bacterial infections after being injected with unapproved stem cell products, according to the Food and Drug Administration. Most of the patients were being treated for chronic back and joint pain.

All 12 patients were hospitalized, but there were no deaths. Seven of the infections were in Texas, four in Florida and one was in Arizona.  CDC investigators found E. coli bacteria in unopened vials at two of the stem cell clinics where the patients were treated.   

All of the patients received stem cells derived from umbilical cords that were initially processed by Genetech, a San Diego stem cell manufacturer.  The stem cells were recalled in October and the FDA sent a warning letter to Genetech last month saying its donor selection, manufacturing and safety standards were deficient.

“In this case, the company’s failure to put in place appropriate safeguards may have led to serious blood infections in patients,” FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in a statement.

This week the FDA also sent letters to 20 other stem cell providers warning them that the agency would step up its enforcement of guidelines for cell-based regenerative medicine. The FDA has long taken a dim view of newer stem cell therapies that have not undergone clinical testing, but said it would use “enforcement discretion” as long as a new treatment does not pose a significant safety risk.

“The letters we’re issuing today to manufacturers, health care providers and clinics around the country are a reminder that there’s a clear line between appropriate development of these products and practices that sidestep important regulatory controls needed to protect patients. Time is running out for firms to come into compliance during our period of enforcement discretion,” Gottlieb said.  

Gottlieb has previously warned of “unscrupulous actors” in the stem cell industry that deceive patients with “dangerously dubious products.” Critics have complained the agency's "go slow" approach to regnerative medicine has delayed the development of promising new treatments for autoimmune diseases, cancer, diabetes, neuropathy, back pain and other illnesses.  

Taking Stem Cells to the Bank

By A. Rahman Ford, Columnist

There’s a lot of hope and hype surrounding stem cells – the latest being the idea of “banking” them -- harvesting and storing your own stem cells for future use.

A biotech start-up called Forever Labs maintains that young adults have healthier cells that can be used when they are older to fight arthritis and other age-related diseases – or perhaps even help them live longer with a booster shot of younger cells. 

“Research suggests the decline in the number and viability of bone marrow stem cells plays a role in the physical decline associated with aging. In fact, simply injecting genetically-matched young stem cells into aged mice significantly increases their lifespan,” the company claims on its website. “To have access to young, genetically-matched stem cells in the future, store yours today.”

Collection of bone and bone marrow stem cells is done by a Forever Labs physician in a 15-minute out-patient procedure that costs about $2,000.  Your cells are then cryogenically frozen and stored for $250 a year.  

Another company, called LifeVault, offers a similar service at a lower price: $995 to have a blood sample drawn and shipped to a lab in New Jersey, where the blood will be processed into stem cells and stored for $95 a year. 

“We believe, and medicine is starting to believe, that this is really going to be a part of your health hygiene,” LifeVault CEO Trevor Perry told STAT News. He called the company’s test kit a form of “biological insurance.”

“You insure a lot of things in your life, but have you taken out a policy on yourself?” Perry asked.

LifeVault and Forever Labs are indicative of a larger trend in the fast-growing stem cell industry. As hundreds of stem cell clinics have opened around the country – offering treatment for everything from back pain to neuropathy – stem cell banking has moved beyond its original use for research toward commercialization for everyday people.  

The global stem cell banking market is projected to reach $9.3 billion by 2023, according to the research firm MarketsandMarkets, with the personalized banking segment projected to account for most of that growth.

In addition to blood and bone marrow, stem cells from a variety of other sources can be banked, including dental tissue, umbilical cord blood, placental tissue, adipose fat tissue and fetal tissue.

Umbilical cord blood and adipose tissue are currently the most commonly banked sources of stem cells.  This is largely because of practical concerns such as low cost, ease of access to the tissue, and the ability to harvest large amounts of stem cells.  

Cord blood contains primarily hematopoietic stem cells, along with a mixture of other cell types that may be suitable for treating certain rare genetic diseases.  Adipose tissue contains an abundance of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), a type of stem cell with immune and regenerative capabilities.  Both types have been used to treat orthopedic, neurological and cardiovascular conditions.

Several factors impact the use of cells stored in stem cell banks.  First, the source of the stem cells must be taken into consideration.  Autologous stem cells --- which come from the patient being treated -- are easier from a medical and regulatory point of view because the risk of immune system rejection is lower, as is the risk of running afoul of FDA regulations. 

Methods of collection and processing are also critical.  In the case of cord blood, most companies use small bags to collect the blood at the time of birth. Cord tissue can also be collected, stored and used later for regenerative purposes.  

Adipose tissues are obtained through liposuction procedures or by syringe under local anesthetic.  The adipose fat must be processed and preserved within 36 hours of harvesting.  The material is washed with saline and ultimately stored in a liquid nitrogen freezer.  

While still relatively new, stem cell banking is poised for healthy growth.  That growth is buttressed by the unfortunate rise in chronic diseases among both children and adults.  Growth and competition should also result in lower costs, a factor which surely deters many interested clients from taking out that “biological insurance” policy on themselves. 

A. Rahman Ford, PhD, is a lawyer and research professional. He is a graduate of Rutgers University and the Howard University School of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Howard Law Journal. He earned his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania.

Rahman lives with chronic inflammation in his digestive tract and is unable to eat solid food. He has received stem cell treatment in China. 

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Stem Cell Therapy Becoming More Affordable

By Dr. Kristin Comella, Guest Columnist

Demand for stem cell therapy in the U.S. is anticipated to be at an all-time high this year as more patients seek to use their own cells to heal from various injuries and diseases. Among them are many chronic pain patients seeking alternatives to opioid medication and surgery for treating pain caused by systemic diseases, orthopedic conditions, neurological problems and aging.

At one time many patients traveled outside the country and were paying $20,000 to $50,000 for treatment at stem cell clinics in Europe and Asia. But over the past five years, the cost of stem cell therapy has come down dramatically.

Stem cell providers have been able to simplify the process into an outpatient protocol at hundreds of clinics throughout the U.S. As a result, costs are lower -- typically from $5,000 to $12,000 -- depending on the specific condition, practitioner, location and treatments required.

As with any specialized procedure, the cost will reflect the depth of the treatment and the time spent working with the patient. Unfortunately, stem cell treatments are not usually covered by insurance.

When compared to traditional surgery, where in most cases there is a similar price point and significant down-time, out-patient stem cell therapy is much less invasive. Patients treated with stem cells can return to their regular routines soon after the simple procedure, rather than requiring weeks of physical therapy or needing crutches and wheelchairs to get around.

Recent studies show that stem cells may be used in a variety of indications where opioids are frequently prescribed, such as back pain.  I recently co-authored a small study appearing in the Journal of Translational Medicine, in which 15 patients with degenerative disc disease were treated with stem cells derived from their own fat tissue. All 15 patients reported a statistically significant reduced pain level after stem cell therapy.

Adult stem cells may have the ability to improve and possibly even reverse the effects of many types of chronic pain caused by tissue or neurological damage. Adult stem cells are found in every part of the body, and can be harvested from a patient’s own tissue, such as adipose (fat) tissue, muscle, teeth, skin or bone marrow. Fat tissue is one of the most plentiful sources of stem cells in the body. In fact, approximately 500 times more stem cells can be obtained from fat than bone marrow.

Typically, during a simple outpatient procedure, stem cells can be isolated from fat tissue in 30 to 90 minutes, under local anesthesia using a mini-lipoaspirate technique. They can then be infused or re-injected after the mini-liposuction.

A recent study published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine Research underscores the safety of using a person’s own stem cells – known as autologous stem cells -- in treating degenerative diseases and injuries. The study was the largest safety trial to date that successfully used stem cells from fat in procedures completed on 676 patients. It is also the first trial to address cells from fat in multiple diseases and with different delivery routes.

To date, more than 10,000 patients have been successfully treated using the stem cell protocols being utilized at American Stem Cell.  There has been a significant increase in interest from patients in using stem cells for general health, anti-aging, and reducing inflammation. More and more patients are also seeking to preserve and bank their cells for “just in case” scenarios.

The positive results we’ve been getting are very encouraging and offer hope for many patients battling chronic pain. 

Kristin Comella, PhD, is Chief Science Officer for American Stem Cell Centers of Excellence. She specializes in regenerative medicine with a focus on adipose derived stem cells.

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represents the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

FDA Moves Forward on Stem Cells

By A. Rahman Ford, Columnist

The Food and Drug Administration is finally getting the message.

In a special report published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the FDA makes a clear and positive shift in its stem cell policy – conceding that the old paradigm of drug approval just doesn’t work for stem cells.

The report, entitled “Balancing Safety and Innovation for Cell-Based Regenerative Medicine” is authored by FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Peter Marks, MD, Director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. 

Although short on specifics, Gottlieb and Marks declare their openness to creating alternative paths toward FDA approval of stem cell products – a policy change that could help stem cell therapies get to market faster and help patients sooner. This is a welcome move by the FDA. 

The tone used by the authors signals that the FDA is listening to the voice of the people and stem cell developers. Gottlieb and Marks wrote the FDA must take “an original policy approach to the regulation of a highly innovative field, one in which [the FDA’s] traditional approach to regulation may not be as efficient or effective as in more mature fields.” 

They maintain further that by working “within the existing regulatory framework” and by adopting “new principles,” the FDA’s premarket evaluation of stem-cell therapies will become more efficient. 

It seems the agency could no longer ignore the fact that patients – such as those who suffer from chronic pain – cannot wait for the rusty gears of the antiquated clinical trial process to churn out the treatments they need to save their lives.

FDA Breaks with Past

The tone set by Marks and Gottlieb differs significantly from that of Gottlieb’s predecessor, Robert Caliiff, MD, who co-authored a NEJM article last year entitled “Clarifying Stem Cell Therapy’s Benefits and Risks.”  As I’ve previously discussed, the arguments made by Califf were seriously problematic, specifically with regard to autologous therapies, which use stem cells made from a patient’s own blood or body tissue  

Although Califf and his co-authors acknowledged the “unique challenges of stem cell clinical research,” their overall posture was decisively rigid in regard to new approaches to FDA approval.  As an indication of just how low of a priority outreach was to them, they made no mention of working with stem cell investigators and sponsors until the final sentence of the article.  For the previous regime, outreach was an afterthought.

Marks and Gottlieb seem to be taking a more conciliatory approach by extending a regulatory olive branch to stem cell physicians and small clinics.  Unlike previous FDA statements, they spent less time on the spurious issue of safety and instead pivot toward the effectiveness of treatment and moving forward with commercialization.  In doing so, the they acknowledge that the novelty of stem cell technologies require a more flexible path toward approval.

To accommodate this move and to facilitate the expedited availability of stem cells to patients, the FDA will use the expanded authorities granted it by the 21st Century Cures Act.  The Cures Act allows the FDA to use non-traditional types of data – such as clinical data – to receive FDA approval.  Notably, the FDA will be incorporating some “new concepts for how small investigators and firms can seek and meet the approval standard for products through efficient expedited pathways.”  This is a step in the right direction.

How exactly will this work in practice?  No one really knows.  Marks and Gottlieb only provide one theoretical example: the FDA will provide “tools” to allow small firms to work collaboratively to obtain a biologics license for physicians, researchers and clinics.

Any outreach by the FDA should be welcomed and any attempt to expedite the availability of stem cell therapies to patients who need them should be encouraged.  However, given the dearth of detail offered by Gottlieb and Marks, precisely how these alternatives will work in practice remains nebulous.  Thus, the overtures made by the FDA are – at this point -- best met with skepticism and a cautious optimism

If the FDA is truly open to novel approaches to stem cell regulation, it should devise separate rules for autologous therapies – which former Commissioner Califf acknowledged “raise fewer safety concerns than allogenic cells.”  Regulation of autologous therapies by the FDA should be minimal, with the majority of oversight left to state governments and their agencies.

These new policy changes by the FDA are forward-thinking and should proceed further.  However, as promising as those options appear, they should in no way be construed as delegitimizing or nullifying legislative advances made in Texas or those that will be made when Congress enacts “Right to Try” legislation. 

All of these options can function cooperatively to ensure that the patients – often the most overlooked quantity in the medical policy equation – can receive the life-saving and curative treatments they need as soon as possible.

The FDA may offer many paths, but it need not be the only path.

A. Rahman Ford, PhD, is a lawyer and research professional. He is a graduate of Rutgers University and the Howard University School of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Howard Law Journal. He earned his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania.

Rahman lives with chronic inflammation in his digestive tract and is unable to eat solid food. He has received stem cell treatment in China.  

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Should the ‘War on Stem Cells’ Be Fought in Court?

By A. Rahman Ford, Columnist

A recent article published in the journal Regenerative Medicine suggests that civil lawsuits should be used to protect patients and draw attention to unscrupulous stem cell clinics. 

The authors, Claire Horner, Evelyn Tennenbaum, Zubin Master and Douglas Sipp, contend that civil litigation would "convincingly show patients and society that there are real and significant harms from unproven SCIs (stem cell interventions), and this strategy may complement the arsenal of efforts focused on reining in this industry.” 

Horner, Tennenbaum and Master are academics in medical ethics at Baylor College of Medicine, Albany Law School and the Mayo Clinic, respectively; while Sipp is affiliated with RIKEN, a Japanese research institute that is developing stem cell technology.

Their use of the word “arsenal” sounds like a declaration of war, an unfortunate, fratricidal war against their fellow Americans who need stem cells to treat their pain and disability.  After reading their article, it’s clear that fearmongering is their best weapon.

The authors really don’t like clinics that use a patient’s own stem cells to heal themselves.  They lament that many industrialized countries are moving toward more openness in accelerated approval of stem cells and other regenerative therapies.  And they contend that inadequate enforcement and penalties at the U.S. federal level justify the need for lawsuits.

“In the absence of government oversight of private sector firms, patients and consumers may need to look elsewhere to protect their interests. Civil litigation provides a means for patients who feel they have been harmed by undergoing a SCI to seek redress and compensation from providers and may also motivate government and industry to address the issue on a larger scale,” they wrote.

The most stupefying part is that the authors go so far as to compare the issue to tobacco companies, gun violence and child molestation! 

The authors admit at the outset that the main goal of their campaign is to propagandize the public and policy-makers.  They state plainly that “stem cell lawsuits may help raise public awareness and influence public policy” and would help draw “attention to negative outcomes and engender moral outrage on the behalf of vulnerable and sympathetic plaintiffs.” 

This tactic would shift attention away from pesky patients’ rights advocates who support broader availability of the potentially life-saving treatments offered by stem cells.  They see this strategy as viable because it worked for consumers injured by the tobacco industry, victims of gun violence, and sexual abuse victims molested by Catholic priests.  The fact that the authors would put stem cell clinics – and by extension stem cell patients – in the same category as Philip Morris, AR-15 gun manufacturers and pedophile Catholic priests is simply ludicrous.

For the authors, civil litigation is essentially a propaganda tool in their misguided war against a non-existent enemy. They advocate using civil litigation to “attract public attention” and “shape the media narrative.” Information operations such as these are an age-old concept in international relations and warfare, that includes the collection of tactical information about an adversary as well as the dissemination of propaganda in the pursuit of a competitive advantage over an opponent. 

And how do the authors intend to collect their tactical information?  They will use the civil litigation discovery process to uncover “previously undisclosed information about a provider’s practices” that could potentially trigger FDA investigations. 

Overall, the tone of the authors’ proposal is that of combativeness and belligerence, not negotiation and reconciliation.  As with all misguided wars, it is civilians – those who the war is allegedly waged to protect – are the ones who suffer the most.

Little Evidence to Support ‘War on Stem Cells’

Even worse, they don’t show their “war on stem cells” is supported by any real-world evidence.  Their methodology is insufficiently rigorous; it lacks integrity to the point of being flimsy, porous and leaky.  The data which serve as the cornerstone of the authors’ argument are 9 court cases in which plaintiffs allege that the stem cell therapy they received was either ineffective or injurious.  

This sample is far too small to seriously support any meaningful conclusions, much less the authors’ conclusion that the number of legal claims is growing.  The 9 cases cited were filed between 2012 and 2017 for a wide variety of medical conditions and for a wide variety of causes of action.

Not only are we not told how many stem cell procedures were actually performed in American clinics over the same time span, but in none of the 9 cases cited was there a disposition in favor of the plaintiffs!  In fact, one was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs and another was dismissed on appeal.  Of the remaining seven, 4 were settled and 4 have yet to be decided. 

So none of the claims of negligence, misrepresentation, fraud, lack of informed consent, or unfair trade practices were ever proven.  The authors acknowledge that this is a problem, and in desperation turn to a Japanese case to support their claims.  The problem is the authors openly admit that “the U.S. administrative and legal systems differ greatly from Japan’s.”  It’s never a good idea to undermine your own argument.

If the authors are truly motivated by the safety and welfare of stem cell patients, then perhaps their efforts would be better spent advocating for the increased democratization and liberalization of stem cell policy. 

This can be accomplished by supporting policies geared toward the availability and affordability of stem cell therapies, such as the patient-centered ethos of “Right to Try” legislation, the regenerative medicine provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act, and the constitutionally-protected privacy right in a patient’s use of their own stem cells. 

We need less antagonism and asymmetry in stem cell policy-making, and more alliance-building and acceptance of a new paradigm of progress. The solution is not more litigation against people, but more listening to the people.

A. Rahman Ford, PhD, is a lawyer and research professional. He is a graduate of Rutgers University and the Howard University School of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Howard Law Journal. He earned his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania.

Rahman lives with chronic inflammation in his digestive tract and is unable to eat solid food. He has received stem cell treatment in China.  

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

How Trump and Congress Can Champion Stem Cells

By A. Rahman Ford, Columnist

For the second straight year, President Trump has endorsed making life-saving treatments like stem cell therapies more available to more Americans.

In his 2017 Joint Address to Congress, Trump highlighted the case of Megan Crowley, a young woman whose father had to launch his own drug company to help treat her Pompe Disease.  Also in attendance that evening was Sarah hughes, who was forced to travel to Mexico to use her own stem cells to treat her systemic idiopathic juvenile arthritis.

In reference to both cases, the president lamented the pain and death caused by the “slow and burdensome approval process at the Food and Drug Administration” that “keeps too many advances … from reaching those in need.”  He argued that regulatory restraints at the FDA should be “slashed” so that more Americans could benefit from life-saving therapies.

President Trump is keeping up the pressure.  During this week's State of the Union address, he continued his theme of a patient-centered, less restrictive approach to medical treatment. 

He did so by voicing his clear support for “Right to Try” legislation, which would increase the medical options of the critically ill by helping them avoid the unduly burdensome and bureaucratic spider’s web of the FDA. 

In a seeming reference to Sarah Hughes and other stem cell medical tourists, Trump stated unequivocally that “patients with terminally conditions … should have access to experimental treatments immediately” and they “should not have to go from country to country to seek a cure.”  He then urged Congress to pass the Right to Try Act, so that Americans can get help “right here at home.”

How Right to Try Works

The language of the Right to Try legislation is simple, straightforward and offers protections for patients and manufacturers.  Under the Senate version, an “eligible patient” who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness may be prescribed an experimental drug or biological product to treat their illness, so long as the patient has a qualified physician certify that he or she has exhausted all other treatment options and is unable to participate in a clinical trial. The patient must also provide informed consent to the physician and the physician may not be compensated by the manufacturer of a treatment for certifying the patient.  The patient, physician and manufacturer must all agree on the treatment.

Furthermore, the medical product in question must have successfully completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and must be enrolled in an FDA clinical trial.  The treatment must be authorized by state law, which means that the state must have a Right to Try law – which 38 states currently have.

The manufacturers receive protection under Right to Try legislation, in that there can be no legal liability for injury that may result as a consequence of the medical product’s use, and adverse events that may occur during treatment will not negatively impact any eventual approval of the product by the FDA. 

In an overwhelming and increasingly rare bipartisan display (94-1), the Senate has already passed the Right to Try Act.  The House version is currently awaiting approval.

Critics Deny Democratic Choice 

Critics of Right to Try make several claims to undermine the expansion of choices it would bring to critically ill patients.  Some physicians and medical ethicists claim that the true goal of Right to Try is to weaken the FDA as the only objective and appropriate gatekeeper of drug approval and access.  Some also claim that the legislation is redundant because the FDA already fills this need through its expanded access program. 

Still other critics try to dissuade patients by surreptitiously noting that “scary” conservative and libertarian think tanks like Freedom Partners and Americans for Prosperity, which are partially funded by the Koch brothers, favor passage of Right to Try legislation.  These criticisms warrant thoughtful consideration, but are not substantive enough to overcome overarching concerns of patients literally dying from their pain.    

Ultimately, Right to Try and stem cell therapy are issues that embody the deepening and broadening of healthcare choice -- a choice that should be embraced by an informed American citizenry, a forward-thinking medical establishment and government agencies that must be by and for the people. 

Carefully curated expansions of choice -- that privilege the humane while also giving due consideration to patient protection – serve as the foundation of all truly democratic institutions.  The FDA should accept that it can better serve people by acceding some of its authority and become more lean and nimble in the process.  Bigger is not always better.

Right to Try will not solve all the problems associated with stem cell therapy.  There is no way to predict with any precision how the law will operate legally or logistically, whether for stem cell therapies or other drugs and medical products.  Additionally, the Trump administration must revisit and revise the FDA’s stem cell guidance, specifically its limits on stem cells which are harvested, processed and administered to the same person to relieve conditions such as chronic pain.    

However, for advocates of stem cell therapy and health choice in general, Right to Try is a step in the right direction.

A. Rahman Ford, PhD, is a lawyer and research professional. He is a graduate of Rutgers University and the Howard University School of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Howard Law Journal. He earned his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania.

Rahman lives with chronic inflammation in his digestive tract and is unable to eat solid food. He has received stem cell treatment in China.  

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.