Early human trials with adult stem cells extracted from bone marrow have not worked as well as hoped. From the story:
So it was with high hopes that researchers transfused stem cells into patients suffering from heart failure — people whose hearts, weakened by heart attacks or other conditions, no longer pumped enough blood through their bodies. But in clinical trials, the effects have been modest. Stem cells appeared to help, but not as much as doctors had hoped — and not in the ways they had expected…
From 2002 to 2006 alone, there were at least 18 randomized controlled studies involving nearly 1,000 patients. “Everyone started putting bone marrow in the heart,” says Christine Mummery, a researcher at Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands, who has studied how to turn stem cells into heart muscle cells called cardiomyocytes. But the results, she says, were a mixed bag. The treatment appeared to be safe, but patients had only transient improvement. “People went from being very sick to a little less sick,” Mummery says. There is a silver lining: Even stem cells that don’t grow into new heart cells seem to help patients in other ways. As the bone marrow transplant trials continue, researchers are trying to sort it all out.
Interestingly, the research gave scientists another idea:
Hoping for a more direct approach that could generate new tissue, Marbán started studying stem cells that come from the heart instead of from bone marrow. These so-called cardiac progenitor cells naturally repair heart muscle — but they do so far too slowly “to cope with a catastrophic injury” like a heart attack, Marbán says. The cells are also rare, accounting for about 1 in every 40,000 working heart cells, he estimates. But in larger concentrations, they might be able to speed up the healing process.
To find out, Marbán is leading a trial involving patients who have suffered heart attacks within the past month. First a cardiologist threads a catheter through a patient’s neck and into his heart to collect “little snippets of tissue,” Marbán says. Those are then cultured in the lab for about a month, until the initial population of cardiac progenitor cells grows to tens of millions. Finally, they’re infused back into the patient’s heart through another catheter. The hope is that the cardiac stem cells will take root and reverse the scar. Results should be out later this year. “Let’s just say we’re extremely encouraged,” Marbán says. “It looks like it’s working, and cleanly.”
Still too soon to tell, obviously, but never underestimate the creativity and imagination of scientists!
I couldn’t help notice that the Times’ report depicts the potential of embryonic stem cells in this field. Nothing new there. But it is far more clear about their difficulties and adverse side effects than I recall MSM outlets usually being when the clear agenda was to overturn the Bush stem cell funding policy. Perhaps, they finally learned the science? Yea, that’s the ticket!
February 8th, 2011 | 8:12 pm
We better learn the science real fast, because embryonic and fetal derived stem cells are going to be rapidly entering human clinical trials.
There has just been approval for 2 more human clinical trials using human fetal stem cells.
This means that 4 human clinical trials are now underway using human ESCs or fetal SCs.
What some may find pruriently interesting is that one of these trials uses a mouse genetic element within the human fetal stem cells; which are then implanted in humans.
As sex is little more than mixing DNA, this permanence certainly puts a new twist on bestiality.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
February 8th, 2011 at 9:01 pm
If that’s all you think sex is, David. I feel sorry for you.
There have been fetal cell human trials before, with devastating results for the Parkinson’s patients involved. There are now 3 ESC human trials, and I don’t know about the fetal cell trials. But a human trial does not a success make–which, if you had any discernment, was the subject of this post, Mr. Scientist.
February 8th, 2011 | 9:48 pm
The article is too limited to come up with any of these conclusions. For example, Bodo Strauer ran a five year trial in Germany, starting in the ancient history days of 2003 when bone marrow was all there was. 391 patients with results which PhRMA and its scam stem cell society ISSCR do not wish anyone to see. While the standard patients worsened from NYHA 2.8 to 3.6, the stem cell patients improved from 3.2 to 2.4 (approx). But the real news is that the standard cardiology patients died at FIVE TIMES the rate of the stem cell patients over the five years!
A tiny Thai Israeli company has treated 500 VERY sick heart patients with blood-derived stem cells. 70% were significantly better at the six month mark (vs. 0% for standard cardiology).
Five published papers confirm this.
I think, Mr. Smith, that you will agree that embryonics won’t match this in the next quarter century. You know as well as I do that the current Geron hoax SCI trial has no chance for success other than the one patient surviving. They could not catch Carlos Lima in that quarter century either.
Don Margolis, Chairman
Repair Stem Cell Institute
February 9th, 2011 | 12:32 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Stand In The Gap and Stem Cell Blogs, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Bone Marrow Adult Stem Cells Disappoint in Treating Heart Attack Injuries » http://bit.ly/gW4D9b [...]
February 9th, 2011 | 9:01 am
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016816
March 7th, 2011 | 6:37 pm
@don margolis, I think we must be careful about Strauer’s study. It was not a randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled study and therefore cannot, by its very design, prove efficacy, despite the stated conclusion of Strauer. That being said, his results are promising and do warrant further, more careful investigation.
Regarding you Don,
Has any health care provider ever paid you or any of your various stem cell related companies or organizations a commission for you or your organizations’ treatment referrals? Do any currently pay you?
Do you currently have any other business relationships (direct or indirect) with Theravitae, Vescell, Regenocell, Zoacell or Dr. Zannos Grekos or any other stem cell companies that are treating patients off-shore?
Can you please show us the published paper that proves that 70% of Theravitae’s treated patients improved after 6 months?
On another site, you stated that “…500 patients have been treated with the same exact stem cells Dr. Grekos uses, creating 350 improved lives since 2004.”
I presume these are the same patients to which you are referring here. Can you show any published evidence to support your claim that 350 or 500 patients treated since 2004 are still leading the “improved lives” you claim? When was the last time all 500 were followed up? Do they all continued to be followed up? If so, by whom?
Do you deny that your original stem cell company, Theravitae supplied a private “survey” of the Theravitae lab in Israel and passed that private survey off as though it was an official GMP manufacturing certification from the Israeli government, thus tricking the Thai authorities into believing the stem cells Theravitae used on the patients in Thailand and elsewhere (the Vescell product) were harvested and grown in a GMP certified lab facility?
When the late David Foege testified before Congress as a Theravitae patient “spokesperson” singing the praises of Theravitae’s Vescell stem cell treatment, did he forget to identify was he already a member of Theravitae’s Board of Directors as well as serving as that “unofficial spokesman” for patients? Or was his Board membership only promised to him at that time?
Theravitae patients were told that their own stem cells were multiplied and implanted back into their bodies. Theravitae’s own scientist, Dr. Yael Porat (with others), published a scientific article in which she identified the existence of cells in the post lab treatment cell sample which were not found in the original sample taken from the patient.
Did Theravitae ever do any research (autopsies or histological examinations of myocardial tissue) to determine whether or not these lab introduced or produced cells caused or contributed to the Theravitae stem cell patients’ deaths? (British Journal of Hemotology article found on the Vescell website http://www.vescell.com/pdf/British-Jo…) (remember, Vescell was the name of Margolis’ (Theravitae’s) stem cell “product.”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact