NIH responds to my e-mail concerning clinical trials using stem cells

barbara

Pioneer Founding member
I received a written reply to my e-mail request to the NIH yesterday when I asked about why there are no relevant clinical trials at the NIH using stem cells for treating COPD. I am posting the reply in the ICMS section to continue to bring home the message to everyone how badly we need to support ICMS. We just are never going to get beyond the research, research, research stage otherwise for years if you ask me. Here goes -

August 11, 2009

Your letter of July 29, 2009 to the NIH Acting Director was referred to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) for response since we support research on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Thank you for your letter encouraging research to develop novel approaches for therapy, such as lung tissue regeneration. The NHLBI recognizes the seriousness of COPD and the need for research to develop better treatments for this condition. There are currently 19 open trials on COPD that are listed on http://clinicaltrials.gov, reflecting a strong interest in research by both the NIH and industry.

The NHLBI has recently funded several new research programs on COPD. These include a large study of the genetics of COPD (COPDGene), a clinical research study to characterize molecular abnormalities in COPD (SPIROMICS), and four Speciailized Centers for Clinically Oriented Research (SCCOR) in COPD, which are conducting basic and clinical research to better understand the mechanisms involved in COPD pathogenesis. In addition, the NHLBI continues to support a large trial of supplemental oxygen therapy in patients with COPD (LOTT), several clinical trials that are underway within the COPD Colinical Research Network (CCRN), and a program that collects human lung tissues and makes them available to investigators for use in COPD research (Lung Tissue Research Consortium). The NHLBI also provides research grants to many investigators across the country, enabling their studies of the pathways and mechanisms involved in COPD. We are hopeful that this active and growing program of research will soon lead to new, more effective, methods for treating COPD.

One promising approach for the treatment of COPD is lung regeneration, possibly through the use of stem cells. This field is at an early stage of development, especially for its application to lung diseases. Most of the research performed thus far has used animal models or tissue preparations, and much work must still be done to develop practical treatments and to demonstrate their safety and efficacy in humans. Although ongoing basic stem cell research is potentially relevant to COPD, no studies have yet been published involving patients with COPD. One study, sponsored by Osiris Therapeutics to test the safety of a stem cell treatment, has completed enrollment of subjects, but its results are not yet available (further information is available at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00683722?term=Stem+Cell+COPD&rank=1 We are not aware of any other clinical trials of stem cell therapies that are actively enrolling subjects with COPD at this time.

Although there is no cure, effective treatments are available for COPD, even in its most advanced stages. If you have not already done so, you may wish to seek the advice of a pulmonary specialist at a major medical center, such as the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center (UCHSC), regarding the best way to manage your disease. One expert in pulmonary medicine and COPD at UCHSC, Denver is Dr. Marvin I. Schwarz. He can be contacted at (303)315-7047.

I hope this information is helpful to you. With best regards,

Sincerely,

Elizabeth G. Nabel, M.D.
Director
 

zee

New member
NIH needs to get an education

I find it quite amazing that NIH failed to take notice that Osiris treatment does not work. Apparently they were not aware of this. Also, the NIH is quite wrong about no published studies on stem cells and COPD. There are indeeded published studies on stem cells and COPD: outside of the USA.

As stated previously, the best way for patients to control future research is to control the money. This concept is not unique by a long shot. A good percentage of all private hospitals started in this country were started by patient groups, advocates, and philanthropists. If you want to study a particular area of science, there is no better way to do this than to start a trust fund, target the people who have the right education, and do laboratory and human research.

I am not surprised by the NIH's response. The response I received from the NIH was even more pathetic than Barbara's.
 

Kaye

New member
Pulmonary Specialist?

Barbara,
I'm not sure which one of Elizabeth B. Nabel's titles makes me the maddest - "MD" or "Director"! This is our tax dollars at their finest. Just which one of the "effective treatments" is she talking about? My pulmonary specialist is keeping me in the dark! Where in the world did this woman graduate medical school - she should request a refund. We are at the end of the treatment options and she doesn't even have a clue.
 

zee

New member
NIH doesn't need a clue, they got the taxpayer

The NIH doesn't need a clue because they have the federal government to pay them. If you want to command attention, you need to be in control of the money. We are not in control. Congress, powerful special interest, and regulators have had a cozy relationship for a long time. Their response to Barbara is only because Barbara, myself, and others made such a nuisance with the NIH director, that his subordinates were forced to respond.

If you want clinical research, you start a trust fund, and hire an investigator.
The first step is to raise money. This can be accomplished by finding products or services to sell, put up a website, setup a trust fund, and hire an investigator. I would think about $120,000 would be necessary for basic laboratory research. And another $120,000 to do a PHase I human clinical trial at one study site. I think these things are pretty reasonable.

The point that I am trying to make, it is well within our ability to fund our own trials. Yes, it is a nuisance and it doesn't seem fair, but I doubt likely the US government is going to do much different. In the eyes of the medical community we are viewed as a $$$, not a human being. Don't forget the horrifically rude and arrogant response that I had when contacting the Heart and Lung Division, or the Allergy Division. Initially they wouldn't even put their name on emails and then hung up on me when I called. Their exact response when hanging up was "what company do you work for". They don't talk to the public as a general rule and become insulted when they do.
We mean nothing to these people.

In spite of the unfavorable response we received from the NIH, we did the right thing by contacting them. It might be worth emailing Dr. Kingston and point out that Osiris isn't going to be able to do the job they anticipated. Also, he should be aware that there are human trials with stem cells and COPD outside of the US. In addition, I would submit data to him that demonstrates that Osiris is not going to be able to do the job with their current venue. Other than that, I wouldn't put to much energy into the NIH. It might be appropriate to ask them what animal studies they are referring to in their last message, so that we get a time frame on commencement of human trials.

I am making good progress with some of the merchandising that I am doing. I will post some new results when I have an answer. I don't see any problem at all in getting investigators. Doctors are mainly concerned about liability and the science. This means you need to conduct preclinical studies with animals (mice), and then immediately file an FDA application after the FDA has reviewed it.

:cool:
 

barbara

Pioneer Founding member
Pretty lame response, wasn't it? The NIH is one good example of the research scams going on in this country if you ask me. I was floored when she gave a link to the closed Osiris trial and apparently doesn't know that Osiris has already made an announcement. And Kaye, you probably just don't have the right pulmonary doctor. Maybe, Ms. Nabel can give you a recommendation.

At least the responses from the NIH give affirmation to what we already knew, but were hoping wasn't true. They are just researching for dollars, nothing more. Zee is correct. We are really nothing to them and need to move on.

The NIH has a new director I believe, but I am going to bet it's business as usual. No change at this agency.
 

zee

New member
NIH is an insult to our intelligence

I find the response that NIH gave pretty insulting. The nerve, first pointing to research that they know won't work. And then telling you to get another doctor.

At this point, I think we should develop a coordinated effort to get NIH to work on a specific area of stem cell research and/or some of the topics that people posted on research being conducted in Japan and Canada. I don't see why NIH can't do some in house studies in those areas. I think that is the most we can hope for.

Does anyone have an opinion with respect to all of the research venues that have been posted during the past couple of weeks? I think a coordinated response to the NIH with respect to 2-3 treatment options might be the best way to go. Some of the research that came out of Japan looks quite promising -- especially for emphysema. Also, some of the early research that NIH previously funded on the ISS Stimulatory Process also needs to be considered. I am going to contact Dynavax and find out what they hope to accomplish with their DNA Vaccine.
;)
 

Jane

New member
World Stem Cell Summit - Johns Hopkins

I have been following with interest the variety of individuals/researchers, etc that are attendees at the World Stem Cell Summit in September in Baltimore. They expect 1200 people there. Check the various links at
http://www.worldstemcellsummit.com/

I am hoping from the fact that there is considerable interest here that something will start moving in the forward direction.
 

barbara

Pioneer Founding member
Too bad we can't be at this session:


SOCIETY TRACK A: Stem Cell Action?A New Agenda for Advocates
Moderator:
Bernard Siegel, Genetics Policy Institute, USA
Speakers:
Ellen Arnold, Arnold Public Affairs, USA
Don Reed, Americans for Cures Foundation, USA
Mary Woolley, Research America, USA
Howard Zucker, FRMR: Interagency Federal Working Group on Regenerative Medicine
 

zee

New member
SSSCR -- Student Society For Stem Cell Research

While digging around on the World Stem Cell Summit Website, I found a link that took me to the Student Society For Stem Cell Research. Under their education link, they didn't list Lung Disease as a common target. I took the liberty of emailing them about this and pointed out that Lung Disease is currently number 4 and expected to be number 3 after next year. It is easily much more common than many of the diseases they listed.

I also joined the organization as a member. Anyone else wishing to organize a chapter of this organization at their nearby university or school can do so by going to http://www.ssscr.org/about_ssscr. One of the email addresses for this organization is <mjriggs@ssscr.org>. I found the link here http://www.worldstemcellsummit.com/chapters.php?chapter=chapter1
:D
:)
 
Top