Fetal Stem Cell Trial Starts for Stroke Patients, Spinal Cord Patients up Next

By Andrew Moseman | November 17, 2010 11:32 am

StemCellsThe United States is still bogged down in uncertainty over which stem cell science the government can and can’t fund, but that doesn’t mean the march of research has ground to a halt. This week brought news of two new human stem cell treatments that are going forward.

In Britain, a former truck driver in his 60s who suffered a stroke has now become the first person to receive an experimental stem cell treatment for the condition. Doctors injected two million fetal stem cells developed by British company ReNeuron into his brain with the hope of stimulating the growth of brain cells and blood vessels.

The patient received a very low dose of stem cells in an initial trial to assess the safety of the procedure. Over the next year, up to 12 more patients will be given progressively higher doses – again primarily to assess safety – but doctors will be looking closely to see if the stem cells have begun to repair their brains and if their condition has improved. [BBC News]

If those treatments go well, those higher doses could go as high as 10 to 20 million cells. ReNeuron scientist John Sinden explains that the fetal cells were taken from a 12-week-old fetus, and were already destined to become brain cells. This treatment is thought to have fewer uncertainties than those that use embryonic stem cells, which can grow into any type of cell and which can sometimes cause tumors.

Animal studies suggest the cells are safe and effective at healing brain injuries. “We see regrowth of blood vessels, the generation of new neurons, a reduction in scarring and inflammation in the brain,” said Sinden. “There are a range of things that happen that are best described as the brain to some extent healing itself.” One concern over stem cell therapies has been whether they might cause cancer, but Sinden said the cells used in the latest trial appear not to form tumours. [The Guardian]

It was just last month that a different biotech company, Geron, injected the first spinal cord patient with a stem cell treatment for new spinal cord injuries. Now the firm StemCells Inc. has filed for approval of a clinical trial using stem cell treatments for spinal injuries that are up to a year old. Some previous studies have suggested that treatments have to take place in the first few days after injury to have a beneficial effect, but StemCells Inc. says it has gotten promising results from animal tests that bode well for human patients.

A study published earlier this year showed that mice treated with StemCells’ nerve stem cells — which are extracted from aborted fetuses — were able to walk better than those treated with ordinary human skin cells or a placebo, even when the treatment came weeks after their injury. [Reuters]

If the treatment bears out in human trials, it could benefit a great number of people, the company argues.

“To date, the focus has been on the acute spinal cord injury phase,” StemCells CEO Martin McGlynn said in a telephone interview. “That’s an important area to address, but the largest unmet need is those who have passed that immediate acute phase of injury.” [Reuters]

Geron waited years to garner U.S. government approval for its trial. StemCells Inc. shouldn’t have to wait that long, in part because the California-based firm is filing for permission and conducting the trial in Switzerland, and in part because its treatment uses fetal stem cells that were already destined to become nerve cells. In contrast, Geron is using stem cells drawn from embryos.

Related Content:
80beats: First Patient Is Injected With Embryonic Stem Cell Treatment
80beats: Federal Judge Won’t Delay His Ban on Embryonic Stem Cell Research
80beats: Stem Cell Tourists Denied: Costa Rica Stops Treatments at Top Clinic
80beats: FDA Green-Lights First Trials Using Embryonic Stem Cells (Again)
80beats: Biotech Co: First Human Embryonic Stem Cell Trial Hit Small Speed Bump

Image: iStockphoto

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Health & Medicine
  • Zachary

    They have an official National Church, yet can still get over the insane objections to stem-cell research. Good work Britain.

  • Matt

    It’s encouraging to see the science progressing despite the extreme religious opposition. Religious fanatacism has tried to oppress science for centuries, from the discovery of our planets orbit to stem cell research.

  • http://www.catholiclab.net Ian

    @1, The Church of England has very little infuence in matters English health care policy. Besides you need to be more specific – speaking as a Catholic there is no objection to ‘stem cell research’ as you call it. There is however strong and reasoned objection to human embryonic and foetal stem cell research – human life begins at conception (scientific fact) – and therefore the embryonic human should enjoy a right to life.

  • http://www.catholiclab.net Ian

    @2, Can you give any examples of “Religious fanatacism” trying “to oppress science for centuries”?

  • http://www.ipscell.com Paul Knoepfler

    I wish you had gone into more depth about the differences between the 3 clinical trials that you discussed. Geron’s is in most ways completely unrelated to the other two. I discuss these issues on my blog. http://www.ipscell.com


  • http://www.catholiclab.net Ian

    @5, I appreciate your clarification between human ES cells as used by Geron, and Foetal stem cells as used by Reneuron, but the fact remains that a human blastocyst (as with a foetus) is a stage of human development. The fact that Human ES cells are left over from IVF treatments does not make such treatments morally right. In both cases the human being is destroyed.

    The human being regardless of their stage of development has an inalienable right to life.

  • Sam

    @3, So they can test it on mice but they can’t use humans? I find that highly hypocritical since both are essentially animals. A fact which many humans seem to forget.

  • AD

    Ian, you claim the status of scientific fact for life beginning at fertilisation. There are many different scientific opinions about when human life begins depending on what you are using as the defining criterion:
    “Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins.” http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

    The article quoted above examines the question of when human life begins from various perspectives, including religious and scientific, and the basic conclusion is:
    “Science has not been able to give a definitive answer to this question. One opinion is that the acquisition of humanness is a gradual phenomenon, rather than one that occurs at any particular moment. If one does not believe in a “soul,” then one need not believe in a moment of ensoulment. The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human. While one may have a particular belief in when the embryo becomes human, it is difficult to justify such a belief solely by science.”
    In my opinion claiming something as scientific fact, when no such concensus exists in this case, is a lazy way of defending a position that is based on emotion rather than reason.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!


80beats is DISCOVER's news aggregator, weaving together the choicest tidbits from the best articles covering the day's most compelling topics.

See More

Collapse bottom bar