StemCell Therapy

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Research and Markets (http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/pqrlwc/analysis_of_the_st) has announced the addition of Frost & Sullivan's new report "Analysis of the Stem Cell Markets-Unlocking the New Era in Therapeutics" to their offering.

This Frost & Sullivan research service titled Analysis of the Stem Cell Markets-Unlocking the New Era in Therapeutics focuses on prospects for the stem cell therapeutics market in Europe and provides valuable recommendations and conclusions for market participants. Market segmentation is based on regulatory framework in Europe relating to research on adult and embryonic stem cells. The main countries discussed are the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain, Sweden, Finland, and the remaining parts of Europe.

Market Overview

New Applications in Drug Discovery Platforms to Drive Stem Cells Market

Stem cells offer exciting potential in regenerative medicine, and are likely to be widely used by mid-2017. Pharmaceutical, biotech and medical device companies are showing increased interest in stem cell research. The market will be driven by stem cell applications in drug discovery platforms and by successful academia -commercial company partnership models.

The high attrition rates of potential drug candidates has piqued the interest of pharmaceutical and biotech industries in stem cell use during the drug discovery phase, notes the analyst of this research. Previously, animal cell lines, tumours, or genetic transformation have been the traditional platform for testing drug candidates; however, these abnormal' cells have significantly contributed to a lack of translation into clinical studies. Many academic institutes and research centres are collaborating with biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies in stem cell research. This will provide impetus to the emergence of novel cell-based therapies.

Host of Challenges Need to be Confronted before Stem Cell Therapeutics can Realise its Potential

Key challenges to market development relate to reimbursement, ethics and the complexity of clinical trials. Securing reimbursement for stem cell therapeutic products is expected to be critical for commercial success. However, stem cell therapies are likely to be expensive. Insurers, therefore, may be unwilling to pay for the treatment. At the same time, patients are unlikely to be able to afford these treatments. The use of embryonic stem cells raises a host of thorny ethical, legal, and social issues, adds the analyst. As a result, market prices for various products may be affected. Moreover, many research institutes are adopting policies promoting the ethical use of human embryonic tissues. Such policies are hindering the overall research process for several companies working in collaboration with these institutes.

In addition to apprehensions about how many products will actually make it through human-based clinical trials, companies are also worried about which financial model can be applied to stem cell therapies, cautions the analyst. Possibly low return on investment (ROI) is also resulting in pharmaceutical companies adopting a cautious approach to stem cell therapeutics. To push through policy or regulatory reforms, the technology platform and geographical location of stem cell companies should complement the terms laid down in EMEA. The methodology for cell expansion and synchronisation must be optimised to acquire a large population of the desired cell at the right differentiation point, adds the analyst. More research is needed in human pluripotent and multi potent stem cell as it differs from mice to humans. Completion of clinical trials will be essential to ensure the safety and efficacy of the stem cell therapy.

See original here:
Research and Markets: Analysis of the Stem Cell Markets-Unlocking the New Era in Therapeutics

Public release date: 11-Jun-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Susan Martonik smartonik@snm.org 703-652-6773 Society of Nuclear Medicine

Miami Beach, Fla.Finding a way to restore hair growth after substantial hair loss is something of an obsession worldwide. Investigators at the Society of Nuclear Medicine's 2012 Annual Meeting presented how stem cell research for the development of new hair follicles can be monitored with an optical imaging technique that uses bioluminescence, the same process that allows fireflies to light up.

There is a host of treatments available for hair loss, including creams and drugs, but these have not shown to be very effective for hair growth. Hair stem cells signal the actual regeneration of hair follicles and natural hair. A molecular imaging technique called bioluminescence is used to display processes at the cellular level. Bioluminescent signal is generated in specific chemical substances called substrates. These signals are easily recognized with very sensitive optical imaging systems that can see what is happening in the smallest placesin this case in hair stem cells.

"Hair regeneration using hair stem cells is a promising therapeutic option emerging for hair loss, and molecular imaging can speed up the development of this therapy," saysByeong-Cheol Ahn, M.D., Ph.D., professor and director of the department of nuclear medicine at Kyungpook National University School of Medicine and Hospital in Daegu, South Korea. "This study is the first study of hair follicle regeneration using an in vivo molecular imaging technique."

The current research involves grafting hair stem cells in animal models to investigate if they can grow and proliferate as normal cells do. The progress of hair stem cell therapy is non-invasivelytracked with bioluminescentreporter genes in specialized substrates. There are several bioluminescent reporter genes originating fromnot only fireflies, but also beetles, glowworms and other bioluminescent organisms. The strategy of using bioluminescent reporter genesis ideal for stem cell research, because bioluminescence works only in living cells.

In this study, researchers used bioluminescence imaging usingfirefly luciferase coupled with D-luciferin to monitor the engraftment of hair follicle stem cellscalled newborn fibroblastsin mice to track their viability and development into hair folliclesover time. Bioluminescence imaging was performed five times over the course of 21 days after transplantation of the stem cells.

Results of the study showed successful bioluminescence imaging forhair regeneration with hair stem cell transplantation, and new hair follicles were apparent on the surface of skin samples under microscope. More studies will have to be conducted before clinical trials could be initiated to verify whether this therapy would work for human hair regeneration.

###

Scientific Paper 74: Jung Eun Kim, Byeong-Cheol Ahn, Ho Won Lee, Mi-hye Hwang, Sang-Woo Lee and Jaetae Lee, Nuclear Medicine, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Republic of Korea; Seng Hyun Shin and Young Kwan Sung, Immunology, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Republic of Korea, "In vivo monitoring of survival and proliferation of hair stem cells in hair follicle regeneration animal model," SNM's 59th Annual Meeting, June 9, 2012, Miami Beach, Fla.

Read the original here:
Bioluminescence imaging lights up stem cell therapy for hair growth

In Early Study, Procedure Helps Teens Halt Insulin Injections

June 11, 2012 (Philadelphia) -- In an early study, an experimental stem cell procedure helped 15 teens with type 1 diabetes stay off of insulin injections for about 1.5 years, on average.

The study was very small, and the procedure is not ready for widespread use. "We now have a unique approach with some positive findings, but it's still early. We need to better understand the biology behind the treatment and follow patients for long-term side effects," Robert E. Ratner, MD, chief scientific and medical officer of the American Diabetes Association, tells WebMD.

This is the latest of several stem cell studies to show promising results for the treatment of type 1 diabetes, Ratner notes.

In the new study, 15 of 28 teens with type 1 diabetes who got an experimental treatment using their own stem cells went into remission and did not need insulin injections for an average of about 1.5 years.

The "cocktail treatment" combines stem cell therapy with drugs that suppress the body's immune system. In type 1 diabetes, the immune system attacks and destroys insulin-producing cells within the pancreas.

The experimental treatment is called autologous nonmyeloablative hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). It aims to kill the destructive immune system cells and replace them with immature stem cells not programmed to destroy insulin-producing cells.

First, patients are given drugs to stimulate production of blood stem cells. The blood stem cells are then removed from the body and frozen. Then, patients are hospitalized and given drugs to kill the destructive immune system cells. The harvested blood stem cells are then put back into the patient.

Eight teens who took part in the study have remained insulin-free for two years, on average. One patient has gone without insulin injections for 3.5 years.

"All our patients considered the [treatment] to be worthwhile and beneficial, though some patients experienced side effects," study head Weiqiong Gu, MD, of Ruijin Hospital in Shanghai, tells WebMD.

Read this article:
Experimental Stem Cell Treatment Tested for Type 1 Diabetes

The $3 billion California stem cell
agency, which hopes to generate income for the state through the sale
of stem cell therapies, is moving to make its profit-sharing rules
more friendly to business.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

California biotech companies chalked up
a zero in the latest funding round by the state's $3 billion stem
cell agency, although 14 tried to run a gauntlet that industry has
complained about for years.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Two directors of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency have popped up in the battle over the
anti-tobacco initiative on tomorrow's ballot in the Golden State.

"The...problem with Proposition 29
is its pigeonholing of the money for cancer research rather than for
immediate needs here in California that are absolutely dire. It’s
all well and good to say that cancer research benefits everyone, but
the real question is whether it should be the absolute top priority
for a state that can’t afford to keep its children fed or offer
them medical care in the here and now. 

"Lansing and Vuori say the fact
that Prop. 29 'fails to provide funding for schools, roads or
affordable housing' is irrelevant, because it was 'was never intended
to solve these problems.'

"In the context of the state’s
needs, this is a rather callous approach to take. Let’s spell out
why, so Lansing and Vuori won’t be so inclined to dismiss these
necessities of life so casually."

"That’s just the beginning of
what might be cut because the state needs money—and won’t be able
to lay its hands on the hundreds of millions of dollars that Lansing,
Vuori, and their research colleagues are angling for. They don’t
want voters to be reminded that there are competing demands for the
tobacco money, and they do so by failing to mention that they exist,
and also by presenting the spending on cancer research as the voters’
only choice. 

"It’s the only choice because
the promoters of Proposition 29 designed it that way. Advocates of
programs like this love to pass them in via voter initiatives because
they leave no room to measure them against alternative needs."

"Organizers argued that the tax would have
less chance of passing if voters thought it would go into the state
coffers, and said that their only goal here was cutting down on
smoking."

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

The Proposition 71 campaign of 2004,
which has filled the coffers of more than 500 researchers and
institutions with $1.4 billion, was the subject today of a discussion
about miracles.

"Joan Samuelson, a leading
Parkinson's patient advocate, is shown in another ad asserting,
'There are more Americans than I think we can count who are sick
now, or are going to be sick in the future, whose lives will be saved
by Prop. 71.' Shortly after the measure passed, Samuelson was
appointed to the stem cell program's board. 

"Do these ads amount to promising
'miracles'? Given that the essence of scientific research is that no
one can predict the outcome, to assert as fact that 'lives will
be saved by Prop. 71' is plainly to promise something downright
extraordinary, if not outright miraculous. 

"Yes, this is the language of
advertising, not research, but for Trounson and Thomas to pretend
that the ad campaign somehow promised merely 'good science' and not
specific outcomes, as their letter suggested, is (at least)
miraculously disingenuous."

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

The top two leaders of the California
stem cell agency today took strong issue with a column in the Los
Angeles Times that spoke less than favorably about the history and
efforts of the state research enterprise.

"Proposition 71(the stem cell
initiative), you may recall, was sold to a gullible public via
candy-coated images of Christopher Reeve walking again
and Michael J. Fox cured of Parkinson's. The
implication was that these miracles would happen if voters approved a
$3-billion bond issue for stem cell research."

"In his article opposing
Proposition 29, Michael Hiltzik makes a number of misleading
statements about Proposition 71, the voter-approved measure funding
stem-cell research. 

"No ads for Proposition 71
promised miraculous cures. They promised good science, and that is
what is being funded, with more than 62 promising therapies for 40
different diseases on their way to clinical trials. 

"The stem-cell agency has
conflict-of-interest rules as strict as any government agency. We
undergo state-mandated audits to ensure we follow all rules and
regulations, and the most recent one, completed just this month,
praised the agency for its performance. 

"As for being 'an unwieldy
bureaucrac just 6% of the money we get goes to pay for staff; 94%
goes to fund research here in California, creating new jobs,
generating income for the state and, most important, helping find
treatments for deadly diseases."  

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

"Commercialization has emerged as
dominant theme in both the advocacy of science and in the grant
writing process.  But is this push good for science? What damage
might the market’s invisible hand do to the scientific process?"

"There are many recent examples of
how commercialization plays out in top-down policy approaches to
science.  The UK government recently justified a £220 million
investment in stem cell research on the pledge that it will help
stimulate an economic recovery. A 2009 policy document from
Texas made the optimistic prediction that stem cell research could
produce 230,000 regional jobs and $88 billion in state economic
activity.  And President Obama’s 2011 State of the
Union address went so far as to challenge American researchers
to view this moment in time as 'our generation’s Sputnik
moment'—the opportunity to use science and innovation to drive the
economy, create new jobs, and compete with emerging economies, such
as China and India. 

"The impact of this
commercialization pressure is still unfolding, but there is a growing
body of research that highlights the potential challenges, including
the possibility that this pressure could reduce collaborative
behavior, thus undermining scientific progress, and contribute to the
premature application of technologies, as may already be
happening in the spheres of stem cells and genetic
research. For example, might the controversial new Texas stem cell
research regulations, which allow the use of experimental adult
stem cell therapies without federal approval, be, at least in part, a
result of the government’s belief in the economic potential of
the field? 

"Such pressure may also magnify
the growing tendency of research institutions and the media to hype
the potential near future benefits of research—another phenomenon
that might already be occurring in a number of domains and
could have the effect of creating a public expectation that is
impossible to satisfy. 

"Furthermore, how will this trend
conflict with the emerging emphasis on an open approach to
science? A range of national and international policy entities, such
as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
suggest 'full and open access to scientific data should be adopted as
the international norm.' Can policy makers have it both ways? 
Can we ask researchers to strive to partner with industry and
commercialize their work and share their data and results
freely and as quickly as practical?"

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

"I think that scientists have an obligation to educate the
public. I welcome visits from both stem cell proponents and
opponents, so I have a chance to clarify any misconceptions about
what it is that we really do. We have to figure out how to deal with
our opponents as well as our friends. I have a policy of welcoming
opponents so I can teach them. It works. Education wins minds."

"Governor Rick Perry left my lab
understanding far more about induced pluripotent stem cells than he
did when he arrived. If we don't engage those who don't share our
views, who will tell them the truth? How will they know that we are
ethical and working to improving human health? 

"The visit was arranged by Michael
Thorsnes, a well-known Democratic fundraiser. He is a very
impressive person who knows politicians of every stripe, and he
arranged the meeting with Perry so that I could explain our project
to make iPSCs from people with Parkinson's disease, and our work
using iPSC derivatives in multiple sclerosis. Perry is promoting
'adult' stem cell therapy in Texas, and I wanted to be sure that he
understood the difference between 'adult' stem cells and pluripotent
stem cells. He does. Educating those in positions of power is one
of our responsibilities, and I take it very seriously."

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

"I'm with George Skelton(Los
Angeles Times columnist). Whatever you think about ballot box
budgeting, you could take every penny raised by this and bury it in
the ground - it would still: Reduce smoking (mostly by preventing
some kids, the most price-sensitive group of smokers from starting) .
Save lives. Hurt the lying tobacco companies. All very good things."

CIRM has not taken a position on the measure.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

The $3 billion California stem cell
agency, which hopes to generate income for the state through the sale
of stem cell therapies, is moving to make its profit-sharing rules
more friendly to business.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

California biotech companies chalked up
a zero in the latest funding round by the state's $3 billion stem
cell agency, although 14 tried to run a gauntlet that industry has
complained about for years.

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Two directors of the $3 billion
California stem cell agency have popped up in the battle over the
anti-tobacco initiative on tomorrow's ballot in the Golden State.

"The...problem with Proposition 29
is its pigeonholing of the money for cancer research rather than for
immediate needs here in California that are absolutely dire. It’s
all well and good to say that cancer research benefits everyone, but
the real question is whether it should be the absolute top priority
for a state that can’t afford to keep its children fed or offer
them medical care in the here and now. 

"Lansing and Vuori say the fact
that Prop. 29 'fails to provide funding for schools, roads or
affordable housing' is irrelevant, because it was 'was never intended
to solve these problems.'

"In the context of the state’s
needs, this is a rather callous approach to take. Let’s spell out
why, so Lansing and Vuori won’t be so inclined to dismiss these
necessities of life so casually."

"That’s just the beginning of
what might be cut because the state needs money—and won’t be able
to lay its hands on the hundreds of millions of dollars that Lansing,
Vuori, and their research colleagues are angling for. They don’t
want voters to be reminded that there are competing demands for the
tobacco money, and they do so by failing to mention that they exist,
and also by presenting the spending on cancer research as the voters’
only choice. 

"It’s the only choice because
the promoters of Proposition 29 designed it that way. Advocates of
programs like this love to pass them in via voter initiatives because
they leave no room to measure them against alternative needs."

"Organizers argued that the tax would have
less chance of passing if voters thought it would go into the state
coffers, and said that their only goal here was cutting down on
smoking."

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

The Proposition 71 campaign of 2004,
which has filled the coffers of more than 500 researchers and
institutions with $1.4 billion, was the subject today of a discussion
about miracles.

"Joan Samuelson, a leading
Parkinson's patient advocate, is shown in another ad asserting,
'There are more Americans than I think we can count who are sick
now, or are going to be sick in the future, whose lives will be saved
by Prop. 71.' Shortly after the measure passed, Samuelson was
appointed to the stem cell program's board. 

"Do these ads amount to promising
'miracles'? Given that the essence of scientific research is that no
one can predict the outcome, to assert as fact that 'lives will
be saved by Prop. 71' is plainly to promise something downright
extraordinary, if not outright miraculous. 

"Yes, this is the language of
advertising, not research, but for Trounson and Thomas to pretend
that the ad campaign somehow promised merely 'good science' and not
specific outcomes, as their letter suggested, is (at least)
miraculously disingenuous."

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

The top two leaders of the California
stem cell agency today took strong issue with a column in the Los
Angeles Times that spoke less than favorably about the history and
efforts of the state research enterprise.

"Proposition 71(the stem cell
initiative), you may recall, was sold to a gullible public via
candy-coated images of Christopher Reeve walking again
and Michael J. Fox cured of Parkinson's. The
implication was that these miracles would happen if voters approved a
$3-billion bond issue for stem cell research."

"In his article opposing
Proposition 29, Michael Hiltzik makes a number of misleading
statements about Proposition 71, the voter-approved measure funding
stem-cell research. 

"No ads for Proposition 71
promised miraculous cures. They promised good science, and that is
what is being funded, with more than 62 promising therapies for 40
different diseases on their way to clinical trials. 

"The stem-cell agency has
conflict-of-interest rules as strict as any government agency. We
undergo state-mandated audits to ensure we follow all rules and
regulations, and the most recent one, completed just this month,
praised the agency for its performance. 

"As for being 'an unwieldy
bureaucrac just 6% of the money we get goes to pay for staff; 94%
goes to fund research here in California, creating new jobs,
generating income for the state and, most important, helping find
treatments for deadly diseases."  

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

"Commercialization has emerged as
dominant theme in both the advocacy of science and in the grant
writing process.  But is this push good for science? What damage
might the market’s invisible hand do to the scientific process?"

"There are many recent examples of
how commercialization plays out in top-down policy approaches to
science.  The UK government recently justified a £220 million
investment in stem cell research on the pledge that it will help
stimulate an economic recovery. A 2009 policy document from
Texas made the optimistic prediction that stem cell research could
produce 230,000 regional jobs and $88 billion in state economic
activity.  And President Obama’s 2011 State of the
Union address went so far as to challenge American researchers
to view this moment in time as 'our generation’s Sputnik
moment'—the opportunity to use science and innovation to drive the
economy, create new jobs, and compete with emerging economies, such
as China and India. 

"The impact of this
commercialization pressure is still unfolding, but there is a growing
body of research that highlights the potential challenges, including
the possibility that this pressure could reduce collaborative
behavior, thus undermining scientific progress, and contribute to the
premature application of technologies, as may already be
happening in the spheres of stem cells and genetic
research. For example, might the controversial new Texas stem cell
research regulations, which allow the use of experimental adult
stem cell therapies without federal approval, be, at least in part, a
result of the government’s belief in the economic potential of
the field? 

"Such pressure may also magnify
the growing tendency of research institutions and the media to hype
the potential near future benefits of research—another phenomenon
that might already be occurring in a number of domains and
could have the effect of creating a public expectation that is
impossible to satisfy. 

"Furthermore, how will this trend
conflict with the emerging emphasis on an open approach to
science? A range of national and international policy entities, such
as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
suggest 'full and open access to scientific data should be adopted as
the international norm.' Can policy makers have it both ways? 
Can we ask researchers to strive to partner with industry and
commercialize their work and share their data and results
freely and as quickly as practical?"

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

"I think that scientists have an obligation to educate the
public. I welcome visits from both stem cell proponents and
opponents, so I have a chance to clarify any misconceptions about
what it is that we really do. We have to figure out how to deal with
our opponents as well as our friends. I have a policy of welcoming
opponents so I can teach them. It works. Education wins minds."

"Governor Rick Perry left my lab
understanding far more about induced pluripotent stem cells than he
did when he arrived. If we don't engage those who don't share our
views, who will tell them the truth? How will they know that we are
ethical and working to improving human health? 

"The visit was arranged by Michael
Thorsnes, a well-known Democratic fundraiser. He is a very
impressive person who knows politicians of every stripe, and he
arranged the meeting with Perry so that I could explain our project
to make iPSCs from people with Parkinson's disease, and our work
using iPSC derivatives in multiple sclerosis. Perry is promoting
'adult' stem cell therapy in Texas, and I wanted to be sure that he
understood the difference between 'adult' stem cells and pluripotent
stem cells. He does. Educating those in positions of power is one
of our responsibilities, and I take it very seriously."

Source:
http://californiastemcellreport.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss