Page 1 of 16 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 152

Thread: Wise Young: The Chasm between the Bench and Bedside

  1. #1

    Wise Young: The Chasm between the Bench and Bedside

    [B]I have recently decided to post long articles that I write for CareCure to http://wiseyoung.wordpress.com/ so that my longer posts would be collected in one place. I just posted the following:

    The Chasm between the Bench and Bedside
    by Wise Young, Ph.D., M.D.
    W. M. Keck Center for Collaborative Neuroscience
    6 December 2008

    On November 1, 2008, Newsweek Magazine's Sharon Begley pointed out in an article entitled Where Are the Cures? that "Scientists call the gulf between a biomedical discovery and new treatment 'the valley of death.' The article reiterated a common misperceptions of scientists and their role in therapy development.

    It has been years since Hans Keirstead worked his biological magic, injecting stem cells into rats with severed spinal cords and thus making them walk almost normally. But the real miracle—since other experiments, too, have cured paralysis in lab animals—is that Geron Corp. plans to test the technique in people next year. Between Keirstead's experiment and Geron's trial lie these obstacles: Keirstead, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, had to invent instruments to squirt the stem cells into spinal cords ("what do we academics know about developing medical devices?" he asked me), find someone to try the technique in monkeys ("I know two researchers who handle monkeys; you have to get in line"), ramp up production of the stem cells ("it meant going from pipettes to this massive hydraulic setup") and … well, more industrial-strength biology that he wasn't trained in, that the government rarely funds and that brings exactly zero glory to a university scientist. "We hacked through the jungle and paved the road," Keirstead said. "But how many others are willing to do that?"
    A Chasm Between the Bench and Bedside

    Scientists are neither trained nor equipped to take therapies from laboratory to clinical trial. They do experiments on rats and other small animals in their laboratories to establish proof of concept. Most scientists don't know how to scale therapies from rats to humans. They don't know how to get therapy ready for human use. Few have participated in or organized clinical trials. Very few know how to raise the funding necessary for clinical trials.

    In the days of Jonas Salk, it was possible for a single scientist to usher a therapy from laboratory to clinic without involving a company. These days are now over. Therapy development has become big business. Pharmaceutical companies are therapy development machines. They have regulatory, preclinical, and clinical departments. What they cannot do in-house, they farm out to consultants and contract to professional organizations that will do the job in accordance to regulatory standards and on schedule.

    Many clinicians are too busy to participate in, much less organize clinical trials. Most have not been trained to run clinical trials. Despite the advent of "evidence-based" medicine, most therapies (particularly surgery) that clinicians use have never been tested in double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trials while new therapies are subject to rigorous standards of multicenter phase 3 clinical trials. Who will bridge the chasm?

    In theory, the pharmaceutical industry is the bridge between the bench and bedside. However, the industry estimates that it now takes over a billion dollars and ten years to move a therapy from discovery to market. The funds must come from the investors, government, or foundations. If funds are insufficient, it takes forever to develop therapies and many bite the dust along the way. This problem is not unique to spinal cord injury or so-called "orphan disease" that affects less than 200,000 people. It affects development of all therapies.

    The Solution is Not Medical Tourism

    Pessimism seems to have gripped the clinical and patient communities. In spinal cord injury, for example, after decades of telling patients that they will never walk, many clinicians do not believe that any therapy will restore function, particularly in people who have been injured for many years. Understandably, patients, having been told by their doctors that no therapies are or will be available, are going overseas in droves to spend their life savings for unproven experimental therapies.

    Medical tourism only aggravates the problem by diverting people and resources to therapies that are unlikely to help and may well cause harm. Few of these clinics have done any serious research on the conditions that they are claiming to be able to cure. They often take some undocumented therapy, claim that it is 100% safe and 80% effective, advertise the therapy to patients with incurable conditions, and charge them what the market will bear. At present, that market price is US$20,000-$30,000.

    Clinics that sell experimental therapies have a serious conflict of interest. They depend on the funds for their existence and therefore cannot be relied upon to provide objective opinions concerning the therapies. Most will not submit their therapies to rigorous clinical trials and few collect or publish data concerning the risk and benefit of the therapies. Worse, many offer false hope to lure people to pay the cost of therapies that are unikely to work.

    In the end, the choice is of course up to the individual. But, the harm is not to just to the individuals but to development of therapies. In order for a therapy to be accepted and available to other people and covered by insurance, well-run and rigorous clinical trials are necessary. Once a therapy is shown to be safe and effective, it will then become available to all who need it. Most countries cannot afford to waste time and resources on therapies that are unsafe or ineffective.

    The Economics of Therapy Development

    Competition for funds to develop therapies is fierce at every level. At the National Institute of Health (NIH), less than 10% of grant applications are being funded. Clinical trial grants must compete with basic science. Some diseases, such as cancer and AIDS, get much more funding than others. Within companies, the fight for resources is just as intense. Probably less than 5% of initiatives get off the ground. In the marketplace, probably less than 1% of biotech companies succeed in getting a therapy to market.

    Every therapy must be championed by one or more people who obtain the support of key opinion leaders, compete for internal and external funds, and lead the product development and clinical trial teams. These teams may have hundreds of people. Many companies spend a large portion of their budget on public relations to convince internal and external investors to support the project. Each therapy must pass through many gauntlets in the quest for funds.

    Product development decision-making is risk-averse. A therapy must supported by good basic science before peer review panels at NIH will approve a clinical trial grant. It must be well-patented before any company will invest. Once underway, each therapy must achieve multiple milestones or else the entire project may be "canned". Many companies have "canning" committees, whose only purpose is to stop development of risky projects. Many therapy development projects run out of steams or funds before reaching clinical trial stage.

    Many companies consequently invest a lion's share of their research funds on "me-too" products or product cycle development that pose the little risk of failure. "Me-too" products are drugs that do the same thing and the clinical trials just have to show therapeutic equivalence. Product cycle development usually produce different versions, such as capsules or time-release, of the same drug, to extend the life of the product. But these activities just split the market and do not generate new business.

    Pessimism and Optimism

    A mantra in the pharmaceutical industry is that the market size must be sufficient to justify the investment. Because therapies now cost a billion dollars and over ten years to move from discovery to market, most companies have been reluctant to invest in therapies for so-called "orphan diseases", conditions that affect less than 200,000 people in the United States. For this reason, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gives an additional 7 years of market exclusivity for orphan disease therapies,

    Spinal cord injury is not only a small market condition but is regarded by many doctors to be one of the most challenging unsolved problems in medicine. Many in the spinal cord injury community have given up and have gone overseas to fly-by-night clinics to try unproven therapies. In the face of economic, clinical, and community pessimism, how does one convince our government, companies, and foundations to invest in developing therapies for spinal cord injury?

    Christopher Reeve once pointed out that he could accept it if scientists told him that we don't know enough about growing the spinal cord and it will take a long time. Instead, most scientists told him that the spinal cord can regenerate. The major obstacles to cure is money and politics. Relatively little money is required and a large majority of Americans favor the research. We spend more before breakfast in one day of an unpopular war in Iraq than a whole year of spinal cord injury research. Christopher set about reversing the money and politics. Unfortunately, he died before he completed his task. It is now up to us.

    Three developments in recent years give me hope that curative therapies for spinal cord injury will happen and faster than most of us think. First, much recent evidence suggest that spinal cord injury therapies are profitable and worthwhile. Several therapeutics companies are investing in therapies for spinal cord injury. Second, we have a pipeline full of promising therapies that work in animals. We just need clinical trials to test these therapies. Third, spinal cord injury clinical trials are much efficient than for other conditions. We have well-standardized and validated clinical outcome measures. I will discuss each of these sequentially.

    Therapies for Small-Market Conditions Can Be Profitable

    The therapeutics industry is under much pressure to reduce costs and increase the efficiency of therapy development. "Me-too" drugs and product cycle development can only generate so much revenue. A company that succeeds in developing a new class of products for a new condition can make many billions. One successful product can boost a company from a struggling biotech company to a fortune 500 company. A few major products can make a big difference, even for large companies such as Pfizer.

    Much evidence suggest that investors now believe that profits can be made from small-market conditions. For example, multiple sclerosis (MS) affects only about 380,000 people in the U.S. Biogen and Teva are making billions from several drugs they have developed for this condition. One spinal cord injury company, Acorda Therapeutics, has made it through its initial public offering and has achieved market capitalization of about $600 million in the past year.

    These examples are attracting the attention of major pharmaceutical companies. They appreciate the argument that spinal cord injury may serve as a bridge to other conditions. For example, a therapy that protects, repairs, regenerates, or remyelinates the spinal cord may well be applicable to other more prevalen conditions such as traumatic brain injury and stroke, multiple sclerosis, peripheral nerve or neurodegenerative diseases. More important, Just spinal cord injury alone can provide sufficient return.

    What is the price of a therapy that restore function in spinal cord injury? As people found out, the limit is much higher than people thought. Would people and insurance companies be willing to pay $20,000 for a therapy that restores bowel and bladder function? Insurance companies will because that is how much they would pay for surgery or life-long care of complications. Even if only 100,000 people received a $20,000 therapy, the revenues could potentially add up $2 billion.

    Pipeline of Therapies that Work in Animal Models

    The standard joke in the spinal cord injury community is that the rats have it better than humans because there are therapies that allow them walk. We should be glad that there are many therapies that make rats walk. Things that work in a rat may not work in human. That is why is good that many therapies work because the chances that one or more may be effective in humans is greater. The vast majority of scientists believe that the spinal cord can regenerate if several obstacles to regeneration can be overcome.

    The first obstacle is the injury site itself, which is often inhospitable to axonal growth. Astrocytes in the spinal cord may wall off the injury site, if it considers it to be "outside" of the cord. The injury site may be surrounded by extracellular chondroitin-6-sulfate-proteoglycan (CSPG) that normally deflects axonal growth. These problems can be overcome to some extent by transplanting cells that bridge the injury site. The bacterial enzyme chondroitinase breaks down CSPG.

    The second obstacle is the lack of sustained growth factor support. During the first hours and days after injury, the injury response and inflammation causes cells to release growth factors. However, regeneration is slow and may take months or even years after injury. A sustained soure of growth factors is needed to stimulate long-distance regeneration. The recent discovery that lithium and other glycogen synthetase kinase (GSK) inhibitors stimulates neurotrophic factor production by umbilical cord blood mononuclear cells is of considerable interest.

    The third obstacle is the presence of axonal growth inhibitors. The most prominent and best studied of these inhibitors in myelin-based Nogo which can be covered by antibodies. Alternatively, it is possible to use soluble Nogo receptor protein itself which binds to all the proteins that activate the Nogo receptor. Finally, the intracellular messenger for the Nogo receptor is rho which is phosphorylated by rho kinase. Inhibitors of rho and rho kinase stimulate regeneration, leading to a new class of therapies called "rhok and rho" inhibitors.

    Efficient Clinical Trials for Spinal Cord injury

    Unlike other conditions such as stroke and traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury outcomes are predictable and well-defined. For example, less tha 5% of people who have so-called "complete" spinal cord injury will recover walking spontaneously. Any therapy that restores walking in even 20% of such patients can be detected with small populations of patients. Thus, while a trial for stroke may require a thousand or more patients, a trial for spinal cord injury may show significant results with only 100 patients.

    Several outcome measures in spinal cord injury are well-defined and have been extensively validated. For example, the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) classification, motor and sensory scores have been successfully used in the National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Studies (NASCIS), the first double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials to show an effective therapy for acute spinal cord injury. Other examples include the Walking Index of Spinal Cord Injury (WISCI) and the spinal cord independence measure (SCIM).

    Neuroprotective, reparative, regenerative, and remyelinative therapies can be tested in spinal cord injury. The first should be tested in acute spinal injury. The second would be appropriate in subacute injury. The third and fourth can be tested in chronic spinal cord injury, where there is no dearth of patients willing to volunteer for clinical trials. Thus, spinal cord injury is an excellent model injury in which to develop and test therapies.

    Finally, rehabilitation of spinal cord injury is more advanced and standardized than for other types of neurological disorders. Recent studies, for example, have shown that intensive locomotor exercise facilitates recovery of walking in spinal-injured patients with incomplete spinal cord injury. In many ways, that is what therapies are supposed to do, i.e. make the injury more "incomplete". Well-established locomotor training and other rehabilitation protocols are available.

    Trials, Trials, and Trials

    We should be optimistic about the likelihood of safe and effective therapies that restore function in spinal cord injury. Progress in the past 8 years has been slow and limited but this is astonishingly not due to the difficulty of the problem or ignorance about the therapeutic mechanisms needed tor restore function. Rather, the problem appears to due to lack of investment by government and companies in clinical trials. If I had to choose a problem to have, I would choose this one because it is easy to solve.

    Christopher Reeve once said he could accept it if the reason why we don't have a cure for spinal cord injury is because the science is too difficult or the spinal cord simply cannot regenerate. However, he simply cannot tolerate it when the problem is not science or the inability of the spinal cord to regenerate but lack of funding and politics. Worse of all, the amount of funding required to cure spinal cord injury is not so great. We probably spend more in one day of the Iraq war.

    The "chasm" between the bench and bedside is not unique to spinal cord injury. The pharmaceutical industry estimates that it takes an average of oer ten years and over a billion dollars to take a therapy from discovery to market. All fields, from cancer to AIDS, have this problem. The solution to this problem is to have develop many therapies in parallel. Each clinical trial has a finite probability of success. More clinical trials add up to a greater probably of success. Unlike casino, if anyone wins, everybody wins.

    In summary, the field of spinal cord injury is poised for the first successful clinical trials showing therapies that restore function in chronic spinal cord injury. We have many promising therapies that restore function in animals and are likely to be safe and effective in humans. Some evidence suggest that combination therapies will be more effective than individual therapies. Well-standardized, sensitive, reliable, and extensively validated outcome measures are now available for spinal cord injury clinical trials. The solution is clear. We need to do clinical trials.

    Last edited by Wise Young; 12-09-2008 at 11:21 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Murrieta, Ca.
    Posts
    424
    Wise, thank you for that article, it is very comprehensive, articulate and easy to understand for the lay person.

    My question is how can we bring the spinal cord inury community together, meaning all the private foundations and coordinate their resources to focus on 1 or 2 proven chronic research projects and try to move them to clinical trials ASAP?

    I feel that if there was even one sucessful trial it would open the flood gates to more funding. Why continue to fund new research projects which may never move beyond the research stage when there are promising therapies already developed? Shouldn't we be working on those first?

    Funding is limited and it should be spent wisely and where it can get the most results. Can the spinal cord injury community partner with a large pharmaceutical company to move one of these therapies into trials sooner by helping to fund the pre-clinical work?

    Christopher Reeve made great strides, I feel the Christopher Reeve Foundation still has the strength to make a difference and it's my opinion that they should be trying to organize a movement in this direction. When the public thinks if spinal cord injury they think of CRF, When the public makes a donation to our cause I believe they think their donation will help to make someone recover (walk again) not that their money will go to some research project that won't make it beyond the lab even if the research was a success, or even worse fund some fancy dinner somewhere.

    I feel the pivate donation money needs to be utilized in the area of Chronic injury and the clinical trial of the same, it's been stated several times recently that Chronic injury is the toughest injury to repair and investors aren't likey to bring there money to the table. We need to focus the money we have to that area. Let the investors and the NIH work on Acute therapies.

    We need to change the way things are being done, 10 years is just too long to wait and one billion is just too expensive, there has to be a better way than the status quo that's going on now.

  3. #3
    This article feels like a Christmas gift. Thanks, Wise, and Happy Holidays!

    This grabbed me:

    "...We should be optimistic about the likelihood of safe and effective therapies that restore function in spinal cord injury. Progress in the past 8 years has been slow and limited but this is astoishingly not due to the difficulty of the problem or ignorance about the therapeutic mechanisms needed tor restore function. Rather, the problem appears to due to lack of investment by government and companies in clinical trials. If I had to choose a problem to have, I would choose this one because it is easy to solve..."

    Amen! 'Tis far better to have therapies that desperately need tested than to have no therapies in the pipeline at all. This is the kind of problem that normal people can work towards solving. I'm so grateful that we're not all required to be neuroscientists to begin to make a difference!

    Thanks again.

    Will Big Pharma be developing the cellular therapies, such as Dr. Kierstead has worked on? It is hard to patent a cell, I would imagine.

  4. #4
    Thanks Wise. Hopefully this will quell the belief that bringing a therapy to market is as easy as attracting funding or that funding automatically follows promise.

  5. #5
    Banned adi chicago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    near dracula castle
    Posts
    9,508
    Great post Sir ...Thank you ....trials and money are needed to end this horrible condition named spinal cord injury.Brilliant minds and support can end sci,I AM 100% SURE.
    • Dum spiro, spero.
      • Translation: "As long as I breathe, I hope."

  6. #6
    Thanks Wise. I think the Wordpress blog site is a good idea for consolidating your work. I've got it bookmarked!

    Also, I agree with rjames that bringing the SCI community together to pool their resources and experience is key to funding promising research and therapies. Ideally, a consortium of foundations would be more effective than the scattershot pattern of funding now prevalent.

    In that regard the symposiums staged by U2FP and Americans for Cures create opportunity for just such interaction between researchers and advocates. What has not occurred is coordination between the various foundations. Even the CDRF has failed to successfully promote the idea of collaboration with other foundations that are raising both awareness and money. They are the big ship in the ocean but their captains have not yet articulated a vision of inclusion.

    I believe that had Christopher Reeve lived, momentum for a cure would have coalesced. Such is the power of leadership, as Obama has aptly demonstrated over the last two years.

    Care Cure is the closest thing to unification among the SCI community. For this, we have your vision to thank Wise.

    So, again, thanks.

    John
    Last edited by john smith; 12-08-2008 at 10:02 PM. Reason: Added a link
    "Hope is like a road in the country; there was never a road, but when many people walk on it, the road comes into existence." Lin Yutang

  7. #7
    John,

    I will be posting all my major articles on there... about once a day. This is part of a larger campaign that I am setting up, with daily email updates concerning the progress of spinal cord injury research and clinical trials. I will ask people to donate a dollar a day for this service and the funds will be used to support spinal cord injury clinical trials. We will be providing this service in Chinese as well.

    The CareCure community has indeed coalesced and these forums have become a little like a busy family kitchen table. We are growing at the rate of 10-15 new members per day and we have about 10,000 active members. But, this is only a small part of the spinal cord injury community. We need to reach out. As some here may have noticed, I am now trying to do so on Facebook.

    If we are a million strong, then even small actions become very significant. If a million people donated a dollar a month, that come to $12 million per year. If they donated a dollar a week, that is $50 million per year. If they donated a dollar a day, that is $365 million. That is enough to fund spinal cord injury research and the clinical trials.

    Wise.

    Quote Originally Posted by john smith View Post
    Thanks Wise. I think the Wordpress blog site is a good idea for consolidating your work. I've got it bookmarked!

    Also, I agree with rjames that bringing the SCI community together to pool their resources and experience is key to funding promising research and therapies. Ideally, a consortium of foundations would be more effective than the scattershot pattern of funding now prevalent.

    In that regard the symposiums staged by U2FP and Americans for Cures create opportunity for just such interaction between researchers and advocates. What has not occurred is coordination between the various foundations. Even the CDRF has failed to successfully promote the idea of collaboration with other foundations that are raising both awareness and money. They are the big ship in the ocean but their captains have not yet articulated a vision of inclusion.

    I believe that had Christopher Reeve lived, momentum for a cure would have coalesced. Such is the power of leadership, as Obama has aptly demonstrated over the last two years.

    Care Cure is the closest thing to unification among the SCI community. For this, we have your vision to thank Wise.

    So, again, thanks.

    John

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    minnesota
    Posts
    2,086
    Thank you Dr. Young. I too am bookmarking your site. Please let me know when I can sign up for email updates and where to send my donation.

  9. #9
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young View Post
    John,

    I will be posting all my major articles on there... about once a day. This is part of a larger campaign that I am setting up, with daily email updates concerning the progress of spinal cord injury research and clinical trials. I will ask people to donate a dollar a day for this service and the funds will be used to support spinal cord injury clinical trials. We will be providing this service in Chinese as well.

    The CareCure community has indeed coalesced and these forums have become a little like a busy family kitchen table. We are growing at the rate of 10-15 new members per day and we have about 10,000 active members. But, this is only a small part of the spinal cord injury community. We need to reach out. As some here may have noticed, I am now trying to do so on Facebook.

    If we are a million strong, then even small actions become very significant. If a million people donated a dollar a month, that come to $12 million per year. If they donated a dollar a week, that is $50 million per year. If they donated a dollar a day, that is $365 million. That is enough to fund spinal cord injury research and the clinical trials.

    Wise.
    or imagine if all 10,000 members donate their stimulus check...

  10. #10
    Banned adi chicago's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    near dracula castle
    Posts
    9,508
    Quote Originally Posted by DA View Post
    or imagine if all 10,000 members donate their stimulus check...
    i will donate my damn pay check to be ab again DA....better poor and healthy than rich and having a broken neck..agree ?
    • Dum spiro, spero.
      • Translation: "As long as I breathe, I hope."

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-14-2008, 11:38 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-16-2007, 08:59 AM
  3. Bench to Bedside - Patient Advocacy a part of way to bring cures
    By carbar in forum Funding, Legislation, & Advocacy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-21-2006, 04:37 AM
  4. Clinical trials?
    By rybread in forum Cure
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-15-2001, 06:56 PM
  5. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-16-2001, 08:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •