Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: First Oral Drug for Spinal Cord Injury Improves Movement in Mice

  1. #11
    Super Moderator Sue Pendleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    11,007
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric.S View Post
    obviously acutes only... the fear is if acute sci is cured chronics will just disappear. which is good for the world but the death of chronic research. its like those afflicted with polio before the vaccine was found..
    As for polio there is still research being done on post polio syndrome and there is still wild polio in central Asia.

    But we do need to support the science that leads to a real cure. There isn't enough funding for a bit here and a little more there. It isn't just that if we fix acutes there will soon be no chronics. As long as there are people paralyzed by tumors or other surgery, spinal strokes and TM we will need chronic cures.
    Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "I will try again tomorrow."

    Disclaimer: Answers, suggestions, and/or comments do not constitute medical advice expressed or implied and are based solely on my experiences as a SCI patient. Please consult your attending physician for medical advise and treatment. In the event of a medical emergency please call 911.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Sue Pendleton View Post
    As for polio there is still research being done on post polio syndrome and there is still wild polio in central Asia.

    But we do need to support the science that leads to a real cure. There isn't enough funding for a bit here and a little more there. It isn't just that if we fix acutes there will soon be no chronics. As long as there are people paralyzed by tumors or other surgery, spinal strokes and TM we will need chronic cures.
    Sue, if you like I would be interested in your opinions on the folowing things...

    I just had a look to a list of SCI research projects (not official yet) that will be funded soon by an important SCI org..

    They received about 140 grant aplications, after a strict peer review process, 18 projects were selected....
    Guess what?
    Just two out of 18 are about chronic SCI and just one of the two is about regeneration in chronic SCI.

    I would like to hear your opinion on how is it possible that most of SCI research still focus on acute when all the SCI advocates have chronic SCI?

    I see a big failure of SCI advocacy efforts here. SCI advocates have been focusing mainly on getting more founding and didn't bother much about looking at how money are spent because they have had blind faith in scientists.

    Then I believe you understand how easier it is to do clinical trials on chronic rather then on acute. That is why there are many potential acute therapies that havn't been tested yet and the few that have been tested failed, so we still have only methilprednisolone. BTW if you had to do the trial for MP today it would be unlikely to get the money to do it, assuming the preclinical work was good enough to suggest bringing it to clinical trials.
    In my opinion SCI advocacy has failed to understand this reality and then to correct it.
    We have to think strategically.
    For long time (still today) the leading idea has been to fist find a cure for acute and then move it to chronic.
    IMO that is totally wrong, the opposite is much more conveninet. Strategically thinking to focus on chronic it's the more realistic and the fastest way forward to cure all SCI.

    Would you agree?

    Paolo

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    17,427
    Last edited by Leif; 03-29-2013 at 10:42 PM.

  4. #14
    Super Moderator Sue Pendleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    11,007
    I totally agree, Paolo. When we worked out the rules our SCI Research Board in Maryland would work by we had two reviews. The first review was by out of state peer reviewers in the SCI field. But when it came to how the board members voted we specifically inserted the ability to vote for proposals way down on the peer list because they were very different than the normal way of approaching SCI, due to wanting to support a non-established primary investigator or other reasons like a possible stem cell proposal not eligable for federal grants.

    We still received a lot of RFPs returned that included pain mitigation, a better way of doing rehab, funding a census of actual injuries per year (not needed as I was able to find the stats for a year 3 years previous that had a total of SCI traumatic injuries in the state including those who were DOA) and even recreation as a mood elavator. Considering the RFPs included a copy of the very simple law's scope--regeneration or neuroprotection--we sent a lot to the reject pile on our votes. Peer reviewers did rate these but added they did not meet the stated requirement as far as end point.

    As far as I know the Board of Public Works is still appropriating the Board's funds to other areas of the budget. Were the Board to recover its funding they could, the way the law is written, give more money to chronic proposals and just award fewer grants. After a few years I think the message would be passed that, in the case you state, only chronic proposals would be considered or mainly chronic and only highly likely to make it to trials acute treatments.

    I would not totally write off acute proposals if they were highly likely to, say, lower the injury by 3 spinal nerve levels. IOWs, an acute treatment that would turn a C2 level to a C5 or a T10 to a L1. But any treatment that could do that would most likely be well on its way to regenerating more distant cells.
    Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "I will try again tomorrow."

    Disclaimer: Answers, suggestions, and/or comments do not constitute medical advice expressed or implied and are based solely on my experiences as a SCI patient. Please consult your attending physician for medical advise and treatment. In the event of a medical emergency please call 911.

  5. #15
    In a few threads before I also said that when we have a solution for chronic sci we have automaticly a solution for acute. Im no Phd or scientist at all but I guess the costs for chronic animal models are huge (I think Hans Keistead said that in an interview someday) and of course companys which support those studys or trials wanna get data as soon as possible and you wont get that in chronics. I think thats the big problem here

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by KK11 View Post
    In a few threads before I also said that when we have a solution for chronic sci we have automaticly a solution for acute. Im no Phd or scientist at all but I guess the costs for chronic animal models are huge (I think Hans Keistead said that in an interview someday) and of course companys which support those studys or trials wanna get data as soon as possible and you wont get that in chronics. I think thats the big problem here
    There is a thread somewhere on here whereby both Jerry Silver and Wise Young talk about the cost of caring for paralysed rats through to the chronic and super chronic time points. Although it is obviously more than acute it is not at all prohibitive and cannot be used as an excuse by any researcher working with in the field. So don't buy that excuse!

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
    There is a thread somewhere on here whereby both Jerry Silver and Wise Young talk about the cost of caring for paralysed rats through to the chronic and super chronic time points. Although it is obviously more than acute it is not at all prohibitive and cannot be used as an excuse by any researcher working with in the field. So don't buy that excuse!
    The problem isnt the care of those rats. ´´time is money´´ for the companys which fund and support the trials (data as soon as possible).......I guess they burn too much money on chonic models.

    I tired of this talk chronic vs. acute.......I would suggest 90% of the people who are getting injured right now in this moment and in the near future (correct me if im wrong) will stuck on the chronic stage. One more incomplete and the other one more complete. So where should be the major focus?!?! I think chronic and Im probably not alone with this thought. When Dr. Wise or Dr. Silver should read this I would be very happy when they also were answering about this topic

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by KK11 View Post
    The problem isnt the care of those rats. ´´time is money´´ for the companys which fund and support the trials (data as soon as possible).......I guess they burn too much money on chonic models.

    I tired of this talk chronic vs. acute.......I would suggest 90% of the people who are getting injured right now in this moment and in the near future (correct me if im wrong) will stuck on the chronic stage. One more incomplete and the other one more complete. So where should be the major focus?!?! I think chronic and Im probably not alone with this thought. When Dr. Wise or Dr. Silver should read this I would be very happy when they also were answering about this topic
    In those costs discussed by Wise and Jerry are also listed the salaries of lab technicians etc etc. Yes time is money. But chronic rodent studies are not cost-prohibitive when you consider how much CIRM spends on their non-human primate sanctuary. When you consider the post-treatment animal rehabilitation and the time to conduct histology, collect and analyse data, submit for review and wait for the data to peer-reviewed and potential resubmittals - paralysing and caring for a cohort of rodents for 3-6 months is not really an issue?

    Any researcher that tells you that chronic animal studies are too expensive are bullshi**ing you. They are either trying to justify their existing or past acute work or haven't bothered trying to work on the chronic injury yet.
    Last edited by Fly_Pelican_Fly; 03-30-2013 at 11:29 AM.

  9. #19
    So would you agree with me that they should move the focus towards chronic models and human trials with chronic injurys??

  10. #20
    Senior Member Leo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Yankton, South Dakota
    Posts
    4,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Sue Pendleton View Post
    I totally agree, Paolo. When we worked out the rules our SCI Research Board in Maryland would work by we had two reviews. The first review was by out of state peer reviewers in the SCI field. But when it came to how the board members voted we specifically inserted the ability to vote for proposals way down on the peer list because they were very different than the normal way of approaching SCI, due to wanting to support a non-established primary investigator or other reasons like a possible stem cell proposal not eligable for federal grants.

    We still received a lot of RFPs returned that included pain mitigation, a better way of doing rehab, funding a census of actual injuries per year (not needed as I was able to find the stats for a year 3 years previous that had a total of SCI traumatic injuries in the state including those who were DOA) and even recreation as a mood elavator. Considering the RFPs included a copy of the very simple law's scope--regeneration or neuroprotection--we sent a lot to the reject pile on our votes. Peer reviewers did rate these but added they did not meet the stated requirement as far as end point.

    As far as I know the Board of Public Works is still appropriating the Board's funds to other areas of the budget. Were the Board to recover its funding they could, the way the law is written, give more money to chronic proposals and just award fewer grants. After a few years I think the message would be passed that, in the case you state, only chronic proposals would be considered or mainly chronic and only highly likely to make it to trials acute treatments.

    I would not totally write off acute proposals if they were highly likely to, say, lower the injury by 3 spinal nerve levels. IOWs, an acute treatment that would turn a C2 level to a C5 or a T10 to a L1. But any treatment that could do that would most likely be well on its way to regenerating more distant cells.
    Sue, you just touched on it but you and I have talked about the politics involved. We've both voted to fund projects or the majority has to fund research that made us wanna puke. In our state with very few research facilities it was even worse. I know i would not advocate again for funds that had to be spent here because of where it would go.
    http://justadollarplease.org/

    2010 SCINet Clinical Trial Support Squad Member

    "You kids and your cures, why back when I was injured they gave us a wheelchair and that's the way it was and we liked it!" Grumpy Old Man

    .."i used to be able to goof around so much because i knew Superman had my back. now all i've got is his example -- and that's gonna have to be enough."

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-09-2013, 01:45 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-13-2009, 05:09 PM
  3. Stem-cell tech improves spinal-cord injury
    By cljanney in forum Cure
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 05-18-2006, 07:13 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-10-2005, 01:49 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-17-2001, 05:06 PM

Posting Permissions

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