Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

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

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by KK11 View Post
    So would you agree with me that they should move the focus towards chronic models and human trials with chronic injurys??
    110% yes.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by KK11 View Post
    So would you agree with me that they should move the focus towards chronic models and human trials with chronic injurys??
    Arguments in support of the advantages of shifting the focus on chronic SCI are many and very strong IMO.

    The additional costs of doing chronic SCI animal studies are irrilevant if compared with how cheeper are clinical trials on people with chronic SCI.
    See this thread from post #8 for chronic animal studies:
    http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=201643

    Also please take the time to watch this recent presentation of Hans Keirstedad and pay attention to the questions in the end:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6-28...h0QT-g&index=1

    Paolo

  3. #23
    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.
    We should talk.

    Paolo

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo View Post
    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.
    I am sad but not surprised at all to hear that from you Leo.
    Everitime I dig into SCI research I find more stinky shit.
    I remember how much you and others have done to pass the Chritopher & Dana Reeve Paaralysis Act... and then CDRF has started refocusing more and more on quality of life...

    How can we fix this shit?

    Paolo

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by paolocipolla View Post
    I am sad but not surprised at all to hear that from you Leo.
    Everitime I dig into SCI research I find more stinky shit.
    I remember how much you and others have done to pass the Chritopher & Dana Reeve Paaralysis Act... and then CDRF has started refocusing more and more on quality of life...

    How can we fix this shit?

    Paolo
    People with SCI need to educate themselves on the basic science of their injury and the current state of sci research. Most problems in the SCI community stem down from this lack of knowledge. Some examples:

    --acute is very different from chronic injury
    --the spinal cord injury site is not just a few inches that needs to be replugged together
    --we are not just a few years away from a cure
    --there has never been a rat cured of chronic sci
    --we do not need any clinical trials we need basic research
    --Dr. Young's trial is not going to bring a cure

  6. #26
    .....
    Last edited by crabbyshark; 03-30-2013 at 09:43 PM. Reason: read the post i was replying to incorrectly. my apologies.

  7. #27

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by NowhereMan View Post
    People with SCI need to educate themselves on the basic science of their injury and the current state of sci research. Most problems in the SCI community stem down from this lack of knowledge. Some examples:

    --acute is very different from chronic injury
    --the spinal cord injury site is not just a few inches that needs to be replugged together
    --we are not just a few years away from a cure
    --there has never been a rat cured of chronic sci
    --we do not need any clinical trials we need basic research
    --Dr. Young's trial is not going to bring a cure
    -Well I guess everyone knows that acute needs different approaches than chronic......
    -How do you know that we are not just a few years away? Its the same when I tell you there will be never a cure!!! (Educate yourself!! I guess you dont have a wizzard hat on and can see into the future)
    -When Wise dont get a cure with his trials then probably someone else? Trials which probably will start in 2013 or 2014 and have faster recruitments of patients and a larger ammount of money so they can do it faster??Who knows?

    I know that it isnt easy when you tried to tell us this. But when you look at the history of neuroscience and the progress and the near future you should educate yourself , because when you did you wouldnt say such things you did above.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by KK11 View Post
    -Well I guess everyone knows that acute needs different approaches than chronic......
    -How do you know that we are not just a few years away? Its the same when I tell you there will be never a cure!!! (Educate yourself!! I guess you dont have a wizzard hat on and can see into the future)
    -When Wise dont get a cure with his trials then probably someone else? Trials which probably will start in 2013 or 2014 and have faster recruitments of patients and a larger ammount of money so they can do it faster??Who knows?

    I know that it isnt easy when you tried to tell us this. But when you look at the history of neuroscience and the progress and the near future you should educate yourself , because when you did you wouldnt say such things you did above.


    You are an example of what I'm talking about, with all due respect. It is not your fault at all because you are newly injured.

    --not everyone can tell the difference between acute vs chronic therapies. Look no further than the first page of this thread. People hear doctors / CEO's discuss their therapies and they get excited..even donate their money to them. Only...its an acute treatment. ex: InVivo/Dr. Davies.

    --I can say it with almost certainty because there are many issues of spinal cord regeneration that need to be solved. Complex issues that scientists have no idea how to solve (ex: how to guide axons). That is why basic research is much more important than clinical trials. I'm not saying it is impossible to help treat SCI, if I did I wouldn't be here.

    --I don't know what you're trying to say.



  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by NowhereMan View Post
    People with SCI need to educate themselves on the basic science of their injury and the current state of sci research. Most problems in the SCI community stem down from this lack of knowledge. Some examples:

    --acute is very different from chronic injury
    --the spinal cord injury site is not just a few inches that needs to be replugged together
    --we are not just a few years away from a cure
    --there has never been a rat cured of chronic sci
    --we do not need any clinical trials we need basic research
    --Dr. Young's trial is not going to bring a cure
    Quote Originally Posted by NowhereMan View Post
    --there has never been a rat cured of chronic sci
    1. Ann Neurol. 2011 Nov;70(5):805-21. doi: 10.1002/ana.22527. Recovery from chronic spinal cord contusion after Nogo receptor intervention. Wang X, Duffy P, McGee AW, Hasan O, Gould G, Tu N, Harel NY, Huang Y, Carson RE, Weinzimmer D, Ropchan J, Benowitz LI, Cafferty WB, Strittmatter SM. Cellular Neuroscience, Neurodegeneration, and Repair Program, and Department of Neurology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06536-0812, USA. OBJECTIVE: Several interventions promote axonal growth and functional recovery when initiated shortly after central nervous system injury, including blockade of myelin-derived inhibitors with soluble Nogo receptor (NgR1, RTN4R) decoy protein. We examined the efficacy of this intervention in the much more prevalent and refractory condition of chronic spinal cord injury. METHODS: We eliminated the NgR1 pathway genetically in mice by conditional gene targeting starting 8 weeks after spinal hemisection injury and monitored locomotion in the open field and by video kinematics over the ensuing 4 months. In a separate pharmacological experiment, intrathecal NgR1 decoy protein administration was initiated 3 months after spinal cord contusion injury. Locomotion and raphespinal axon growth were assessed during 3 months of treatment between 4 and 6 months after contusion injury. RESULTS: Conditional deletion of NgR1 in the chronic state results in gradual improvement of motor function accompanied by increased density of raphespinal axons in the caudal spinal cord. In chronic rat spinal contusion, NgR1 decoy treatment from 4 to 6 months after injury results in 29% (10 of 35) of rats recovering weight-bearing status compared to 0% (0 of 29) of control rats (p < 0.05). Open field Basso, Beattie, and Bresnahan locomotor scores showed a significant improvement in the NgR-treated group relative to the control group (p < 0.005, repeated measures analysis of variance). An increase in raphespinal axon density caudal to the injury is detected in NgR1 decoy-treated animals by immunohistology and by positron emission tomography using a serotonin reuptake ligand. INTERPRETATION: Antagonizing myelin-derived inhibitors signaling with NgR1 decoy augments recovery from chronic spinal cord injury.
    As a target for intervention, chronic spinal cord injury has several distinct advantages over acute spinal cord injury including faster recruitment for clinical studies, stable baseline function when measuring recovery of motor skills and the potential to benefit a greater patient population.” said Sylvia McBrinn, CEO of Axerion Therapeutics. “We are thrilled to observe the Nogo decoy receptor benefit in chronic spinal cord injury, and to note that the therapy also has applications in cases of stroke and glaucoma, among other indications” further commented Ms McBrinn.
    SOURCE
    Quote Originally Posted by NowhereMan View Post
    --acute is very different from chronic injury
    Please explain.

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
  •