Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Lou Gehrig’s Disease Progress?

A press release from Johns Hopkins reports that rats bred to have amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, had delayed onset and prolonged life when human stem cells were transplanted into their spinal cords. Onset was delayed by an average of 7 days and lifespan extended by 9 days. One of the things the research demonstrates is that the new cells were not themselves subject to the degeneration the surrounding cells suffered. Many of the cells developed into nerve cells and grew nerve endings to connect with other cells.

The next step in the research is to try grafting the cells along the length of the spinal cord; in this first study, the grafts only affected muscles and nerves below the waist and not those responsible for breathing. If the transplanted cells can be shown to have a significant effect in maintaining normal breathing, that would be a very important step forward. The study is also useful as a model of how stem cells change when transplanted. Human clinical studies are still far away.

There are more detailed articles on the study on Reuters, the Independent, and the BBC, among others.

Lawsuit Against Stem Cell Transplant Program

Lawsuit Against Stem Cell Transplant Program

A hospital, blood center, cancer center, and other institutions in Kansas City have been sued by a group of former patients and family members of deceased patients regarding stem cell transplants performed in the late 1990’s. The suit alleges that the various institutions were negligent in reviewing stem cell quality. The patients were apparently [I’m reading between the lines of the article here] given stem cell transplants as part of their treatment for cancer. About 25 % of the 40 people who received treatment died within a few months, and half were dead after two years. These are much higher mortality rates than those usually associated with stem cell transplants. The case is up for trial next March. Unsurprisingly, the defendants affirm the quality of their program.

Obviously there are a number of questions here the answers to which will probably only come out in court. Certainly the number of deaths raises concerns, but there could be many other factors: how were the patients selected for the program? How advanced was their cancer? What kind of cancer did they have? Were they told this was experimental and did they give informed consent to the risks? In at least one possible universe, the people who received the treatment may have been among those most likely to die from other causes. I’m only speculating here, and can certainly speculate the other way as well: Maybe someone in the lab cut corners, or perhaps the equipment was contaminated. The line between genuine error and negligence can be very blurry at times, and it’s quite possible that several things, any one of which alone would not have been problematic, combined to become deadly. If it goes to a jury, it will be interesting to see what happens. (I’m expecting pre-trial 11th hour settlements myself….)