quote:Diabetics using stem-cell therapy have been able to stop taking insulin injections for the first time, after their bodies started to produce the hormone naturally again.
In a breakthrough trial, 15 young patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes were given drugs to suppress their immune systems followed by transfusions of stem cells drawn from their own blood.
The results show that insulin-dependent diabetics can be freed from reliance on needles by an injection of their own stem cells. The therapy could signal a revolution in the treatment of the condition, which affects more than 300,000 Britons.
I'm shocked this hasn't been posted already. I really, really hope this proves to be a real cure. How amazing.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is important to note, from reading the whole article, that the stem cells came from the people themselves, and not aborted fetuses. (Fetii?) The stem cells were taken from the patient, then the patients were treated with chemotherapy to wipe out the immune system that was causing the diabetes, then the stem cells were replaced in the patient to "restart" the pancreas.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is this important to note? I don't (strongly) oppose yet another debate on stem cell research, but what I think is "important to note" is this absolutely amazing medical breakthrough. Lives will be saved, and many more, literally hundreds of thousands, will be drastically improved.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what stihl was intending was to head off a stem cell debate, by pointing out that those opposed to embryonic stem cell research need not oppose this. "Stem cell research" has become synonomous with "using cells from aborted fetuses" in many people's minds, which is unfortuate because there is a lot happening in the stem cell research field with adult stem cells and cells from donated unbilical cord blood.
In other words, it's not as if the story isn't important - it certainly is - but by pointing out what type of research was used we may avoid cluttering up this thread with embryonic stem cell debates which are not relevant to this particular story.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree -- it is important to note that these stem cells were not embryonic. Because it's such a hot topic, I imagine that a significant percentage of people reading the title of this thread will have thoughts about embryonic stem-cell research.
edit: or what Belle said
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I think what stihl was intending was to head off a stem cell debate, by pointing out that those opposed to embryonic stem cell research need not oppose this. "Stem cell research" has become synonomous with "using cells from aborted fetuses" in many people's minds, which is unfortuate because there is a lot happening in the stem cell research field with adult stem cells and cells from donated unbilical cord blood.
In other words, it's not as if the story isn't important - it certainly is - but by pointing out what type of research was used we may avoid cluttering up this thread with embryonic stem cell debates which are not relevant to this particular story.
Bingo.
And because anyone who didn't bother to read the whole story, or just read the quoted parts above, might seek to turn it into an embryonic stem cell debate. And because, imo, it's bad reporting to only mention it briefly at the near end of the story.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by Lyrhawn: So it's a one time process, rather than a continual therapy?
I think so. At least, one of the co-authors had this to say:
quote:“As a research scientist I am always hesitant to speak of a cure, but the initial results have been good and show the importance of conducting more trials,” Dr Burt said.
It sounds very much like a one shot deal, with the effecs lasting at least a year, and up to three (the length of the study.) It definitely doesn't sound like the kind of thing you'd do once a month, or once a week.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have the same reservations that the authors of the study do, but it is breathlessly encouraging.
I'm also not surprised that this research came out of the UK. I don't think it could have been done through drug money funding (not that all trials in the US are funded via private interests, of course -- just that the focus of research in general tends to be different in other countries). Canada gave us the Edmonton protocol of pancreatic islet cell transplantation; the UK gives us stem cell research on curing type I diabetes.
Thanks, guys.
---
Edited to add: My reservations include that the followup has only been for 3 years. This is promising (and much better than 6 months!) but there is a known "honeymoon phase" that a lot of recently diagnosed diabetics go through, where the correction of the acute blood sugars allows the pancreas to temporarily start making insulin again. This can last from weeks to months, or even years.
So we know that what happens in the first few years after diagnosis isn't necessarily predictive of what will happen longterm. It may be that these stem cells strengthen and prolong the honeymoon phase -- still a good thing, certainly! -- but may not affect longterm morbidity and mortality.
And because anyone who didn't bother to read the whole story, or just read the quoted parts above, might seek to turn it into an embryonic stem cell debate. And because, imo, it's bad reporting to only mention it briefly at the near end of the story.
It's mentioned in the second sentence of the article, which is also quoted in the opening post.
quote:In a breakthrough trial, 15 young patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes were given drugs to suppress their immune systems followed by transfusions of stem cells drawn from their own blood.
posted
Also, the story is from an UK paper, and as I've understood it embryonic stem cell research is not as much of a hot potato issue there as it is in the US. So it's not bad reporting, it's just that it's a smaller issue of interest to this newspaper's target group.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the bad reporting is the claim that Bush opposes embryonic stem cell research, which he does not, and not noting that this would be irrelevant here anyway.
I think adult stem cell research is going to continue to be a major source of treatments. This is cool.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:A study by British scientists in November also reported that stem-cell injections could repair organ damage in heart attack victims.
But research using the most versatile kind of stem cells — those acquired from human embryos — is currently opposed by powerful critics, including President Bush.
Besides being an inaccurate statement about Bush's views, the "But" suggests that Bush would oppose the study mentioned in the close of the previous paragraph, which was done with non-embryonic stem cells.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, okay. Well, that is indeed bad reporting. Sorry, I guess I commented too early after just browsing through the article, not reading it fully.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's another side of this story that seems to be only getting aired here in Chicago, from my less than exhaustive check of news coverage.
There are some ethical issues regarding this research that deserve some discussion (Art Caplan was interviewed on the local station about it).
One issue has to do with the age of the participants. Eight of them were minors. It's unlikely this would have been approved in the U.S. and probably why it was done in Brazil, where it looks like medical researchers have more latitude than they do here (to be clear - I do not think that's a good thing).
The other issue goes beyond this particular one - the exporting of medical research that wouldn't be approved in the U.S. to countries with fewer safeguards on human subject research.
quote:A new diabetes treatment developed at Northwestern University has allowed some patients to stop taking insulin for more than two years, but it also has spurred ethical objections from researchers who say the trial put Brazilian children at unnecessary risk.
quote:Yet some experts doubted the protocol could have been approved in this country. Weir, like several other scientists reached for this report, said the risks of Burt's technique are high enough that he probably would not have approved the experiment if he had been responsible for reviewing it.
The problem is this: Although early-onset diabetes can have dire long-term effects such as blindness and heart disease, many patients succeed in managing their condition with insulin and lead normal lives for decades. That makes it harder to justify the risks of stem cell transplantation, which Burt has used before on diseases with few other treatment options, such as lupus or multiple sclerosis.
The immune suppression used in stem-cell transplants can cause infections and even death. None of the patients in the Brazilian study died, though one had severe pneumonia that required supplementary oxygen.
Several experts said the risks could have made it difficult to get the study past American institutional review boards -- groups responsible for ensuring that research is safe and ethical.
"This is an incredibly invasive therapy to be tried on children without knowing if anyone will benefit from it," said Dr. Lainie Ross, associate director of the University of Chicago's MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics.
Ross said she would not have authorized such a study unless it enrolled only adults. She said research ethics guidelines state that risky experimental therapies should not be used on children unless it's impossible to test them on adult subjects -- and in this case, adult diabetes patients were available.
In fact, Burt said his original protocol included a cutoff age of 18, but a Brazilian review board changed it to allow younger patients in the study. Ages of the subjects ranged from 14 to 31, with eight participants younger than 18.
Burt said the study was done in Brazil not to avoid the need for an American review board, but because he couldn't find an American diabetes expert interested in pursuing his idea. He said Northwestern review board officials told him his collaboration with the Brazilian team was fine so long as he was not directly involved in patient care.
This could very well be the treatment of the future for type 1 diabetes. But it doesn't mean there wasn't some luck involved - and if the luck had been bad (like having one or more teenage participants die) - what would our reactions be?
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
