- advertisement -

What To Fund in 2017?

Discussion in 'Research' started by joshualevy, Jan 12, 2017.

  1. joshualevy

    joshualevy Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    648
    [FONT=&quot]Several weeks ago, I was having lunch with someone heavily involved in JDRF, and he asked me for my opinion about what research they should fund. I'm embarrassed to say that I was surprised by the question, and I did not have a good answer for it. However, I've now had some weeks to think about it, and it is a question that has come up before, so here are my "top five" answers:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]The Cell Educator[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]http://cureresearch4type1diabetes.blogspot.com/search/label/Zhao[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]The stem cell educator is a machine which takes the immune cells from a person's blood, exposes them to various organic molecules which are designed to change their behavior so they learn not to attack beta cells. The cells are then returned to the body. This device has already gone through a phase-I trial in China, and the results were the best I've ever seen in terms of people generating more of their own insulin after treatment. The effect lasted for months and in some cases years. It was very positive.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]So my simple minded attitude is, if this is the best phase-I results I've ever seen, it makes sense to fund a push into phase-II (or at least a second phase-I trial done in the US). Now this is not as obvious as it might sound. JDRF did fund some animal work at the University of Florida, but the results were never published. (Not a good sign.) Similarly, there was some work in Spain, in people, and it was discussed in conferences, but never published, at least not that I've seen. (Not a good sign, either.) And that Spanish data did not sound as positive as the original Chinese work. But at the end of the day, I'm willing to put some money into seeing what happens when a clinical trial is run in the US, even it if is a small one.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Verapamil[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]http://cureresearch4type1diabetes.blogspot.com/search/label/Verapamil[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Verapamil is a high blood pressure medicine which the researchers hope could cure type-1 diabetes if given during the honeymoon phase. As far as I know, it's method of operation is unique. Plus, it has the advantage of already being approved, so it could quickly be used off label, and eventual approval would be quicker than other drugs. But it is honeymoon only.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]The reason they are on the list is because it is clear to me that they are having trouble recruiting enough people to complete their study. I hate that. They are running the entire study from one site, and that limits the area from which they can recruit. I'm hoping some JDRF money would let them start up another site or two, so they could get the people they need.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]INSULETE[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot](no previous blogging: in animal testing)[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]http://www.wisbusiness.com/index.Iml?Article=383101[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Because this research is still in animal testing, I've never blogged on it, so why do I like it? For several reasons: First, it uses gene therapy to reprogram a person's cells to generate insulin in response to sugar, and that is novel, at least as far as I know. Second, the targeted cells are not pancreatic cells, they are liver cells. This is important, because I think there is a reasonable chance that these new cells will not be targeted by the body's autoimmune attack.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]It's not a sure thing; we don't know exactly why beta cells are targeted. If it has something to do with their pancreatic location or their beta cell nature, then these "hotwired" liver cells will not be targeted. (Unfortunately, if beta cells are targeted because they generate insulin, then these new cells will be targeted as well, and this research will not lead to a cure.)[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Finally, gene therapy involves risk; it is still in it's infancy. I think that risk is scaring away pharma money, and for me, that is a good reason for JDRF to put some money in. This company is hoping to go into clinical trials in 2018. I'm hoping some JDRF money could get them there faster.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]If more than one research group is working on turning liver cells into functional beta cells, then I'd organize a "cage fight," as described below, between the data from the different groups.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Artemisinin-Class Cage Fight[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]http://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...hows-promise-as-type-1-diabetes-treatment.htm[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Artemisinin is an antimalarial drug, which (in animals) encourages pancreatic alpha cells to naturally morph into beta cells. Since beta cells are what are being killed off in type-1 diabetes, this is important. However, I've never thought that a drug like this could cure type-1 by itself, because the body's autoimmune attack would kill off the new beta cells same as it killed off the old ones. However, a drug like this might end up being half of a cure; the other half would be something to stop the autoimmune attack. It also may extend the honeymoon period, or maybe make the honeymoon permanent. And getting the body to generate it's own beta cells might be a lot easier than producing them from stem cells, growing them in test tubes, or whatever.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Now I don't want to just say "fund Artemisinin", partly because it's only half a cure, and partly because I think there are several drugs with effects potentially similar to this one. That is where the "cage fight" comes in. I want JDRF to lock some of their research staff in a room with all the animal data for all the drugs which are supposed to help convert alpha cells into beta cells, and then reach consensus among themselves as to which of the drugs is most promising in animals (especially NOD mice), and fund that one. This form of research "cage fight" involves comparing the existing data on specific results in a head-to-head way, and funding only the best. (If you read the book Moneyball you will see some similarities.) If JDRF is feeling flush, maybe they can fund the top two. Of course, maybe they already do this, and I just don't know about it.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Quarterback Option (on Phase-I)[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]For those of you who do not follow American football: a quarterback option is when one player takes the ball and starts a play, and then, based on what the other team does during the play, changes the play to try to take advantage of what is seen, as it happens. In this context, what I mean is that JDRF should pay particular attention to several interesting, ongoing phase-I trials, and if any of them are clearly successful, rush some funding in there quickly.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]By "clearly successful" I don't mean that the researchers themselves say it is a success (they almost always do). Rather, before the study is published, I think JDRF's team should look at the data being gathered, and decide internally what level of result would cause JDRF to call up the researchers the week after publication and say "We've got a half million dollars (or whatever) and we want to push your research ahead, quickly. What can we do together, now."[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]For example, there is a 5 person, 6 month, phase-I combination trial of Exsulin and Ustekinumab. Now Exsulin (previously known as INGAP) has been tested twice before, in much larger trials, and did not have good results either time, so I'm not "holding my breath". But combining it with Ustekinumab is unique, and could be the missing link needed for success. This trial is so small that even success might not be successful enough to get pharma interested. But if JDRF had a preloaded internal decision, something like if two or more patients do not need to inject insulin for 4 or more months then they should release 1/2 million or a million for quick-starting phase-I trial to get some more data (maybe lasting longer, or enrolling children, or testing different doses, or something that builds on the previous trial).[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]I think JDRF should have these sort of preloaded funding triggers ready for many of the small phase-I trials that are ongoing. Of course, maybe they do, and I just don't know about it.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Discussion[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]Choosing these particular research areas was hard for several reasons:[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]The hardest to explain is the success/support trade off. To put it bluntly, if research is really successful already, there is little need for JDRF to fund it, because companies will already be interested in it, and will fund it themselves without non-profit help. So there is no need for JDRF to fund research which has already been successful enough to attract corporate support.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]On the other hand, I don't want to suggest that JDRF fund a bunch of research which is failing, either! So I'm looking for research which is in a "sweet-spot". It shows promise and deserves some extra funding, but is not so obviously successful that commercial companies already have enough information to fund it.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]This "sweet-spot" exists mostly as phase-I clinical trials and research which is almost ready to start phase-I trials. If research has started phase-II trials, then pharma is likely already interested in it, and even if not, by the end of phase-II there will certainly been enough news to attract pharma, if the news is good. On the other hand, any earlier in animal tests, means the chance of failure is high enough, that I'd prefer to put money into something a little more promising. So all of the research I suggested above is either in phase-I trials, or near to starting them.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]One of the reasons I've never made a blog posting like this one, is that I know I'm going to piss off every researcher not on the list above (which is most of them!) And I'm sorry for that. If it's any consolation, many of the already running clinical trials are not here either because pharma is already supporting them (example: T-Rex, artificial pancreases, Viacyte, etc) or because the existing trials are large enough so that they will answer the important questions without more funding (examples: BCG, Gleevec, etc.)[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot][FONT="georgia" , "times new roman" , serif][FONT=&quot]Joshua Levy[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]http://cureresearch4type1diabetes.blogspot.com [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]publicjoshualevy at gmail dot com[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]All the views expressed here are those of Joshua Levy, and nothing here is official JDRF or JDCA news, views, policies or opinions. My daughter has type-1 diabetes and participates in clinical trials, which might be discussed here. My blog contains a more complete non-conflict of interest statement. Thanks to everyone who helps with the blog.[/FONT]
     
  2. Deal

    Deal Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2009
    Messages:
    557
    Thank you for this.

    One thing you touched on that has bothered me as long as I have been following this line of research is noticing how much charitable funds go to research projects that do not result in published findings. Publishing failure is an important part of the process and can give future researchers information they otherwise might spend copious amounts of money determining for themselves. I don't appreciate donating to a cause that does not result in published results. I wish JDRF would include, as a condition of funding, a requirement to publish results regardless of outcome.
     
  3. sszyszkiewicz

    sszyszkiewicz Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Messages:
    842
  4. Ed2009

    Ed2009 Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Messages:
    261
    I've been looking for some info on Zhao's, I've found some actual results from a trial (following sszyszk... link):

    http://www.ebiomedicine.com/article/S2352-3964(15)30193-6/pdf

    The link that come's from Zhao's website says "it can correct autoimmune Tcell memory'. OK, however, A1c, C-peptide figures do not look quite optimistic (tables 2 and 3 near the end).

    The trial is at Clinical Trial.gov: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT01350219 , it says in the CT website there that no results were posted, however in the introduction of the pdf document says that the study is the one registered at Clinical Trials with that number.

    I'll do some further research in Spanish at the Spanish's websites, looking specifically tor "Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias
    Oviedo", see what comes up.

    Rgds, Ed.
     
  5. joshualevy

    joshualevy Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    648
    This is a historical problem, which has just (in the last few years) gotten the attention it deserved long ago. There is now a strong push in the EU, and a medium-strong push in the US, to publish all results of human trials. That would be a big step forward, and one that I'm strongly in favor of. I guess charities could require distribution of results even for animal studies, although I don't know of any charity which does. JDRF is not particularly good or bad in this regard; they are particularly average.

    Joshua Levy
     

Share This Page

- advertisement -

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice