High-Dose Stem Cell Treatments in Chronic Heart Patients Increases Survival Rates


The DanCell clinical trial was conducted about seven years ago at the Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark by a clinical research team led by Axel Diederichsen. The DanCell study examined 32 patients with severe ischemic heart failure who had received two rounds of bone marrow stem cell treatments.

The DanCell study was small and uncontrolled. However, because the vast majority of stem cell-based clinical trials have examined the efficacy of stem cell treatments in patients who have recently experienced a heart attack, this study was one of the few that examined patients with chronic heart failure.

In this study, patients had an average ejection fraction of 33 ± 9%, which is in the cellar – normal ejection fractions in healthy patients are in the 50s-60s. Therefore, these are patients with distinctly “bad tickers.” All 32 patients received two repeated infusions (4 months apart) of their own bone marrow stem cells, but these stem cell infusions were quantitated to determine the number of “CD34+” cells and the number of “CD133+” cells. CD34 is a cell surface protein found on bone marrow hematopoietic stem cells, but it by no means exclusive to HSCs. CD133 is also a cell surface protein found, although not exclusively, on the surfaces of cells that form blood vessels and blood vessels cells as well.

Initially, patients showed no improvements in heart function after 12 months. However, when patients were classified according to those who received the most or the least number of CD34+ cells, a curious thing emerged: those who received more CD34+ cells had a better chance of surviving than those who received fewer CD34+ cells.

Is this a fluke? To determine if it was, Diederichsen and his colleagues followed these patients for 7 years after the bone marrow infusion. When Diederichsen and his colleague recorded the number of deaths and compared them with the number of CD34+ cells infused, the pattern once again held true. The CD34+ cell count and CD133+ cell count did not significantly correlate with survival, but the CD34+ cell count alone was significantly associated with survival. In the authors own words: “decreasing the injected CD34 cell count by 10[6] increases the mortality risk by 10%.”

The conclusions of this small and admittedly uncontrolled study: “patients might benefit from intracoronary stem cell injections in terms of long-term clinical outcome.”

Three things to consider: Patients with heart conditions have poorer quality bone marrow stem cell numbers. Therefore, allogeneic stem cells might be a better way to go with this patient group. Secondly, the Danish group used Lymphoprep to prepare their bone marrow stem cells, which has been used in other failed studies, and the stem cell quality was almost certainly an issue in these cases (see the heart chapter in my book The Stem Cell Epistles for more information). Therefore, independent tests of the bone marrow quality are probably necessary as well or a different isolation technique in general. Also, a controlled trial must be run in order to confirm the efficacy of bone marrow stem cell infusions for patients with chronic ischemic heart disease. Until them, all we can conclude is that intracoronary injections of a high number of CD34+ cells may have a beneficial effect on chronic ischemic heart failure in terms of long-term survival.

New US Phase IIa Trial and Phase III Trial in Kazakhstan Examine CardioCell’s itMSC Therapy to Treat Heart Attack Patients


The regenerative medicine company CardioCell LLC has announced two new clinical trials in two different countries that utilize its allogeneic stem-cell therapy to treat subjects with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), which is a problem that faces more than 1.26 million Americans annually. The United States-based trial is a Phase IIa AMI clinical trial that is designed to evaluate the clinical safety and efficacy of the CardioCell Ischemia-Tolerant Mesenchymal Stem Cells or itMSCs. The second clinical trial in collaboration with the Ministry of Health in Kazakhstan is a Phase III AMI clinical trial on the intravenous administration of CardioCell’s itMSCs. This clinical trial is proceeding on the strength of the efficacy and safety of itMSCs showed in previous Phase II clinical trials.

CardioCell’s itMSCs are exclusively licensed from CardioCell’s parent company Stemedica Cell Technologies Inc. Normally, when mesenchymal stem cells from fat, bone marrow, or some other tissue source are grown in the laboratory, the cells are provided with normal concentrations of oxygen. However, CardioCell itMSCs are grown under low oxygen or hypoxic conditions. Such growth conditions more closely mimic the environment in which these stem cells normally live in the body. By growing these MSCs under these low-oxygen conditions, the cells become tolerant to low-oxygen conditions (ischemia-tolerant), and if transplanted into other low-oxygen environments, they will flourish rather than die.

Another advantage of itMSCs for regenerative treatments over other types of MSCs is that itMSCs secrete higher levels of growth factors that induce the formation of new blood vessels and promote tissue healing. These clinical trials have been designed to help determine if CardioCell’s itMSC-based therapies stimulate a regenerative response in acute heart attack patients.

“CardioCell’s new Phase IIa AMI study is built on the excellent safety data reported in previous Phase I clinical trials using our unique, hypoxically grown stem cells,” says Dr. Sergey Sikora, Ph.D., CardioCell’s president and CEO. “We are also pleased to report that the Ministry of Health in Kazakhstan is proceeding with a Phase III CardioCell-therapy study following its Phase II study that was highly promising in terms of efficacy and safety. Our studies target AMI patients who have depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which makes them prone to developing extensive scarring and therefore to the development of chronic heart failure. CardioCell hopes our itMSC therapies will inhibit the development of extensive scarring and, thus, the occurrence of chronic heart failure in these patients.”

The United States-based Phase IIa clinical trial will take place at Emory University, Sanford Health and Mercy Gilbert Medical Center. The CardioCell Phase IIa AMI trial is a double-blinded, multicenter, randomized study designed to assess the safety, tolerability and preliminary clinical efficacy of a single, intravenous dose of allogeneic mesenchymal bone-marrow cells infused into subjects with ST segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

“While stem-cell therapy for cardiovascular disease is nothing new, CardioCell is bringing to the field a new, unique type of stem-cell technology that has the possibility of being more effective than other AMI treatments,” says MedStar Heart Institute’s Director of Translational and Vascular Biology Research and CardioCell’s Scientific Advisory Board Chair Dr. Stephen Epstein. “Evidence exists demonstrating that MSCs grown under hypoxic conditions express higher levels of molecules associated with angiogenesis and healing processes. There is also evidence indicating they migrate with greater avidity to various cytokines and growth factors and, most importantly, home more robustly to ischemic tissue. Studies like those underway using CardioCell’s technology are designed to determine if we can evoke a more potent healing response that will reduce the extent of myocardial cell death occurring during AMI and thereby decrease the amount of scar tissue resulting from the infarct. A therapy that could achieve this would have a major beneficial impact in reducing the occurrence of chronic heart failure.”

Kazakhstan’s National Scientific Medical Center is conducting a Phase III AMI clinical trial using CardioCell’s itMSCs, which are sponsored by local licensee Altaco. This clinical trial is entitled, “Intravenous Administration of itMSCs for AMI Patients,” and is proceeding based on a completed Phase II efficacy and safety study. However, the results of this previous Phase II study are preliminary because the sample group was so small. Despite these limitations, the findings demonstrated statistically significant elevation (more than 12 percent over the control group) in the ejection fraction of the left ventricle of the heart in patients who had received itMSCs. Also, a significant reduction in inflammation was also observed, as ascertained by lower CRP (C-reactive protein) levels in the blood of treated patients in comparison to control groups. Thus, Dr. Daniyar Jumaniyazov, M.D., Ph.D., principal investigator in Kazakhstan clinical trials states: “In our clinical Phase II trial for patients with AMI, treatment using itMSCs improved global and local myocardial function and normalized systolic and diastolic left ventricular filling, as compared to the control group. We are encouraged by these results and look forward to confirming them in a Phase III study.”

CardioCell’s treatment is the first to apply itMSC therapies for cardiovascular indications like AMI, chronic heart failure and peripheral artery disease. Manufactured by CardioCell’s parent company Stemedica and approved for use in clinical trials, itMSCs are manufactured under Stemedica’s patented, continuous-low-oxygen conditions and proprietary media, which provide itMSCs’ unique benefits: increased potency, safety and scalability. itMSCs differ from competing MSCs in two key areas. itMSCs demonstrate increased migratory ability towards the place of injury, and they show increased secretion of growth and transcription factors (e.g., VEGF, FGF and HIF-1), as demonstrated in a peer-reviewed publication (Vertelov et al., 2013). This can potentially lead to improved regenerative abilities of itMSCs. In addition, itMSCs have significantly fewer HLA-DR receptors on the cell surface than normal MSCs, which might reduce the propensity to cause immune responses. As another benefit, itMSCs are highly scalable. A single donor specimen can currently yield about 1 million patient treatments, and this number is expected to grow to 10 million once full robotization of Stemedica’s facility is complete.

Three New Clinical Trials Examine Bone Marrow-Based Stem Cells To Treat Heart Failure


In April of 2013, the results of three clinical trials that examined the effects of bone marrow-derived stem cell treatments in patients with acute myocardial infarction (translation – a recent heart attack) or chronic heart failure. These trials were the SWISS-AMI trial, the CELLWAVE trial, and the C-CURE trial.

The SWISS-AMI trial (Circulation. 2013;127:1968-1979), which stands for the Swiss Multicenter Intracoronary Stem Cells Study in Acute Myocardial Infarction trial, was designed to examine the optimal time of stem cell administration at 2 different time points: early or 5 to 7 days versus late or 3 to 4 weeks after a heart attack. This trial is an extension of the large REPAIR-AMI, which showed that patients who tended to receive bone marrow stem cell treatments later rather than earlier had more pronounced therapeutic effects from the stem cell treatments.

SWISS-AMI examined 60 patients who received standard cardiological care after a heart attack, 58 who received bone marrow stem cells 5-7 days after a heart attack, and 49 patients who received bone marrow stem cells 3-4 weeks after their heart attacks. All stem cells were delivered through the coronary arteries by means of the same technology used to deliver a stent.

When the heart function of all three groups were analyzed, no significant differences between the three groups were observed. Those who received stem cell 5-7 days after a heart attack showed a 1.8% increase in their ejection fractions (the percentage of blood that is ejected from the ventricle with each beat) versus an average decrease of 0.4% in those who received standard care, and a 0.8% increase in those who received their stem cells 3-4 weeks after a heart attack. If these results sound underwhelming it is because they are. The standard deviations of each group so massive that these three groups essentially overlap each other. The differences are not significant from a statistical perspective. Thus the results of this study were definitely negative.

The second study, CELLWAVE (JAMA, April 17, 2013—Vol 309, No. 15, 1622-1631), was a double-blinded, placebo-controlled study conducted among heart attack patients between 2005 and 2011 at Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany. In this study, the damaged area of heart was pretreated with low-energy ultrasound shock waves, after which patients in each group were treated with either low dose stem cells, high-dose stem cells, or placebo. Patients also received either shock wave treatment or placebo shock wave treatment. Thus this was a very well-controlled study. Stem cells were administered through the coronary arteries, just as in the case of the SWISS-AMI study.

The results were clearly positive in this study. The stem cell + shock wave treatment groups showed definite increases in heart function above the placebo groups, and showed fewer adverse effects. The shock wave treatments seem to prime the heart tissue to receive the stem cells. The shock waves induce the release of cardiac stromal-derived factor-1, which is a potent chemoattractor of stem cells.  This is an intriguing procedure that deserves more study.

The third study, C-CURE, is definitely the most interesting of the three (Bartunek et al. JACC Vol. 61, No. 23, June 11, 2013:2329–38). In this trial, mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) were isolated from bone marrow and primed with a cocktail of chemicals that pushed the stem cells towards a heart muscle fate. Then the cells were transplanted into the heart by direct injection into the heart muscle as guided by NOGA three-dimensional imaging of the heart.

After initially screening 320 patients with chronic heart failure, 15 were treated with standard care and the other 32 received the stem cell treatment. After a two-year follow-up, the results were remarkable: those who received the stem cell treatment showed an average 7% increase in ejection fraction versus 0.2% for receiving standard care, an almost 25 milliliter reduction in end systolic volume (measures degree of dilation of ventricle – not a good thing and the fact that it decreased is a very good thing) versus a 9 milliliter decrease for those receiving standard care, and were able to walk 62 meters further in 6 minutes as opposed to standard care group who walked 18 meters less in 6 minutes.

While these studies do not provide definitive answers to the bone marrow/heart treatment debate, they do extend the debate. Clearly bone marrow stem cells help some patients and do not help others. The difference between these two groups of patients continues to elude researchers. Also, how the bone marrow is processed is definitely important. When the cells are administered also seems to be important, but the exact time slot is not clear in human patients. It is also possible that some patients have poor quality bone marrow in the first place, and might be better served by allogeneic (someone else’s stem cells) treatments rather than autologous (the patient’s own stem cells) stem cell treatments.

Also, stem cell treatments for heart patients will probably need to be more sophisticated if they are to provide greater levels of healing. Heart muscle cells are required, but so are blood vessels to feed the new heart muscle. If mesenchymal stem cells work by activating resident heart stem cells, then maybe mesenchymal transplants should be accompanied by endothelial progenitor cell transplants (CD117+, CD45+ CD31+ cells from bone marrow) to provide the blood vessels necessary to replace the clogged blood vessels and the new heart muscle that is grown.

Phase 2 Clinical Trial that Tests Stem Cell Treatment for Heart Attack Patients to be Funded by California Institute for Regenerative Medicine


A new stem cell therapy that treats heart attack patients with cells from a donor has been approved to begin a Phase 2 clinical trial.

Capricor Therapeutics Inc. a regenerative medicine company, has developed this treatment, which extracts donor stem cells from the heart called “cardiosphere-derived cells,” and then infuses them into the heart of the heart attack patient by means of a heart catheter procedure, which is quite safe. These stem cells are introduced into the heart to reduce scarring in the heart and potentially replace dead heart muscle cells. One clinical trial called the CADUCEUS trial has already shown that cardiosphere-derived cells can reduce the size of the heart scar.

In a previous phase I study (phase I studies typically only ascertain the safety of a treatment), cardiosphere-derived cells were infused into the hearts of 14 heart attack patients. No major safety issues were observed with these treatments, and therefore, phase 2 studies were warranted.

Alan Trounson, Ph.D., president of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which is funding the trial, said this about the phase 2 trial approval: “This is really encouraging news and marks a potential milestone for the use of stem cells to treat heart disease. Funding this type of work is precisely what our Disease Team Awards were designed to do, to give promising treatments up to $20 million dollars to develop new treatments for some of the deadliest diseases in America.”

Capricor was given approval by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Gene and Cell Therapy (GST) to move into the next phase of clinical trials after these regulatory bodies had thoroughly reviewed the safety data from the phase 1 study. After NHLBI and GST determined that the phase 1 study met all the required goals, CIRM also independently reviewed the safety data from the Phase 1 and other aspects of the Phase 2 clinical trial design and operations. Upon successful completion of the independent review, Capricor was given approval to move forward into the CIRM-funded Phase 2 component of the study

Capricor CEO Linda Marbán, Ph.D., said, “Meeting the safety endpoints in the Phase 1 portion of the trial is a giant leap forward for the field and for Capricor Therapeutics. By moving into the Phase 2 portion of this trial, we can now attempt to replicate the results in a larger population.”

For the next phase, an estimated 300 patients who have had heart attacks will be evaluated in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. One group of heart-attack patients will include people 30 to 90 days following the heart attack, and a second group will follow patients 91 days to one year after the incident. Other patients will receive placebos and neither the patients nor the treating physicians know who will receive what.  This clinical trial should definitely determine if an “off-the-shelf” stem cell product can improve the function of a heart attack patient’s heart.

The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) is funding this clinical trial, and for this CIRM should be lauded.  However, when CIRM was brought into existence through the passage of proposition 71, it sold itself as a state-funded entity that would deliver embryonic stem cell-based cures.  Now I know that director Alan Trounson has denied that, but Wesley Smith at the National Review “Human Exceptionalism” blog and the LA times blogger Michael Hiltzik have both documented that Trounson and others said exactly that.  Isn’t ironic that one of the promises intimated by means of embryo-destroying research is now being fulfilled by means of non-embryo-destroying procedures?  If taxpayer money is going to fund research like this, then I’m all for it, but CIRM has to first clean up its administrative act before they deserve a another penny of taxpayer money.