Tisch Center MS Stem Cell Trial: Interview with Dr. Saud Sadiq, Director and Lead Research Scientist (Part Two)

Dr. Sadiq and research staff at the Tisch Center

The Tisch MS Research Center of New York (click here) will soon begin its first-ever FDA approved Phase 2 regenerative stem cell study for multiple sclerosis. Last week, I published the first part of my interview with Dr. Saud Sadiq, the Director and Lead Research Scientist of The Center, which discussed  the Phase 1 study and its results (click here). As promised, here is the second part of our discussion, which focuses on the upcoming Phase 2 study, the Tisch Center's new stem cell laboratories, how stem cells might help repair damaged nervous system tissues, and some of the other multiple sclerosis research projects being conducted by Tisch Center researchers and scientists.
This interview has been lightly edited for readability, and I’ve added some “WK Notes,” which attempt to translate overly complicated medical jargon into plain English.

WK: The Tisch center is now preparing to embark on Phase 2 of your MS stem cell trial. When do you expect this next phase of the study to get started?

Dr. Sadiq: After the  Phase 1 study ended, we made a commitment at The Tisch Center that we needed to make our stem cell laboratories absolutely state-of-the-art. We’ve invested heavily in building a new stem cell lab, which is being completed now. Everything’s automated, it’s a next generation stem cell facility that will be functional and certified in about a month and a half. Then we will be prepared to start the Phase 2 study. We do still need some additional funding for Phase 2. We are applying to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society for a grant. Though they didn’t support Phase 1, given the impressive results of that trial we are hopeful that they will support us as we go forward. We also expect private contributions to help fund Phase 2, as these have always been the lifeblood of the foundation.

WK: How many patients will be involved in the Phase 2 study?

Dr. Sadiq: There will be 50 patients involved. It will be a double-blinded crossover study specifically designed to establish the effectiveness of the neural progenitor stem cells we've developed in our laboratories. So it has an entirely different aim than the Phase 1 sstudy, which was intended primarily to determine the safety and tolerability of our stem cell procedures. We are going to give Phase 2 study participants six treatments, one every two months. Therefore there will be more treatments given in greater frequency than in the Phase 1 study.

WK: So, with 50 patients, 25 will be getting actual stem cells, and 25 will be getting placebo treatments?

Dr. Sadiq: Yes, in the first year 25 subjects will get treatment and 25 will get placebo, and in the second year the ones who got placebo will get treatment and vice versa.

WK: What will the patient population look like for this Phase 2 trial?

Dr. Sadiq: The patients for this trial will have to meet much tighter inclusion criteria then the patients in Phase 1. They all must be diagnosed with SPMS or PPMS. They have to be ambulatory, so they’ll all have EDSS scores between 3 and 6.5. The FDA is requiring that we have an equal distribution of the EDSS scores. So there will be equal numbers of patients distributed between all the points along the EDSS scale. The other limitation is that all patients will need to have had the disease for 15 years or less.

WK: Will the study participants continue with their disease modifying drugs?

Dr. Sadiq: Yes, but they can’t have switched medications within six months from the start of the trial.

WK: Once they are in the trial they’ll have to remain on the same DMD for the duration of the study?

Dr. Sadiq: Yes.

WK: What will be the total duration of this trial?

Dr. Sadiq: There will be two years of study and placebo, and one year of follow-up. So a total of three years.

WK: Just to be clear, in the third year none of the patients will be receiving stem cells?

Dr. Sadiq: That’s correct, in the third year there will be no stem cells and no placebos. After the second year, all patients will have received six treatments. The patients who received stem cells in the first year will have placebo in the second year, and the patients who received placebo in the first year will receive stem cells in the second. The third year will be for observation of all patients.

WK: For all the folks out there with RRMS, if the Phase 2 trial proves successful then the stem cell protocol developed at Tisch could be applied to them as well, correct?

Dr. Sadiq: For patients with relapsing-remitting disease who experience a relapse that results in damage from which they don’t recover, stem cells could be introduced in an attempt to repair that damage. That would be the dream scenario, and it could render disability resulting from MS a thing of the past. But at this point were getting ahead of ourselves…

WK: As we move forward into a world in which stem cell treatments for MS become a standard of care, would you anticipate that patients will need continued and repeated stem cell treatments to maintain or advance whatever benefits they realize until a cure is finally found for multiple sclerosis?

Dr. Sadiq: Yes, that’s likely. I think the Phase 2 trial will really go a long way towards answering that question. It will be important to ascertain what happens to patients in the years after they receive their stem cells. Do they maintain their benefits, do they return to baseline, or do they fall somewhere in the middle? These will be significant findings. The design of this crossover trial will allow us to figure that out. My feeling going in is that patients will need stem cell treatments over the long-term, maybe not six a year after the initial treatment., but perhaps less frequently to maintain whatever improvement is seen.

WK: The neural progenitor cells developed by the Tisch Center – or any regenerative stem cells, for that matter – don’t directly address the disease process, correct? If so, does the disease remain active despite the use of these stem cells?

Dr. Sadiq: Yes, that’s right, the cells are not a cure for the disease. They hopefully secrete trophic factors that would stimulate the body’s own progenitor cells to activate and induce repair at sites of injury. (WK Note: trophic factors are elements which cause the body to maintain or start some action, in this case repairing damaged nerve cells and possibly affording some protection against attack from immune cells.)

WK: So, the stem cells may not necessarily repair injury all by themselves, but they may jumpstart natural repair mechanisms within the bodies of the patients in which they are implanted?

Dr. Sadiq: I think that’s the most likely mechanism. Whether they play some direct role is something we have to figure out, but I think it’s more likely that they’ll turn on a patient’s own progenitors and also create a trophic environment that acts as a shield from the immune system and allows the body to make repairs.

WK: I know that stem cells aren't the only focus of the Tisch Center's researchers and scientists. I’d like to touch on The Tisch Multiple Sclerosis Research Center of New York itself, and some of the other areas of research that are currently ongoing in The Center’s labs. Could you give us a peek inside and tell us about some of the other projects Tisch researchers are working on?

Dr. Sadiq: Well, at the Tisch Center our original goal was to identify the root cause of the disease. It may be some type of immune cell, or some unidentified infectious agent, or maybe some other environmental element. Once we can identify the cause of multiple sclerosis, we can then methodically work towards a cure. And finding a cure is our ultimate goal.

WK: So, the Tisch Center currently has researchers who spend their days searching for the root cause of multiple sclerosis?

Dr. Sadiq: Yes, absolutely. I try to focus on the real challenges that I see as a clinician treating patients every day. My focus is on trying to understand primary progressive MS, which is perhaps the most challenging form of MS as far as treatment is concerned. There are very few treatments that can alter the course of progressive MS. We’ve created an animal model in our lab to try to understand the mechanisms of progression and why remyelination does not take place at all in this form of the disease. In relapsing-remitting MS we see damage occur and then some repairs get made by the body, especially in early disease. This is something not seen in progressive MS. We need to understand the mechanisms of progression better. We are also focused on cognition dysfunction because that can really dehumanize the patients who suffer from severe cognitive deficits.

We are also hard at work identifying biomarkers that can indicate the activity and severity of the disease. We’ve published a lot of papers in this area. We are doing a lot of work on metabolic dysfunction in the central nervous system in MS, and hopefully, that will lead us to readily identify markers that can pinpoint progression and disease activity, which will, in turn, allow us to assess the effectiveness of treatments in individual patients. In conjunction to the Phase 2 stem cell study itself, one of our aims is to analyze the spinal fluid of all of the study participants for markers that may predict which patients are going to get better by Identifying which patients experience actual repair and remyelination. The goal of identifying biomarkers is to be able to tailor treatments to each individual patient, specific to them and the intricacies of their disease. MS is a very heterogeneous illness, meaning that it affects each patient differently. Through the use of biomarkers, we hope to be able to address these differences on a patient by patient basis.

WK: The Tisch Center is not affiliated with any hospital or academic institution, correct, so it’s an entirely independent research entity?

Dr. Sadiq: Yes we are completely independent. We run Tisch like an academic center in every regard. We have guest speakers and all of the activities that would be associated with typical University research centers, but we are not affiliated with any academic centers. We retain absolute independence in choosing our areas of research.

WK: If you don’t have any of these affiliations, how is all of the research we’ve discussed funded?

Dr. Sadiq: We rely entirely on grants and donations. We use almost all the funds raised directly for research. Fully 90% of all monies raised goes directly into research, which is really an extraordinarily high number compared to other organizations. We keep expenses very low, so only a small percentage of funds raised go towards administrative costs and other such overhead. All of our tax forms and documentation in this regard are available online.

WK: My understanding is that you are not currently receiving any funding at all from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Is this correct?

Dr. Sadiq: Yes, that's right, we’ve had some bad luck with the MS Society, but they promised to look into our Phase 2 study, and I’m putting in a grant application. Hopefully, this time they’ll get involved.

WK: Obviously, the Tisch family (click here) is involved, but where does the rest of the Center’s funding generally come from?

Dr. Sadiq: The Tisch family is a very big supporter, but so are our patients and their loved ones. We have a very loyal following of patients and their families and other supporters that really enable this to happen. They’ve been supporting us for close to two decades, even before we were formed as an independent center.

WK: How much is this Phase 2 trial going to cost?

Dr. Sadiq: The build-out of the laboratory cost $5 million, and that’s a done deal. The trial itself calls for another $4 million, and we are currently raising funds for the study itself.

WK: So funding is still needed for the Phase 2 trial?

Dr. Sadiq: Yes.

WK: Well, speaking strictly for myself as a patient who has been ravaged by this disease, I can’t think of any cause more important and worthy of donations.

Dr. Sadiq: That’s very kind. Maybe I should hire you as a fundraiser…

WK: You can pay me in stem cells… Even though I know I don’t qualify for the trial because of my  level of disability…

Dr. Sadiq: That’s true, but don’t ever lose hope. Every day researchers here at Tisch and others around the world are working hard towards solving the puzzle of MS. I’m personally obsessed with curing multiple sclerosis.



As a patient of Dr. Sadiq’s, I can attest to his obsession with curing the disease. The man works at least six out of every seven days and even has a bedroom behind his office at the clinic affiliated with the Tisch Center. The clinic is called The International Multiple Sclerosis Management Practice (click here).  I’m also acquainted with some of the researchers at the Tisch Center, who are so dedicated that they'll even put up with my incessant questions when I manage to corner one of them with my wheelchair.

For those interested in donating to the Tisch Center, you can learn about the various ways to contribute by (clicking here). If you’d like to encourage the National Multiple Sclerosis Society to get behind the first ever FDA approved Phase 2 MS stem cell trial with a nice big grant, here’s a webpage with contact info for all of the Society’s senior leadership (click here). Please be polite If you do reach out to the NMSS. As my grandmother always told me, you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar…

Tisch Center MS Stem Cell Study: Interview with Dr. Saud Sadiq, Director and Lead Research Scientist (Part One)

The Tisch Multiple Sclerosis Research Center of New York (click here) recently published the Phase 1 results of the first-ever FDA approved multiple sclerosis regenerative stem cell study (click here). The results created quite a buzz in the MS community, as the headline results stated that 70% of trial participants experienced increased muscle strength, and 50% saw improved bladder function. As the study included only patients with progressive MS, many of them with advanced disability, these results seem especially impressive.

Given the level of interest in this trial and stem cells in general, I thought it important to interview the man behind the study, Dr. Saud Sadiq, the Director and Lead Research Scientist of the Tisch MS Research Center. Luckily, Dr. Sadiq has been my MS neuro for the last 14 years, so a simple phone call was all that was needed to set things up. Dr. Sadiq and his researchers had been working towards this Phase 1 study for over a decade. Since the Tisch Center is not affiliated with any academic or healthcare institution, all monies for the trial were raised privately through a certified nonprofit foundation.

My interview with Dr. Sadiq is quite long but full of important information, so I’ll publish it in two parts. This installment will explore the recently released Phase 1 trial results and their potential implications. The next installment will include an overview of the upcoming FDA approved Phase 2 trial, as well as a discussion of how regenerative stem cells might work and their possible impact on the treatment landscape of multiple sclerosis. It also covers some of the many different areas of groundbreaking research currently underway at the Tisch Center's laboratories. I’ll publish the second installment next week.

This interview was lightly edited for readability. I’ve included some “WK Notes”, which explain in layman’s terms some of the more complicated medical jargon used in the discussion.

WK: Dr. Sadiq, you recently published the results of your Phase I MS stem cell trial, and they look quite strong. To start, can you tell me about the patient population of the study?

Dr. Sadiq: The patient population consisted of patients with clinically definite multiple sclerosis who had either secondary progressive or primary progressive MS. They had relatively stable disability scores – we use the EDSS scale to assess disability scores – in the years preceding inclusion into the study. Their EDSS needed to have not changed in the six months proceeded the study. Of the 20 people in the study, 10 of the patients we included used wheelchairs or had EDSS of 7.0 or above, and another 10 patients had an EDSS of between 3.5 and 6.5. The majority of patients were in the more disabled category and were using aids such as canes or wheelchairs.

WK: Why didn’t the study include any relapsing-remitting patients?

Dr. Sadiq: Well, remember, this was a Phase 1 trial that was designed primarily to assess safety. Relapsing-remitting patients tend to do well with disease modifying treatments, so evaluating recovery would have been much more difficult, even though this wasn’t a primary focus of this trial.

WK: You mentioned disease modifying drugs. Were the patients chosen for the study on disease modifying drugs, and if so, did they continue them throughout the study?

Dr. Sadiq: Yes, most of the trial subjects were on the drugs we commonly use to treat MS, including Tysabri, Rituxan, and intrathecal methotrexate (WK note: intrathecal (spinal) injections of methotrexate is one of Dr. Sadiq’s preferred treatments for patients with progressive MS. He also treats many of his progressive MS patients with Rituxan).

WK: What was the age range of the patients?

Dr. Sadiq: The youngest patient was in his 20s, and the oldest were in their 60s.

WK: Let’s talk about the type of cells that were used. These were not raw mesenchymal stem cells, which are the most common type of cells used in other stem cell trials and in for-profit clinics, correct?

Dr. Sadiq: That’s right. Basically, in our laboratory, we take a patient’s bone marrow and separate out the mesenchymal stem cells. We then purify and clone them, and then freeze them for use in subsequent treatments. The cells harvested from one bone marrow extraction – we harvest from the breastbone – can be used for multiple procedures. Before the actual treatment, the cells are then grown to about 100 million mesenchymal stem cells which we then convert into neural progenitor cells, cells which are committed to a neural lineage (WK note: neural progenitor cells are stem cells specific to the central nervous system). We usually get between 5 million and 10 million neural progenitors, and that’s what we inject into the spinal fluid of the patients.

WK: What exactly are neural progenitor cells as compared to raw mesenchymal stem cells?

Dr. Sadiq: Mesenchymal stem cells have the ability to differentiate into several different types of tissues. They can turn into fat cells or cartilage cells, but they can also differentiate into heart cells and liver cells, among others. Because we were injecting cells directly into the spinal fluid, we wanted to commit them to neural lineage so they would not differentiate into other kinds of tissues once inside the patient.

WK: I understand that the transformation process that turns mesenchymal stem cells into neural progenitors is something that was developed exclusively in the Tisch Center’s laboratories?

Dr. Sadiq: Yes, we published the process in a number of papers. The details of the differentiation process were detailed in these reports.

WK: So, the details of this process aren’t a secret, they can be replicated in any stem cell laboratory?

Dr. Sadiq: Yes, between this paper and previously published papers all of the details are available.

WK: To your knowledge, though, the Tisch laboratories are the only ones using this process?

Dr. Sadiq: Yes.

WK: Let’s talk about the treatment protocol that was used in this Phase 1 trial. How many stem cell treatments did the trial subjects get, and at what time intervals?

Dr. Sadiq: In this Phase 1 trial, we used three treatments on each patient, and the treatments were given every three months. We used between five and 10 million cells for each treatment. So, in this trial of 20 patients, we did a total of 60 stem cell treatments, and roughly 80% of those involved the injection of 10 million neural progenitor cells.

WK: How long did the study last? And was there a placebo control group?

Dr. Sadiq: The trial lasted two years, and there was no placebo control group. The capacity of our laboratories at the time was a limiting factor, so we had to stagger the treatment of patients.

WK: Even though the trial lasted two years, none of the patients received more than three treatments, and they all received them at three-month intervals, correct?

Dr. Sadiq: That’s right, nobody got more than three treatments.

WK: Okay, let’s move on to the topic that’s probably of most interest to patients, the actual results that you saw from the trial. The headlines were that 70% of the patients are an increase in muscle strength and that 50% saw improvement in bladder function. Could you give us some details on those numbers?

Dr. Sadiq: I think the main thing that has to be stressed is that the study was designed to look at safety and tolerability because nobody in a trial setting had previously injected stem cells multiple times at regular intervals into patients. We really had to establish safety and tolerability. We did this successfully, as all patients received all of their treatments and tolerated them well. There were no adverse effects except for very mild headaches and fever, which were transient and generally didn’t last more than 24 hours. There were no hospitalizations and no deaths, and this safety profile was really the primary purpose of this Phase 1 study.

As to the question of efficacy, we have to be very careful because this was not a placebo-controlled or blinded study, and most of the patients expected that they would get better. What we did see when assessed by muscle exam using the standard assessment tools – which were performed by a neurologist who wasn’t involved in the administration of the cells – was that 70% of the treated patients did see an increase in muscle strength in at least one muscle group. In addition, 50% of patients had significant bladder function improvement.

WK: Did some patient groups appear to respond better than others?

Dr. Sadiq: Yes, although patients did tend to improve across the board. Not unexpectedly, the less disabled they were, the more likely they were to improve. Overall, the less disabled did better than those with higher degrees of disability. Also, the secondary progressive patients tended to do better than the primary progressive patients. But remember, these were very small numbers, only a total of 20 patients of which only four had PPMS. But generally, we saw a drop off in response rates in patients with EDSS 6.5 and above.

WK: Why do you think there was this drop-off in efficacy seen in patients with EDSS 6.5 and above?

Dr. Sadiq: I think the integrity of axons is probably a key factor in whether they will rehabilitate or not. If you still have an electrical connection, it’s easier to repair, and scar formation from lesions probably also impedes repair. The less structural damage there is, the easier it is to repair the problem.

WK: What are your thoughts on repairing the damage of patients with higher levels of disability, who currently must rely on wheelchairs?

Dr. Sadiq: I think these are our hardest challenges. Once we can figure out how to eliminate scar tissue in the central nervous system, that will really open the door (WK note: scar tissue is created by the damage done by long-standing MS lesions). At one point we were using enzymes to try to eliminate scars. Once we can understand not just remyelination but also the regeneration of axons, I think that will be the way to achieve the goal of restoring function in more disabled patients (WK Note: axons are the long threadlike part of a nerve cell along which impulses are conducted from the cell body to other cells). That’s why we are so focused in our lab in trying to figure out primary progressive multiple sclerosis.

WK: Were any of the patients complete nonresponders?

Dr. Sadiq: Yes, there were. Some of the PPMS patients as well as some of the more disabled SPMS patients.

WK: You mentioned the lack of a placebo-controlled group. I’d like for a minute to discuss the placebo effect because many patients don’t, I think, have a very good understanding of what the placebo effect actually entails. Many believe that when improvements are attributed to the placebo effect that these benefits are being disparaged as imaginary or “made up” by the patient. Could you comment on the science behind the placebo effect?

Dr. Sadiq: The placebo effect is real. It’s scientifically shown to be real. Even in cancer trials, whatever the mechanism, it’s real. It’s not simply psychological. It’s a conviction where the patient thinks they are going to get better and somehow that has a physical impact. Now whether the brain produces certain well-being cytokines or humoral factors or if you get an endocrine surge, somehow that has a positive effect that we still don’t fully understand. Since the late 1950s, the placebo effect has been recognized as a genuine phenomenon. In fact, there is a case of a cancer patient who got cured even though they had been given a placebo and not the drug being tested. So it’s not just some insignificant, mild effect. Generally, it’s considered that in any study without a placebo arm there’s about a 30% effect that can be attributed to placebo. This is real, when the patient is hopeful, the patient often feels better.

The thing about our study which is encouraging and leads me to believe the improvements we saw are not all attributable to the placebo effect is that we saw the most improvements in the patients that were the least disabled. This is something you would expect to see in a double-blind trial. In our trial, we probably chose the worst patients to study in that they had the disease for many years and most of the patients had significant disability. Our mean EDSS was 6.8 at baseline. Our average disease duration was about 18 years. These are never the patients who are chosen for pharmaceutical company studies, who are generally much less disabled and have shorter disease duration. The patients we used actually stacked the study’s chances against getting any positive effect.

WK: Just to be clear about EDSS, what’s the difference between 6.0, 6.5, and 7.0?

Dr. Sadiq: 6.0 is somebody who needs a cane to walk, 6.5 is somebody who needs bilateral assistance like a walker or bilateral crutches, and a 7.0 is a somebody who requires a wheelchair.

WK: In the trial, what kind of results did you see in patients who were EDSS 7 or above?

Dr. Sadiq: We saw two patients who had not been able to take more than a step or two who after treatment were able to walk with a walker for 25 feet. Whether that was placebo or not, I don’t know because this level of effect hard to explain. This was out of 10 patients who needed wheelchairs. It’s certainly intriguing.

WK: So two out of ten patients who hadn’t been able to ambulate at all and were entirely reliant on wheelchairs before the trial were able to walk with the aid of a walker for 25 feet after the study, correct?

Dr. Sadiq: Yes.

WK: Well, placebo or not, that seems like a remarkable result.

Dr. Sadiq: Yes, but we need to see if similar results are seen when we do the Phase 2 trial, which will be specifically designed to assess efficacy.

I hope readers have found Part One of my interview with Dr. Sadiq useful and informative. Look for Part Two next week, in which the Phase 2 study and just how the stem cells might work are explored. We’ll also talk about some of the other research currently being conducted in the Tisch Center’s laboratories.

An Interview with Dr. Saud Sadiq – FDA Approves Phase II MS Stem Cell Study Conducted by Tisch Research Center of New York

In some dramatic news regarding stem cell treatments for Multiple Sclerosis, the FDA has given its first ever approval for a Phase II Multiple Sclerosis regenerative stem cell trial to the Tisch MS Research Center of New York.

Most previous attempts at using stem cells to repair MS damage have involved intravenously infusing a basic type of stem cell (called mesenchymal stem cells) back into the patient from which they were taken. The Tisch Center (click here) takes this approach several steps further, using proprietary methods to transform raw mesenchymal stem cells into a type of stem cell known as neural progenitors, which are specific to the central nervous system. The cells are then injected directly into the spinal fluid of trial subjects, where, in theory, they should be more effective than raw mesenchymal stem cells at effecting repairs and combating the disease. The Phase I results of the Tisch center’s trial thus far have been quite impressive, offering MS patients worldwide a glimpse into the future of MS treatments and some tangible reasons for hope.

A press release put out by the Tisch Center provides details on what has already been accomplished in the Phase I trial, and what is being planned for the upcoming Phase II study:

"Our unprecedented Phase I results have propelled us into the next phase of research," said Dr. Saud A. Sadiq, Chief Research Scientist at Tisch MSRCNY and the study's principal investigator. He added, "No treatment has shown reversal of established disability until now. The objective improvement experienced in bladder function, vision and walking speed in both secondary and primary progressive MS is remarkable. We now plan to establish efficacy of stem cells as a reparative therapy in Phase II."

The Phase II trial will be a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial with forty patients in a crossover design. Stem cells are taken from the patient’s bone marrow and manipulated to become brain-like neural cells, a process created and found only at Tisch MSRCNY.  All treatments and research will be conducted at the Tisch MS Research Center of New York and will expand to include an additional leading MS center.

The main obstacle in intiating the study is the need for critical funding. Once funding is obtained, patients will be recruited and the study is anticipated to commence in the summer of 2016.

I had the chance to talk with Dr. Sadiq (who just so happens to be my MS neurologist) about this ongoing and groundbreaking MS stem cell trial, as well as other stem cell related topics. The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity…

How long did it take the Tisch Center laboratories to develop the proprietary process to produce neural progenitor cells from raw mesenchymal stem cells?

Dr. Sadiq: It took about 2 ½ years of intensive lab work, and our lab is the only lab in the world currently using this process.

Is this type of stem cell treatment considered a cure, or can patients expect to require repeated treatments in order to maintain whatever benefits they achieve?

Dr. Sadiq: All of this is still in the experimental phases, so we really don’t know how long the treatments will need to be continued in order to maintain benefit. It’s likely there will be an initial induction period where we will do a number of frequent treatments to induce repair and then to maintain the benefits I think it will require less frequent treatments. But I anticipate that some treatments will need to be given for the duration of the illness, until we find the cure.

What was the treatment protocol during the Phase I trial, and what will the treatment protocol be during the Phase II trial?

Dr. Sadiq: In Phase I we did three treatments over the course of one year, which seemed necessary in order to get some benefit. We don’t know whether the Phase I patients will continue to show benefit or not without further treatment. In the Phase II trial, we are proposing six treatments over a year followed by no treatments over a year to see if benefits are sustained. There will be a control group as well, who will get no treatments the first year and then get six treatments the second year. I anticipate less frequent treatments will be needed to maintain benefit for the duration of the disease until we find a cure.

And would this hold true for any type of regenerative stem cell treatment, such as those being offered by some of the for-profit clinics at which many patients are seeking a single treatment or a single round of treatments over a relatively short period of time?

Dr. Sadiq: Most likely yes, it’s been shown that one treatment probably would be insufficient to even start regeneration. You’ll need multiple treatments…

Are the effects of the regenerative stem cell treatments cumulative?

Dr. Sadiq: You know, we don’t know that yet, in the Phase II trial we intend to collect data on this question…

How much more effective are the neural progenitor cells than the raw mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) that have been used in other trials?

Dr. Sadiq: Well, as far as I’m aware, the way MSCs have been used in trials so far, there’s not been a single trial that has shown real substantial benefit with MSCs. There’s been some very mild improvements seen in the Cambridge trials, which used one dose given intravenously. It could be that they didn’t use fresh cells or they didn’t use the proper route of administration. Our trial administers the cells intrathecally, directly into the spinal canal. It could be that raw MSCs are in fact effective, but the trials I’ve seen didn’t use multiple dosing. So it’s very difficult to compare the two. But in our hands we found that neural progenitor cells given intrathecally are more effective than raw MSCs.

How much funding is needed for the Phase II trial?

Dr. Sadiq: For the Phase II trial alone we need about $3 million, but for the actual support that we need to build out and expand the labs I’m looking to get $10 million. We need expanded lab facilities and an animal testing facility in place to properly conduct the Phase II trials.

And how much money have you already raised?

Dr. Sadiq: Planning for Phase II we just started, so we haven’t raised anything yet. We have talked to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, we’ve talked to the National Institutes of Health. We are submitting a grant proposal to the NIH, and the MS Society Is in consultation with me currently to try to arrange funding. We’ll will have to apply for funding grant from the NMSS. We do have a pledge of about $3 million from one donor.

Wow, you have a pledge of $3 million from one donor?

Dr. Sadiq: Yes.

Is the Phase II trial on hold until all of the funding is in place?

Dr. Sadiq: The trial is not on hold, we are really just starting to think about implementation. We just received FDA approval, and we are going to get another MS center involved, I’m in talks with another MS center here in New York, and then after they’re on board we will get things going. So even if we got all the funding right now, we wouldn’t be able to start the trial until late summer 2016. Right now were planning on starting the trial in July or August 2016.

Assuming everything goes as planned, and there aren’t any unforeseen problems, how long do you think it would be until the type of treatment you are trialing would reach common clinical practice?

Dr. Sadiq: It will probably be by the end of the decade, by 2020 I hope if everything goes well.

Do you think there’s any difference in effectiveness between bone marrow derived and adipose (fat cell) derived stem cells?

Dr. Sadiq: Well, we’re not sure. We started working with bone marrow derived cells from the beginning, but adipose derived may turn out to be better because adipose tissues contain a greater number of MSCs, so you may be able to get a better harvest. But because the FDA oversees every project from start to finish, and our trials began using bone marrow derived cells, if we started using adipose cells now we have to go back to the drawing board with the FDA. So in order to continue our ongoing trial protocols, since we started with bone marrow derived cells, we will continue using bone marrow derived cells.

Do you have any thoughts on the clinics that are currently doing mini liposuctions and then re-injecting the cells intravenously the same day or the day after?

Dr. Sadiq: These clinics are just using the stromal fraction, and nobody really knows what that achieves. This process is really not a stem cell therapy, since the stromal fraction only includes a small number of MSCs. It seems like these clinics just want to make money, there’s no evidence that this method would be effective, at least when dealing with neurodegeneration.

What other avenues of research are being pursued in the Tisch MS center’s labs that you consider most promising?

Dr. Sadiq: My goal in life is to find the cause of MS, and that’s really where I concentrate my efforts. I think we have a number of discoveries that are coming together now and I hope that one day soon we will be able to declare that we’ve found the cause of MS.

We do a lot of work with biomarkers as well. In this Phase II trial we are going to look at all the biomarkers that are associated with clinical response, to be able to identify a marker that will be able to predict which patients have the best chance of responding and seeing benefit, and through what mechanisms they are getting better. This is very important work but it’s not the work that drives me to come into the clinic every day at 4 AM.

What does drive you to come to work every day at four in the morning?

Dr. Sadiq: That’s to find the cure to this damned disease.



I can personally attest to Dr. Sadiq’s obsession with finding the cause of and cure for MS. Through the years, Dr. Sadiq and I have developed quite a strong bond, and I know from experience that he can be found hard at work in his clinic and laboratory nearly round the clock, very often at least six days a week. I’ve spoken to Dr. Sadiq via telephone at all hours of the day and night, and have even had office visits with him on the day after Christmas. He once showed up at my bedside at 3 AM when I was hospitalized and suffering miserably from MS related symptoms, to simply be there with me and literally hold my hand. Not your typical doctor, to be sure.

As Dr. Sadiq makes clear, funding is of the utmost importance in order to get this trial up and running in as timely a fashion as possible. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done, and all donations, no matter how small, will make a difference.

As a long-suffering MS patient myself, I know that friends and family are often eager for ways to help fight the disease. While there are many worthy MS charities, in my opinion the biggest bang for the MS donation buck can be had by donating to the Tisch MS Research Center of New York. Donations to the Tisch Center will directly serve to hasten the completion of these stem cell trials and hopefully bring this exciting technology to MS patients worldwide. Please pass the word along, and (click here) to donate.

A big thank you to all who participate in and contribute to this project, and to all the Wheelchair Kamikaze readers that have made their voices heard at the NMSS in regard to funding the Tisch Center’s efforts. It appears that the MS Society may finally be ready to listen, and hopefully the NMSS will this time come through with funding for this vital research.

I’ll keep you posted…

Recent Research on HSCT, the Stem Cell Therapy That May Soon Change the MS Treatment Landscape.

(Please note: the following article is quite long. Though it covers a very important topic and I’ve tried to make it as accessible as possible, I’d suggest getting comfy and grabbing a nice beverage before diving in…)

Over the last six months or so, there has been a wave of new and encouraging research published regarding HSCT (Hematopoietic Stem Cell Therapy) for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. HSCT is the type of stem cell therapy in which a patient’s existing immune system is completely eradicated through the use of powerful chemotherapy drugs and is then rebooted via an infusion of their own stem cells. Some of the results reported have been nothing short of astounding, and even previously skeptical neurologists are now being forced to consider HSCT as a potential game changer that may significantly impact the MS treatment landscape sometime in the not-too-distant future.

So that this article doesn’t take on the length of a Russian novel, rather than getting into the detailed specifics of what HSCT is and isn't I’d like to concentrate on the recent HSCT published research and its implications. For a comprehensive overview of HSCT, please read my previous post on the subject by (clicking here). For a rundown on the different types of stem cell therapies currently being trialed in MS, please (click here).

Just a few things before delving into the research. It’s vitally important that patients not confuse HSCT with regenerative stem cell therapy, which attempts to directly repair the central nervous system damage done by MS. HSCT is a completely different approach with a completely different goal. Regenerative stem cell therapy, such as that being trialed at the Tisch Center in New York (click here) generally does not involve any direct manipulation of patients’ immune systems. HSCT, on the other hand, is entirely directed at providing patients with a new immune system after completely wiping out their presumably defective existing set of immune cells. The two treatment approaches couldn’t be any more different; their only similarity is that they both use stem cells in an attempt to combat multiple sclerosis, albeit in very different ways.

There are currently two forms of HSCT being trialed on MS patients, termed the myeloblative and non-myeloblative treatment protocols. The myeloblative protocol uses a combination of very strong chemotherapy drugs to completely ablate (a fancy word for “destroy”) patients’ immune systems as well as their bone marrow (immune system cells are manufactured in the bone marrow). Non-myeloblative HSCT uses a gentler chemotherapy regimen that takes down the immune system but leaves bone marrow intact. There is some debate among researchers as to which treatment protocol is best suited for combating MS, an issue that is still being sorted out.

There’s also the question of which patients are most likely to respond to HSCT. Because HSCT is directed entirely at replacing a patient’s presumably defective immune system with a new one that doesn’t attack the body’s own nervous system cells, the prevailing thinking is that only patients displaying the hallmarks of immune system driven multiple sclerosis would likely respond well to the treatment. With this in mind, most HSCT research and treatment centers restrict the treatment to patients with active inflammatory MS, meaning that eligible patients must have recently experienced multiple MS relapses and/or displayed enhancing lesions on their MRI images (enhancing lesions are indicators of immune activity within the central nervous system). Since this excludes many secondary progressive (SPMS) and most primary progressive (PPMS) patients, who experience increasing disability in the complete absence of relapses or enhancing lesions, these requirements are understandably the source of much consternation among this patient population (myself included), who are currently presented with no effective treatment options. More on this later.

With these issues in mind, let’s take a look at some of the recently published HSCT research and explore the issues they raise…

A study out of Chicago that used the gentler, non-myeloblative form of HSCT on 151 MS patients (123 RRMS, 28 SPMS) resulted in some startling results on the RRMS patients taking part in the trial (click here). Not only did the vast majority of these patients see their disease stop in its tracks, but a large proportion also saw their levels of disability improve. Four years after treatment, 80% of trial subjects remained relapse free, and 87% showed no signs of disease progression. Furthermore, and perhaps even more astounding, there was a decrease in the disability scores in 50% of patients two years after treatment, and in 64% of patients four years after undergoing the treatment protocol without any further follow-up treatment (click here). Given that a reduction in disability scores is almost unheard of when treating MS patients, these are eye-popping results, to say the least, tempered only by the fact that the SPMS patients included in the trial were reported to have shown no benefit.

This trial was headed up by Dr. Richard Burt of Northwestern University, a leading HSCT researcher. I tried to reach out to Dr. Burt via email with several questions before writing this piece, but unfortunately received no reply. A very informative interview with Dr. Burt is available by (clicking here). If anybody out there knows Dr. Burt, please tell him I’m still patiently waiting for his email reply, fully understanding that he’s a very busy man. In the meantime, if Dr. Burt should find himself in New York City and happens to get run over by a speeding wheelchair, I’ll swear on a stack of research papers that I had nothing to do with it.

A smaller, 25 patient study, called HALT-MS, which used a harsher myeloblative chemotherapy regimen on patients with highly active relapsing disease who had failed to see benefit from at least two previous MS drugs reported impressive interim results (click here). Though study subjects are scheduled to be tracked for five years, the results reported were a snapshot of these patients at the three year mark after treatment. After three years, 78.4% of trial subjects were reported to be free of any disability progression, relapses, or new lesions. Digging deeper into the results revealed that 90.9% of subjects were progression free and 86.3% were relapse free after 36 months. Very impressive.

I managed to get hold of the full published paper of this study, which indicated that although the numbers had not yet been fully crunched, it did appear that the effect of the treatment lessened with time, as fewer patients were reported to be free of signs of the disease at the four and five year marks (68.6% and 58.8% respectively). Again, though, these four and five year numbers were very preliminary, as not all patients had reached this duration after treatment.

A friend of mine, Dave Bexfield, who runs the terrific MS website/forum Active MSers (click here) was one of the participants in the HALT-MS trial. Five years ago Dave was getting absolutely slammed by his disease despite having been on a series of MS drugs. He qualified for the HALT-MS trial and received myeloblative HSCT. His tremendously aggressive RRMS was put entirely into remission for several years, but unfortunately, after five years, Dave recently reported that his disease has shown signs of reawakening (click here) and he is now planning on going on one of the newer, more powerful MS drugs. Dave told me that even though his disease has returned, he has no regrets about undergoing HSCT back in 2010. Without the treatment he is sure the disease would have by now left him completely disabled, and HSCT bought him time at a point when it looked like multiple sclerosis would get the better of him. There are highly effective treatment options available today that weren’t available five years ago, and despite the reemergence of some of his MS symptoms, Dave is very grateful to have taken part in the study.

An Italian team did a head-to-head test of the effectiveness of HSCT versus mitoxantrone (also known as Novantrone) on SPMS patients who had enhancing lesions on their MRIs (click here), the presence of which indicated that they still had an active inflammatory component to their disease.

Currently, mitoxantrone is the only approved drug for use on patients suffering from SPMS. It’s a fairly wicked drug, so toxic to the heart that patients can only stay on it for a limited amount of time. Additionally, mitoxantrone has been linked to a dangerous increase in specific forms of leukemia and lymphoma. As a result of this daunting side effect profile, the use of mitoxantrone has largely fallen out of favor with most MS neurologists.

This phase 2 study used an intensive myeloblative form of HSCT on a small group of study subjects (21, 17 of whom completed the study), and the primary endpoint of the study was a reduction in the number of enhancing lesions detected by MRI. Four years after treatment, HSCT resulted in a 79% reduction in new lesions as compared to those treated with mitoxantrone Unfortunately, no difference in disease progression was reported, but the study was not ideally set up to detect changes in disease progression, a metric which has proven to be very difficult to track even in studies specifically designed to detect disability progression. An editorial accompanying the study, which adds commentary to the statistics provided in the study abstract, should be of interest to all readers (click here).

A very small study out of Hamburg, Germany attempted to directly address the difference in effectiveness of HSCT between RRMS patients with enhancing lesions and progressive MS patients not displaying lesion enhancement (click here). This very small 10 patient trial (four progressive MSers, six with RRMS) compared the results between the two groups two and half years after treatment. The researchers found that although five of the six RRMS patients did show benefit from treatment, none of the progressive patients followed suit. It should be noted that the RRMS patients were considerably less disabled at the start of the study than the progressive test subjects (EDSS 4.25 versus EDSS 6.25).

Previous studies have found that approximately 40% of patients with early PPMS display enhancing lesions on their MRIs (click here) and the presence of such lesions early in the disease may be an indicator of a more aggressive disease course. Patients undergoing the transition from RRMS to SPMS frequently continue to have enhancing lesions for some time after their disease has gone mostly progressive. Remember, enhancing lesions are a sign of active inflammation in the central nervous system, an indicator that the immune system is playing a primary role in driving the disease forward. Since HSCT directly attacks the peripheral immune system, it stands to reason that the treatment would be most effective on patients with active immune system involvement. In the later stages of SPMS, and in the majority of cases of PPMS, it appears that some other as yet undiscovered neurodegenerative process is at work, a process which seems impervious to treatments targeting the peripheral immune system. Studies testing some of the latest potent immunosuppressive drugs – which are highly effective in treating RRMS – on progressive patients have repeatedly failed, the latest such study involving the drug Gilenya (click here). For those of us with progressive MS such failures are very discouraging, and it is with great hope that I’ve looked for hard data supporting the notion that HSCT may benefit even hard-core progressive MSers, which leads us to the final study to be discussed…

Lastly, a study out of Moscow, Russia (click here) provided data suggesting that HSCT might be beneficial to progressive patients who don’t have enhancing lesions (as stated earlier, this includes many SPMS patients and the majority of PPMS patients). Unlike most HSCT treatment centers, the center in Moscow accepts patients with all types of MS (RRMS, SPMS, PRMS, and PPMS), regardless of whether or not they have enhancing lesions on their MRIs or have recently experienced relapses.. A total of 99 patients were included in the study, 43 with RRMS and 56 with various forms of progressive MS.

The summary of this study revealed that 49 months after undergoing treatment, 83.3% of RRMS patients and 75.5% of progressive patients exhibited no signs of relapses or disease progression. After eight years, 45% of treated patients exhibited an improvement in mobility scores, while 45% remained stable. These are compelling numbers, to say the least, particularly for someone like me who has never had enhancing lesions but has nevertheless experienced a constant progression of disability. So compelling, in fact, that I asked a physician friend of mine to provide me the full paper (I could have bought it myself for $40 but most doctors can get research papers for free, and, hey, that’s what friends are for) so that I could dig deeper into this apparently promising research.

Upon reading the full paper (sorry, I can’t link to it because of copyright laws) my enthusiasm was tempered a bit. Although the paper states that only 40% of study subjects had exhibited enhancing lesions before undergoing HSCT, it turns out that this statistic was based on a single MRI done soon before the patients underwent therapy. A single MRI can easily miss enhancing lesions, especially if patients had been on disease modifying drugs, which is why most HSCT centers require patients to have exhibited enhancing lesions and/or relapses (which are almost universally accompanied by enhancing lesions) at some point during the full year prior to treatment.

Additionally, the scope of the disease histories of the patients treated in Moscow varied widely and in many cases was severely deficient. The full paper clearly states this, saying that “patients enrolled in the study previously have been treated in different centers, and the information about disease activity prior in the disease course and its treatment was inhomogeneous and in some cases quite scarce.” I found this sentence to be disquieting, as without comprehensive disease and treatment histories it’s almost impossible to accurately assess the disease state of any individual patient suffering from an illness as complicated as multiple sclerosis. In fact, the abstract of the study, which is available to the general public, even warns that because of this dearth of patient info “comparison with the results in the literature should be done with caution.” This line throws up a big red flag, as the ability to compare and replicate results from study to study is among the foundational basics of the scientific method.

Furthermore, despite publishing statistics that appear to indicate the treatment as practiced in Moscow was effective across a wide spectrum of MS patients, the authors state that “the best candidates for transplantation seem to be relatively young patients with active inflammatory lesions of relatively short duration and rapidly progressive disease, but still low disability scores, unresponsive to conventional therapy.” This was among a number of apparently contradictory elements contained in this research that left me with more questions than answers. While these results certainly can’t be discounted entirely, without a comprehensive, detailed data set it’s impossible to properly discern their value and validity when compared to other studies, a point the authors themselves reiterate on several occasions.

Based on this accumulated HSCT research, certain trends seem clear. HSCT treatment definitely seems remarkably effective on patients with active inflammatory relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis, in the majority of cases resulting in complete remission of the disease for five or more years, sometimes accompanied by a reduction in disability as well. This is far more effective than any of the currently approved disease modifying drugs with the possible exception of Lemtrada, whose mechanism of action in many ways mirrors that of HSCT (for more information on Lemtrada, which was recently approved by the FDA and is covered by most insurance companies, please click here and here).

The safety profile of HSCT as now practiced seems quite robust. None of the above studies reported any HSCT related mortalities, although some serious adverse events above and beyond those that would be considered normal for patients undergoing chemotherapy were described (most in the form of opportunistic infections). Clearly, the decision to undergo HSCT should not be taken lightly, as at its heart the treatment involves using strong chemotherapy drugs to completely eradicate a patient’s existing immune system. Multiple sclerosis is serious business, though, and many patients would gladly accept this risk/reward scenario for a chance at complete remission lasting years or even decades.

Despite the fact that there are credible anecdotal reports on various HSCT websites from progressive MS patients who state that they’ve been helped by the treatment, and even though I’ve desperately wanted – for my own selfish reasons – to find research to back up such statements, I’ve yet to come across any hard data to back up these claims. Research has shown that the treatment can be effective on progressive patients showing signs of active inflammatory disease (enhancing lesions), but there is little hard objective evidence to support the notion that HSCT benefits patients experiencing progression in the absence of active inflammation.

Because the rate of disability progression varies widely from patient to patient suffering from progressive MS, and can sometimes temporarily “plateau” or even cease entirely, predicting disease progression can be quite difficult, even for patients themselves. Using myself as an example, my wife likes to chide me that I’ve been telling her that I’ll probably be bedridden in six months for the last five years. In order to properly assess the effectiveness of any treatment for progressive MS using disability scores as markers, studies would need to last much longer than the 2-3 years typical MS trials generally run, which is among the reasons why so few trials on progressive MS have been conducted. Even in the recent, much talked about successful study involving the use of biotin to treat progressive MS patients (click here), it was shown that after one year only 13% of patients taking placebo showed evidence of disease progression (compared to 4% taking biotin). I certainly hope that the patients with nonenhancing progressive MS reporting benefit do turn out to be success stories and that some form of HSCT does demonstrably prove effective on noninflammatory multiple sclerosis, but so far, at least, the data is lacking.

Also lacking is long-term data on the durability of HSCT derived benefits on patients of all stripes. One older study (click here) looked at patients with aggressive multiple sclerosis 15 years after treatment and found that 44% of patients who had exhibited enhancing lesions before treatment and 10% who didn’t remained progression free. It should be noted that the patients included in this study were treated with earlier, much harsher forms of chemotherapy, and one would hope that the refinements made in the technique more recently would increase durability.

Although all of the studies reported on in this article are considered early to mid-stage trials, they do suggest that HSCT is an extremely promising and potentially game changing treatment for multiple sclerosis. Further trials will be necessary before HSCT receives any kind of official approval for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Although the treatment is being offered to patients in quite a few clinics around the world, the cost is quite high and most insurance companies will not cover the expense. Given the exorbitant cost of multiple sclerosis drugs, though, as more reliable data is released this situation should change. Paying $100,000 for a one-time treatment that keeps the disease at bay for even 5-7 years is far more cost-effective than paying the roughly $50,000-$60,000 per year currently charged for the FDA approved disease modifying drugs, a point that I’m sure will not be lost on the insurance company bean counters. It should be interesting to see how the pharmaceutical companies react to the HSCT threat to their bottom lines.

Those patients currently considering HSCT therapy should limit their choice of treatment centers to those which have extensive experience administering HSCT, as study after study has shown that safety and efficacy increases exponentially with the number of procedures done. This treatment is not to be taken lightly, and cutting corners for cost or convenience could prove quite the egregious mistake.

Given the current quickening pace of HSCT research, I would guess that the treatment could approach widespread acceptance sometime within the next five years, as long as the financial considerations of the pharmaceutical companies don’t get in the way (and that may prove to be a mighty big if). Based on the latest data, once approved HSCT should prove to be the most effective treatment available for patients with very aggressive active inflammatory multiple sclerosis, but will likely be reserved for those patients who have first failed current frontline therapies. As for patients with nonenhancing progressive disease, though objective hard data supporting the use of HSCT is lacking, given the anecdotal evidence I hope and expect expect future research will be done on such patients in an attempt to clarify the matter. The stakes are quite high for these patients, and even if the odds of success seem slight, the potential gains warrant further investigation. With neuroregenerative and neuroprotective compounds now in the research pipeline, and with HSCT offering so much promise, there is much reason for MSers to harbor hope for a brighter future.

Stay strong, my friends…

Geez, what was that I said about this article not becoming as long as a Russian novel? Maybe I should change my name to Tolstoy (many apologies to Tolstoy)…

Glimmers of Hope for Progressive MS: Human Stem Cell Trial, Biotin Study Both Show Efficacy

Progressive multiple sclerosis is a particularly horrendous and intractable illness. Unlike the relapsing remitting form of the disease, for which there are currently 12 approved treatment options (however imperfect these may be), there is tragically little available for progressive MS patients (one very flawed treatment option for SPMS and none for PPMS). At the recent American Academy of Neurology meetings, held last week in Washington DC, some rays of hope for progressive MS finally shone through, among them studies done on honest-to-goodness human progressive MS patients – as opposed to those done on mice or in test tubes – that show particular promise.

As I’ve written about extensively (click here ), the Tisch MS Research Center of New York is currently conducting the only FDA approved regenerative human stem cell trial on MS patients in the United States. Yes, this is the very same study that the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has repeatedly refused to fund (click here). Though this phase 1 trial is not yet complete, interim results were released at the AAN meeting, and they look impressive.

The Tisch Center utilizes a unique approach to using stem cells to treat MS, quite unlike the techniques used in previous regenerative stem cell trials or the stem cell treatments being offered by for-profit operations scattered around the world. Employing proprietary methodology developed in the Tisch Center’s research laboratories, raw mesenchymal stem cells – harvested from each patient’s bone marrow – are transformed into stem cells specific to the human nervous system, called neural progenitor cells. The 20 patients enrolled in this early stage trial will each receive three spinal (intrathecal) injections of neural progenitor cells, spaced three months apart. The interim results released last week report on the nine patients who have thus far begun treatment (click here).

Of these nine patients, seven displayed some form of disease improvement. Six of these seven patients suffer from SPMS, and one from PPMS. Based on neurologic exams, five of these seven patients displayed improved motor functions, including better balance, increase muscle strength, and improved ambulation. Six of the patients reported better bladder function. No significant adverse events were reported. Here’s a graphic detailing the Tisch Center stem cell trial results on a patient by patient basis, taken from the poster presented at the AAN meetings. To view the full poster, please (click here).

While exciting, it’s important to keep these results in perspective. We’re looking at a very small patient population taking part in an early phase 1 trial whose primary endpoint is establishing the safety of the treatment. That said, given the intractability of progressive MS, seeing any significant improvement is extremely encouraging, and these early results certainly validate the approach to regenerative stem cell therapy being taken by the Tisch Center.

Alarmingly, though, the Tisch Center is now facing a fund-raising crisis that threatens to impede the phase 2 extension of this study, as well as much of the other groundbreaking MS research currently underway in the Tisch laboratories. In previous posts I’ve expressed my extreme distress at the NMSS’s repeated refusals to fund research being done at the Tisch Center, and due to unforeseen circumstances the Center’s funding shortfall is now being felt quite acutely. The animal research laboratory used by Tisch Center scientists is being closed as a result of the sale of the hospital in which it’s located (only a block away from the Tisch MS Center), leaving the Center with no viable alternative other than constructing their own facility, which will require a massive fund-raising effort.

Since I’d rather this post concentrate on the research itself, I urge all readers to click here for more information regarding this fund-raising crunch, and to spread the word far and wide. While the Tisch Center is actively conducting the only current FDA approved MS stem cell trial on human beings, the NMSS funds preclinical stem cell experiments being done in test tubes and on mice that, even if spectacularly successful, won’t reach MS patients for more than a decade. Just saying…

(Full disclosure: I am a patient at the MS clinic directly associated with the Tisch MS Research Center of New York, and my MS as well as other physical ailments have been totally kicking my ass lately. So, yeah, I might take this crap just a wee bit personally.)

Another much-anticipated study presented at last week’s AAN conference provided yet more hope for progressive MS patients, though perhaps not as much as originally anticipated. The French pharmaceutical company MedDay released the results of a stage III clinical trial involving the use of massive doses of Biotin to treat patients with Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (PPMS) and Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (SPMS).

Biotin (vitamin B7, also known As Vitamin H or Coenzyme R) has been used in much lower doses as an over-the-counter “nutraceutical” supplement to treat brittle hair and nails, some skin conditions, and neuropathy brought on by type II diabetes, among other applications (click here). Biotin is known to be necessary for cell growth, the production of fatty acids, and the metabolism of fats and amino acids (click here).

A small pilot study researching the use of high doses of Biotin to treat MS was conducted by MedDay starting in 2013. This initial study produced astounding results, with 91.3% of the 23 progressive MS patients involved displaying improvements in their neurologic condition (click here). This small, unblinded, non-placebo-controlled trial created much excitement, leaving patients and researchers awaiting the results of a much larger placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, which was completed in late 2014. The results of this phase 3 trial were presented at the AAN conferences on Friday, April 24, 2015.

In this late stage study, conducted at 19 centers around France, patients were given 300 mg of Biotin per day, which is the equivalent of approximately 10,000 times the maximum daily recommended dosage. The study involved 154 patients, 103 given Biotin and 51 given a placebo. The results of this study (click here), while positive, don’t appear to be nearly as compelling as had been anticipated based on the early pilot study results.

The results of MedDay’s late stage study revealed that after 12 months, 12.3% of the Biotin treated patients displayed a verified improvement in disability scores, as opposed to 0% of the placebo group. Secondarily, 4% of Biotin treated patients displayed disease progression after one year, versus 13% in the placebo group. Very few adverse events, all considered non-serious, were reported. While these numbers pale in comparison with those seen in the initial pilot study, they still represent a breakthrough of sorts in treating advanced progressive MS, which thus far has defied almost all attempts at treatment.

Looked at another way, about 1 in 8 patients treated with Biotin saw their disability scores improve, while 1 in 25 saw their disease progress. Interestingly, only 1 in 8 (I’m using ballpark figures here) untreated patients experienced disease progression. While these aren’t the kind of results many hoped for based on the early Biotin study results (9 in 10 patients experiencing neurologic improvement), they are still better than nothing, which is what mainstream medicine currently offers patients with advanced (non-relapsing) progressive MS.

Given these factors, many patients with progressive MS (myself included) have expressed great interest in giving Biotin a try, especially since the stuff is readily available in over-the-counter form. The highest dose capsules commercially available are 10 mg, meaning that a patient would need to take 30 capsules a day to replicate the doses used in MedDay’s trials, which administered 100 mg of biotin three times a day. There are a few serious problems with this approach, though, above and beyond the huge amount of capsules that would need to be ingested to replicate the doses used in MedDay’s trial.

First, the compound used in the MedDay trial is a highly concentrated and purified pharmaceutical grade form of Biotin called D-Biotin, a stereoisomer of Biotin that is extremely bioavailable (easily absorbed by the body) and contains active enzymes (click here). This type of Biotin is generally not available in over-the-counter capsules. Second, over-the-counter nutraceuticals are completely unregulated, and it’s almost impossible to know the purity of the compounds contained within the capsules or what other ingredients might also be present. One study found that a shocking one third of herbal supplements tested contained not a trace of primary ingredient the listed on the bottle (click here)! Additionally, some Biotin supplements contain calcium, which if taken in greater amounts can cause hypercalcemia, a potentially very serious medical condition (click here).

After consulting with a naturopathic physician, I'm looking into procuring ultra high grade, USP certified (click here) D-Biotin from a reputable wholesaler and having it put into properly dosed capsules through a compounding pharmacy (I'm doing this with my naturopath's help, of course, and will need a prescription in order to get the drug). While this approach is likely to be much more expensive than using over-the-counter product (probably about $300-$400/month), it will offer the best chance at replicating MedDay’s trials, and would certainly eliminate the vast uncertainties involved in consuming huge quantities of over-the-counter nutraceutical supplements.

So, there you have it, two clinical trials targeting progressive MS in very different ways, but coming up with encouraging results to one degree or another. While the Tisch Center stem cell therapy is still in early trials and is at least several years away from moving from the experimental stage to general clinical use, MedDay’s Biotin compound should be ready for FDA approval by the end of this year, and highly motivated patients might try to get a head start on things by taking matters into their own hands. Although the results of MedDay’s late stage phase 3 trial were a bit underwhelming, they do represent an important advance over the status quo, and many progressive MS patients are well past the “any port in a storm” stage.

As mentioned above, though, please take caution if you plan on going the over-the-counter Biotin route. Here’s a video featuring the terrific John Oliver explaining in his usual brilliant and sardonic fashion the pitfalls and perils of placing your trust in the nutritional supplements industry. If you are planning on trying over-the-counter biotin in the quantities required by the MedDay trial, this is an absolute must watch: