The Future Of Nano Technology
- Alan Watts
- Anti-Aging Medicine
- David Sinclair
- Gene Medicine
- Gene therapy
- Genetic Medicine
- Genetic Therapy
- Global News Feed
- Hormone Replacement Therapy
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Reproduction
- Integrative Medicine
- Life Skills
- Longevity Medicine
- Machine Learning
- Medical School
- Nano Medicine
- Parkinson's disease
- Quantum Computing
- Regenerative Medicine
- Stem Cell Therapy
- Stem Cells
- How researchers are mapping the future of quantum computing, using the tech of today – GeekWire
- Colorado makes a bid for quantum computing hardware plant that would bring more than 700 jobs – The Denver Post
- The Worldwide Quantum Computing Industry is Expected to Reach $1.7 Billion by 2026 – PRNewswire
- bp Joins the IBM Quantum Network to Advance Use of Quantum Computing in Energy – HPCwire
- The Fourth Industrial Revolution AI, Quantum, and IoT Impacts on Cybersecurity – Security Boulevard
- innie and outie labia
- when is grey\s anatomy available on disney plus nz
- eric crombez book chapter gene therapy
- nano technology immortality
- ASCO GU UROTUDAY
- cfats overlapping
- alzheimers prediction in writing
- slow and fast muscle review
- originators of life extension ideals
- Nanobiotix Subsidiary Curadigm Secures New Collaboration Agreement With Sanofi Focused on Gene Therapy Pipeline
|Search Immortality Topics:|
Category Archives: Stem Cell Therapy
Cultures with treated stem cells had a 50% higher stem cell survival rate than untreated cultures. Image by carolem41
Treating equine donor stem cells with a growth factor called TGF-2 may allow them to avoid tripping the immune response in recipients, according to new research.
The work carried out at North Carolina State University could simplify the stem cell treatment process for ligament and tendon injuries in horses, and may also have implications for human stem cell therapies.
Mesenchymal stem cell therapy is a promising avenue for treating musculoskeletal injuries, particularly tendon and ligament injuries, in horses.
Mesenchymal stem cells are adult stem cells found in bone marrow that act as repair directors, producing secretions that recruit healing-related paracrine factors to the site of injury.
Just as blood cells have types, depending upon which antigens are on the blood cells surface, mesenchymal stem cells have differing sets of major histocompatibility complex molecules, or MHCs, on their surfaces.
If the MHCs of donor and recipient arent a match, the donors stem cells cause an immune response. In organ transplants, MHCs are carefully matched to prevent rejection.
These treatments arent like a bone marrow transplant or an organ transplant, says Lauren Schnabel, associate professor of equine orthopedic surgery at the university and corresponding author of the study, reported in the journal Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology.
Since the mesenchymal stem cells are being used temporarily to treat localized injury, researchers once thought that they didnt need to be matched that they wouldnt cause an immune response. Unfortunately, that isnt the case.
Schnabel and Alix Berglund, a research scholar at the university and lead author of the paper, wanted to find a way to use mesenchymal stem cell therapy without the time, effort and additional cost of donor/recipient matching.
Since these cells dont have to be in the body as long as an organ does, hiding them from the immune system long enough for them to secrete their paracrine factors could be a way around donor/recipient matching, Berglund says. Downregulating expression of the MHC molecules could be one way to do this.
The researchers cultured stem cells and lymphocytes, or T cells, from eight horses, cross-pairing them in vitro so that the stem cells and lymphocytes had differing MHC haplotypes.
In one group, stem cells had been treated with transforming growth factor beta (TGF-2) prior to being added to the lymphocytes in the culture media; the other group was untreated. TGF-2 is a cell-signaling molecule produced by white blood cells that blocks immune responses.
Cultures with treated stem cells had a 50% higher stem cell survival rate than untreated cultures.
We use mesenchymal stem cells to treat musculoskeletal injuries particularly tendon injuries in horses very effectively, Schnabel says.
And while you can extract the secretions from the stem cells, you get better results with the cells themselves. Stem cells arent just a reservoir of secretions, theyre a communications hub that tells other cells what they should be doing. So finding a way to utilize these cells without stimulating immune response gives us better treatment options.
This is a promising pilot study, Berglund says. Our next steps will be to further explore the immune response in vivo, and to look at human cells in vitro, as this work has excellent potential to help humans with these injuries as well.
The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Morris Animal Foundation. Research specialist Julie Long and statistician James Robertson, both with the university, also contributed to the work.
TGF-b2 Reduces the Cell-Mediated Immunogenicity of Equine MHC-Mismatched Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Without Altering Immunomodulatory PropertiesAlix K. Berglund, Julie M. Long, James B. Robertson, Lauren V. SchnabelCell Dev. Biol., 04 February 2021 https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2021.628382
The study, published under a Creative Commons License, can be read here.
Read the original post:
Researchers curb local immune response in horses receiving stem cell injury therapy - Horsetalk
Global Stem Cell Partnering Terms and Agreements Directory 2020: Company AZ, Headline Value, Stage of Development at Signing, Deal Component Type,…
Dublin, Feb. 05, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Global Stem Cell Partnering Terms and Agreements 2010-2020" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.
The Global Stem Cell Partnering Terms and Agreements 2010-2020 report provides comprehensive understanding and unprecedented access to the stem cell partnering deals and agreements entered into by the worlds leading healthcare companies.
The report provides a detailed understanding and analysis of how and why companies enter Stem Cell partnering deals. These deals tend to be multicomponent, starting with collaborative R&D, and proceed to commercialization of outcomes.
This report provides details of the latest Stem Cell agreements announced in the life sciences since 2010.
The report takes the reader through a comprehensive review Stem Cell deal trends, key players, top deal values, as well as deal financials, allowing the understanding of how, why and under what terms, companies are entering Stem Cell partnering deals.
The report presents financial deal term values for Stem Cell deals, listing by headline value, upfront payments, milestone payments and royalties, enabling readers to analyse and benchmark the financial value of deals.
One of the key highlights of the report is that over 650 online deal records of actual Stem Cell deals, as disclosed by the deal parties, are included towards the end of the report in a directory format - by company A-Z, stage of development, deal type, therapy focus, and technology type - that is easy to reference. Each deal record in the report links via Weblink to an online version of the deal.
In addition, where available, records include contract documents as submitted to the Securities Exchange Commission by companies and their partners. Whilst many companies will be seeking details of the payment clauses, the devil is in the detail in terms of how payments are triggered - contract documents provide this insight where press releases and databases do not.
A comprehensive series of appendices is provided organized by Stem Cell partnering company A-Z, stage of development, deal type, and therapy focus. Each deal title links via Weblink to an online version of the deal record and where available, the contract document, providing easy access to each deal on demand.
The report also includes numerous tables and figures that illustrate the trends and activities in Stem Cell partnering and dealmaking since 2010.
Stem Cell Partnering Terms and Agreements includes:
In Global Stem Cell Partnering Terms and Agreements 2010-2020, the available deals are listed by:
Key Topics Covered:
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 2 - Trends in Stem Cell dealmaking2.1. Introduction2.2. Stem Cell partnering over the years2.3. Most active Stem Cell dealmakers2.4. Stem Cell partnering by deal type2.5. Stem Cell partnering by therapy area2.6. Deal terms for Stem Cell partnering2.6.1 Stem Cell partnering headline values2.6.2 Stem Cell deal upfront payments2.6.3 Stem Cell deal milestone payments2.6.4 Stem Cell royalty rates
Chapter 3 - Leading Stem Cell deals3.1. Introduction3.2. Top Stem Cell deals by value
Chapter 4 - Most active Stem Cell dealmakers4.1. Introduction4.2. Most active Stem Cell dealmakers4.3. Most active Stem Cell partnering company profiles
Chapter 5 - Stem Cell contracts dealmaking directory5.1. Introduction5.2. Stem Cell contracts dealmaking directory
Chapter 6 - Stem Cell dealmaking by technology type
Chapter 7 - Partnering resource center7.1. Online partnering7.2. Partnering events7.3. Further reading on dealmaking
For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/c8ppmy
Research and Markets also offers Custom Research services providing focused, comprehensive and tailored research.
Following stem cell transplant or treatment with CAR T-cell therapies, patients with hematologic malignancies and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) tend to have favorable outcomes, especially if they are diagnosed in complete remission (CR) and further out from their cell infusion, according to Miguel-Angel Perales, MD, underscoring that care should not be delayed despite the ongoing pandemic.
Delayed therapy results in patients with relapse or progression of disease who did not receive the intended cellular therapy; [weve seen this happen] in 34% of cases, Perales, chief of the Adult Bone Marrow Transplant Service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), said during a presentation delivered at the 2021 AACR Virtual Meeting on COVID-19 and Cancer.1 Given that we can avoid the risk of nosocomial transmission, I think this clearly indicates that we should be careful about how we manage these patients and not try to delay their care.
In his talk, Perales highlighted registry data detailing the impact of the pandemic on cellular treatment in patients with cancer, outcomes of patients who were infected with the virus and received hematopoietic cell transplantation, and the impact of virus-related delays in care.
Data reported to the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology, a global reference tool available to the public, showed that as of January 15, 2021, a total of 813 malignant and non-malignant cases of COVID-19 were reported, with just over 500 cases reported in the United States alone.2
When looking at cellular therapies received prior to a diagnosis with the virus, 10 patients had received CAR T-cell therapies (6 recovered, 4 died), 46 patients had undergone allogeneic stem cell transplantation (34 recovered, 7 died, 5 had unknown outcome), and the majority, or 78 patients, had undergone autologous stem cell transplantation (67 recovered, 7 died, 4 had unknown outcome).
An earlier analysis of data collected from this registry showed that among the first 250 patients for whom data were collected, the overall mortality rate was 28% (95% CI, 23%-34%).3 However, in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, the mortality rate was even higher, at 42% (95% CI, 34%-50%). This is a condition that has significantly impacted our patients with hematologic malignancies, noted Perales.
Another registry, of the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR), requires the inclusion of outcomes of patients who have undergone transplantation or received CAR T cells.4 As of January 15, 2021, data for 1258 patients from 195 centers were reported to the registry and showed that 50.08% of patients had undergone allogeneic transplantation and 44.66% had undergone autologous transplantation. Only a small percentage of patients received cell therapy, according to Perales.
The age of patients at the time of infection ranged from less than 20 years to older than 70 years, with the majority of patients between the ages of 60 years and 69 years. When looking at infections by region, 29.35% of cases were reported in the Midwest, 23.44% were reported in the Northeast, and 22.73% were reported in the South. The majority of cases occurred within the first 2 years of their infusion. A total of 614 casesalmost half of all patientshad their infection resolve, while 58 experienced improvement; 187 patients had died.
In a subsequent paper, investigators examined risk factors associated with death from COVID-19 in recipients of allogeneic transplantation based on data from the CIBTR registry.5 Results from the multivariate analysis showed that age greater than 50 years (P = .016), male gender (P = .006), and COVID-19 infection in less than 12 months following transplantation (P = .019) were all significantly associated with increased risk of death.
Interestingly, race and ethnicity were not significant in this series, noted Perales. Similarly, when we look at patients [who have undergone] autologous transplant, the only factor that we saw was the diagnosis of lymphoma versus myeloma. Other factors were not significant.
In another analysis, investigators examined outcomes of patients following transplant who were infected with the virus at MSKCC. Of the first 77 patients diagnosed between March 15, 2020 and May 7, 2020, 37 had undergone autologous transplant, 35 had undergone allogeneic transplant, and 5 had received CAR T-cell therapy.6
The disease distribution was as expected, according to Perales. Thirty-eight percent of patients had plasma cell disease, 23% had acute leukemia, 23% had aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), 5% had Hodgkin lymphoma, 4% had chronic myeloid leukemia, 4% had myelodysplastic syndrome, and 3% had indolent NHL.
When you look at day [of infection] post infusion, you see there was a significant range, said Perales. In fact, the number of patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 several months or even years after their cell therapy. These are the demographics of 77 patients, but this is representative of the patients that we transplant at our center.
Notably, 44% of patients did not have any comorbidities. Investigators also examined the home medications that patients were receiving at the time of their COVID-19 diagnosis. Here, 10 patients were receiving steroids, 18 were receiving immunomodulatory agents, 4 were receiving anticoagulation agents, and 14 were receiving immunosuppressive drugs.
Almost half, or 48%, of patients had mild COVID-19 infection, so they were not admitted to the hospital. Twenty-six percent of patients had moderate infection, and thus, were admitted to the hospital, while 22% had severe infection and were either admitted to the intensive care unit or died.
In that group, the majority of them actually had active malignancy, unlike the other 2 groups where the majority actually were in remission, said Perales. Patients who required high levels of oxygen [were often those who] had active malignancy.
Results from a univariate analysis looking at the predictors of disease severity revealed significant associations between the presence of comorbidities and infiltrates on imaging at the time of diagnosis. Overall, however, we were able to see favorable outcomes with patients after COVID-19 infection, said Perales. Two-thirds of patients actually had a resolution. We did see 14 deaths, which represented 18% of patients. This was 41% of patients who were admitted, but particularly those with an active malignancy.
Among patients who were admitted to the hospital but had a malignancy that was in remission, the mortality rate was 21%. This was due, in part, to the fact that in many cases, patients or their family members decided to forego aggressive medical care.
Additional data revealed that COVID-19 was linked with a drop in lymphocyte populations across the board, added Perales. Notably, lymphopenia with COVID-19 was not found to impair long-term immune reconstitution in patients who had undergone bone marrow transplant.
When looking at survival in patients after infection with COVID-19, overall outcomes were found to be favorable.
Investigators also examined the risk of nosocomial infections in patients who had undergone transplantation or received cellular treatment in light of the pandemic. They looked at a series of 44 cases.
In March 2020, 2 healthcare workers were exposed at MSKCC and 3 patients had documented COVID-19 infection. One patient was receiving treatment in the inpatient setting, but the patient did have frequent visits from family members, according to Perales. So, its unclear when or how the exposure occurred, Perales said. The patient ended up dying.
Two additional patients may have been exposed in the donor room while they were collecting the stem cell from the autologous transplant, added Perales. One patient eventually died from the virus.
Again, its unclear whether these patients were infected in the center or in the community, as COVID-19 was very prevalent at the time, said Perales. Importantly, we have not seen any additional cases of potential or definite COVID-19 nosocomial infection since March 2020 at our center.
When examining the impact of the pandemic on treatment delays, in March 2020, investigators started to prospectively collect data from patients whose transplant or cellular therapy was delayed as a result of the impact of the virus on resources at the hospital, particularly the capability of using intensive care unit beds.1
Results showed that 85 patients delayed treatment; of those patients, 29 have not received their intended cellular treatment. Sixteen were supposed to receive autologous transplant, 12 were supposed to undergo allogeneic transplant, and 1 was supposed to receive CAR T-cell therapy.
Of the 56 patients who eventually proceeded to treatment, 62% received autologous transplant, 67% received allogeneic transplant, and 86% received CAR T-cell therapy. The biggest reason for not proceeding to treatment with autologous transplant and CAR T-cell therapy was because they were deferred due to good disease control. Other reasons included was because of a new comorbidity (12%) or they died from the virus. The most prominent reason for not proceeding to allogeneic transplant during the pandemic was progression of disease (42%).
We conclude that patients who are recipients of allogeneic transplant, and particularly those with acute leukemia, as much as possible should proceed to their indicated therapy and not be delayed, concluded Perales.
During a Targeted Oncology Case-Based Peer Perspectives virtual event, Jason Westin, MD, MS, director, Lymphoma Clinical Research, section chief, Aggressive Lymphoma, and associate professor, Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, evaluated the management of a 63-year-old patient with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
Targeted OncologyTM: What is your initial impression of the therapy used in this case? How would you treat the patient?
WESTIN: Theres not a right or wrong approach here. We dont have any randomized data yet saying that R-CHOP is clearly wrong. We have data from retrospective [analyses] from MD Anderson Cancer Center, as well as a cooperative group publication, saying that outcomes appear inferior with R-CHOP versus R-EPOCH [rituximab, etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin]. But there are all types of biases when choosing to treat with R-CHOP for that patientis it because she was older and frail and couldnt tolerate EPOCH? [Its not a surprise that] elderly and frail patients dont live as long as patients who are more fit. Sometimes those kind of analyses have biases built into them that might favor the more aggressive treatment, just because of whom youre choosing to give it to. But I think most people feel that if the patient is able to tolerate a change in treatment, at least try it, at least see whether theyre able to tolerate R-EPOCH.
For many patients, R-EPOCH is not that much more toxic than R-CHOP. Its the same drugs; etoposide is added and stretched over 5 days, basically continuous infusion for the first 4 days and then the cyclophosphamide on day 5. It is the same dose for CHOP. So its more complicated for oncologists to give than the [regimen of] 1 day every 3 weeks in the infusion area. But in terms of patients, the adverse effects [AEs] generally line up to be similar. I also...give CNS [central nervous system] prophylaxis. Patients with double-hit lymphoma have a higher risk of CNS disease. Its not through the roof, but the incidence is usually somewhere in the 10% to 20% range of patients who could have a relapse in the brain.
How do you prefer to give patients CNS prophylaxis?
Theres no wrong answer, so whatever you like to use is OK. Many people use intrathecal [IT] chemotherapy because its easier than having to stop CHOP and give methotrexatewhat if theres renal dysfunction, or what if the liver function tests [get worse], and then you have to delay the next cycle?
For EPOCH, cytopenias are sometimes a challenge in that second week when youre trying to give somebody IT or intravenous [IV] methotrexate. Many people would give it as concurrent IT with EPOCH. There were data from the 2020 American Society of Hematology annual meeting that IT and IV might not [make a difference in AE recurrence].1 There was a large meta-analysis from multiple sites across the United States and internationally showing that for patients who are at high risk of CNS relapse, whether they receive treatment via IT or IV, both [delivery methods] still have a high risk of relapse in the brain. This is totally controversial, and the [definitive] answer is that we dont know.
Most people will continue to use IT or IV methotrexate. You just want to make sure if youre giving IV that youre maintaining the schedule and dosing intensity for the systemic chemotherapy, that youre not compromising and [there are] 5 weeks between doses of EPOCH so you can give them methotrexate in the middle.
What other regimens besides EPOCH are being used in this setting?
There are places around the world that dont use EPOCH. They use hyper-CVAD [cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone] or CODOX-M [cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, high-dose methotrexate]. In the United States, EPOCH [in] publications from the National Cancer Institute from Wyndham Wilson, MD, PhD, and Kieron Dunleavy, MD, showed good results in the mediastinal subtype and some patients with Burkitt lymphoma; Ive shifted over to using it.
EPOCH is a fairly widely used regimen, but its not [wrong to use] hyper-CVAD, CODOX-M, or the intensified regimen from Europe. Its basically [moving up] from R-CHOP to something more intense.
Which trials are relevant right now for the population with DLBCL?
Axicabtagene ciloleucel [axi-cel (Yescarta)] was the first CAR [chimeric antigen receptor] T cell approved for adults with DLBCL in the United States, based on the pivotal trial [ZUMA-1 (NCT02348216)].2 [Eligible patients had] no response to last chemotherapy or relapse less than 12 months after autologous stem cell transplant, so basically patients with refractory disease or who were relapsing post transplant. They had to have [received] a prior [anti-CD20 therapy] and a prior anthracycline, which most patients with DLBCL have had.
The trial enrolled 108 patients in 2 cohorts. The [cohort] well focus on is the DLBCL cohort. Generally, the schema for CAR T cells [is] a lymphodepleting chemotherapy thats given ahead of timecyclophosphamide and fludarabine. This is to help the T cells grow, not to control disease; this is to get a favorable cytokine and microenvironment for cell growth when those T cells are infused. These are autologous cells. Its a 1-time treatment of 2 106 CAR T cells, and in this trial, 99% of patients who were enrolled were able to [have their cells] manufactured and 91% were dosed with the cells.
This [study is] changing our management of disease for patients because the overall response rate [ORR] was 83% and 58% had a complete response [CR].3 In this population post transplant or in those who are refractory to heavy-duty chemotherapy, there is a progression-free survival [PFS] of 5.9 months. There was a [significant] proportion of patients who otherwise probably would have died of their disease.
What other CAR T-cell therapies are available?
The second CAR T-cell therapy that was approved for adults with DLBCL, tisagenlecleucel [tisa-cel; Kymriah], was based on findings of the pivotal JULIET study [NCT02445248].4 This schema was basically the same for all the CAR T-cell therapies where patients undergo apheresis, which is similar to but not the same for transplant apheresis. This is [for patients] not getting CD34-positive cells...giving T cells that are cryopreserved for tisa-cel. Theyre then shipped to manufacturing. Patients could get bridging therapy on this clinical trial, which was not the case for the ZUMA-1 trial. They had undergone lymphodepletion with chemotherapy for 5 days, 4 days, and 3 days before receiving the infusion of the CAR T cells on day 0, and then theyre followed.
The results of this clinical trial [showed] ORR was a little lower at 52% and CR rate at 40% [compared with ZUMA-1]. But for those with a CR, there was an impressive Kaplan-Meier curve that showed patients being a year or more out, and 80% or more of them are holding their response. Median overall survival was 12 months for patients who were infused on this study.
How do the available CAR T-cell therapies compare?
Comparing the 2 products I just mentioned that are already FDA approved, as well as the one with impending approval, lisocabtagene maraleucel [liso-cel]...there was fairly robust follow-up now, 27 months, 14 months, 18 months [with axi-cel, tisa-cel, and liso-cel, respectively]; were seeing median PFS level out around 6 months.3-5 We see the same plateau occur in all these CAR T-cell studies, where theres a proportion somewhere in the 30% to high 40% range of patients who are long-term responders. With tisa-cel and liso-cel, the median overall survival was 12 months and 21 months, respectively; for axi-cel, its not reached, which is awfully impressive for this otherwise refractory population.
The trade-off is that it works but can be toxic. The cytokine release syndrome that people talk about, which is the dreaded complication, was seen in the studies at relatively low frequency and was characterized as grade 3 or 4. The tisacel grade 3/4 AEs were higher [23%], but it used a different grading system than the other 2. If [the AEs were] graded with the same system, it was pretty similar, around 10% or so. All 3 of them have an incidence of grade 3 or 4 cytokine release syndrome, but its relatively infrequent. The neurotoxicity is different, however, and for axi-cel, about 1 in 3 patients will have grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity, which is sometimes prohibitive for this being utilized outside specialized centers that do this frequently. These are some of the reasons that it can be a challenge to administer these drugs.
What other kinds of drugs are available in this setting, and what data support them?
Another option approved recently is polatuzumab vedotin [Polivy], an antibody-drug conjugate, plus bendamustine and rituximab [BR].6 Approval was based on a randomized phase 2 trial for patients with relapsed disease, and it was randomized to either BR or polatuzumab/BR. Patients could not receive [this regimen] after transplant, either allogeneic or autologous, if they had significant neuropathy or if they were eligible for autologous transplant.
The patients ages were typical for this population. The International Prognostic Index score was fairly well balanced, although it was a bit higher risk in the BR arm. The median number of prior lines of treatment was 2 in both arms and about the same for the proportion of patients who had more than 3 prior lines. Seventy-five percent of patients [in the polatuzumab arm] and 85% [in the BR-only arm] had been refractory to the most recent therapy, [so this was a] highly refractory group. The germinal center B-cell subtype was fairly even between these groups.
Polatuzumab had an objective response rate of around 45% and a CR rate of 40%. Bendamustine is not the best drug combination for patients, [and BR had a] 17.5% objective response rate.
The PFS was statistically significant, 9.5 versus 3.7 months for the investigator review as well as the central review [HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21-0.63; P < .001]. Every subgroup favored the polatuzumab/BR regimen.
Bendamustine has toxicities, but polatuzumab/BR has a bit more in terms of the cytopenias. Neutropenia was more common. Febrile neutropenia was fairly even. A bit more neutropenia but not more febrile neutropenia. Then the peripheral neuropathy, which we know from this drug class...is an issue. Not so much with bendamustine, but about 40% of patients had some degree of mild neuropathy on the polatuzumab side.
Have there been other approvals in this setting?
Selinexor [Xpovio] was approved [in 2020 based on results of the SADAL] trial [NCT02227251].7 This evaluated patients with relapsed DLBCL who were transplant ineligible. They had to be at least 60 days post treatment or 14 weeks if they had less than a partial response. So this was not a refractory population.
The response rates [were] 28% ORR, 12% CR, and its fairly similar across the different cell of origin subtypes. There was a good group of patients who got some benefit even if they didnt get a CR, and theres no patient variable that came out as a predictor for response.
Treatment AEs [included] thrombocytopenia as the big one. It was basically 60% or so of patients have some degree of thrombocytopenia; 15%, grade 4. About half the patients had some nausea, some anorexia, and some weight loss. Seventeen percent of patients discontinued because of treatment AEs, and 5 patients died because of treatment AEs.
ISLAMABAD-London Aesthetics & Rejuvenation Centre [LARC], helmed by Dr. Tauqir Ahmad, proudly announced their collaboration with the worlds leading stem cell therapy, R3 Stem Cell International to introduce the stem cell therapy treatments in Pakistan, with an exclusive experiential afternoon held at LARC in Lahore recently.Dr. David L. Greene, the visionary founder & CEO of R3 Stem Cell International flew in from USA to attend the event, where he talked about his vision for Pakistan while giving consultations to the attendees. The event was further attended by some of Lahores most distinguished and influential media personalities. The event and PR was managed by Lotus.Dr. Tauqir Ahmad, regarded as one of the first practitioners in the UK to start practicing the injections of Botox, launched LARC in Pakistan with a mission to achieve excellence in aesthetics and to be at the forefront of research and development of new treatments. With this collaboration, Dr. Tauqir Ahmad has brought the worlds most scientifically advanced stem cell therapy and treatments to Pakistan for this ever-expanding industry which will be executed by his expert team in Pakistan including Dr. Badie Idris (Medical Director), Dr. Sara Mubasshar (Clinical Dermatologist), Dr. Yasmin Chaudhry (Aesthetic Physician), Dr. Zulfiqar Salim (Plastic Surgeon), Dr. Saeed Qureshi (Bariatric Surgeon), Dr. Sheila Anwar (Aesthetic Gynaecologist) and Dr. Abdul Basit (Orthopaedic Surgeon).
Follow this link:
Stem cell therapy treatment introduced in Pakistan - The Nation
The report contains an overview explaining Stem Cell Therapy Market on a world and regional basis. Global Stem Cell Therapy market report is a definitive source of information and provides the latest market research, evolving consumer trends with actionable information about new players, products, and technologies. Our analysts have statistical data to provide information about the statistical report, including the factors that drive and impede the market growth.
The study is an integrated effort of primary and secondary research. The report provides an overview of the key drivers affecting the generation and growth limitation of Stem Cell Therapy market. In addition, the report also examines competitive developments, such as mergers and acquisitions, new partnerships, new contracts, and new products in the world market. The past trends and future prospects presented in this report make it very comprehensible to market analysis. Furthermore, the latest trends, product portfolio, demography, geographic segmentation, and market regulatory framework Stem Cell Therapy were also included in the study.
Market Segment according to type covers:
Market segment by applications may be broken down into:
Request a sample report in PDF format@ https://www.regalintelligence.com/request-sample/201348
The following section also highlights the supply-to-consumption gap. In addition to the above data, the growth rate of Stem Cell Therapy market in 2026 is also explained. Moreover, consumption charts by type and application are also given.
Purpose of Studies:
World Market Report Stem Cell Therapy Industry primarily covers 10 sections in the table as follows:
Complete the pre-order requisition form for the report: @ https://www.regalintelligence.com/enquiry/201348