Friday, February 22, 2008

1st Day-1st Talk: “Tissue Engineering in Orthopedics” by Dr. Vance Gardner, M.D.

Dr. Gardner is a board certified orthopedic surgeon from the Orthopedic Education and Research Institute. He discussed the emerging research in the field of tissue engineering, which allows engineered transplantation constructs to be designed for regeneration of human tissue. The fabrication of new and functional living tissues requires 3 main components: cells, signals and scaffolds.

The required cells are referred to as pre-cursor cells, and these undifferentiated adult stem cells manufacture the extra cellular structural components (also known as the matrix) of the musculoskeletal tissue. These cells (i.e. pre-chondroblast, pre-osteoblast, and pre-fibroblast) can often be found in the tissues being reconstructed. An ideal source of these cells would be readily available, provide easy access to the cells, and have a capacity for self-renewal. In addition, these cells would have to differentiate relatively easily into the cell lineages of interest and they would need to have a minimal capacity to cause tumors or stimulate an immune response. One great example of these cells are mesenchymal cells. These are adult stem cells found in bone marrow and other tissues, such as bone and cartilage. Mesenchymal stem cells can differentiate into adipose tissue, bone, muscle, tendon, cartilage, and marrow stroma. These cells have the benefit of already being in the body, thus embryonic stem cells are not required for therapy.
The required signals are chemotactic, mitogenic, and anabolic to varying degrees. Extracellular signals include growth factors such as: the BMP family, FGF family, TGFb family, PGDF, VEGF, and IGF. BMPs (Bone Morphogenic Proteins) can bind to receptors on the extracellular surface of the cell membrane and stimulate a signal transduction pathway. The cascade of reactions eventually causes a protein in the nucleus to become phosphorylated, which causes the cell to make the matrix. Any cell has the capacity to be any other cell. The FGF family of growth factors was mostly thought of as an angiogenic factor which works on endothelial cells; however, FGF-1 is also a very potent signal for chondro (cartilage), osteo (bone), and fibro (tendon) cells. These signals are important in angiogenesis, osteogenesis, chondrogenesis, and fibrogenesis, and it is necessary in signaling pathways to build bone.

A scaffold is also necessary to create functional living tissue. These scaffolds can be made with synthetic compounds, such as hydroxyapatite or they can be biologic scaffolds. Some of the issues concerning the efficiency of scaffolds are pore size, biocompatibility, the 3-D nature of the scaffold, and load distribution. Some of the advantages to using a synthetic scaffold are ensured sterility, the use of a standardized product, can be used “off-the-shelf” and it can be customized. Some of the disadvantages are that it is difficult to mimic biologic scaffolds, they are expensive to manufacture, and they can have poor biocompatibility. The other option is to use a biologic scaffold such as xenografts (i.e. porcine collagen patch) or allografts (i.e. human bone putty). Some of the advantages to using biologic scaffolds are that they are inexpensive, biologically active, compatible with growth factors, and the pore size is helpful in vascular in-growth. Some of the disadvantages include a limited supply, cannot always ensure sterility, and they can be immunogenic. The process required to remove immunogenicity may decrease the physical properties of the scaffold. In addition, you need to ensure that there is an adequate blood and nutrient supply.

How do the signals, cells, and matrix interact? The precursor cell is signaled into the matrix, finds a home, and begins to work. Chemotactic and mitogenic signaling molecules (i.e. BMP, FGF, GDF, etc.) bind to the extracellular surface of the cell. Matrix signaling occurs through Integrin receptors, which create an intracellular signaling cascade. Gene expression for matrix synthesis occurs through intracellular actin filaments bound to the extracellular matrix proteins.

Bone, cartilage, tendon, and discs are four types of tissues that need engineering. One example of an issue concerning bone is severe fractures of the tibia (i.e. from motorcycle accidents). 43-100% of these injuries are non-union requiring reconstructive surgery and they often result in poor blood supply, bone loss, and infection. The standard treatment for such injuries would be debridement, fixation, and a bone graft when the tissue is stable. However, an alternative treatment suggested by Dr. Garner would be to add 1.5 mg/mL rhBMP-2 (signal) and absorbable collagen sponge (scaffold). The FDA approved rhBMP-2/ACS for use in April 2004. BMP also has uses in spine surgery. BMP-2 could be used for anterior fusion (Medtronic, “Infuse”) and BMP-7 could be used for posterior fusion (Stryker, OP-1).

Another example that Dr. Gardner discusses is injuries to the articular cartilage. These areas have poor repair potential and very few precursor cells. This cartilage receives its nutrition from subchondral bone and synovial fluid, and injuries to this cartilage can result in osteoarthritis. Full thickness defects can be fixed with drilling the subchondral defect, mosaicplasty, or with an osteochondral transplant. Full thickness injuries can also be fixed using autologous chondrocyte transplantation (ACT). In this procedure, ten million cells are grown in culture and are then injected back into the defect (Carticel “Genzyme”). Growth factors can also be used to fix local cells. FGF-2 stimulates new (de novo) cells at injury site in culture. In equine cells, it was found that there was a significant increase in progenitor cells after only seven days in culture. In addition, it has been found that liposome encapsulated TGFb healed partial-thickness defects though migration of local precursor cells.

Although orthopedic tissue regenerative studies are already in the process of developing products that are affecting millions of lives, there is still a lot of room for additional development in this area. A few of the future directions that Dr. Garner discusses are making bone products less expensive/more effective, further development of articular cartilage treatments and tendon and ligament engineering. The key point in his discussion is that no embryonic stem cells are necessary for these therapies.

1st Day-2nd Talk: “Neovascularization-The X Factor in Free Grafts for Reconstructive and Cosmetic Surgery” by Chris Moore, M.D.

Dr. Moore joins us from the Associated Head & Neck Surgeons of Greater Orange County, and his presentation discussed neovascularization and the use of growth factors in free grafts for reconstructive and cosmetic surgery. Autologous free grafts in facial plastic surgery can be skin, fat, bone, or composite. Skin grafts tend to be used to reconstruct patients with cancer or severe burns. Skin grafts develop a blood supply within 3-5 days and they produce predictable results. Bone graft success is size dependent (i.e. smaller grafts are better). The blood supply to bone grafts is variable and there tends to be an issue with donor site morbidity. Composite grafts consist of fat/dermis or skin/cartilage. The survival of these grafts is dependent upon the size (≤ 1 cm) and they have limited applications. Dr. Moore suggests the hot spot in this area of regenerative medical research is in fat grafts. These grafts provide the ideal facial volume replacement and there is an unlimited supply. It is much easier to find donor sites for fat, it is comparatively inexpensive, and the application is much easier in comparison. Some of the disadvantages to using fat grafts are that they require processing, there is variable resorption (20-80%), and they usually require several ‘tune-ups’.
Fat grafts contrast with modern facial plastic surgery (lifting and filling) in that fat is used as a filler, but the overall look of the face is not being completely changed by removing anything. Volume replacement fillers include: collagen, artecoll, restylane, goretex, fascian, sculptra, silicone, radiance, and fat. The ideal filler should be easy to use, inexpensive, permanent, safe, and versatile. To simplify, Dr. Moore states that the ideal volume replacement filler is one that replaces the volume with the same material.

Fat graft survival tends to be variable. Only 20-80% of the fat is retained and the rest is replaced with fibrous tissue. Fat is not static tissue; adipogenesis can occur at grafting sites. Proper technique and neovascularization to the site of the graft are two keys to graft survival. FGF (Fibroblast Growth Factor) will facilitates ingrowth of new blood supply (capillaries first, arterials later) and promote adipogenesis. When pre-adipocytes are exposed to FGF, they will mature into mature fat cells. FGF also enables pre-adipocytes to differentiate to various cell lines (i.e. the stem cell effect- differentiate & advance), and it is more effective in hypoxic conditions.

Recent studies done with FGF2 in rats confer adipocyte survival. The cells were harvested using liposuction and administered to rats via subcutaneous injection. FGF2 were injected in dextran beads subcutaneously with the fat. These beads are positively charged and have a diameter of 10-30μm. The fat was harvested in 1 and 12 months in each experimental group of 25 rats. In the 1 month group, only a slight difference was observed from the controls; however, at 12 months, significant differences in volume and morphology were observed. Treated sites also showed an increase in collagen.

What are some of the benefits of treatments with FGF1 versus FGF2? FGF2 provides a shorter duration of action, whereas FGF1 potentiates all FGF receptors and acts as an inhibitor for morbid obesity. FGF1 is very active and the inhibitor is equally as negatively active. This may have profound implications to fight morbid obesity. Although clinical trials are needed to verify these hypotheses in humans, Dr. Moore discussed FGF as the future of growth hormone research.

1st Day-3rd Talk: “Bones and Regenerative Medicine” by Michael Rosenblatt, M.D.

Dr. Rosenblatt is a professor of Physiology and Medicine & the Dean of Tufts University School of Medicine. His presentation discussed the use of growth factors to promote bone production. There are stem cells present in bone marrow that can be used to regenerate bone; however, these stem cells contribute to the normal aging process. There may be a bone “aging program” built into these stem cells that is controlled by a general set of genes for aging, and the manipulation of the aging genes by pharmacological approaches may offer a “stem cell” opportunity to prevent and/or reverse bone disease (i.e. osteoporosis) without the use of stem cells.

Humans reach their peak bone mass at 25 years of age. Women will lose 50% of their skeleton over their lifespan after the age of 25. Men have a higher peak mass because they do not undergo menopause or testosterone withdrawal, but they will also start losing bone mass every year after the age of 25. Osteoporosis is a very prevalent degenerative bone disease in our population. Approximately 44 million people are affected. 10 million currently have osteoporosis and 34 million are affected by a condition of low bone mass known as osteopenia. Half of women and 20% of men over the age of 50 will suffer from fractures. The mortality rate is 10-20% in the first year after a hip fracture, and the costs associated with these conditions is approximately 18 billion annually.

Normal remodeling of bone tissue consists of osteoclast recruitment and activation, reabsorption and osteoblast recruitment, and osteoblastic bone formation. Healthy bone balances reabsorption with formation. A healthy human will turn over bone at a rate of 5-6% per year.

The mechanistic approaches to osteoporosis treatment are to block bone reabsportion and increase bone formation (an anabolic process). Most of the current therapies (i.e. bisphosphonates, SERMs, HRT, parathyroid hormone (PTH)- anabolic) block bone resporption.

How do the anabolic treatments differ from the others? The refill of bone mass is greater when using anabolic agents. Dr. Rosenblatt presented a study that showed mice treated with PTH and FGF. FGF was shown to increase bone mineral density within 5 days of treatment. After 3 weeks, there was a 25% increase in bone density observed in the mice that were treated with FGF.

An interesting report in the New York Times in July 2005 showed that holes in osteoporotic bones were filled with fat. Stem cells contain 1 billion years of “engineering” and are at the balancing point between fat and bone tissue because mesenchymal cells (marrow stem cells) can differentiate into adipocytes or osteoblasts. In other words, as Dr, Rosenblatt so eloquently phrased it, “fat gain is bone loss”.

The Wnt signaling pathway is the key stimulator of osteogenesis. People with mutations in the gene lrp5 increase bone marrow density. PPARγ is the master gene in adipocytes. This gene codes for a transcription factor; it is a member of the nuclear hormone receptor super-family. This transcription factor binds to PPAR responsive elements in the promoter region of target genes. PPARγ-deficient embryonic stem cells from homozygous recessive mice (PPARγ -/-) spontaneously differentiate into osteoblasts. There was also increased bone mass and decreased marrow adipocytes observed in PPARγ-deficient mice.

How is aging related to bone loss? Men and women both lose bone with age, but the question is, are there genes associated with aging which intersect with bone-regulating genes? If yes, can these genes (and the stem cells which express them) be manipulated to prevent and/or reverse aging? SIRT-1 is an NAD-dependent histone deacetylase that plays a key role in chromatin remodeling associated with gene silencing. It has been found that calorie restriction extends life span. Thus, Dr. Rosenblatt’s research hypothesis is that SIRT-1 plays a role in the reciprocal relationship between osteoblast and adipocyte differentiation from their common progenitor stem cell in the bone marrow, and this may possibly occur through action of as a PPARγ repressor. His research has shown that the over-expression of SIRT-1 increases osteoblastogenesis. Down-regulation of SIRT-1 inhibits osteoblastogenesis and increases adipogenesis.

Dr. Rosenblatt discussed the future of research in this area may be a number of agents (growth factors, etc.) that can be used instead of stem cells to treat osteoporosis.

1st Day-4th Talk: “How to Regenerate Physical and Metabolic Function with Exercise” by Vert Mooney, M.D.

Dr. Mooney is the Emeritus Professor of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine and is currently the Chief Medical Director of Spine and Sport Clinics.

Dr. Mooney discussed the benefits of resistance exercise in cardiovascular health. He began his discussion with a bit of background information on therapeutic exercise. The therapeutic concept was lost until Ling in 1813 with the founding of the Central Gymnastics Institute in Stockholm. This was a key event in the development of exercise with force against a trainer. Dr. G. Zander was licensed in medicine in Sweden in 1864. He developed the Medico-Mechanical Gymnastic Institute in 1865. By 1906, 90 such institutes existed worldwide. Cardiac rehabilitation was only later made possible with the development of the Hoter monitor EKG’s while moving (Bruce 1973).

One issue with therapeutic exercise as a treatment for regeneration of function is that it implies that we know the exact dose. Additionally, our natural inclination is to increase the dose rationally with a therapy that has shown to be effective, analogous to the protocol followed for drug therapy.

There are several reasons why therapeutic exercise is not a widespread form of therapy in medicine today. Rest, as opposed to physical activity, is thought to be therapeutic. Also, sweat is not sterile, equipment is expensive, and massage feels better as a form of therapy. Therapuetic exercise was kept alive primarily as a result of the need for rehabilitation during WWI. Measurements taken using the Holter monitor significantly aided in the medical endorsement of therapeutic exercise.

Modern exercise equipment displays the ability to isolate muscles and strengthen through a full range of motion incrementally. Arthur Jones was the man who invented the Nautilus exercise machine, revolutionized the health club industry, and he forever changed the way every human being exercises. Dr. Mooney believes that turf is the barrier preventing the transfer of health club exercise of the musculoskeletal system to therapeutic exercise in the clinic.

The Denver Experiment tested intense eccentric exercise and although it was not a pragmatic approach to exercise for the average person, it proved that extreme muscle gain could be achieved in only 12 sessions. Dr. Mooney suggests that the studies conducted on the spine prove to be the best evidence that isolated measured resistance exercise can regenerate muscle function. Dr. Mooney presented several studies that showed overwhelming improvements in the patients who were treated with therapeutic exercise and approximately 96% of the patients were satisfied with the treatment and their overall medical care they received.

Dr. Mooney presented recent findings in adolescent scoliosis patients. All adolescent scoliosis patients present with one common finding: the strength of trunk rotation is weaker to one side when compared to the other, whereas normal adolescents of the same age have equal torso rotation strength. These patients are exhibiting an inhibition of paraspinal musculature. The MedX Torso Rotation Unit was used for torso rotational strength training. The patients performed one set of 20 repetitions while alternating sides. 16/25 patients demonstrated curve reduction, and none of the patients got worse. A 20.1% change in degree rotation pre- and post-training (p=0.003). The first study also showed a 26.6% increase in isometric strength.

Dr. Mooney also briefly discussed the importance of exercise in metabolic health. People who maintain regular exercise regimens have been shown to live longer with a reduced rate of cancer and a reduced wound inflammation response.
In conclusion, Dr. Mooney stated that therapeutic exercise is under appreciated in the medical community. It is poorly reimbursed by insurance, and the role of the dose presents a problem because there is no way to measure its benefits versus alternative forms of treatment. Dr. Mooney suggested that exercise equipment is the best tool we have to define a ‘dose’ for therapeutic exercise; however, scientific studies in humans are difficult to conduct without knowing the actual dose. The dose of exercise to form new bone is the key to the advancement of therapeutic exercise.

1st Day-5th Talk: “Growth Factors in Orthopedics” by Jack Chen, M.D.

Dr. Chen joins us from the Orthopedic Specialty Institute Medical Group of Orange County. The current technology to treat most orthopedic injuries is surgery (i.e. spinal surgery and trauma surgery), but these procedures are invasive and can have severe implications for the patients. The main talking point of Dr. Chen’s discussion is the use of BMP (Bone Morphogenic Proteins) as an additional therapy in some patients with orthopedic conditions.

As previously discussed, mesenchymal stem cells can differentiate into a number of different cell types (stroma, muscle, osteoblasts, chondrocytes, fibroblasts, and adipocytes). These mesenchymal cells can come from a number of sources, such as: peripheral blood, all mesenchymal tissues, endosteum, muscle, and bone. BMP functions as a differentiation factor for the mesenchymal cells and stimulates bone cell proliferation. BMPs are primarily used clinically as a bone graft substitute. They also have a contemporary use in orthopedic trauma surgery to treat open fractures and non-union injuries. Open fractures can often lead to amputation if they are not properly reconstructed using nails and pins and a piece from muscle tissue (i.e. abdominal or otherwise) to cover the wound in the absence of sufficient soft tissue supply.
Dr. Chen asked the question: “What if we placed BMP at the site of the fracture at the time of wound closure?” A randomized, controlled, single-blinded study was conducted in 450 patients with open tibia fractures. The control group received the current standard of care and the experimental group was treated with BMP in addition to the standard protocol. The results were measured based on the need for secondary intervention after the patients were treated. Some of the advantages of using BMP in these situations included: a 44% reduction in secondary intervention in the patients treated with BMP, faster fracture healing, fewer hardware failures, fewer infections, and faster wound healing. The main disadvantage of using BMP is that it is costly.

In spine surgery, fusions are performed to address deformity, instability and pain. Dr. Chen presented a number of figures to demonstrate where BMP may be a beneficial therapeutic, such as: scoliosis, spondylolisthesis, osteomyelitis, discogenic pain associated with degenerative disc disease, and lumbar degenerative disc disease. Nine studies were conducted using BMP- 2 (Infuse) and 3 studies were conducted using BMP-7 (OP-1). All of the studies used allograft bone as a control. Another randomized prospective study included 131 patients where 79 were treated with BMP-2 and 52 were in the ICBG control group. All patients received a follow-up exam in a minimum of 24 months. With a p value less than 0.001, there was a 96% increase observed in the fusion rate of the patients treated with BMP versus only a 71% fusion rate in the control group. The patients treated with BMP also endured a shorter average length of surgery, less blood loss, and a shorter hospital stay compared to the patients in the control group. According to the Oswestry Disability Index, patients treated with BMP showed improvement in the SF-36 physical component score and a low-back and leg pain score.

So the bottom line is, of course, is it worth the money to use BMP? The cost of using this therapy is approximately an additional $5580 per case. However, the estimated savings in hospital stay costs, OR time, and additional follow-up care as a result of using BMP is approximately $3300. 1000 spine fusions will cost approximately $5,950,025 dollars and the use of BMP will add about $1,790,000 to this number. However, the savings due to reduced hospital stay time, OR time, fewer revisions, and less sick days that the patient must incur results in an actual savings of $4,392,630.

Dr. Chen discussed several future directions for this line of research. For example, instead of fusing the spine, what about regenerating the disc? A lab study with OP-1 (BMP-7) showed that annular puncture induces disc degeneration. The question is, can injection of BMP reverse the degeneration? A study was conducted in rabbits with an annular puncture to begin addressing this issue. The sample size consisted of 66 rabbits; 33 were in the control group and 33 were treated with BMP. 4 weeks after the puncture, the subjects in the experimental group were injected with OP-1 dissolved in lactose and the control group was injected with lactose alone as a placebo. The studies in the animal models are promising as there were significant increases in proteoglycan and collagen production in the subjects treated with OP-1 upon biochemical analysis. It has been speculated that the addition of FGF-1may provide even more benefit.
In summation, BMP is FDA approved and is currently used for open tibia fractures and spine fusions. Current research focuses on the use of BMP to regenerate degenerated discs.

1st Day-6th Talk: “Treatment of Diabetic Wounds: Challenges and Future Prospects” By Thomas Serena, MD

Dr. Thomas E. Serena MD, FACS has been the lead or Principal investigator in over 20 clinical trials involved with wound healing, including testing blood platelets, topical and parenteral antibiotics and bi-layered cell therapy. Dr. Serena is the Founder and Medical Director of the Penn North Centers for Advanced Wound Care.

Coming...

1st Day-7th Talk: “The Future of Geriatric Medicine” by Stephen Phillips, M.D.

Dr. Steven Phillips is the Director of Geriatric Care of Nevada and Medical Director at Sierra Health Services. He was the Chairman of the American Geriatrics Society Annual Program Committee. He joined us today to discuss the future of healthcare for older Americans.

The population of people over the age of 65 has shown substantial growth in the past 40+ years. Dr. Phillips presented a graph that showed there were approximately 16.6 million Americans over the age of 65 in the year 1960, 34.7 million Americans 65+ in 2000, and a projected 78.9 million Americans 65+ in the year 2050. Life expectancy in the year 1900 was 47 years of age and this grew to 75 years of age by the year 2000. People are usually disabled for 2 years, on average, before death, and most medical expenses are paid by Medicare. Dr. Phillips briefly discussed some of the implications of these changes in the 21st Century. In the year 2000, 4,200,000 Americans were over the age of 85, and it is projected that this number will increase to 9,000,000 by the year 2030. In the year 2000, long term care costs (Medicaid) were approximately $137 billion, and this number is expected to increase to $281 billion by the year 2030. Most of the medical expenditures that a person will spend over the course of their lifetime will occur in the last 2-3 years of life.

Dr. Phillips stated that caring for older Americans is possible, but only if we, as the voice of geriatric health care professionals, are actively engaged in creating the systems that create these solutions. The Institute of Medicine, in 2001, defined the goal of health care in the report Crossing the Quality Chasm: A new Health System for the 21st Century in care that is: safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable. This is the challenge for geriatric service delivery. In addition, true excellence in geriatric service will need to include: focus on function (not just “disease management”), cultural and ethic sensitivity, incorporation of health beliefs, values, and person preferences, equity of service access, attention to wellness and successful aging (not just illness), and an integration of care transitions “across time, place and profession”.

Dr. Phillips discussed several requisites for this type of care to be provided. One requisite is person-centered assessment that identifies the needed services and appropriate level of care and recognizes functional needs as well as medical needs. Another requisite is the coordination of care and information across settings and providers of care that supports transitions, as well as improved self-directed health management. We also need an integrated financing structure that is not defined by the site of care, but coordinated benefits for optimum outcome and resource use. In addition, we need a professional work force that is adequately trained and engaged in the care of these patients. Lastly, linkage with home and community-based services (including informational caregivers) to traditional medical systems of physicians and hospitals would be necessary.

What are some of the strategies for overcoming these obstacles? One strategy that Dr. Phillips discussed was financial restructuring (i.e. reimbursement, payment policies, meaningful “pay-for-performance”, and liability reform to ensure access of quality providers). Another important strategy would be comprehensive training and education. We would need geriatric specialist training, geriatric medicine principles in all disciplines and specialties, and end-of-life care across all settings (i.e. hospital, outpatient, home care, etc.) In addition, we need a better system of management, such as electronic medical records that link care between settings and personal health records that patients can have access to (wellness goals with preventative care). New models of chronic care coordination need to be developed, and technology needs to be applied to the senior population (i.e. telemonitoring and information-based self-directed decision making).

Dr. Phillips used the following quote from Julie Louise Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to illustrate his point: “The aging of the US population is one of the major public health challenges of the 21st Century. With more than 70 million baby boomers in the United States poised to join the ranks of those aged 65 or older, preventing disease ad injury is one of the few tools available to reduce the expected growth of health care and long term costs.”

There are several opportunities to improve older Americans’ health and quality of life. Leading a healthy lifestyle that includes physical activity, a balanced diet, and not smoking is the first step. We also need to make use of tools such as mammography, colorectal screening, serum PSA, and pap smears for early detection of disease. In addition, injury can be prevented by the administration of home safety evaluation & modification, cognitive screening, falls screening and driving intervention. Lastly, patients can use several techniques to self-manage their health care: chronic disease education, preventive screening information, healthy lifestyle education, and advanced care & end-of-life planning. Dr. Phillips wrapped up his discussion with the Institute of Medicine’s six fundamental aims for health care: safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable.

1st Day-8th Talk: “Importance of Regenerative Medicine in Orthopaedics”Panel Discussion

Panel Discussion on the Importantance of Regenerative Medicine in Orthopaedics with Dr. Vance Gardner, Dr. Vert Mooney, Dr. Michael Rossenblatt, Dr. Steven Phillips and Dr. Jack Chen.

1. (Q1) What is the most exciting about the field of orthopedics?
a. Dr. Gardner: He speculated that 10 years from now, there will not much metal in the body. The future is in the regeneration of different types of tissues.

2. (Q2) In addressing the problem with aging population, the only industry left in the barbaric ages is the treatment of medicine (referenced the book The End Of Medicine) There is a new generation of people looking up medicine online (monitoring and diagnosing themselves), are they are going to take over the treatment process? Please address the issue of where you see the treatment of medicine in 20 or 30 years.

a. Dr. Phillips: The idea of going online sounds good in theory, but you need true behavioral modification and “stick-to-itiveness”. People know things are bad for them but they still do them anyway (i.e. cigarettes and drinking). He prefers the fact of better educated patients and supports internet knowledge. He feels there is still going to be a role for the medicine we’ve been discussing.
b. Dr. Mooney: The future of medicine is at social and economic level. Economics will drive medicine- care in the US is not as good as other countries and costs are much higher.
c. Dr. Rosenblatt: We can assess babies for medical issues today using genetic tools, but he is worried about the next 10-20 years due to the shortfall in number of physicians. We have a flat number of doctors we produce every year with an increase in the average lifespan. We need primary care doctors, geriatric physicians, OBGYN, etc….recently, we have had a 75% decline of physicians going into general medicine. We will fall below having 50% of physicians in the US being trained in US medical schools. Our system is not equipped to address these issues
d. Dr. Chen: Costs are increasing, but we cannot be pessimistic. In the next 15-20 years, something will change how we do things…there will be leaps and bounds in technology that will help the situation. Although this does drive up costs, it lowers costs in the long run. Microarrays are an example as they are costly, but they drive down the overall cost of sequencing genomes. Dr. Chen looks forward to the future of regenerative medicine.

3. (Q3) Is Prevention is one of the biggest factors we need to bring into play?
a. Dr. Phillips: Last year was the first time the life expectancy started to drop for males and females born in 2007. The average life expectancy was 76.6 years in 2000 and it has dropped to 76.4 years in 2007. Something is going on to cause this, but we aren’t using the information we have at our fingertips. Is it child obesity? That is only one aspect, but there are other factors, such as the increase in young women smoking.

4. (Q4) With respect to growth factors, what’s the biggest challenge for getting these products to patients that can benefit from their therapy?

a. Dr. Gardner: The cartilage regeneration will be most difficult, especially in the disc because this requires 2 different types of chondroblasts. Cartilage will regenerate quicker than the disc. Tissue will be available off-the-shelf to place where necessary- all implement the same techniques.
b. Dr. Chen: The biggest challenge itself will not be the biggest challenge- the problem with bone growth in BMP cases is not BMP itself, but rather the carrier allowing it to leak out of the site. Carriers need to be developed such that a medium exists to carry this growth factor where we want it to go or we develop a gene therapy in delivery of the growth factor. These are the next hurdles.

5. (Q5) What is your knowledge pertaining to spontaneous human combustion (i.e. body catches fire and is burned up, nothing is left but ashes)
a. Dr. Chen: “I never say never”- I am sure anything can happen, but I’ve never heard of it.

2nd Day-1st Talk: "Women and Coronary Heart Disease” By Thomas J. Stegmann, MD, PhD

Dr. Thomas Stegmann is the Co-Founder, Co-President and Chief Medical Officer of CardioVascular BioTherapeutics, Inc. In 2007 he wrote “Holding a Woman’s Heart in My Hands” which discusses the uniqueness of heart disease in women, and how angiogenesis could be a more effective treatment. He was the former Director of the Department for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery at the Fulda Medical Center in Germany. Dr. Stegmann joined us to discuss exciting new treatments for women who are affected by coronary heart disease.

All societies in the western world are more and more afflicted with heart disease. Heart disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in American women, accounting for 37.7 percent of all deaths per year. More than 459,000 women in America die every year from cardiovascular disease. 8 million American women are currently living with heart disease, and of those, 6 million have a family history of heart disease. Fewer than half of all women are aware that heart disease is the number one killer of American women. Most women identify cancer as the leading cause of death. Interestingly, in the United States, all cardiovascular disease combined claim the lives of more women every year that the next 16 causes of death combined and almost twice as many as all forms of cancer. One in six women will die from heart disease, while one in 30 women will die from breast cancer. Every year since 1984, more women than men have died of cardiovascular disease.

There are more difficulties related to women’s coronary heart disease than in men primarily because men have larger coronary arteries. There are also differences in outcome related to the first heart attack. Studies have shown a two-fold increase of morbidity in women suffering a myocardial infarction ages 35-44.

Women can have a pattern of coronary heart disease known as cardiac syndrome x. Some of the classic symptoms of cardiac symptom x include: predominantly effort induced angina, ST segment depression suggestive of myocardial ischemia during spontaneous or provoked angina, normal coronary arteries at angiography, absence of spontaneous or provoked epicardial coronary artery spasm, and the absence of cardiac or systemic disease potentially associated with microvascular dysfunction. The new set of symptoms that define cardiac x syndrome include: stable angina, findings compatible with myocardial ischemia/ coronary microvascular dysfunction on diagnostic investigation (i.e. ECG, SPECT, MRI, PET, Doppler), normal coronary arteries at angiography, and an absence of any other specific cardiac disease. Some of the players of CAD in women include: low estrogen level, impaired vasodilation, increased vasoconstriction, and low-grade inflammation.

There are a number of diagnostic tools that can be used to diagnose cardiac syndrome x, such as: baseline ECG, exercise ECG (stress test), exercise radioisotope test (nuclear stress test or myocardial scintigraphy), echocardiography, coronary angiograhy, intravascular ultrasound, and an MRI scan. Dr. Stegmann discussed some treatment options to treat cardiac syndrome x: β-blockers, nitrates, calcium antagonists, xanthine derivatives, analgetics, estrogens, α-antagonists, ACE-inhibitors, and possibly statins and spinal cord stimulation. However, Dr. Stegmann discussed a novel technique as a treatment option for coronary heart disease in women: FGF-1 induced angiogenesis. The FGF is administered via a NOGA-guided transcendocardial injection, and the theory is the FGF stimulates a microvascular environment. Dr. Stegmann believes this is a new horizon for this disease in both men and women.

2nd Day-2nd Talk: “Stem Cell Therapy for the Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease” by Nabil Dib, MD

Dr. Nabil Dib was the Principal Investigator for a Phase I clinical trial in which stem cells from a patient's thigh muscle were delivered, using a catheter, to the damaged heart tissue. The Food and Drug Administration approved an expanded study involving 160 patients. Dr. Dib is also the Director of Clinical Cardiovascular Cell Therapy at the University of California, San Diego.

Coming...

2nd Day- 3rd Talk: “Angiogenesis Protein Therapy with Human Fibroblast Growth Factor” by Lynne Wagoner, MD

Dr. Lynne Wagoner was the Principal Investigator for CVBT’s Phase I Sever CHD clinical trial at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. Dr. Wagoner currently practices with Greater Cincinnati Cardiovascular Consultants (GCCC) and is the Principal Investigator in twelve ongoing funded studies in heart failure.

Coming...

2nd Day-4th Talk: “Aquapheresis and Congestive Heart Failure” by Hal Liberman

Hal Liberman is the CEO of Hemo Therapeutics, Inc. formerly known as PhereSys Therapeutics, and he joined us today to discuss an exciting new method as an alternative to dialysis and/or diuretics.

Heart Failure is the inability of a damaged heart to efficiently pump blood. This results in fluid and salt retention, shortness of breath, and kidney failure. Treatment for heart failure can be as simple as diet restrictions and can expand to include devices to improve the pumping efficiency of the heart. Several medications are also used to treat heart failure, such as: ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta blockers, vasodilators, and diuretics. Heart failure is the most expensive diagnosis in the Medicare Program with over $30 billion per year allocated to treatment of this disease. Five million patients today suffer from heart failure and it is estimated this number will double in the next twenty years with the aging of the 78 million baby boomers.

What are some of the issues associated with using diuretics to treat heart failure? They no not remove enough salt with the water which results in salt retention in the body. Patients can also develop a resistance to these drugs and large doses can damage the kidneys. 40% of discharged patients are still symptomatic and 50% of discharged patients will be readmitted within 6 months (appropriately nicknamed “frequent flyers”)

The aquapheresis solution safely and effectively removes salt and water without drugs, and this enables the kidney to ‘reset’ itself hormonally. The magic is in the filter that removes the water on one side and returns everything else on the other side of the device.

In one study, named “UNLOAD”, there was a 50% reduction in readmissions at 90 days after aquapheresis treatment compared to I.V. diuretics (standard of care). There was also a 52% reduction in E.R. and clinic visits. In another clinical study, “EUPHORIA”, the hospital lengths of stay were reduced by 40% and the clinical benefits lasted up to 90 days. The FDA cleared the use of aquapheresis technology in 2002. 8,000 patients have been treated so far with 5,000 of those patients having been treated within the past year.

The greatest benefit of using aqauapheresis technology is that it is safe. There have been fewer incidences of crashing compared to dialysis because very little of the patient’s blood volume is outside their body at any given time. Aquapheresis also maintains an electrolyte balance and allows for peripheral venous access. HemoTherpuetics provides Aquapheresis services to hospitals and in outpatient centers. In order for a patient to be treated with HemoTherapeutics, they must have a blood pressure of at least 90 systolic. The First HemoTherapy Center is located in Las Vegas, NV.

Mr. Liberman discussed several case examples. One patient had 46lbs of excess fluid and salt. He was treated for 3 days with aquapheresis, and it prevented him from otherwise having gone into complete kidney failure. In another case, a ‘problem patient’ was hospitalized for two months, unable to be discharged, and he was discharged the next day after only 2 treatments with aquapheresis.

In summary, heart failure is the number one expense of the Medicare program and its growing rapidly, thus this is a condition of growing concern. Aquapheresis has the potential to significantly reduce these growing expenses and improve the lives of heart failure patients. HemoTherapeutics has developed a business model to maximize the efficient roll-out of this technology.

2nd Day 5th Talk: “The Role of FGFs in Stem Cell Growth and Differentiation” by Kenneth Thomas, Ph.D.

Dr. Thomas is the Vice President of Research & Development of CardioVascular BioTherapeutics. He is a very well respected scientist in stem cell research, and he has been credited with the discovery of the fibroblast growth factor (FGF-1). He presented a fascinating discussion today regarding the past, present, and future developments of stem cell research.

Stem cells have a few basic characteristics. They are, by definition, self-renewing, dedifferentiated, and they can differentiate into ectodermal, mesodermal, and/or endodermal cells. Stem cells are self-renewed because after cell division, a number of the daughter cells remain as ‘uncommitted daughter stem cells’. There are three basic levels of differentiation that stem cells are capable of: totipotency, pluriotency, and mulipotency. Totipotency is not discussed in Dr. Thomas’s discussion, but he does make a significant distinction about the differences between plutipotent stem cells and multipotent stem cells. In basic terms, embryonic stem cells (isolated from a blastocyst) are pluripotent and have the capability to differentiate into a broad range of cells. Multipotent cells, although still very useful in regenerative medicine, have a more limited range of cells that they can differentiate into.

To maintain undifferentiated “stem” state cells, cultured embryonic stem cells from mice require leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) and bone morphogenic protein 4 (BMP-4). Interestingly, human do not require either of those molecules, but human embryonic stem cells instead require fibroblast growth factor (FGF). There are 4 FGF receptors, and each contain Ig-like domains. The FGFs bind between domains 2 and 3. Three of the receptors come in an alternate sequence, and this impacts the ability of different FGF receptors to distinguish between them. FGF-1 is unique in that it potently activates all 7 FGFR isoforms.

FGF maintains the dedifferentiated state of human embryonic stem cells. Dr. Thomas provided a great example where stem cells were cultured in a fibroblast feeder layer of 4 ng/mL FGF-2, a fibroblast conditioned medium containing 8ng/mL FGF-2, and a dish containing only 100 ng/mL FGF-2. The high levels of FGF-2 support growth of embryonic stem cells in the absence of fibroblast conditioned medium. Human embryonic stem cells generate their own support cells. In response to FGF stimulation, support cells express and secrete IGF-II and TGFβ, thus FGF is a trigger that induced support of human embryonic stem cells. IGF-II supports proliferation TGFβ maintains the dedifferentiation of embryonic stem cells.

Is it possible for somatic cells to be reprogrammed to become pluripotent undifferentiated cells? YES! If dermal fibroblasts are transfected with genes for 4 transcription factors (Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, c-Myc or Oct4, Sox2, Nanog, Lin28), they will become induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. These cells are virtually identical to embryonic stem cells with respect to morphology, growth factors needed to maintain dedifferentiated “stem” state, epigenetic status, gene expression profile, and they will differentiate on withdrawal of the growth factors previously mentioned. Oct4 & Sox2 are master transcription factors that bind adjacent DNA sequences. There are approximately 400 gene promoters that bind Oct4/Sox2. These transcription factors increase expression of genes that enhance dedifferentiation and inhibit those that promote differentiation. The functions of Nanog/Lin28 and Klf-4/c-myc are not as well understood. Mouse and human iPS cells from dermal fibroblasts without Myc retroviral transfection result in a lower frequency but higher specificity than Myc transfection. These induced pluripotent cells have identical gene expression profiles with embryonic stem cells. Lastly, it is important to note that no tumors have been detected in iPS cells without Myc whereas those co-transfected with Myc do show about a 15% cumulative incidence rate of tumors in mice at four months of age.

Hematopoetic stem cells (HSCs) are adult stem cells. Bone marrow HSCs proliferate and differentiate into all of the major circulating blood cells. HSCs are capable of differentiating into a number of myeloid and lympoid cells, such as: granulocytes, macrophages, neutrophils, basophils, eosinophils, mast cells, red blood cells, platelets, natural killer cells, B cells, and T cells. HSCs express the receptors FGFR1, R3, and R4 and they bind FGF1. In the mouse model, embryonic stem cells missing FGFR1 exhibit defective hematopoietic development. Interestingly, FGF-1 supports growth of hematopoietic stem cells in serum-free culture. Implantation into radiation-compromised mice of hematopoietic stem cells expanded by FGF-1 led to long-term survival and full repopulations (i.e. myeloid cells, lymphoid cells, erythroid cells).

FGF induces reversible increases of leukocytes in clinical trials. FGF-2 delivered i.v. at a concentration of greater than 24μg/kg resulted in transiently increased leukocyte counts in approximately 50% of patients in a coronary artery disease trial. FGF-2 i.v. infusion at a concentration of 75-150 μg/kg in the stroke trial resulted in about a 2 fold increase in leukocyte counts. These results occurred within 2 days of treatment and they are not associated with fever, infection, or other adverse effects.

FGF also plays a role in neurogenesis. Studies performed in rodents have shown that neural stem cells reside in the subgranular zone of the hippocampal dentate gyrus and the subventricular zone of the olfactory bulb. It has been shown that FGF drives neurogenesis. When FGF-2 is added at a concentration of 10ng/mL to a culture of neural stem/progenitor cells, the cells differentiated into neurons. Another study was done in perinatal rats (1-3 weeks) and adolescent rats (1 month). FGF was administered at a dose of 5 ng/gm of body weight by a single intracerebroventricular or subcutaneous injection. From 6 to 8 hours after FGF was administered, a mitotic pulse transiently labeled the cells that are dividing and showed a 2 to 3-fold increase in newly dividing subventricular zone neurons. It is also important to note that FGF-2 and –1 can cross the blood brain barrier.

It has been shown that FGF can control the differentiation of embryonic stem cells into cardiomyocytes. High FGF-2 concentration (i.e. 20 ng/mL) will inhibit embryonic stem cell differentiation into cardiomyocytes because it down regulates the FGFR1 and FGFR2 genes. Low FGF-2 concentration (1 ng/mL) promotes embryonic stem cell differentiation into cardiomyocytes and upregulates the FGFR3 and FGFR4 genes. Anti-FGF antibodies inhibit a low spontaneous rate of cardiomyocyte differentiation from embryonic stem cells. FGF-2 dose response of cardiomyocyte differentiation appears to follow a typical agonist bell-shaped curve.

Differentiation of embryonic stem cells into cardiomyocytes requires FGFR1. When the FGFR1 gene is knocked out in the mouse model, it results in fewer beating foci, a slow beating rate (i.e. 47 versus 99 beats/min), little expression of myocardial genes, and the expression of markers for other mesodermal lineages.

Dr. Thomas discussed a few characteristics of resident cardiac stem/progenitor cells. These results came from studies of neonatal mouse heart cells in culture. Cardiac stem/progenitors cells are less than 1% of all cultured heart cells, and approximately 5% spontaneously differentiate into cardiomyocytes that can contract (synchronous beating). FGF-2 can promote differentiation into cardiomyocytes. Interestingly, when the FGF-2 gene is complemented back into FGF-2 (-/-) gene knockout mice, a lack of differentiation is observed by cardiac stem cells.

Adult cardiogenesis, a reversal of terminal differentiation, has also been shown to occur in adult rats. Out of the 45 growth factors tested in this study, FGF-1 was the most active. It was concluded that FGFs can transiently reverse the differentiation program.

Dr. Thomas listed a number of FGF responsive stem cell systems: embryonic stem cells, hematopoietic stem cells, neural stem cells, cardiac stem cells, mesenchymal stem cells, hepatic stem cells, pancreatic stem cells, pancreatic stem cells, intestinal stem cells, epidermal stem cells, hair follicle stem cells, and germ stem cells. In conclusion, one of the most important questions to as is: what potential implications does FGF therapy have? In stem cells, FGF can be used to maintain, expand, or contribute to the differentiation of stem/progenitor cells. In addition, angiogenic activity may provide nutrients to support stem cell niches. In cells that have already been differentiated, FGF drives replication “terminally differentiated” cells (i.e. cardiomyocytes) and will also drive the replication of primary cells under stress, such as ischemia/hypoxia and tissue damage.

2nd Day- 6th Talk: "Ischemic Disc Disease and Regeneration of the Disc" by Vance Gardner, MD

Dr. Vance Gardner is currently conducting a 50-patient investigational study to establish the correlation of under-perfusion of the back with disc degeneration. He has been asked to present his study at the invitation-only World Forum for Spine Research meeting in Kyoto, Japan. He is the Executive Director of the Orthopaedic Education and Research Institute of Southern California.

Coming...

2nd Day-7th Talk: “Angiogenic Mechanisms for Tissue Repair and Regeneration” by William Li, MD

Dr. Li is the President, Medical Director and Co-Founder of the Angiogenesis Foundation. He has extensive expertise in the field of angiogenesis and trained with Dr. Judah Folkman who pioneered the field of angiogenesis research. Dr. Li received his MD degree from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

Coming...

2nd Day-8th Talk: “A Future Vision For Molecular Imaging” by David Rollo, MD, PhD

Dr. David Rollo, MD, PhD is the President of CellPoint Corporation, formerly Chief Medical Officer with Philips Medical Systems. CellPoint is developing metabolic imaging and therapeutic targeting through intracellular chelator technology.

Coming...

2nd Day-9th Talk: “Novel Phage Vectors to Fight Cancer” by Jack Jacobs, PhD

Dr. Jack Jacobs is Chief Scientific Officer and Chief Operating Officer of Phage Biotechnology Corporation, a manufacturer of biological pharmaceuticals. He was formerly Director of Basic Research at the Hitachi Chemical Research Center in Irvine, California.

Coming...

2nd Day-10th Talk: “Inhibiting Anthrax Spore Germination” by Ernesto Santos, Ph. D.

Dr. Santos joins us from the University of Nevada Las Vegas where he is a professor in the Department of Chemistry. His discussion today pertained to the germination of anthrax spores inside host macrophages.

Most bacteria will grow in the body and continue to divide and multiply exponentially; however anthrax has a mechanism that recognizes when it does not have enough food to survive. Under these nutrient poor conditions, this organism will develop spores. These spores are not anthrax (not even a bacterium at all), but have everything they need to become a bacterium upon germination. These spores are not fragile, they are resistant, and they can resist being heated with chloride (bleach) or radiation. They don’t need oxygen or food to survive and can stay dormant for years. These spores are interesting because they are resistant and dormant; however, as soon they reach a rich environment, they will germinate. Once the spores are taken up by mammalian cells, they are engulfed by macrophages in the immune system. Macrophages destroy everything, but anthrax has developed a stealth mechanism that allows it to germinate inside of the macrophages while withstanding harsh the harsh conditions of the phagolysosome. Once it germinates, the anthrax bacillus will produce toxins. Antibiotics can be used to kill the anthrax, but once it produces toxins, these toxins remain even once the cells have been destroyed.

Although spores are inert, they have a series of proteins in the membrane with sensors that surround the spore and detect small molecules (inosine and alanine). The first step in the research of these organisms was to determine the mechanism by which the spore detects these molecules, and this is done by studying the kinetics (changes in concentrations of these molecules over time). The spores are easy to follow when they germinate because they are dense (no water inside) and when they are irradiated with light, they will greatly defract it. Once the spores germinate, they swell and defraction goes down.

What happens once the spore binds these small molecules? This is still a black box. Once something binds, germination occurs, but we don’t know the physiologic processes by which this occurs. Both of these molecules (alanine and inosine) are needed for germination. If only one of these molecules is present, the spore will not germinate One hypothesis that Dr. Santos provided for why this may be is that the presence of alanine (an amino acid) and inosine (a nucleoside) infers that DNA and proteins are being produced. These factors would be significant evidence that the host is alive and will provide a nutrient rich environment for the spore to germinate. The more food there is available, the more rapid the germination.
Instead of doing kinetics on a single protein, they studies were performed on the whole organism. The general findings were: the more inosine you have, the faster the kinetics. Based on the slope of the line, there was more germination occurring. Two parameters obtained from the graph: Vmax and Km. Dr. Santos concluded there is a synergy between inosine binding and alanine concentration. As the alanine concentration is increased, inosine binding becomes tighter.
How does a spore bind alanine or inosine? Hypothetically, spores can bind inosine or alanine and then bind the other one or they can bind sequentially. Research has shown that there is a sequential order of events: sporeinosine binding alanine bindinggermination. The spore must germinate inside the macrophage to trigger germination. Current research is working on finding something that will bind to the spore without triggering germination. Competitive inhibitors of inosine were tested and it was found that if we compete against alanine, we end up having noncompetitive binding of inosine. It was predicted that the inhibitors are substrates that can bind to the same enzymes as inosine.

2nd Day-11th Talk: "Non-Invasive Computer Aided Recognition of Treatment Improvements" by E. A. Yfantis, Ph.D

Dr. Yfantis is the President of Statistical and Software Analysts, Inc. and a Professor of Computer Science at UNLV, prior to that he was a Professor of Computer Science at New Jersey Institute of Technology. He will be discussing using non-invasive classification algorithms for analyzing medical images in real time and making a pathological assessment of the tissue represented by the medical images. Dr. Yfantis has developed medical image processing products for Johns Hopkins in Cardio.

Coming...

3rd Day-1st Talk: “Opportunities in the Design of Second-Generation Protein Therapeutics” by Michael Blaber, PhD

Dr. Michael Blaber received a research grant from the American Heart Association to study “FGF-1 Mutants for Angiogenic Therapy.” Dr. Blaber is a Professor in the Department of Biomedical Sciences in the College of Medicine at Florida State University.

Coming...

3rd Day-2nd Talk: “FGF Protein Engineering for Enhanced Stability” by Jihun Lee, PhD

Dr. Jihun Lee is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Blaber Lab at the Department of Biomedical Sciences in the College of Medicine at Florida State University. Her PhD thesis was titled, “Characterization of the Effects of B-turn Sequence on Protein Stability, Folding Kinetics, Functionality and Turn Structure.”

Coming...

3rd Day-3rd Talk: “Update on PEG-Protein and as a Carrier of siRNA Therapeutics” by Myung Park, PhD

Dr. Myung Park, PhD is the President of BiopolyMed, Inc., biotech company that develops PEGylated proteins/peptides to improve the safety, efficacy and dosing characteristics of genes, proteins and peptides. Dr. Park received her PhD from Rutgers University on Protein Chemistry.

Coming...

3rd Day- 4th Talk: “Understanding Cell Biology to Find Cures” by Jordan Yelinek-Yale University

Jordan Yelinek is finishing his Doctorate in Cell Biology at Yale University. He is working on the Biogenesis of the Golgi apparatus in the kinetoplastid parasite Trypanosoma Brucei, the causative agent of African Sleeping Sickness.


Coming...

3rd Day-5th Talk: “Repairing and Not Repairing DNA" by Ron Yasbin, PhD

Dr. Ron Yasbin is a microbial geneticist who studies DNA repair mechanisms. He is currently the Dean of the College of Sciences at UNLV. Prior to UNLV, Dr. Yasbin was Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of Texas at Dallas.

Coming...

3rd Day-6th Talk: “Technology Cost Crisis: How Technology Costs Have Contributed to the Rising Cost of Health Care” by Joseph Kaufmann, MD

Dr. Joseph Kaufman is the Chief Medical Officer and Vice President of Medical Affairs at Sierra Health Services, Inc., a managed care company selected as a "Forbes Platinum 400- Best Big Companies in America." Dr. Kaufman is board certified in both Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Disease.He joined us today to discuss the impacts that technology has had on the costs of health care.

The national health expenditure is in excess of 2 trillion dollars per year. The average health benefit costs for an active employee in America are between $6,000-$8,000, and the average employer cost for family coverage is approximately $10,000-$12,000 per year. These numbers are equivalent to $5-$6 per hour for each employee, and the cost is rising 8%-9% per year. The rising drug costs have received the most attention. The funds allotted to medical technology accounts for approximately 20% of the growth in health care spending, and this number now exceeds $200 billion dollar per year.

What are some of the major players in increasing costs of the health care? Consumer demands and expectations are continuously increasing which leads to an overall increase in societal expectations of what medicine can do. The aging population and focus on quality of life versus a mere absence of illness also contribute to the increasing costs of health care. A few other key players are access to health care, technology, advertising (i.e. direct marketing), and a consumer lack of involvement.

Dr. Kaufmann discussed a few statistics regarding health care costs in America. Americans spend more money on health care than any other country, and healthcare is the largest industry in the U.S., comprising nearly 17% of the gross domestic product (GDP). Health care is predicted to be 20% of GDP by 2015. However, in spite of what we spend, there are still gross insufficiencies, mis-aligned incentives, and a lack of accountability for outcomes.

The term “medical technology” is broadly defined; it refers to procedures, equipment, and processes by which medical care is delivered. Medical and surgical procedures such as angioplasty and joint replacement as well as medical devices such as CT scanners and AICD fall under this category. Drugs, such as biologic agents, can also be considered byproducts of medical technology. The benefits from medical technology are undeniable. The death rate from cardiovascular disease is down 25% in the last 20 years. There are also new treatments for previously untreatable terminal conditions (i.e. AIDS). Major advances in medical technology have given us the ability to treat previously untreatable acute conditions as well. New procedures have been developed for discovering and treating secondary diseases within a disease, and this has lead to an expansion of the indications for treatment over time.

One of the biggest issues with the exponential growth of medical technology is assessing the cost effectiveness. Patients do not pay directly for health care, and this leads to a consumer lack of involvement and unreasonable demands and expectations from consumers. New technology may be clinically superior, but we have to ask ourselves: is it being utilized where it is clinically most appropriate? Also, is it being utilized where it offers the highest value compared with other treatments? There is no market mechanism for determining the value of medical technology (i.e. there is no generally accepted screening process to asses its value, the cost-effectiveness is not a criterion for regulatory approval of procedures, and manufactures do not consistently perform studies to determine the economic benefits of new procedures.)

These questions breed more questions, such as: does a particular new technology increase or reduce total health expenditure? Does it supplement existing treatment? Is it a full or partial substitute for existing treatment? How does it effect the use or cost of other health care services? Do these changes result in higher or lower health spending for each patient treated? We need to assess the level of use that a new technology achieves: does it extend treatment to a broader population? Can it reduce utilization? What is the impact of use over time? Will it affect both the type and amount of health care that people use in their lifetime? Innovation in health care occurs continuously and numerous factors interrelate making direct measurement of the impact of new technology difficult.

Dr. Kaufmann points out, however, that we cannot have it all. Advances in diagnostics, technology, and medical therapy may be able to cure us, but the price is steep. He referenced an article in the New England Journal of Medicine from 1/24/2008 entitled: “The Amazing Noncollapsing U.S. Health Care System.” This article addressed the cost crisis and the collapse of the health care system that has lasted for over 40 years. Our resilience may actually undermine the attempts at serious reform.

In conclusion, technology is becoming obsolete very quickly, so where do you draw the line? When do you decide to buy new machines knowing how quickly they will be outdated? We need to take a strategic position on these issues and consider whether the benefits outweigh the costs for new technologies that become available.

3rd Day-7th Talk: “Trends in the Biotech Market” by Steven Zimmer

Steven Zimmer is a Principal and Analyst with MedGrowth Associates, a leading provider of financial analysis in the UK. Mr. Zimmer has a Masters in Molecular Biology and more than 25 years experience in analysis.

Coming...

3rd Day- 8th Talk: "The Impact of Payer Demands for Healthcare Value on the Development of New Biological Therapies"by David Balekdjian

David Balekdjian is a Partner with the Bruckner Group, which is a strategy consulting company that works with executives at pharma and biotech companies. As the industry leader in healthcare value strategy, the Bruckner Group assists company executives in developing business models, enterprise-wide processes, and individual product strategies that produce new drugs with high healthcare value, meeting the needs of payers, employers, physicians, and patients. In addition to healthcare value strategy, the Bruckner Group assists pharma and biotech executives on a broad range of strategy issues, including payer strategy, product development strategy, strategic marketing, pricing, and corporate development initiatives. David Balekdjian was a co-author of the article published in Nature Biotechnology in February 2008 entitled “Weighing the Outcomes”.

How have payers made drug coverage decisions in the past?

Managed care formulary decisions in the past (before 2002) were based on: safety, efficacy, and adverse events (i.e. side-effects). A transition started to occur between 2002 and 2003, and acquisition cost began to be considered in formulary decisions as well. Managed care formulary decisions are now, beginning in 2005/2006, being made on the following factors: safety, efficacy, and healthcare/pharmacoeconomic value (i.e. real world effectiveness and based on evidence, not conjecture).

Mr. Balekdjian began his discussion by defining a drug’s healthcare value as the economic value of the improvements in patient health outcomes that the drug produces, compare to its incremental cost- all relative to standard of care therapies. Payers are providing broad market access to only those new drugs that deliver compelling healthcare value. Almost unnoticed by big pharma, in the last five years payers have constructed and implemented an elaborate enforcement infrastructure to ensure “appropriate” usage of drugs and especially to prevent pharma and biotech companies from subverting payers’ decisions with their marketing machines. Examples of biological drugs that have run afoul of payer’s healthcare value determinations include: Exubera (Pfizer), Fuzeon (Roche), FluMist (MedImmune), and Amevive (developed by Biogen, sold off to Astellas).

The Bruckner Group is able to anticipate and predict MCO’s next moves. Their extensive and ongoing characterization allows them to think like them. The Bruckner Group incorporates the following into their analyses: current and evolving roles, internal business goals, programs, infrastructure, capacity, beliefs, attitudes, skills, strengths, drivers and barriers of their revenue, short-and long-term strategies and targets, and tactical plans. In other words, they consider: “who are they and what do they want?” More importantly: “What are their plans? What are their areas of opportunity?”

Until 2005, biologicals were largely “off-limits” and payers were focusing their efforts largely just on small molecule therapies (traditional pills). Sine 2005, payers increased the application of OBA/healthcare value scrutiny to biologicals, with the exception of the “off-limits” diseases (i.e. cancer, autoimmune diseases, and HIV). Beginning in 2007, payers are extending healthcare value scrutiny to even the off-limits diseases.

Why is this happening?

Managed care decision-makers, almost without exception, believe that the value delivered by most new drugs in these areas adds cost to the system with little to no real gain in outcomes. The Bruckner Group believes that Erbitux is the biological equivalent of Nexium (i.e. “the straw that broke the camel’s back”).

Mr. Balekdjian stated that pharma and biotech companies do not see the coming clash. At the same time that payers are going after area where they believe the greatest “value abuses” are taking place, big pharma and biotech are, without exception, skewing their investment dollars toward intensifying their efforts into these same areas- largely cancer and autoimmune/inflammatory diseases. To properly understand how to proceed in the pharma and biotech industries today, you must assess produces, development opportunities, and commercialization strategies through a healthcare value prism. The bottom line is that the failure to do so likely leads to the wrong decisions.

Mr. Balekdjian presented a case study regarding Exubera (Pfizer). Exubera’s failure was predicted by Bruckner two years before it happened. An article was published by Michael J. Russo and David Balekdjian in BusinessWeek on February 15, 2006 entitled “Irrational Exubera-nce for Pfizer.” At the time the article was published, analysts were all in agreement that Exubera was an inevitable future blockbuster drug. Analysts only differed in magnitudes: $3-$10 billion per year. The Bruckner Group applied a healthcare value analysis to Exubera, determined that Exubera’s healthcare value proposition was uncompetitive, and predicted that Exubera would fail.

Exubera was the new inhaled insulin product from Pfizer, approved by the FDA in January 2006. Exubera delivers the same drug (insulin) through a new delivery system (inhalation) rather than by patient self-injection. This drug had been in development for many years. How did payers assess Exubera’s value proposition? It uses new technology to deliver the exact same drug. The device does not guarantee precise dose control, unlike injection, and this could have serious negative and costly repercussions (i.e. potentially value reducing). Exubera required regular and costly pulmonary function tests which is also value reducing. Payers also considered what long-term consequences there might be from inhaling so much insulin over time, which again, is potentially value reducing. The compliance benefit is conjecture and is completely unproven. Given the nature of diabetes and the need for tight glycemic control, any potential incremental improvement in compliance is unlikely to result in significant downstream cost savings for payers. In asthma, the clinical literature clearly indicates that inhaler non-compliance is rampant and a serious problem because patients incorrectly dose on 25-80% of days and 50% of patients use incorrect inhaling technique. In addition, the annual cost of insulin using Exubera is approximately $1,389 versus only $938 for injected insulin. The large value gap guaranteed limited coverage, very limited patient access, and ultimately a $3 billion charge against Pfizer’s earnings.

Next, Mr. Balekdjian briefly discussed CVBT’s healthcare value strategy. Use of CVBT-141H in zero/limited option coronary artery disease patients is projected to reduce treatment costs of these very expensive patients by 20% over a five-year period. This only measures outcomes from symptomatic relief, not disease-modifying outcomes. It is Mr. Balekdjian’s belief that the value proposition will only strengthen as data is collected.

Lastly, Mr. Balekdjian had an overview of the process of healthcare value development. The first step is to assess as early as Phase I trials and no later than Phase II trials. The next step is to enhance and expand. You must determine the clinically-attainable high(er) value targets and go after them. This must be done in Phase II to maximize value; the later this process is engaged, the less opportunity there is to expand value. The next step is to re-integrate the data iteratively into the value proposition. Next, you must determine the maximal value proposition based on Phase III data and back it up with the necessary proof to engage payers prior to launch. The last step, post-launch, is to leverage the drug’s value through marketing activities aimed at different stakeholders to define the marker on the terms of your product’s value and put competitors at a long-term disadvantage.

Mr. Balekdjian finished his discussion with “Bruckner’s Law”: There is a direct relationship between the amount of provable healthcare value a new drug demonstrates and the level of revenues it will ultimately generate. In other words, “The greater the drug’s healthcare value, the greater the revenues will be.”

3rd Day- 9th Talk: “Proteins as Drugs and Diagnostics: An Update” by Ralph Bradshaw, PhD

Dr. Ralph Bradshaw is recognized as one of the world's foremost experts on protein biochemistry. Dr. Ralph Bradshaw is currently the Deputy Director, Mass Spectrometry Facility, UCSF, San Francisco, CA and Professor, Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, UCSF, where he is researching problems in protein biology that impinge on molecular abnormalities that underlie human disease.

Coming...

Sunday, February 17, 2008

3rd Day-9th Talk: Panel on Insurance Risks on Clinical Trials and Products

Cindy Palomino of Chubb Insurance and Jay J. Schuttert of Snell & Wilmer discuss the risks of clinical trials and risks that pharmaceutical products face on the market.

(Q1) Clinical trials are growing across the globe: what type of risk management do you see in those areas and how can they keep down costs?

Cindy: Companies go overseas to do clinical trials based on specific populations. It’s harder to do trials overseas due to regulations, informed consents, insurance, etc., thus it requires a lot of resources. It may cost a lot of money to run the trial, but then you need to invest even more money to monitor what is going on over there. You need to be engaged in selecting the PIs. It is becoming more and more important that the sponsor of the company monitors the actions of those people.

Jay: Bad news: litigation against the clinical trial industry is on the rise. There are a few simple things we can do to eliminate risk. For example, the FDA has a lot of rules, so you can exceed their standards to insulate yourself to an extent.

(Q2) If you outsource your trial, are you outsourcing your risk(s) as well?

Cindy: A lot of small companies have limited resources. The sponsor of the company is held responsible, and they can transfer some risk if they have good contracts. However, they are responsible and they are not removing themselves from the risk

Jay: Lawyers will pin companies. Anyone who has any interest or connection to a clinical trial can be used as a defendant in a trial, so it must be monitored closely to make sure everything is legitimate.

(Q3) On the risk side, given the high level of failure and given the frequency of core trial design, how do you evaluate what projects you are prepared to be at risk from? Also, if you have a client that comes in who has made mistakes (i.e. not reporting data or not complying to the trial), which is not something you can necessarily predict in the process- what is your attitude in that regard with respect to the client? Do you let them get away with it or push for settlement?

Cindy: As much as the client will allow… the focus is the research and protection of the assets tends to be an afterthought. There are few companies that, at the beginning, we turn away unless they have issues with the FDA because, in that case, they may be trying to hide something. Everyone has made mistakes, but we do a lot of research in the class of drug or device in the past. We look at the track record, literature, who their partners are, what their selection process is, who is on the board- we look at all of those components. I think these stages are very important in the ultimate success of the company. We take a look at the adverse events and what else the drug may be used for- we encompass that into our study and this will help our research in the end.

Jay: In the scenario described, it’s one of those cases that I would encourage the client to make go away. The big issue is what can happen to you in front of the government (i.e. congress, etc.) with a 9-10 year verdict and bad press. It should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, however.

(Q4) Is there an international standard [different from that of the US] for informed consent?

Cindy: I think the US has always led other countries with regard to informed consent. My US companies that are doing trials overseas are abiding by what the ethics committees are requiring of them (insurance, language, etc.). I haven’t seen anything that the FDA requires which is not required in the US. The FDA has minimum guidelines, but the more you can disclose with a thorough explanation of the process and what’s to be expected, the better. Looking at the recruiting process is a little more important overseas than the US, and this may be due to differences in patient education.

Jay: If you get sued, it is nice to be able to say you listed everything and every participant signed off on a consent document. If you give more info, you cover your ass.

(Q5) Last week, a lawsuit was filed with a woman in a clinical trial, and there was not an adverse event (but not a positive outcome either). However, she filed a lawsuit that she did sign the consent paper but did not feel properly informed about her treatment. Could this be the death row for clinical trials in the US?

Jay: This could be an issue. Every lawsuit has some value to someone. Even if you spent money just to get rid of it, someone is making money from that.

(Q6) In your experience with clinical trial liability, do the issues stem mainly from problems with the drug or “man-made” mistakes?

Cindy: The execution of the protocol and the lack of involvement on the part of the sponsor are the biggest issues. Failure to report adverse events and go back to modify the events cause problems. There are events of products causing injury, but it is minimal. Sometimes patients with exclusionary issues still get into the trial, but again, this goes back to the execution of the protocol.

Jay: I see the gamut, but the most important thing is to file paperwork and keep adequate documentation to save yourself.

(Q7) Is there a consistency pattern to weaknesses?

Cindy: Structure in the clinical trial and how they monitor it often presents weaknesses. Sales people are going around demonstrating and selling product; however, they often over-commit and make too many promises regarding what the therapy will accomplish. Even though companies put out documents, sales people tend to contradict them. Again, this goes back to lack of supervision in training and sales as being two major issues. In addition, contract manufacturers can cause a weak contract/execution and this can help them reduce their liability/loss or increase it.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

UNLV Student, Karen Levy to Blog the RMO Conference

Karen Levy is a student at UNLV and has agreed to write a summary for each session of the Regenerative Medicine Organization's 5th Annual Conference for the conference blog.

Karen is a double major in Biology and Biochemistry in the School of Life Sciences at UNLV. She is also in the honors college at UNLV. Her undergraduate thesis research involves bacterial degradation of environmental estrogens. She was named the NSF/EPSCor Research Program Coordinator at UNLV. During the summer of 2007, Karen received an Amgen Scholarship and performed research at Columbia University in New York City. Karen’s long-term goal is to obtain an MD and perform biomedical research.