PM&R and advancing technologies/science

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Bleurberry

Full Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2007
Messages
649
Reaction score
7
Hey everyone, thanks for all of the really great threads lately.

So here's my question for the attendings:

How well equipped is physiatry to integrate up-and-coming technology into its academic programs and CME in the coming 5-10 years?

Here in Pennsylvania, we've got the Univ. of Pittsburgh, and they're doing incredible things with regenerative medicine. Will the not-too-distant-future physiatrist be likely to execute some of these clinical advancements? I think some of the application of the treatment may overlap with the physiatrist's existing skill set, but I'm just curious on how it may be integrated, and wouldn't clinical physiatrists really be in a great position to be one of the principles to offer such treatments once they become proven safe and effective?

-Xan

Members don't see this ad.
 
A few years ago the researchers were outlining the next 10 steps towards spinal cord injury repair. Things like ABChondroitonase and remyelinators were bandied about.

Now they are talking Pixie Dust (yes, really). 10 years ago it was stem cell and gene therapy. Without increased funding (notlikely) it will not happen during our careers. SO we need to do what we can with what we got and hope that the small promise of better meds and improved robotics will allow our patients better functional outcomes.

The concepts are 30-50 years old, the science will catch up to the science fiction in the next 10 years, then sorting the bugs out of all of these things will take another 20 to allow it to be used in Medicine.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/sci/detail_sci.htm#106283233

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-04/building-real-iron-man
 
Always difficult to answer crystal ball questions. Yes - the new science/technology seems ideally suited to address our concept of "functional restoration". Although it is inspiring to dream about all of the possible applications of regenerative medicine, stem cells, gene therapy, tissue engineering, nanomedicine, etc. - I agree that it's going to be a while before we see practical clinical application of any of this. There are still many barriers to overcome. Intrinsic barriers such as developing the interventional models in which to apply these therapies. Determining the right windows of treatment opportunity following injury. Extrinsic barriers such as garnering sufficient government or public support. Overcoming ethical and socioeconomic considerations. Just to name a few.

As far as integrating the science/technology into academic programs - anyone of us here can tell you that things move at a glacial pace at the educational level. I do think residents and fellows should be aware of what state of the art research (bench and clinical) is out there, and that programs should incorporate it into their didactics - even if it won't be on the boards.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Hey everyone, thanks for all of the really great threads lately.

So here's my question for the attendings:

How well equipped is physiatry to integrate up-and-coming technology into its academic programs and CME in the coming 5-10 years?

Here in Pennsylvania, we've got the Univ. of Pittsburgh, and they're doing incredible things with regenerative medicine. Will the not-too-distant-future physiatrist be likely to execute some of these clinical advancements? I think some of the application of the treatment may overlap with the physiatrist's existing skill set, but I'm just curious on how it may be integrated, and wouldn't clinical physiatrists really be in a great position to be one of the principles to offer such treatments once they become proven safe and effective?

-Xan
Some of the ground-breaking research on gene therapy and intradiscal chondrocytes, and growth factors has been produced by Gwendolyn Sowa of the Pittsburgh PM&R Department
 
Some of the ground-breaking research on gene therapy and intradiscal chondrocytes, and growth factors has been produced by Gwendolyn Sowa of the Pittsburgh PM&R Department

I am generally reluctant to characterize current research studies as "ground-breaking". When I look back over the past 10-30 years, I seem to notice that a number of studies that were considered ground-breaking at the time of inception ultimately served little more than padding for the authors' CV, or worse, "signposts" that led other investigators/funding agencies astray, rather than foundations for later clinical research that actually changed peoples' lives. In my own field of work, BI, the scientific literature is replete with promising results on preclinical studies, phase I and II trials, followed by failed (and expensive) phase III studies.

It is the nature of medical science that some expeditions for new knowledge end up finding data that has limited clinical significance or is misinterpreted.

Having said this, I certainly hope Dr. Sowa's work lives up to your billing.
 
I am generally reluctant to characterize current research studies as "ground-breaking". When I look back over the past 10-30 years, I seem to notice that a number of studies that were considered ground-breaking at the time of inception ultimately served little more than padding for the authors' CV, or worse, "signposts" that led other investigators/funding agencies astray, rather than foundations for later clinical research that actually changed peoples' lives. In my own field of work, BI, the scientific literature is replete with promising results on preclinical studies, phase I and II trials, followed by failed (and expensive) phase III studies.

It is the nature of medical science that some expeditions for new knowledge end up finding data that has limited clinical significance or is misinterpreted.

Having said this, I certainly hope Dr. Sowa's work lives up to your billing.
"Ground-breaking" does not imply anything about the research's ultimate clinical applicability.

Miriam-Webster defines groundbreaking as "markedly innovative" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/groundbreaking),
while the American Heritage Dictionary's entry says the term "characterizes with originality and innovation" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/groundbreaking#sharethis)
 
"Ground-breaking" does not imply anything about the research's ultimate clinical applicability.

Miriam-Webster defines groundbreaking as "markedly innovative" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/groundbreaking),
while the American Heritage Dictionary's entry says the term "characterizes with originality and innovation" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/groundbreaking#sharethis)

I learn something new every day.

BTW, You caught my bias...

I consider physiatry to be a fundamentally clinical field. Should we really consider something as "markedly innovative" if it has no implications for ultimate clinical applicability?
 
A few years ago the researchers were outlining the next 10 steps towards spinal cord injury repair. Things like ABChondroitonase and remyelinators were bandied about.

Now they are talking Pixie Dust (yes, really). 10 years ago it was stem cell and gene therapy. Without increased funding (notlikely) it will not happen during our careers. SO we need to do what we can with what we got and hope that the small promise of better meds and improved robotics will allow our patients better functional outcomes.

The concepts are 30-50 years old, the science will catch up to the science fiction in the next 10 years, then sorting the bugs out of all of these things will take another 20 to allow it to be used in Medicine.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/sci/detail_sci.htm#106283233

Building the Real Iron Man

Intravenous Infusion of Auto Serum-expanded Autologous Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Spinal Cord Injury Patients: 13 Case Series

Author links open overlay panelOsamuHonmouabh1ToshihikoYama****ac1TomonoriMoritaacTsutomuOshigiriacRyosukeHirotaacSatoshiIyamadJunjiKatoeYuichiSasakiafSumioIshiaifYoichi M.ItogAiNamiokaaTakahiroNamiokaaMasahitoNakazakiaYukoKataoka-SasakiabRieOnoderaaShinichiOkaabMasanoriSasakiabgStephen G.WaxmanhJeffery D.Kocsish

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2021.106565Get rights and content

Under a Creative Commons licenseopen access

Highlights

We report a series of SCI patients treated with intravenous infusion of MSCs.


Autologous MSCs cultured with auto-serum were used.


The results document observed functional changes and provide support for the safety and tolerability of this procedure.


Abstract
Background
Although spinal cord injury (SCI) is a major cause of disability, current therapeutic options remain limited. Recent progress in cellular therapy with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) has provided improved function in animal models of SCI. We investigated the safety and feasibility of intravenous infusion of MSCs for SCI patients and assessed functional status after MSC infusion.

Methods
In this phase 2 study of intravenous infusion of autologous MSCs cultured in auto-serum, a single infusion of MSCs under Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) production was delivered in 13 SCI patients. In addition to assessing feasibility and safety, neurological function was assessed using the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (ASIA), International Standards for Neurological and Functional Classification of Spinal Cord (ISCSCI-92). Ability of daily living was assessed using Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM-III). The study protocol was based on advice provided by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency in Japan. The trial was registered with the Japan Medical Association (JMA-IIA00154).

Results
No serious adverse events were associated with MSC injection. There was neurologic improvement based on ASIA grade in 12 of the 13 patients at six months post-MSC infusion. Five of six patients classified as ASIA A prior to MSC infusion improved to ASIA B (3/6) or ASIA C (2/6), two ASIA B patients improved to ASIA C (1/2) or ASIA D (1/2), five ASIA C patients improved and reached a functional status of ASIA D (5/5). Notably, improvement from ASIA C to ASIA D was observed one day following MSC infusion for all five patients. Assessment of both ISCSCI-92, SCIM-III also demonstrated functional improvements at six months after MSC infusion, compared to the scores prior to MSC infusion in all patients.

Conclusion
While we emphasize that this study was unblinded, and does not exclude placebo effects or a contribution of endogenous recovery or observer bias, our observations provide evidence supporting the feasibility, safety and functional improvements of infused MSCs into patients with SCI.

Keywords
mesenchymal stem cellcase seriesclinical trials
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
our observations provide evidence supporting the feasibility, safety and functional improvements of infused MSCs into patients with SCI.

Agree, except they already stated it was unblinded and biased. So the functional improvement component has no business being in the conclusion. Bad editing/review by the Journal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I heard a lecture by Wise Young MD that the problem with SCI and stem cells is that the gliosis at the injury site is too hard to get through. The stem cells need a way to bridge that area and develop a scaffolding network for any axons to grow through, but they just can’t with all the scar tissue in the way. Maybe an acute SCI that gets hypothermic treatment like in Kevin Everett’s case combined with stem cells could improve the odds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I heard a lecture by Wise Young MD that the problem with SCI and stem cells is that the gliosis at the injury site is too hard to get through. The stem cells need a way to bridge that area and develop a scaffolding network for any axons to grow through, but they just can’t with all the scar tissue in the way. Maybe an acute SCI that gets hypothermic treatment like in Kevin Everett’s case combined with stem cells could improve the odds.

Scaffolds are key. The dentist and Orthopods have already demonstrated that. Having stem cells randomly put into a place is very unlikely to do anything. Does not check the common sense box for me.
 
Top