Even patients with a cochlear implant could benefit with an improved neuronal compone

[neuro]

"Human Auditory Stem Cells
Today, Monday, Aug 31 3:30p to 4:30p
at Georgia Institute Of Technology, Atlanta, GA
Age Suitability: None Specified
Tags: There are no tags.
Human Auditory Stem Cells: Paving the way for the development of a stem cell-based therapy for deafness
Dr. Marcelo Rivolta, M.D., Ph.D.
Senior Research Fellow
Centre for Stem Cell Biology and Department of Biomedical Sciences
University of Sheffield
Monday, August 31, 2009
3:30PM
Edgar L. Rhodes Center for Animal and Dairy Science
(located on corner of River Rd. and College Station Rd.)
Auditorium, Room 101
Deafness is a major public health issue and severity increases rapidly after 50 years of age. Almost 90% of affected people suffer sensorineural loss, which involves deficit of sensory hair cells and their associated innervations. These cells are not replaced and hearing loss is irreversible. There is no definitive restorative treatment for deafness although, with a suitable nerve supply, the sensory function of the inner ear can be partially replaced by a cochlear implant. Stem cell-based technology now offers a glimpse of hope for patients condemned to live in perpetual silence. A potential therapeutic approach would be to replace lost cells by transplantation of exogenous, in vitro-maintained stem cells. Even patients with a cochlear implant could benefit with an improved neuronal component"
source: Human Auditory Stem Cells at Georgia Institute Of Technology in Atlanta, GA - Zvents

 

[deafdude1]

Those who save their residual hearing and virgin ears will get much more benefit from stem cells. I don't expect those who already have CI to be candidates for stem cells anytime soon unless their CI fails. Even then, the improvement with stem cells might get you only to 90db loss when you didn't save any residual hearing plus the alterations to the cochlea caused by CI. Considering a CI today is much more difficult and risky with stem cells only a few years away.

 

[rockdrummer]

Those who save their residual hearing and virgin ears will get much more benefit from stem cells. I don't expect those who already have CI to be candidates for stem cells anytime soon unless their CI fails. Even then, the improvement with stem cells might get you only to 90db loss when you didn't save any residual hearing plus the alterations to the cochlea caused by CI. Considering a CI today is much more difficult and risky with stem cells only a few years away.

This information came from Dr. Marcelo Rivolta, M.D., Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow Centre for Stem Cell Biology and Department of Biomedical Sciences University of Sheffield. What credentials do you have to support your views?

 

[cdmeggers]

Ok, no one knows EXACTLY how long it will be before stem cells treatment is available. You keep saying "a few years".. how do you know this for sure? Researchers have been saying "few years" and "soon" for YEARS and YEARS now, so don't get your hopes up on this being available that soon. It could still be a really long time to come, who knows.

And a CI today being much more difficult and risky? In fact, more and more CI users now-a-days still have their residual hearing saved, so CIs doesn't destroy what's left of the residual hearing for everyone anymore.

And, I'm sure there are going to be criteria for being a stem cell candidate too... It probably won't be for EVERY deaf person out there.. I mean, what about those who have ossificiation in their inner ears? I don't see how stem cell can work for those with ossification, but maybe the researchers will prove me wrong years from now.

 

[SpiceHD]

and you forget one thing... not every deaf person has two CI. most of us as far as i know has only one... so stem cells can be used on unaffected ear. i am considering of trying to get stem cells myself (when they comes out that is)

and reminds me.. what is ossificiation?

 

[deafdyke]

Ok, no one knows EXACTLY how long it will be before stem cells treatment is available. You keep saying "a few years".. how do you know this for sure? Researchers have been saying "few years" and "soon" for YEARS and YEARS now, so don't get your hopes up on this being available that soon. It could still be a really long time to come, who knows.

THANK YOU CD!
Yeah in the 70's the hype for cure was all about chiropratic.
Virtually all the stuff out there about stem cells is still more on the "maybe it could help. They do NOT know that it could help for sure."

 

[jillio]

More press releases? Geeze!

 

[Oceanbreeze]

and you forget one thing... not every deaf person has two CI. most of us as far as i know has only one... so stem cells can be used on unaffected ear. i am considering of trying to get stem cells myself (when they comes out that is)

and reminds me.. what is ossificiation?

calcification of the cochlea.

 

[deafdude1]

Ok, no one knows EXACTLY how long it will be before stem cells treatment is available. You keep saying "a few years".. how do you know this for sure? Researchers have been saying "few years" and "soon" for YEARS and YEARS now, so don't get your hopes up on this being available that soon. It could still be a really long time to come, who knows.

10 years ago, stem cells was 15 years away. 5 years ago, stem cells was 10 years away. Today stem cells is 5 years away.

And a CI today being much more difficult and risky? In fact, more and more CI users now-a-days still have their residual hearing saved, so CIs doesn't destroy what's left of the residual hearing for everyone anymore.

CI is a very difficult, risky choice for anyone interested in stem cells and is willing to wait. Phi4sius decided not to appeal his CI insurance but instead save his ears for stem cells. He will be a pioneer and enter the first clinical trials if they accept him. Hybrid CI is a failure because some residual hearing is destroyed instantly and almost everyone ends up losing the rest of their residual hearing within a year. Preserved residual hearing is temporary. I know a lady who lost all her residual hearing 3 months after CI.

And, I'm sure there are going to be criteria for being a stem cell candidate too... It probably won't be for EVERY deaf person out there.. I mean, what about those who have ossificiation in their inner ears? I don't see how stem cell can work for those with ossification, but maybe the researchers will prove me wrong years from now.

My hearing is bad enough to be a stem cell candidate.

 

[ref74]

I understand everything. It's clear the stem cells perspective are wonderful. The only thing I really cannot understand is how it is possible to base such a crucial choice on expectations about the timing of a novel technology. 20-15-5 years are predictions! It is impossible to know when a therapy will finally become viable.
OK, some clinical trials are going to begin, but they can require 5-10 years or more!! And nobody can assure they will be successful. Even if they will succeed, there will still be a severe lack of statistics on long term effects, failure rates, etc. Moreover, clinical trials will focus on one, or a few specific kinds of hearing loss.
It's really too vague! Too vague!!
Sure, anybody can decide to risk his own health and candidate for clinical trials, but consider you are going to get experimental, not fully tested procedure, exposing to unknown and potentially major risks.

 

[deafdude1]

I understand everything. It's clear the stem cells perspective are wonderful. The only thing I really cannot understand is how it is possible to base such a crucial choice on expectations about the timing of a novel technology. 20-15-5 years are predictions! It is impossible to know when a therapy will finally become viable.
OK, some clinical trials are going to begin, but they can require 5-10 years or more!! And nobody can assure they will be successful. Even if they will succeed, there will still be a severe lack of statistics on long term effects, failure rates, etc. Moreover, clinical trials will focus on one, or a few specific kinds of hearing loss.
It's really too vague! Too vague!!
Sure, anybody can decide to risk his own health and candidate for clinical trials, but consider you are going to get experimental, not fully tested procedure, exposing to unknown and potentially major risks.

It could indeed take 10 years from the first human clinical trials to the time FDA approves it. Many of us will try to get into clinical trials or get it done experimentally, even traveling overseas if they have to. I could probably get it experimentally in some China lab today but im not that much of a risk taker. I will wait and let others be the pioneers and based on their results, I will go ahead next. Could be 3-5 years from now when it's much less vague.

 

[ref74]

Travelling to countries where health systems are not well established and controlled put your life in risk. Seriously. Is it worth to risk the life for restoring hearing? Fortunately hearing loss is not a disease, nor a danger for life!
Only once FDA will approve it, it can be considered safe. If you have to candidate for clinical trials, even in 5 years, do it in the US, or in one of the major european countries.

(I have nothing against asian or african countries, I strongly believe some of them are gorgeous places!! but unfortunately only a few of them has health systems comparable to that of western countries...)

 

[deafdude1]

Not every country is 3rd world. Stem cell technology may be a couple years ahead in other developed 1st world countries. Of course I am not risking my life unless it's to cure a life threatening disease. I can determine if stem cells is safe before FDA approval based on clinical trials. Besides FDA has approved many things that are NOT safe!

Of course I would prefer to get stem cells in the USA, my plan is to wait for phase I trials to conclude then ill apply for phase II trials. Its possible some stem cell labs in the USA may be treating hearing loss/deafness off-lable in the near future, ill sign a waiver for this. Ill also look and see if I can get it in Canada, Europe or some other developed country.

 

[ref74]

Not every country is 3rd world. Stem cell technology may be a couple years ahead in other developed 1st world countries.

Sure! I didnt mean that! I am from and live in Italy. Italy is often cited for many problems it has, but besides not being the very first country in all the fields, it is a reasonable example of reliable developed country, expecially for the health system.

Of course I am not risking my life unless it's to cure a life threatening disease. I can determine if stem cells is safe before FDA approval based on clinical trials.

Good you are aware of that!!
But do you really think to be able to get the necessary information and make a judge based on solid understanding of the data before the trials are over? It sounds very very difficult!
Hopes and expectations could expose you to a risk you underestimate!
(I think this is true for many cases of CI surgery, too...)

Besides FDA has approved many things that are NOT safe!

That is not true. FDA approves on the basis of the results of the clinical trials. Tests are severe and follow precise guidelines. The point is that often some problems are not pointed out during the trials and they arise after the product/therapy is on the market. This is because the trials are as extensive as possible, but obviously there are limitations, expecially due to costs and to the number of volunteers. Statistical significance could be difficult to be judge, unfortunately. In some cases if major problems arises FDA approval can be revoked!
Anyway, there will always be a risk correlated to any medical tratment. Always!


Finally, I really hope for you (and for my son) that stem cells age will come soon and you can be luck with the treatment!!!

 

[deafdude1]

Sure! I didnt mean that! I am from and live in Italy. Italy is often cited for many problems it has, but besides not being the very first country in all the fields, it is a reasonable example of reliable developed country, expecially for the health system.

If Italy starts offering stem cell treatments, please share the news! Ill be willing to travel!

Good you are aware of that!!
But do you really think to be able to get the necessary information and make a judge based on solid understanding of the data before the trials are over? It sounds very very difficult!
Hopes and expectations could expose you to a risk you underestimate!
(I think this is true for many cases of CI surgery, too...)

I am a person known for doing my research. I researched lasik surgery for a few years before deciding it was too risky. Most cosmetic/elective surgeries carry alot of risk and are completely unnecessary!

That is not true. FDA approves on the basis of the results of the clinical trials. Tests are severe and follow precise guidelines. The point is that often some problems are not pointed out during the trials and they arise after the product/therapy is on the market. This is because the trials are as extensive as possible, but obviously there are limitations, expecially due to costs and to the number of volunteers. Statistical significance could be difficult to be judge, unfortunately. In some cases if major problems arises FDA approval can be revoked!
Anyway, there will always be a risk correlated to any medical tratment. Always!

Why are cosmetic/elective surgeries approved? They offer no medical benefit but with all the risks of injury or even death!

 

[ref74]

If Italy starts offering stem cell treatments, please share the news! Ill be willing to travel!

Sure!!! You are welcome!!!
Anyway, don't count too much on that. We have catholic church making a lot of pressure against these kind of medical activities. Although we have some excellent research centers, it is always difficult to go on on that without a strong opposition by public opinion, led by church...
I honestly do not understand, but it's a fact, unfortunately.

I am a person known for doing my research. I researched lasik surgery for a few years before deciding it was too risky. Most cosmetic/elective surgeries carry alot of risk and are completely unnecessary!

I did not mean you are not able to judge!! I did not want to underestimate you anyway!!
I am only saying it is very difficult. I am a scientist, I am used to get access to scientific literature and I work in life science. Nevertheless, it is often very difficult for me to get a solid opinion on many issues I am not directly involved in, although in principle I have the education level to understand.

Why are cosmetic/elective surgeries approved? They offer no medical benefit but with all the risks of injury or even death!

It depends on what you mean with medical benefit. Cosmetic surgery is usually derived from plastic surgery and anyway it can have a strong impact on a person's psychology.
For example breast augmentation uses the same techniques that are used in case of plastic surgery after breast removal for cancer treatment. Obviously the surgery is the same, but the meaning is very different. FDA approves that kind of activity, not the reason behind it.
This is more a matter of cost covering.
Actually no insurance would cover the cost of a breast augmentation, while I think this is possible after a breast cancer surgery. At least in Italy the national health system pays for that (but not if you want to have bigger tits, or a narrow nose...).
FDA must assure that a clinical activity is safe from the medical point of view, not why it is applied and who is interested in it.
Risks are passed to the patient, who must be INFORMED correctly.

 

[deafdude1]

Sure!!! You are welcome!!!
Anyway, don't count too much on that. We have catholic church making a lot of pressure against these kind of medical activities. Although we have some excellent research centers, it is always difficult to go on on that without a strong opposition by public opinion, led by church...
I honestly do not understand, but it's a fact, unfortunately.

They may be against embryonic stem cells but you can get adult stem cells from your own body. I don't want to be treated with embryonic stem cells because they don't work. One must use their own adult stem cells!

I did not mean you are not able to judge!! I did not want to underestimate you anyway!!
I am only saying it is very difficult. I am a scientist, I am used to get access to scientific literature and I work in life science. Nevertheless, it is often very difficult for me to get a solid opinion on many issues I am not directly involved in, although in principle I have the education level to understand.

I could learn a few things from you.

It depends on what you mean with medical benefit. Cosmetic surgery is usually derived from plastic surgery and anyway it can have a strong impact on a person's psychology.

Or one can learn to accept their imperfections and flaws. They aren't a disability in any manner, save your money and avoid risks!

For example breast augmentation uses the same techniques that are used in case of plastic surgery after breast removal for cancer treatment. Obviously the surgery is the same, but the meaning is very different. FDA approves that kind of activity, not the reason behind it.

I would still never want any breast implants(if I was a woman) for any reason!
To stay on topic, let me link you to this thread: http://www.alldeaf.com/lifestyle-he...arn-about-health-hazards-breast-implants.html

FDA must assure that a clinical activity is safe from the medical point of view, not why it is applied and who is interested in it.
Risks are passed to the patient, who must be INFORMED correctly.

If there's risks, then it's not safe! I could understand taking risks on a life saving surgery. After all, it makes sense to risk your life to save your life! I could also understand taking some risks on surgeries/procedures to correct major disabilities. But something purely elective? No thanks.

 

[JennyB]

Clinical trials

One note on "clinical trials". DeafDude you see to think you can just walk into a clinical trial because you want to...coming from a family of medical professionals and from being in a clinical trial for something right now I can tell you it isn't that easy.

Sometimes they post the trials and you can apply to be in them. Often they have age and health standards that you must fall in. Very few people actually fit the mold they want.

Other trials pull from only certain clinics and existing patients. Others only pull from certain areas. Say a trial is taking place in a different state, you would have to live within that state.

It's not as easy as you think.

 

[ref74]

They may be against embryonic stem cells but you can get adult stem cells from your own body. I don't want to be treated with embryonic stem cells because they don't work. One must use their own adult stem cells!

In principle you are right. Anyway I think they translate the concept to anything that touch even from very far away, the genetic issue.
My idea is that they do not understand, anyway nothing to do...

I could learn a few things from you.

I don't know, but if you really could, I would be happy to teach you...

Or one can learn to accept their imperfections and flaws. They aren't a disability in any manner, save your money and avoid risks!

I agree, especially if the imperfection is estetical. Anyway somebody thinks the same for deafness. Deaf people could simply accept the imperfection, which is not a threat for life. I personally do not agree on that, at least not completely.
After all this is a very personal decision. I think it is fair to let people do what they want and spend their money the way they prefer. It is important however that a medical treatment, made by medical doctors, is safe enough.

I would still never want any breast implants(if I was a woman) for any reason!
To stay on topic, let me link you to this thread: http://www.alldeaf.com/lifestyle-he...arn-about-health-hazards-breast-implants.html

I had a look. Oh my god!!

If there's risks, then it's not safe! I could understand taking risks on a life saving surgery. After all, it makes sense to risk your life to save your life! I could also understand taking some risks on surgeries/procedures to correct major disabilities. But something purely elective? No thanks.

Any medical treatment, from surgery, to the most simple drug intake, has some associated risk. The risk should always be minor, controllable, statistically not too much important and of course it must be correlated to the treatment. In other words, high risks can be tolerated for life saving procedures only.
Any surgery has some risk associated. Again it is a personal decision. I also would say no thanks to elective surgery and there issomebody who would say the same for hearing loss treatment. Diversity is nice, after all!

 

[deafdude1]

One note on "clinical trials". DeafDude you see to think you can just walk into a clinical trial because you want to...coming from a family of medical professionals and from being in a clinical trial for something right now I can tell you it isn't that easy.

Sometimes they post the trials and you can apply to be in them. Often they have age and health standards that you must fall in. Very few people actually fit the mold they want.

Other trials pull from only certain clinics and existing patients. Others only pull from certain areas. Say a trial is taking place in a different state, you would have to live within that state.

It's not as easy as you think.

Thanks for the headsup. Are you under NDA for your clinical trial? If not, what is your trial for? I will wait for phase I trials to conclude then apply for phase II trials. If I am accepted, good. If not, ill travel overseas to another developed country and get it done. Do clinical trials charge or are they free?

REF.............

I agree, especially if the imperfection is estetical. Anyway somebody thinks the same for deafness. Deaf people could simply accept the imperfection, which is not a threat for life. I personally do not agree on that, at least not completely.
After all this is a very personal decision. I think it is fair to let people do what they want and spend their money the way they prefer. It is important however that a medical treatment, made by medical doctors, is safe enough.

Deafness is a disability as well as an imperfection. There's a good reason HAs and CI were invented and why stem cells will be an option soon. It's a personal decision but I feel that being able to hear better will make a positive effect on my life.(same reason people wear HAs or CI today)

I had a look. Oh my god!!

Reply in that breast enhancement thread, it's great for others to consider carefully.

Any medical treatment, from surgery, to the most simple drug intake, has some associated risk. The risk should always be minor, controllable, statistically not too much important and of course it must be correlated to the treatment. In other words, high risks can be tolerated for life saving procedures only.
Any surgery has some risk associated. Again it is a personal decision. I also would say no thanks to elective surgery and there issomebody who would say the same for hearing loss treatment. Diversity is nice, after all!

One must weigh the benefits vs. risks. For life saving treatments, do you risk taking medical drugs or risk dying anyway? Almost everyone believes taking medical drugs and undergoing surgeries improves survival over doing nothing, after all it wouldn't be an option if it wasn't shown to improve survival!

For elective surgeries, the risks are way too high for the lack of benefit they achieve. Those should have never been FDA approved!