| |
From
the Desk of Hiroshi Mitsumoto, MD
As you may well know by now,
Columbia University’s recent Scientific Meeting of ALS Clinical
Trials, sponsored by the NIH and MDA was a great success. I have chosen
to let the words of the MDA reporter Margaret Wahl tell you more.
Margaret Wahl —
MDA journalist
TARRYTOWN, N.Y., June
13, 2003 – Some 100 ALS experts began an international
discussion today to set plans for speeding human trials in amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis.
At MDA’s ALS Clinical
Trials: The Challenge of the Next Century, co-sponsored by the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) and several pharmaceutical companies, the first
of more than three dozen speakers reviewed progress to date in developing
drug compounds or stem cell therapies to target ALS, among other topics.
MOLECULAR TARGETS
Serge Przedborski, co-director of the Eleanor and Lou Gehrig MDA/ALS Center
at Columbia University in New York, discussed the need to zero in on specific
molecular targets in deciding which compounds to test in ALS trials.
Przedborski, co-director of
the conference, began the morning session by recapping progress since
the 1993 discovery that a mutation in a gene called SOD1 leads to a highly
toxic protein that kills motor neurons, the muscle-controlling nerve cells
of the brain and spinal cord. Shortly thereafter, it was found that mutations
in the SOD1 gene are responsible for some 2 percent of human ALS cases.
By the mid-1990s, researchers had developed a mouse and later a rat model
of ALS by inserting genes with SOD1 mutations into these animals during
their embryonic development.
Thanks
in large part to the SOD1 rodent studies, it’s now established that
motor neurons die in ALS because of a molecular cascade, a set of coordinated
actions that results in the death of the cell. These actions, called “programmed
cell death,” or “apoptosis,” can be divided into three
phases, Przedborski reported. “At the top of the cascade,”
he noted, “we find the ‘initiators.’” These factors,
which are both inside and outside the motor neurons, play the role of
sensors. When they get signals that seem to warrant activating the apoptosis
program, these sensors, which include compounds known as “prostaglandins,”
initiate a death signal. Blocking such death signals, can prevent the
launch of the cell death program, studies have shown.
The current trial of celecoxib
(Celebrex) in ALS is directed at blocking the prostaglandin known as PGE2
by interfering with another compound, COX-2, which is needed for PGE2
manufacture. The next phase, Przedborski said, involves the cell death
“regulators,” which include the Bcl-2 family of proteins.
Some of these regulators help the cell survive, while others support the
death program. Genetic manipulations to increase the cell-survival protein
Bcl-1 in mice with SOD1 mutations improved survival of the mice. In the
third phase of the cascade, cell death “executioners,” mainly
a family of proteins known as “caspases,” becomes active.
In ALS, methods to block caspases could be beneficial, Przedborski said.
These are being studied.
Drug Screening
Jill Heemskerk, program director
of Technology Development at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders
and Stroke, part of NIH, spoke about her group’s aggressive drug
screening effort to identify compounds that may slow neurodegeneration.
Heemskerk emphasized that out of every 1,000 compounds screened by today’s
automated and sophisticated molecular methods, only 10 qualify as “hits”
-- eligible to be moved to the next phase of research. The “hits”
then become “leads,” she said, and they’re next tested
to compare their potency against their toxicity. Those in which potency
exceeds toxicity actually will become drug candidates.
Tests of potency are based
on whether the compound can alleviate signs of cell damage known to exist
during the process of neurodegeneration. Some of the screens are based
on decreasing signs of SOD1-related damage, while others are based on
increasing the production of a substance that clears away excess glutamate,
thought to be a factor in ALS and perhaps other neurodegenerative conditions.
Some 300 “hits” have so far been identified by the NINDS group,
Heemskerk said. At least a few will likely go all the way to clinical
trials.
Stem Cells and Neurodegeneration
Robert Brown, director of the
MDA/ALS Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, summarized
progress in stem cell research as it may apply to repairs in the nervous
system, as are needed in ALS. He noted that he and other physicians were
taught in medical school that there’s no regeneration in the nervous
system after it has fully developed. Only recently this maxim has been
proven false, he said. Citing the work of Tom Jessell at Columbia Presbyterian
Medical Center in New York, Brown noted with excitement that a gene called
Bmi1 appears to allow the maintenance of a pool of stem cells, at least
among cells that populate the blood. So far, the gene’s role in
maintaining nervous system stem cells hasn’t been established, although
it’s suspected to operate there in a similar way.
In rodent models of spinal
cord injury, investigators have been able to embed stem cells into the
gap between segments of healthy cord tissue where tissue has been damaged.
Brown said these interventions have resulted in “enormous benefit
to the cord” and at least moderate benefits to the animals’
walking ability. In the “shiverer mouse,” which has a genetic
inability to make myelin (a sheath around nerve fibers) and constantly
shakes and shivers, stem cells delivered into the brain migrated throughout
the brain, allowed for myelin production, and apparently caused the animals
to have more normal movement patterns.
In ALS, Brown said, it may
not be possible, at least in the near future, to replace motor neurons
that have been lost. However, he noted that having “good neighbors”
might help motor neurons that are on the edge to survive instead of dying.
Stem cells implanted in the nervous system could provide those “good
neighbor” cells, he said. A few experiments using human fetal stem
cells implanted into the spinal cords of rodents with SOD1 mutations have
shown improved survival. In humans, umbilical cord stem cells may be the
first candidates for such a strategy, Brown hinted.
Of Mice and Men
The leap from mouse or rat
studies to studies of humans with ALS was the subject of a talk by Jeffrey
Rothstein, director of the MDA/ALS Center at Johns Hopkins University
in Baltimore. Rothstein noted that many substances that have looked promising
in mice haven’t lived up to that promise when tested in humans.
There could be many reasons for this, he said. Among them is that mice
with SOD1 mutations are generated differently from the way humans with
SOD1 mutations are born. Mice have two normal SOD1 genes and are given
human mutant SOD1 genes, while humans with this genetic type of ALS have
one normal SOD1 gene and one with a genetic flaw.
He also noted that the vast
majority of people with ALS -- some 98 percent -- don’t have SOD1
mutations at all. Therefore, the model, while it looks very much like
human ALS, may have some important differences. Rothstein said that mice
are usually given experimental ALS treatments before they even show symptoms,
while humans with the disease aren’t identified so early and usually
get these treatments when their disease is well under way. Finally, he
noted, mice may be given an experimental drug once a day because it’s
too hard to give it to them more often, while humans may be asked to take
the drug several times a day. Humans and mice may also be given the drug
by different routes; for instance, mice may get it by injection and humans
by mouth. Before moving to human trials, Rothstein noted, it’s important
to examine the mice carefully to see whether the drug entered the nervous
system, and to try to keep conditions for the mice and humans as similar
as possible with respect to the drug experiment.
Rothstein emphasized that the
SOD1-mutated mouse isn’t the only way to study ALS. He says there’s
still a use for some methods that were relied on before the mice were
developed, such as sections of the nervous system -- “organotypic
models” -- that can be examined to see the precise effects of a
treatment on the nerve cells and surrounding tissues.
Lessons From Other
Fields
Researchers who have conducted
clinical trials in AIDS, cancer and heart disease suggested some parallels
between the challenges their fields faced several years ago and those
faced by ALS investigators today. Chief among these is the search for
biological indicators -- “markers” -- of disease progression
or improvement (and their corollary, drug effectiveness) that are easily
measured, objective and can be standardized. For instance, in AIDS, the
level of HIV in the blood and the number of remaining CD4+ cells in the
damaged immune system have been and continue to be powerful tools for
drug testing and patient care.
The main method of assessing
the progress of ALS is strength testing, which is highly variable from
day to day and from investigator to investigator. It also can be influenced
by factors that have nothing to do with the medication being studied.
Taking a leaf from the cancer researchers’ book was also suggested.
Cancer progression is measured by a standardized staging system, and such
a system could perhaps be developed for ALS.
Participants suggested that ALS investigators attempt to determine whether
the current El Escorial criteria by which patients are judged to have
possible, probable or definite ALS are still appropriate or whether new
criteria need to be developed.
|