Slashdot Mirror


Stem Cell Treatment To Cure the Most Common Cause of Blindness

The Times Online reports that researchers from the Institute of Ophthalmology at University College London and Moorfields eye hospital have developed stem cell therapy that can treat age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the most common cause of blindness. They are currently moving the treatment through the regulatory approval process, and clinical trials are expected to start within two years. Quoting: "Under the new treatment, embryonic stem cells are transformed into replicas of the missing cells. They are then placed on an artificial membrane which is inserted in the back of the retina. ... [Professor Pete Coffey, director of the London Project to Cure Blindness] said the treatment would take 'less than an hour, so it really could be considered as an outpatient procedure. We are trying to get it out as a common therapy.'

35 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. This is good and all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    But don't let this discourage any mad scientist from creating ocular implants, especially ones with wifi and defensive laser beams.

    1. Re:This is good and all by defile39 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Perhaps they can be upgraded to transmit and safely receive x-rays.

    2. Re:This is good and all by soupforare · · Score: 2, Funny

      The best defense is a good offense.

      --
      --- Do you believe in the day?
    3. Re:This is good and all by frieko · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wait, how do you fit a shark into an eye socket?

    4. Re:This is good and all by genner · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wait, how do you fit a shark into an eye socket?

      Very carefully.

    5. Re:This is good and all by Neuticle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wait, how do you fit a shark into an eye socket?

      Very carefully.

      I've found it helpful to practice with a camel and a needle-eye before attempting sharks and real eyes.

      --
      "Cheeze it!" - Bender
  2. Straight to stem-cell cures? by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I feel sorry for Larry Niven. Back in the 1960s and 1970s he was writing works of science fiction (e.g. the Gilm 'The Arm' Hamilton stories in Flatlander ) that suggested that organ transplants were going to be so widespread as a cure that even the most minor crimes would get the death penalty. Instead, it looks like the human race may realize stem cell cures faster than anyone could have imagined. Oh, and Kurzweil suggests we'll all be in robot bodies before the century's end, so those great hard science fiction writers of half a century ago fall even further behind.

    1. Re:Straight to stem-cell cures? by juiceboxfan · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...Kurzweil suggests we'll all be in robot bodies before the century's end...

      I think I would rather have the robot augmentation than chance stem cells turning on me.

      From the above link;
      Then he was diagnosed with a brain tumor in 2005. That tumor, it turns out, grew out of the stem cells, obtained from at least two aborted fetuses, used in his brain.

      Besides can stem cells give you telescopic vision? Now that would be cool!

    2. Re:Straight to stem-cell cures? by cagrin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually "synthetic" bodies which i suppose you could call robots have been around for quite some time...though it is hidden from the general public. Science fiction writers are often writing about technology existing in THEIR time(such as time travel and "star gates") but is not in the public eye. Start with the Omega and Majestic projects if you wish to research ;)

      --
      ~ awaiting spiritual enlightenment ~
  3. Still a long way to go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    IAAO (I am an Ophthalmologist).

    Although the article does not mention what kind of cells and membranes are transplanted and wether it is going to be used in exsudative or non-exsudative AMD I would assume that it's retinal Pigment Epithelium and Bruch's Membrane being used in wet (= exsudative) AMD.
    Therefore this seems to involve subretinal surgery, which is not a piece of cake and usually diminishes visual accuity.
    Previous attempts in this direction have already been done (macular rotation, retinal pigment epithelium transplants, etc.), results have not been all too gratifying.

    1. Re:Still a long way to go... by defile39 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I (and I'm sure many others) will gladly take a little loss of visual acuity over a lot of blindness. You have to admit that, if this works, it will be a revolutionary improvement over rotation or general transplants. Of course, that's still a big if.

    2. Re:Still a long way to go... by spineboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      IANAO IAAO (I am not an Opthomologist, I am an Orthopaedist)

      Anyway, I think the GP is suggesting that it's not just a little loss of visual acuity, but a lot, a whole lot. Maybe even enough to make it not worthwhile.
      If I recall correctly, the retina is kinda made backwards - the nerves are on top of the retinal layer. So one has to peel back the nerves to work on the layer underneath. I can't imagine that individual nerves like this at all.

      --
      ..........FULL STOP.
    3. Re:Still a long way to go... by bargainsale · · Score: 4, Informative

      IAAO too ...

      This is, I think, stem cell implantation subretinally for Geographic Atrophy, a.k.a "dry" macular degeneration. Potentially a big deal inasmuch as currently we have no treatment for this at all and it accounts for 90% of all macular degeneration.

      It involves major invasive surgery: "outpatient procedure" gives a highly misleading idea of what's involved. It doesn't mean any more than that you could get away with not admitting the patient to hospital, not that you could ever do it anywhere except in an operating theatre.

      Moorfields have lately developed a very bad habit of prematurely and misleadingly announcing "breakthroughs" in eye treatment, which I suspect is related to their own funding issues (they did this not long ago with some extremely misleading publicity about three patients with Leber's Amaurorosis they'd treated with gene therapy, not one of whom in fact showed measurable objective improvement in vision - not the impression the news reports tried to give.)

      Peng Khaw BTW is not a retinal expert (though Lyndon da Cruz certainly is; he was also involved in the publicity about the gene therapy, interestingly.)

      I'm sorry to say that I think this is the Moorfields spin machine in action.

      --
      Aberrations have appeared in my destiny prognostication engine!
    4. Re:Still a long way to go... by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why are you abbreviating and then writing out the abbreviation? Doesn't that kind of negate the point of an abbreviation?

      Most people on the Tubes would have saved themselves a lot of time by just writing the commonly-used abbreviation, "WAYAATWOTA? DTKONTPOAA?"

    5. Re:Still a long way to go... by bargainsale · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, that's incorrect.

      "Blindness" is being used in this context in a technical but generally accepted sense to mean vision so poor that you can't see the top letter on the eye chart with either eye. That's a grim state to be in, but most people who are "legally blind" like this are far from having no vision at all.

      In particular, Macular Degeneration hardly ever leads to the total blindness you are referring to.

      That doesn't mean it isn't a horrible crippling condition of course.

      --
      Aberrations have appeared in my destiny prognostication engine!
    6. Re:Still a long way to go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      IANAO IAAO (I am not an Opthomologist, I am an Orthopaedist)

      EIEIO (I am a farmer)

    7. Re:Still a long way to go... by ParadoxDruid · · Score: 4, Informative

      I recently met Pete Coffey, the lead scientist on this effort (he collaborates with scientists in a research group across the hall from mine), and attended his technical talk on this procedure. You are correct, they're transplanting retinal pigment epithelium. However, they've done experiments with both wet AMD and some preliminary work with reviving dry AMD. Very promising work; but yes, very involved surgery with a success rate of 75% even for ideal patients.

      --
      This statement is solely an opinion. Kindly take it as such in all cases.
    8. Re:Still a long way to go... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Plus, I could enjoy religious nutjobs shouting "You put baby foetus in your eyes !" at me...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  4. Wow, thank god for that by physburn · · Score: 5, Interesting
    So pleased at the news, losing my eyes, is my number one fear, no eyes = no computers games, no programming, and no porn. Blindness would be sure hell.

    Reading the article, is hardly ready for use, so far only tested on rats and pigs. There'll be many years of trials before its ready for use on people. Plus Stem cells have be known to turn cancerous, cancer of the retina, would be quickly fatal, there so close to the brain.

    Stem cells have tremendous potential to cure disease and even to reverse the aging process. The next twenty years of research might total change the sad process of aging in human.

    Stem cells feed at Feed Distiller

    1. Re:Wow, thank god for that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Eh, don't get too hung up on it. I'm legally blind and have no trouble with coding, video games, and especially porn. Could be the porn that got me into this mess in the first place (mom always said I'd go blind), but whatever.

  5. A treatment to get rid of AMD? by name*censored* · · Score: 5, Funny

    "On hearing the announcement that researchers have found a cure for AMD, a spokesman for computing giant Intel said 'It's about bloody time.'".
     
    /ducks

    --
    Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
  6. Masturbation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Finally! Now, can someone do something about the hair on my palms?

  7. Re:Vampirism by nizo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So if you had a choice between saving a vat of frozen embryos from a fire or a single person of any age, you would pick the embryos? How about if the single person was your child; would you still pick the vat of embryos?

    By the way, for all the folks who are against using stem cells to cure disease, feel free to go blind while the rest of us enjoy our vision. As someone who has a genetic predisposition towards getting MD when I get older, I am more than happy to sacrifice a few bundles of cells that were going to be tossed into the trash anyway to keep my vision when I am older.

  8. The Most Common Cause of Blindness by Idiomatick · · Score: 4, Funny

    Someone tag this !porn because I was seriously confused for a minute.

  9. Re:Vampirism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hi. Medical professional here. Do you have a source? Because that's not my thinking, or the thinking of most others I've discussed the issue with.

  10. Re:Vampirism by Kiuas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just don't see how taking the life of an embryo so that the older or sick can keep on living is anything other than vampirisim (in a loose sense of the word, or course).

    Erm, someone correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't this been discussed time and time again. Embryos for stem cell research are not bred just for the purpose of being "killed". The cells, at least acording to what I've heard/read (again, prove me wrong if you know any better, I'm not a professional) are taken from embryos that were fertilized for the purposes of fertility treatment/artificial impregantion. During those treatments multiple embryos are fertilized and some of them are the discared. The stem cells are extracted from discarded embryos. This means that the embryos would "die" anyway and at least this way they're being used for something beneficial.

    Moreover, I don't understand the problem at all. Embryos aren't humans. They are clusters of cells. They are by no means sentient or intelligent. So what's the whole deal about "vapirism"? People donate blood and organs all the time - this is not so far from it. Bottom line is: The embryo is alive in the sense all cells are alive but it has no "life" to be taken away. If you seriously think that way I suggest you stop eating any food because by eating vegetables you're basically taking the life of another organism so that you can live and according to you, that's "vampirism".

    --
    "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
  11. Re:Vampirism by neonmonk · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hi Medical Professional here, you may recognise me from such medical products as "Your First Colonoscopy" and the award winning "Bilateral Orchiectomy."

  12. And the first thing you'll see... by TomHandy · · Score: 2, Funny

    When your vision is restored is the baby jesus crying.

  13. Re:There are politics to this by TomHandy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In all seriousness, it will cause an interesting moral choice for those people then. As you said, there are people who genuinely hold those values, but I don't think it would be such an easy cut and dry decision for some of them if it could mean something like restoring sight. Or, say, even if not for them, but if the sight of one of their children could be restored. Not saying everyone would give in, but it would not always be an easy choice. Not to put it on the same level, but it's like how many people have an objection on paper to something like abortion, but when actually confronted with it, they don't always act based on their objections.

  14. Obligatory by Godji · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...stem cell therapy that can treat age-related macular degeneration (AMD)...

    A spokesman for Intel expressed great interest in the technology:

    "AMD has been a problem we've tried to combat for years, but until now, no matter how much we tried to suppress it, it always managed to survive. Not anymore."

    NVIDIA declined to comment on this news story.

  15. The Real Problem by sycodon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So let's say they come up with a cure for something, anything, using embryonic stem cells.

    The next logical step is to produce this cure in production quantities. How long until the supply of embryos in storage from artificial insemination attempts, etc. are exhausted?

    What then? The only option is pay men and women for their sperm and eggs so that they can produce the embryos from which to harvest the stem cells. I understand that extracting eggs is an expensive and painful process. Of course, give a guy a Hustler and he's good to go.

    So in order to commercialize the cure, even in limited quantities, you essentially have to set up embryo factories.

    If that does not give you pause, then there is something wrong with you.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:The Real Problem by lena_10326 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Responding because crying strawman or ad hominem incorrectly is something that highly irritates me. It also seems to be on the rise. The guy proposed a hypothetical future scenario and essentially made a slippery slope argument. That's not strawman. Strawman is inserting a new, similar argument and passing it off as the opponent's argument (a misrepresentation) and then arguing against that new argument.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
  16. Re:Vampirism by Badge+17 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think part of the worry comes from a mistaken belief that each treatment will mean the destruction of an embryo - hence the "vampirism" fear. Maybe I'm wrong in this, but the treatment comes from a stem cell line - i.e. once upon a time there was an embryo, and now it's billions and billions of constantly growing individual stem cells. Objecting to stem cell *treatments* because of embryos being destroyed is like a vegan refusing to be treated by a doctor who once ate meat ten years ago.

  17. Re:Vampirism by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And yes kids, THIS is how one does a troll. Pure Truth, yet presented in the most inflamatory way possible, is the surest way to drive folks into a blind rage.

    Perhaps; perhaps. Perhaps you are correct.

    However, and this is an important however: your post is not going to receive funding. The research discussed in the article, however trollish, likely will. So, I've learned something from your post, even if it wasn't directly what you were conveying. :)

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  18. Religous FUD by omb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I continue to be appalled by the bigoted and histrionic comments of religious Americans who do not seem to understand that not even all Christians agree with them let alone the rest of us, and then Squabble endlessly over exactly what Bush's disastrous decision in Health was, again never mind his contributions to Foreign Affairs or the Economy. He set health research back eight years while presiding over un-necessary wars and the de-regulation of the financial system which has resulted in the greatest depression in four generations and the rise of more crooks, fraudsters and scam agents to shake a stick at.

    For the record I, and most outside the US, do not care whether the stem cells are embryonic or not, so long as the medics have the genetic material, and that means diversity of genes, to search for cure to debiliting illnesses especially as there is a surplus of fetuses for other reasons.

    Restoring pluri-potence to the patients own cells may well be desirable but is not essential as various gene splicing and gene injection techniques generate neither cancer or rejection as some comments, clearly FUD from the US rabid right suggested.

    What is clearly necessary is better scientific education and that is better done by paying attention in school rather than church.

    Thank goodness Obama at least sounds rational.