DePalma is Lying to Hype Mesoblast

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

ampaphb

Interventional Spine
15+ Year Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
4,352
Reaction score
738
Data he presented at SIS showed no clinically or statistical significance in either group. But he still made it sound like it was better.

Dirty trickster. No respect.
 
Gosh I miss the days working under him seeing 50 pts a day including 3-4 EMGs and then dictating all his level 4 and 5 notes till 9pm every night...making him millions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Members don't see this ad :)
https://ryortho.com/breaking/low-back-pain-mesoblast-receives-best-basic-science-award/

This is simply not consistent with the data he presented at SIS in July

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N930A using SDN mobile

Michael J. DePalma, M.D., president and medical director of Virginia iSpine Physicians, stated: "The long term results from this study indicate that a single injection of Mesoblast’s allogeneic Mesenchymal Precursor Cells (MPCs) into the disc of patients with moderate to severe CLBP due to degenerative disc disease was well tolerated and provided substantial improvement in pain and function over 24 months compared with control therapies."

Has anyone told Mike or Mesoblast that low back pain is a psychiatric condition?
 
I am keeping a list of all the amazing substances people inject into painful discs, and here is one more! I bet it works at least as well as methylene blue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I am keeping a list of all the amazing substances people inject into painful discs, and here is one more! I bet it works at least as well as methylene blue.
But not quite as well as ozone

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N930A using SDN mobile
 
am I reading this correctly: allogenic mesenchymal prescursor cells?
That sounds like a cultured cell line , non autologous, which goes directly against FDA restrictions
 
am I reading this correctly: allogenic mesenchymal prescursor cells?
That sounds like a cultured cell line , non autologous, which goes directly against FDA restrictions

They fall under a different section of the Public Health Service Act. Because they are, indeed, making a biological drug from allogenic materials. They have to do all the pre-market and post-market testing required of a drug conform to all current good manufacturing practices for scalable mass use. It's costs millions and millions of dollars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
publicly traded company. I think australia.

also have trials in cardiac, opthal, etc
 
Michael J. DePalma, M.D., president and medical director of Virginia iSpine Physicians, stated: "The long term results from this study indicate that a single injection of Mesoblast’s allogeneic Mesenchymal Precursor Cells (MPCs) into the disc of patients with moderate to severe CLBP due to degenerative disc disease was well tolerated and provided substantial improvement in pain and function over 24 months compared with control therapies."

Has anyone told Mike or Mesoblast that low back pain is a psychiatric condition?


Has anyone told the Neurosurgeons/Orthopedic Surgeons who make millions off of fusions/laminectomies that "low back pain" is a psychiatric condition?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)

That PPT looks identical to what was reported in that article you linked. Where is the difference? He is claiming a VAS and disability benefit up to 24 months after a single injection of MPCs.

The biggest concern I have is the lack of morphology difference on the MRIs at the 6 month interval and the low sample size.

Phase 3 trial should address sample size issues.

How do these end points compare to the end points of fusion surgeries for DDD at the 24 month intervals?
 
Has anyone told the Neurosurgeons/Orthopedic Surgeons who make millions off of fusions/laminectomies that "low back pain" is a psychiatric condition?

The ethical NS, OS, Anesthesiologists, and Physiatrists have all known this for a long time.
So why not look to the good people in other specialties to help guide your moral compass?
Your whole argument is "everybody else is committing fraud" so why shouldn't I? That
is a scary and distorted view of medicine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
The ethical NS, OS, Anesthesiologists, and Physiatrists have all known this for a long time.
So why not look to the good people in other specialties to help guide your moral compass?
Your whole argument is "everybody else is committing fraud" so why shouldn't I? That
is a scary and distorted view of medicine.

So I guess all Neurosurgeons/Orthopedic Surgeons who perform fusion surgeries are basically "committing fraud" right?

Damn thats literally 10s of billions of dollars in fraud every year.

Add in Medtronic for making all those fusion systems as well.

Add in Medtronic/Stryker for Kyphoplasty systems.

Add in BS/Medtronic/St Judes for SCS systems.

Add in all large pharma companies as well for their products used for this purpose.
 
Not at all. Fusion for scoliosis or spondylolisthesis isn't fraud.
 
Not at all. Fusion for scoliosis or spondylolisthesis isn't fraud.

LOL ok then 99.9% of fusion surgery is fraud. Got it.

I think you should post that on the Neurosurgery forum and let them know the level of fraud in their profession. You would be helping humanity out.
 
Last edited:
That PPT looks identical to what was reported in that article you linked. Where is the difference? He is claiming a VAS and disability benefit up to 24 months after a single injection of MPCs.

The biggest concern I have is the lack of morphology difference on the MRIs at the 6 month interval and the low sample size.

Phase 3 trial should address sample size issues.

How do these end points compare to the end points of fusion surgeries for DDD at the 24 month intervals?
The NUMBERS are identical. However, when he characterizes typical regression to the mean results (50% of patients get 50% better) as "providing SUBSTANTIAL improvement in pain and function", 'that an appreciable proportion of patients experienced clinically meaningful improvement", and 'if MPCs demonstrate similar results in the Phase 3 study, MANY of the patients with chronic low back pain ... may benefit".

Remember, in the two subgroups, 36% and 23% of patients met pain responder criteria.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The ethical NS, OS, Anesthesiologists, and Physiatrists have all known this for a long time.
So why not look to the good people in other specialties to help guide your moral compass?
Your whole argument is "everybody else is committing fraud" so why shouldn't I? That
is a scary and distorted view of medicine.
Coming from a guy whose consistent position is "You're all a bunch of *****s. All physiatrist are *****s. I'm the only one who has the answers", I'm amazed you acknowledge anyone else has the answers. I figured only you were omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
 
Last edited:
Gosh I miss the days working under him seeing 50 pts a day including 3-4 EMGs and then dictating all his level 4 and 5 notes till 9pm every night...making him millions. Bastard

wax on wax off
 
"What would Ampaphb say..."

Treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease-associated radicular pain with culture-expanded autologous mesenchymal stem cells: a pilot study on safety and efficacy | Journal of Translational Medicine | Full Text

Treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease-associated radicular pain with culture-expanded autologous mesenchymal stem cells: a pilot study on safety and efficacy
  • Christopher Centeno,
  • Jason Markle,
  • Ehren DodsonEmail authorView ORCID ID profile,
  • Ian Stemper,
  • Christopher J. Williams,
  • Matthew Hyzy,
  • Thomas Ichim and
  • Michael Freeman
Journal of Translational Medicine201715:197
Treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease-associated radicular pain with culture-expanded autologous mesenchymal stem cells: a pilot study on safety and efficacy | Journal of Translational Medicine | Full Text

© The Author(s) 2017

Received: 21 March 2017

Accepted: 14 September 2017

Published: 22 September 2017

Abstract
Background
Degenerative disc disease (DDD) is a common cause of lower back pain with radicular symptoms and has a significant socioeconomic impact given the associated disability. Limited effective conservative therapeutic options result in many turning to surgical alternatives for management, which vary in the rate of success and also carry an increased risk of morbidity and mortality associated with the procedures. Several animal based studies and a few human pilot studies have demonstrated safety and suggest efficacy in the treatment of DDD with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). The use of bone marrow-derived MSCs for the treatment of DDD is promising and in the present study we report on the safety and efficacy findings from a registry based proof of concept study using a percutaneous intradiscal injection of cultured MSCs for the management of DDD with associated radicular symptoms.

Methods
Thirty-three patients with lower back pain and disc degeneration with a posterior disc bulge diagnosed on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) met the inclusion criteria and were treated with culture-expanded, autologous, bone marrow-derived MSCs. Prospective registry data was obtained at multiple time intervals up to 6 years post-treatment. Collected outcomes included numeric pain score (NPS), a modified single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) rating, functional rating index (FRI), measurement of the intervertebral disc posterior dimension, and adverse events.

Results
Three patients reported pain related to procedure that resolved. There were no serious adverse events (i.e. death, infection, or tumor) associated with the procedure. NPS change scores relative to baseline were significant at 3, 36, 48, 60, and 72 months post-treatment. The average modified SANE ratings showed a mean improvement of 60% at 3 years post-treatment. FRI post-treatment change score averages exceeded the minimal clinically important difference at all time points except 12 months. Twenty of the patients treated underwent post-treatment MRI and 85% had a reduction in disc bulge size, with an average reduction size of 23% post-treatment.

Conclusions
Patients treated with autologous cultured MSCs for lower back pain with radicular symptoms in the setting of DDD reported minor adverse events and significant improvements in pain, function, and overall subjective improvement through 6 years of follow-up.

NCT03011398. A Clinical Registry of Orthobiologics Procedures. A Clinical Registry of Orthobiologics Procedures - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov

Keywords
Degenerative disc disease DDD Culture-expanded stem cells Mesenchymal stem cells MSC Radicular pain Autologous Intradiscal injection Bone marrow Regenerative medicine
 
a pilot study.

ie precursor to an actual real study, to prompt financial interest.

no clinical value or conclusions, other than that it might be financially interesting.
 
a pilot study.

ie precursor to an actual real study, to prompt financial interest.

no clinical value or conclusions, other than that it might be financially interesting.

No financial interest because "Big Pharma" can't make money off your own cells. Your cells are not regulated drugs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I hate to criticize when people put a lot of time into anything, I don't know where people get the energy for these studies...

I'm having trouble following the logic behind "bulge reduction".

"Our hypothesis was that MSCs will differentiate into fibroblasts which will deposit new collagen and extra-cellular matrix; therefore reinforce the dense protein amalgamation of the annulus fibrosis, preventing further posterior herniation, and decreasing the chemical inflammation contributing to chemical radiculitis. One explanation for our results may be changes in collagen density and decreased pro inflammatory catabolic cytokines."

Without placebo, any hypothesis seems premature to me.
 
problem is, this study will be used for its conclusion, even though it is insufficient to make such statements.

who benefits will be the authors who will point to this study as defacto evidence of benefit to patients. it wont be Big Pharma, it will be the ones injecting mesoblast...
 
problem is, this study will be used for its conclusion, even though it is insufficient to make such statements.

who benefits will be the authors who will point to this study as defacto evidence of benefit to patients. it wont be Big Pharma, it will be the ones injecting mesoblast...

Mesoblast is an allogenic product not autologous-cultured expanded.
 
thank you for the information.

my point has nothing to do with the product itself. there are beneficiaries to producing this fluff article, and they are not patients.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
thank you for the information.

my point has nothing to do with the product itself. there are beneficiaries to producing this fluff article, and they are not patients.

What are your problems with the science? It was a simple registry study, informed consent, IRB's, etc...

Without deep pockets, how do you think studies should get paid for?
 
I don't have any problems with studies at all - i just have a very critical eye. do you have any problems with GIGO science?

i do have an issue with this being published in a peer review journal when it is purely proof of concept, because indubitably it will not be interpreted that way... (which just now strikes me as having a devious intent by the authors.)

if it had stuck to proof of concept, instead of making conclusions, then its purpose would be satisfied without the confounders.


fyi cant go to your website. my browser says:
"This organization's certificate has been revoked."
 
I don't have any problems with studies at all - i just have a very critical eye. do you have any problems with GIGO science?

i do have an issue with this being published in a peer review journal when it is purely proof of concept, because indubitably it will not be interpreted that way... (which just now strikes me as having a devious intent by the authors.)

if it had stuck to proof of concept, instead of making conclusions, then its purpose would be satisfied without the confounders.


fyi cant go to your website. my browser says:
"This organization's certificate has been revoked."

7. When using investigational procedures, substances, or devices clinicians are encouraged to collect registry data and to make such information publicly available thru publication or other means when appropriate.

vs

Conclusions
Patients treated with autologous cultured MSCs for lower back pain with radicular symptoms in the setting of DDD reported minor adverse events and significant improvements in pain, function, and overall subjective improvement through 6 years of follow-up.

Problem: LBP with radicular symptoms is garbage. That is subjective nonscience and not a diagnosis. The symptoms have multiple etiologies that would not treat with injection as per study design.
 
7. When using investigational procedures, substances, or devices clinicians are encouraged to collect registry data and to make such information publicly available thru publication or other means when appropriate.

vs

Conclusions
Patients treated with autologous cultured MSCs for lower back pain with radicular symptoms in the setting of DDD reported minor adverse events and significant improvements in pain, function, and overall subjective improvement through 6 years of follow-up.

Problem: LBP with radicular symptoms is garbage. That is subjective nonscience and not a diagnosis. The symptoms have multiple etiologies that would not treat with injection as per study design.

PM me. I've got something for you to look at...
 
7.

Problem: LBP with radicular symptoms is garbage. That is subjective nonscience and not a diagnosis. The symptoms have multiple etiologies that would not treat with injection as per study design.

What do you mean LBP with radicular symptoms is garbage? Subjective nonscience and not a diagnosis? What would you expect to see written if not that? I just want to take a litmus test on acceptable verbiage
 
What do you mean LBP with radicular symptoms is garbage? Subjective nonscience and not a diagnosis? What would you expect to see written if not that? I just want to take a litmus test on acceptable verbiage

Is it piriformis, DDD with referred pain, disc on nerve pinching it, chemical radiculitis, spinal stenosis, referred facet pain, SIJ pain. Heterogenous group of conditions all with same symptoms and not the same treatment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Is it piriformis, DDD with referred pain, disc on nerve pinching it, chemical radiculitis, spinal stenosis, referred facet pain, SIJ pain. Heterogenous group of conditions all with same symptoms and not the same treatment.

Right, this needs to be worked up more appropriately. The more vague the more things the treatment is applicable to, which means more product sold. I misunderstood you initially.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Right, this needs to be worked up more appropriately. The more vague the more things the treatment is applicable to, which means more product sold. I misunderstood you initially.

I think the group has moved on to basovertebral nerve rf devices as next billion dollar toy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I don't have any problems with studies at all - i just have a very critical eye. do you have any problems with GIGO science?

i do have an issue with this being published in a peer review journal when it is purely proof of concept, because indubitably it will not be interpreted that way... (which just now strikes me as having a devious intent by the authors.)

if it had stuck to proof of concept, instead of making conclusions, then its purpose would be satisfied without the confounders.


fyi cant go to your website. my browser says:
"This organization's certificate has been revoked."

Do you have the same critical eye towards products such as Lyrica or the muscular dystrophy drug that got recent FDA approval that I have linked under the Sackler thread or do you reserve this for the stem cell people?

Its funny how big pharma has been ramming drug after drug through the FDA approval process with scant evidence yet I dont see the skeptical eye towards their products in the same manner.

We need to be consistent with this stuff.
 
Top