Friday, March 17, 2017

(New England Journal of Medicine) 美國未經臨床許可 幹細胞治療失敗案例 (黃斑部病變)


幹細胞療效未獲證實 3婦失明 發稿時間:2017/03/16(中央社邁阿密15日綜合外電報導)一份研究報告指出,美國3名婦女接受未經試驗證實有效的幹細胞視力治療,結果失明。這項治療是抽取病人的脂肪組織,注射進她們的眼球。「新英格蘭醫學期刊」(New England Journal of Medicine)說,這3名婦女年紀介於7288歲之間,2015年在佛羅里達州接受一項稱為黃斑部病變的漸進式眼疾的治療法新社報導,她們以為自己登記參加合法的臨床試驗,不料卻馬上出現併發症,包括視網膜剝離和出血,導致眼力完全喪失。這項研究並未指出診所與患者姓名。研究的共同作者為邁阿密大學臨床眼科學副教授艾爾比尼(Thomas Albini。他說:「各界對幹細胞期望甚殷,這類診所對渴望治療的病人具有吸引力,他們希望幹細胞將會是解答。」「但在此一案例,這些婦女參與的臨床組織危險性超高。」

Three women blinded after stem cell injections at Broward clinic BY DANIEL CHANG  The University of Miami Health System's Bascom Palmer Eye Institute in Miami pictured in October 2014. In this 2012 photo, Dr. Thomas Albini, a professor of clinical ophthalmology at Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, demonstrates an eye exam used on patients to detect signs of macular degeneration. Albini co-wrote an article in this week's New England Journal of Medicine about three women blinded after receiving stem cell injections at a Broward clinic to treat their macular degeneration.  When three elderly women with a common age-related eye disease were blinded after receiving stem cell injections at a Broward County clinic in summer 2015, the red flags were apparent to Thomas Albini, a clinical ophthalmologist with the University of Miami Health System's Bascom Palmer Eye Institute. Raising Albini's suspicion were the women's accounts of what had happened: Each had both eyes injected on the same day with stem cells extracted from their body fat. They received little to no follow-up care or evaluation before or after the treatments. And they paid $5,000 each for the procedure."When that all was revealed, I was just in disbelief that this was happening in Broward," said Albini, who helped care for two of the three women and co-wrote an article in this week's New England Journal of Medicine detailing his experience."I knew that things like this could happen in other countries that don't have a sophisticated medical regulatory environment," Albini said Thursday. "But I really was naive to the fact that this could happen in the United States. Then I realized I was just as naive about it as the patients were."  The CEO of the Sunrise clinic where the women received the stem cell injections said he believes the article was intended to hurt the company's finances. Albini's article, which was co-written with nine other physicians, exposes what he calls a "loophole" in the U.S. government's oversight of unproven treatments involving stem cells. It also raises questions about whether federal regulators are doing enough to protect patients from risky medical procedures — especially ones that project the false impression that they are government approved. He said he co-wrote the article to alert physicians and patients to the dangers of unwarranted claims about the healing power of stem cells, which Albini said hold great promise but remain largely untested for clinical use."For us to get to the point where we can establish good stem cell therapy," he said, "we have to do good research that is ethical and also scientific. Whatever these patients had, it was neither ethical or scientific." In a written statement issued Thursday, Mike Tomás, CEO of U.S. Stem Cell Clinic, called the NEJM article "old news" and suggested it had been published to challenge the company's most recent financial report that revenue had risen by 38 percent, from $2.2 million in 2015 to $3.03 million in 2016. Tomás, who is a judge for the Miami Herald's annual Business Plan Challenge, also pushed back on suggestions that the clinic's stem cell treatments are unsafe."For nearly 20 years our clinics have conducted more than 7,000 stem cell procedures with less than 0.01 percent adverse reactions reported," he said in the written statement. Tomás declined to comment on the patients, citing federal privacy rules. But he added that the clinic no longer offers eye treatments.  The three women, ages 72, 78 and 88, all had macular degeneration, a common eye disease among the elderly that can lead to vision loss. They received the stem cell injections at a clinic in Sunrise that incorporated in 2014 as Regenestem Health and that same year changed its name to U.S. Stem Cell Clinic. Within 36 hours of their treatment at the Broward clinic, two of the three women went to the emergency room at Bascom Palmer for blinding conditions, including increased blood pressure in their eyes, excessive bleeding, retinal detachment and dislocation of their lens.  Although the women had moderate vision loss prior to the stem cell treatments, a year later their vision ranged from total blindness to 20/200, which is considered legally blind."The thing that was most alarming when I saw these patients come to Bascom Palmer was the fact that they had this procedure done on both eyes in the same day," Albini said. "If you're going to do something experimental, God gave us two eyes. Do it in one eye at a time. Even commonplace surgeries like cataracts are not performed on both eyes on the same day." Albini spoke to two of the women and believes they might have been misled into thinking that they were participating in a legitimate clinical trial sanctioned by the National Institutes of Health, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, because at least two of the women said they learned about the stem cell procedure through the website ClinicalTrials.gov — an NIH database that lists publicly and privately supported clinical studies conducted around the world.  "They think that when they see that, that it's a rubber stamp of approval from the United States government and somebody has investigated this and said this is a legitimate therapy," he said. "What became quickly apparent to me was that it wasn't clear they had participated in any sort of clinical trial. It didn't sound like a trial in terms of any of the follow up or the evaluation."  550       Number of clinics in the United States offering stem cell therapy for injuries and medical conditions Congress established ClinicalTrials.gov for many reasons, including to provide information about publicly and privately sponsored clinical studies, said Renate Myles, an NIH spokeswoman, in a written statement. The information on the website is provided by study sponsors or principal investigators, but posting on ClinicalTrials.gov does not necessarily reflect endorsement by the NIH, Myles said.  "ClinicalTrials.gov does not independently verify the scientific validity or relevance of the trial itself beyond a limited quality control review," she said in the statement. Myles urged patients to talk to their doctors before participating in a study and she noted that the NIH has now posted a more prominent disclaimer on the website.  For-profit clinics offering unproven stem cell treatments and making unsubstantiated claims to about their ability to cure a range of medical disorders have proliferated in the United States after first gaining popularity overseas, said Timothy Caufield, a professor of health law and science policy at the University of Alberta in Canada.  Many have evaded regulation by the Food and Drug Administration in part because they use stem cells extracted from a patient's own body and because they don't manipulate those cells too much before re-injecting them — a process considered a medical procedure and not a drug."Some of these clinics are making promises about therapies for ALS, for cancer, for autism, for everything," Caufield said, "and of course more for cosmetic procedures, like anti-wrinkle, anti-aging." But, Caufield said, there are very few stem cell therapies approved for clinical use, and that regulation is not preventing the science from advancing. He urged patients to consult the International Society for Stem Cell Research's patient handbook before considering stem cell therapies."There's this perception that there are all these stem cell therapies out there that are close to clinical application that ... are being held back by regulators and if they just step back, there would be all these treatments," he said. "It's just not the case. The science isn't there yet."  

慈濟科技大學 無償培訓 種植紅藜 !


紅藜收成農友樂 慈科大無償培訓奏功 2017-03-16 12:15聯合報 記者范振和╱即時報導紅藜收成了!慈濟科技大學去年九月無償培訓台東青年農友,從種植紅藜、研發周邊商品到路行銷,今天6千株紅藜的收成,象徵農業發展新契機。來自台東的農友江志鵬、江雨蒨與劉清鴻都是農家第二代,年紀輕、毫無務農經驗,但是,對新事物接受度高。他們負責栽種2000坪紅藜,從育苗、澆水、除草,直到收成後的曝曬、清洗、加工、脫殼。甚至,影響務農多年的雙親,改變耕種模式,不再使用化學肥料與農藥,首度嘗試栽種有機紅藜。另外,慈濟科技大學也安排品牌行銷與推廣、網路行銷、顧客關係管理等課程,設法提升產值,目前,江志鵬兄妹倆已回鄉,在台東太麻里栽種了1000株有機紅藜,並生產各六千包的紅藜穀粉與紅藜玄米茶,採階段性推出,測試市場水溫。去年七月尼伯特颱風,造成台東農業高達7.2億元災損,農民欲哭無淚此,八月間證嚴法師親訪尼伯特風災受災農民後,曾建議農民與慈濟科技大學洽談合作,期能改善生計。因而,從去年九月起,完全無務農經驗的江志鵬、江雨蒨放下服飾店生意,與剛退伍的劉清鴻前往慈濟科技大學接受紅藜栽植相關技巧與資訊。江志鵬表示,種植台東特產釋迦樹成本太高,從整土、復甦到收成,得投入七年時間,而紅藜屬短期作物,120天左右就能採收,收成後也可繼續種植其他作物,符合經濟效益。慈科大校長羅文瑞指出,紅藜營養價值高,周邊商品商機無限,紅藜又稱為「穀類的紅寶石」,蛋白質含量不遜於牛肉,鈣含量是稻米的50倍,膳食纖維是地瓜的7倍。目前,慈科大已研發出紅藜面膜、酵素、精力湯、能量棒、茶包等周邊商品,也涵蓋食品、美妝保養、生醫產品等領域,深受產業界青睞。

 

Class II 醫材 再開放5項可於網購 (血壓壓脈帶/月亮杯/電動輪椅/電動代步車/海水洗鼻器)


新增開放藥商()得於通訊交易通路販賣部分第二等級醫療器材 資料來源:食品藥物管理署 建檔日期:2017/03/16 更新時間:2017/03/16有鑑於網際網路、電視購物等新興通訊交易通路興起後,民眾取得商品之管道日漸多元,為兼顧民眾對部分適合居家使用第二等級醫療器材之需求,及確保消費者使用醫療器材之安全,並鼓勵廠商依藥事法相關規定販賣醫療器材,衛生福利部食品藥物管理署(下稱食藥署)106316日公告修正「藥商()得於通訊交易通路販賣之醫療器材及應行登記事項」(原名稱為「藥商得於郵購買賣通路販賣之醫療器材及應行登記事項」)新增開放5品項符合「居家使用」、「非侵入性」、「非植入性」、「無須專業人員指示操作」等四大原則之第二等級醫療器材得於通訊交易通路販賣106316日新增開放5品項第二等級醫療器材得於通訊交易通路販賣 衛生福利部(前行政院衛生署)於10111日公告開放具有實體通路營業處所之醫療器材藥商()向所在地之衛生局提出申請經核准後,得以通訊交易通路販賣OK、紗布、醫用護具、機械式助行器、機械式輪椅等低風險之第一等級醫療器材,10312日起,開放體脂計、保險套及衛生棉條等適合居家使用、非侵入、非植入且無須專業人員指示操作之第二等級醫療器材,1041015日起新增開放手術用口罩、酒精棉片、優碘棉片、凡士林紗布、免縫膠帶、隱形眼鏡清潔保養產品、醫療器材軟體等第二等級醫療器,本次更進一步新增開放5品項之第二等級醫療器材得於通訊交易通路販賣,將持續提升消費者取得醫療器材之便利性。食藥署提醒消費者,透過通訊交易通路選購醫療器材時,應先諮詢醫療人員之專業建議後,選購符合個人需求之醫療器材,且應認清產品是否具有醫療器材許可證字號,及產品其他相關說明書,並確認醫療器材之標籤、仿單及包裝之標示內容,是否包括廠商名稱、地址、品名、許可證字號、批號、製造日期及有效期間或保存期限等資訊,確認產品之合法性,及於有效期間內使用,並依產品使用說明書所載使用方法及注意事項妥為使用,以維護民眾健康權益。

(台大論文案) 中研院 阮麗蓉/蕭培文 網路連署…審查全台違反學術倫理事件 !


「匡正學術倫理」中研院網路連署中止楊泮池職務 林宥辰 20170316 13:20 風傳媒 中研院基因體研究中心研究員阮麗蓉、農業生物科技研究中心副研究員蕭培文等人今(16)日召開「匡正學術倫理風氣」連署記者會,阮麗蓉表示,自去年11月起,台大教授郭明良遭舉發論文造假超過10重創台灣高等教育及國際聲譽,因此在臉書公開社團「對科技部,你沒有沉默的權力」發起連署,截至今日中午12時,已有2667人參與響應。阮麗蓉表示,連署書上要求要求長期與郭明良團隊合作發表論文的台大校長楊泮池,應立即停止所有行政職務,另外要求教育部、科技部成立跨部會學術倫理辦公室,並建立制度審查全台違反學術倫理事件。她呼籲,相關單位應嚴格執行違反學術倫理事件的懲處,並在網路上回報進度讓大眾得知。蕭培文指出,多年前自己和後輩學者們都非常敬佩楊泮池與郭明良,但從2006Cancer Cell論文勘誤多達3次,2016年的一系列論文也出現數據有誤,顯現他們「治學錯誤百出,絲毫都不嚴謹」的態度;阮麗蓉則說明,在生醫學術領域,教授或研究員所發表論文的質與量,是奠定專業的證明,若有造假,聲譽恐怕不保。目前已有2667人參與連署,其中包括779位教授、研究員、醫師,236位博士後研究員,228位研究助理,615位學生以及809位非學術界社會人士,這份連署書將會呈遞給總統與科技部等相關部門,同時也希望政府應做公正調查,追究責任,給台灣學術後輩一個警惕。

 

(台大論文案) 全國教師工會: …台灣學術界也將被國際看不起 (詐騙王國)


學者:楊泮池再不下台 恐釀「學術界禽流感」2017-03-01 10:49聯合報 記者馮靖惠╱即時報導 台大教授郭明良論文案,台大校長楊泮池全身而退。全國教師工會總聯合會今天與多位大學教授共同召開記者會,呼籲楊泮池用最高道德標準立刻辭職以示負責,否則台大將被社會看不起,台灣學術界也將被國際看不起,台灣「詐騙王國」的惡名恐難有洗刷的一天。全教總理事長張旭政認為,楊泮池用「意造假」作為辭職標準,無視他是造假論文的「共同作者」,無視他的論文被「撤銷」,無視他做為台大校長具有「示範」的作用,顯然不符大學校長應有的風範,也是對台灣學術界的嚴重負面示範。台灣詐騙集團聞名國際,黑心商品層出不窮,倘若高教圈、學術界持續用最低標準看待自我,恐難遏止論文造假歪風。世新大學前校長賴鼎銘建議楊泮池,當學術倫理被澄清之際,也是承擔責任倫理(行政責任)的最好時機。「此時急流勇退,尚可保持學術界的優美身影」,若再蹉跎,不只身影日小,更將危及台大,朝向網友所言「頂賤大學」,造成「台灣學術界的禽流感」,不斷蔓延擴大。東華大學教授王純娟指出,3個月了,楊泮池說不下台就不下台,還在戀棧權位。楊泮池受調查期間拒絕停職,仍指揮、處理校務,整個調查程序已遭受「汙染」。王純娟表示,郭明良25年來,申請科技部經費多達5.5億,且楊泮池跟2007年就開始跟郭明良合作,20多年來唇齒相依,楊泮池更不停推薦郭明良,但事情發生後,楊泮池卻不斷跟郭切割,「對得起台灣學術界嗎?」南華大學教授周平認為,從研究倫理上的合宜性推導出校長不須辭職,是邏輯上的跳躍,以及倫理預設上的混淆不清。目前的調查結果是,楊泮池的行動本身、動機和意圖並無造假的成分,但這只能說明作為學者的楊泮池並未違反科學誠信(scientific integrity),而無須受到懲處,卻不能因此證成作為校長的楊泮池是完全免責的。周平表示,就學術倫理而言,造假論文所牽涉的環節中,楊泮池校長雖被認為不違反科學真誠,但是他的雙重角色(學者和校)卻是論文產出不可或缺的一環,要完全抽身而出、撇清責任,實在有違情理。楊泮池校長面對此一事件態度過於消極被動,缺乏主動回應的勇氣,彷彿是路人甲一般,對於台灣學術界所造成的重大傷害不聞不問。

 

alveice Team. Powered by Blogger.