Michael J Koss1,2, Paulo Falabella3, Francisco R Stefanini4, Marcel Pfister3, Biju B Thomas3, Amir H Kashani3, Rodrigo Brant4, Danhong Zhu3,5, Dennis O Clegg6, David R Hinton3,5, Mark S Humayun3,7. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. michael.koss@me.com. 2. USC Eye Institute, University of Southern California, 1450 San Pablo Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90033-4682, USA. michael.koss@me.com. 3. USC Eye Institute, University of Southern California, 1450 San Pablo Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90033-4682, USA. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Federal University of São Paulo UNIFESP, Rua Botucatu 821, 04023-062, São Paulo, Brazil. 5. Department of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1450 San Pablo Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90033-4682, USA. 6. Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-9625, USA. 7. Institute of Biomedical Therapeutics, University of Southern California, 1450 San Pablo Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90033-4682, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A subretinal implant termed CPCB-RPE1 is currently being developed to surgically replace dystrophic RPE in patients with dry age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and severe vision loss. CPCB-RPE1 is composed of a terminally differentiated, polarized human embryonic stem cell-derived RPE (hESC-RPE) monolayer pre-grown on a biocompatible, mesh-supported submicron parylene C membrane. The objective of the present delivery study was to assess the feasibility and 1-month safety of CPCB-RPE1 implantation in Yucatán minipigs, whose eyes are similar to human eyes in size and gross retinal anatomy. METHODS: This was a prospective, partially blinded, randomized study in 14 normal-sighted female Yucatán minipigs (aged 2 months, weighing 24-35 kg). Surgeons were blinded to the randomization codes and postoperative and post-mortem assessments were performed in a blinded manner. Eleven minipigs received CPCB-RPE1 while three control minipigs underwent sham surgery that generated subretinal blebs. All animals except two sham controls received combined local (Ozurdex™ dexamethasone intravitreal implant) and systemic (tacrolimus) immunosuppression or local immunosuppression alone. Correct placement of the CPCB-RPE1 implant was assessed by in vivo optical coherence tomography and post-mortem histology. hESC-RPE cells were identified using immunohistochemistry staining for TRA-1-85 (a human marker) and RPE65 (an RPE marker). As the study results of primary interest were nonnumerical no statistical analysis or tests were conducted. RESULTS: CPCB-RPE1 implants were reliably placed, without implant breakage, in the subretinal space of the minipig eye using surgical techniques similar to those that would be used in humans. Histologically, hESC-RPE cells were found to survive as an intact monolayer for 1 month based on immunohistochemistry staining for TRA-1-85 and RPE65. CONCLUSIONS: Although inconclusive regarding the necessity or benefit of systemic or local immunosuppression, our study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of CPCB-RPE1 subretinal implantation in a comparable animal model and provides an encouraging starting point for human studies.
PURPOSE: A subretinal implant termed CPCB-RPE1 is currently being developed to surgically replace dystrophic RPE in patients with dry age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and severe vision loss. CPCB-RPE1 is composed of a terminally differentiated, polarized human embryonic stem cell-derived RPE (hESC-RPE) monolayer pre-grown on a biocompatible, mesh-supported submicron parylene C membrane. The objective of the present delivery study was to assess the feasibility and 1-month safety of CPCB-RPE1 implantation in Yucatán minipigs, whose eyes are similar to human eyes in size and gross retinal anatomy. METHODS: This was a prospective, partially blinded, randomized study in 14 normal-sighted female Yucatán minipigs (aged 2 months, weighing 24-35 kg). Surgeons were blinded to the randomization codes and postoperative and post-mortem assessments were performed in a blinded manner. Eleven minipigs received CPCB-RPE1 while three control minipigs underwent sham surgery that generated subretinal blebs. All animals except two sham controls received combined local (Ozurdex™ dexamethasone intravitreal implant) and systemic (tacrolimus) immunosuppression or local immunosuppression alone. Correct placement of the CPCB-RPE1 implant was assessed by in vivo optical coherence tomography and post-mortem histology. hESC-RPE cells were identified using immunohistochemistry staining for TRA-1-85 (a human marker) and RPE65 (an RPE marker). As the study results of primary interest were nonnumerical no statistical analysis or tests were conducted. RESULTS: CPCB-RPE1 implants were reliably placed, without implant breakage, in the subretinal space of the minipig eye using surgical techniques similar to those that would be used in humans. Histologically, hESC-RPE cells were found to survive as an intact monolayer for 1 month based on immunohistochemistry staining for TRA-1-85 and RPE65. CONCLUSIONS: Although inconclusive regarding the necessity or benefit of systemic or local immunosuppression, our study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of CPCB-RPE1 subretinal implantation in a comparable animal model and provides an encouraging starting point for human studies.
Authors: D Pauleikhoff; D Löffert; G Spital; M Radermacher; J Dohrmann; A Lommatzsch; A C Bird Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2002-06-25 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Maria Voss Kyhn; Jens F Kiilgaard; Ana Garcia Lopez; Erik Scherfig; Jan U Prause; Morten la Cour Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2007-10-18 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: Yuntao Hu; Laura Liu; Bo Lu; Danhong Zhu; Ramiro Ribeiro; Bruno Diniz; Padmaja B Thomas; Ashish K Ahuja; David R Hinton; Yu-Chong Tai; Sherry T Hikita; Lincoln V Johnson; Dennis O Clegg; Biju B Thomas; Mark S Humayun Journal: Ophthalmic Res Date: 2012-08-03 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Erin R Burnight; Joseph C Giacalone; Jessica A Cooke; Jessica R Thompson; Laura R Bohrer; Kathleen R Chirco; Arlene V Drack; John H Fingert; Kristan S Worthington; Luke A Wiley; Robert F Mullins; Edwin M Stone; Budd A Tucker Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Wankun Xie; Min Zhao; Shu-Huai Tsai; William L Burkes; Luke B Potts; Wenjuan Xu; H Ross Payne; Travis W Hein; Lih Kuo; Robert H Rosa Journal: Exp Eye Res Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 3.467
Authors: Russell N Van Gelder; Michael F Chiang; Michael A Dyer; Thomas N Greenwell; Leonard A Levin; Rachel O Wong; Clive N Svendsen Journal: Nat Med Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 87.241
Authors: Zhenxi Song; Liangyu Xu; Jiang Wang; Reza Rasti; Ananth Sastry; Jianwei D Li; William Raynor; Joseph A Izatt; Cynthia A Toth; Lejla Vajzovic; Bin Deng; Sina Farsiu Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-07-21 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Amir H Kashani; Jane S Lebkowski; David R Hinton; Danhong Zhu; Mohamed A Faynus; Sanford Chen; Firas M Rahhal; Robert L Avery; Hani Salehi-Had; Clement Chan; Neal Palejwala; April Ingram; Wei Dang; Chih-Min Lin; Debbie Mitra; Juan Carlos Martinez-Camarillo; Jeff Bailey; Cassidy Arnold; Britney O Pennington; Narsing Rao; Lincoln V Johnson; Dennis O Clegg; Mark S Humayun Journal: Stem Cell Reports Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 7.294
Authors: Tai-Chi Lin; Magdalene J Seiler; Danhong Zhu; Paulo Falabella; David R Hinton; Dennis O Clegg; Mark S Humayun; Biju B Thomas Journal: Stem Cells Int Date: 2017-08-27 Impact factor: 5.443