Acne.org Products
Just found this, published 2 days ago.... http://engineering.jhu.edu/fastforward/2014/01/14/betting-on-healing-hydrogels/
looks like they're hoping to have a veterinary product by the end of this year...
Awesome find! And good news too. Great to hear that Gerecht is already working with clinicians in the burn ward and it seems like their projections from before are on track.
whats the difference between veterinary and human
A lot of products in this field start off in the veterinary market in order to start generating revenues faster (less regulations for animal use) so they can R&D and/or clinical trials for humans. It could end up that there isn't any difference in the actual product, but as the article points out, the FDA presents many hurdles for an inventor to get their product to market and a lot of money is needed.
Thank you.
Just found this, published 2 days ago.... http://engineering.jhu.edu/fastforward/2014/01/14/betting-on-healing-hydrogels/
looks like they're hoping to have a veterinary product by the end of this year...
Hi Lapis can you list other companies that are working on scarless healing. I think we should track all of them and not just this one.
I don't have a list. I can only remember these people:
http://beaker.sanfordburnham.org/2010/11/new-insights-into-scar-prevention/
and err...these people:
http://www.otr3.com/otr3aout11/index.php?lang=en
I'm sure there are a lot of other ones. Histogen was mentioned. They've got something they're working on that can potentially be an improvement over current treatments but I don't think they've got true scarfree in their sights.
I honestly can't remember any other company or any other research team but there are many of both out there, I'm sure.
Thank you.
Just found this, published 2 days ago.... http://engineering.jhu.edu/fastforward/2014/01/14/betting-on-healing-hydrogels/
looks like they're hoping to have a veterinary product by the end of this year...
Hi Lapis can you list other companies that are working on scarless healing. I think we should track all of them and not just this one.
In USA the FDA has a lot of hurdles and bureaucracy, anybody knows if the regulations in Europe are less tough?, what about trials, do they need to initiate the trials again in Europe? It is important, maybe the hydrogel can be available faster in some countries with less bureaucracy.
Can we help to introduce the hydrogel and initiate the trials in other countries?
From wikipedia:
Scarless wound healing is a concept based on the healing or repair of the skin (or other tissue/organs) after injury with the aim of healing with subjectively and relatively less scar tissue than normally expected. Scarless healing is sometimes mixed up with the concept of scar free healing, which is wound healing which results in absolutely no scar (free of scarring). However they are both two different concepts.
I think this has been discussed already, but it's happening again... I think it's still really confusing that posters are still using the phrase "scarless healing" when that's not really what anyone wants. Scar free healing is what this thread *should* be about, as per dextran hydrogel.
I'm afraid that scarless healing, being a *subjective* measurement of "less scar tissue", is highly likely to just be a waste of time to get excited about. I'm sure all of those silicone gel and derivative treatments out there could claim to be scarless healing.
Most scar treatments nowadays seem to frequently yield a placebo result than something objective and concrete. The only thing I'm actually excited about anymore is something that truly promises objective results, i.e. scar free healing.
In USA the FDA has a lot of hurdles and bureaucracy, anybody knows if the regulations in Europe are less tough?, what about trials, do they need to initiate the trials again in Europe? It is important, maybe the hydrogel can be available faster in some countries with less bureaucracy.
Can we help to introduce the hydrogel and initiate the trials in other countries?
The problem with this is that Gerecht owns the patent to the device. Any country that abides by international patent laws (most of the countries in Europe) would likely not have researchers touch any trials or work on the hydrogel. A country not part of the patent agreement might work but I know a country like China has gotten a ton of flak for it and since they want to enter into international markets more vigorously of late their government has started to crack down a bit more about use of patented material. But you could still probably find someone in China to do it, but I'm not sure how you would go about that. In all likelihood a researcher there has already read the published paper and begun work on it anyway.
From wikipedia:
Scarless wound healing is a concept based on the healing or repair of the skin (or other tissue/organs) after injury with the aim of healing with subjectively and relatively less scar tissue than normally expected. Scarless healing is sometimes mixed up with the concept of scar free healing, which is wound healing which results in absolutely no scar (free of scarring). However they are both two different concepts.
I think this has been discussed already, but it's happening again... I think it's still really confusing that posters are still using the phrase "scarless healing" when that's not really what anyone wants. Scar free healing is what this thread *should* be about, as per dextran hydrogel.
I'm afraid that scarless healing, being a *subjective* measurement of "less scar tissue", is highly likely to just be a waste of time to get excited about. I'm sure all of those silicone gel and derivative treatments out there could claim to be scarless healing.
Most scar treatments nowadays seem to frequently yield a placebo result than something objective and concrete. The only thing I'm actually excited about anymore is something that truly promises objective results, i.e. scar free healing.
This definitely is an issue, and I agree with you. However, a moderator for the boards on this site disagreed and wouldn't allow the creation of a new forum titled "Scar Free Healing" because they were operating on the assumption that scarless and scar free mean the same thing. Which they do in terms of a strict definition but not by the way their used in medical research and testing.
Definitely would like to see the board stick to research that only indicates complete regeneration.
"The U.S. wound care market has been estimated at as much as $21 billion annually. And while many large companies dominate, Davis says there is room in niche markets, such as the treatment of diabetic ulcers. The key is pricing the product right, he says, And we think we can do that."
If they have to compete on price, in niche markets, then their hydrogel can't outperform existing wound care products.
"Eventually, the startup plans to look at developing stem cell-based products for wound healing, gearing up toward a broader focus on tissue engineering."
This wouldn't be necessary if their hydrogel worked as miraculously as some have relentlessly stated.
Sharon already has been working with the clinicians at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the burn unit, says Davis, So we are very encouraged, even though we know we have many regulatory hurdles.
It's likely effective enough to commercialize due to low manufacturing costs. Regulatory hurdles wouldn't be a problem if clinical results were remarkable.
"The U.S. wound care market has been estimated at as much as $21 billion annually. And while many large companies dominate, Davis says there is room in niche markets, such as the treatment of diabetic ulcers. The key is pricing the product right, he says, And we think we can do that."
If they have to compete on price, in niche markets, then their hydrogel can't outperform existing wound care products.
"Eventually, the startup plans to look at developing stem cell-based products for wound healing, gearing up toward a broader focus on tissue engineering."
This wouldn't be necessary if their hydrogel worked as miraculously as some have relentlessly stated.
Sharon already has been working with the clinicians at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the burn unit, says Davis, So we are very encouraged, even though we know we have many regulatory hurdles.
It's likely effective enough to commercialize due to low manufacturing costs. Regulatory hurdles wouldn't be a problem if clinical results were remarkable.
I thought the same thing. But maybe they plan on inventing an even faster or easier way to heal wounds than the hydrogel which would require completely excising the scar and then having the device on for 21 days?
"The U.S. wound care market has been estimated at as much as $21 billion annually. And while many large companies dominate, Davis says there is room in niche markets, such as the treatment of diabetic ulcers. The key is pricing the product right, he says, And we think we can do that."
If they have to compete on price, in niche markets, then their hydrogel can't outperform existing wound care products.
"Eventually, the startup plans to look at developing stem cell-based products for wound healing, gearing up toward a broader focus on tissue engineering."
This wouldn't be necessary if their hydrogel worked as miraculously as some have relentlessly stated.
Sharon already has been working with the clinicians at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the burn unit, says Davis, So we are very encouraged, even though we know we have many regulatory hurdles.
It's likely effective enough to commercialize due to low manufacturing costs. Regulatory hurdles wouldn't be a problem if clinical results were remarkable.
Good observations, no mention of scarless healing in there, so it seems the product might be aimed more at treating wounds that are difficult to treat and slow to heal.
"The U.S. wound care market has been estimated at as much as $21 billion annually. And while many large companies dominate, Davis says there is room in niche markets, such as the treatment of diabetic ulcers. œThe key is pricing the product right, he says, œAnd we think we can do that."
If they have to compete on price, in niche markets, then their hydrogel can't outperform existing wound care products.
"Eventually, the startup plans to look at developing stem cell-based products for wound healing, gearing up toward a broader focus on tissue engineering."
This wouldn't be necessary if their hydrogel worked as miraculously as some have relentlessly stated.
œSharon already has been working with the clinicians at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the burn unit, says Davis, œSo we are very encouraged, even though we know we have many regulatory hurdles.
It's likely effective enough to commercialize due to low manufacturing costs. Regulatory hurdles wouldn't be a problem if clinical results were remarkable.
This is bad news, right?? 
Heroic Nymph, btw using this logic you could also conclude in many other ways, many opposing your pov.
Example if someone cant play xyz sport, down to external circumstance, therefore, insert conclusion.
"If they have to compete on price, in niche markets, then their hydrogel can't outperform existing wound care products."
What you are also reading is written by a journalist, talking about a market.
Anyway the hydrogel, proved in a testable scientific environment, complete regeneration of a third degree burn, and this was tested against a standardised control. It outperformed the standardised control.
You may be right.
"The U.S. wound care market has been estimated at as much as $21 billion annually. And while many large companies dominate, Davis says there is room in niche markets, such as the treatment of diabetic ulcers. The key is pricing the product right, he says, And we think we can do that."
If they have to compete on price, in niche markets, then their hydrogel can't outperform existing wound care products.
"Eventually, the startup plans to look at developing stem cell-based products for wound healing, gearing up toward a broader focus on tissue engineering."
This wouldn't be necessary if their hydrogel worked as miraculously as some have relentlessly stated.
Sharon already has been working with the clinicians at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the burn unit, says Davis, So we are very encouraged, even though we know we have many regulatory hurdles.
It's likely effective enough to commercialize due to low manufacturing costs. Regulatory hurdles wouldn't be a problem if clinical results were remarkable.
Right about what? This is vague...
The science? it got complete regeneration of a third degree burn, it 'outperformed' the state of the art standard. No amount of hearsay can prejudice that, its testable. The other pig trials are on going; no result has been released, though we have been told these are looking equally good...
The regulatory hurdle hunch? See above the pig trials are still on going and they have the same regulatory hurdles as any other device.
Competing on price? They stated 'the key is pricing the product right,' they did not state 'compete on price,' This 'getting the pricing right,' to me is a reasonable statement, as long as they do not rip off.
"Eventually, the startup plans to look at developing stem cell-based products for wound healing, gearing up toward a broader focus on tissue engineering." This is a good statement to question, however, prior to the hydrogel they originally had planned to do something like this. But they then found the hydrogel got complete regeneration, which surprised them.. I'd imagine though that certain wounds with diabetics will need stem cells to reepithilize faster...
Are you talking about a market? And again what has been mentioned with markets is again vague. So what conclusion has been drawn, I cannot see a conclusion?
You may be right.
"The U.S. wound care market has been estimated at as much as $21 billion annually. And while many large companies dominate, Davis says there is room in niche markets, such as the treatment of diabetic ulcers. The key is pricing the product right, he says, And we think we can do that."
If they have to compete on price, in niche markets, then their hydrogel can't outperform existing wound care products.
"Eventually, the startup plans to look at developing stem cell-based products for wound healing, gearing up toward a broader focus on tissue engineering."
This wouldn't be necessary if their hydrogel worked as miraculously as some have relentlessly stated.
Sharon already has been working with the clinicians at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the burn unit, says Davis, So we are very encouraged, even though we know we have many regulatory hurdles.
It's likely effective enough to commercialize due to low manufacturing costs. Regulatory hurdles wouldn't be a problem if clinical results were remarkable.
"The U.S. wound care market has been estimated at as much as $21 billion annually. And while many large companies dominate, Davis says there is room in niche markets, such as the treatment of diabetic ulcers. The key is pricing the product right, he says, And we think we can do that."
If they have to compete on price, in niche markets, then their hydrogel can't outperform existing wound care products.
"Eventually, the startup plans to look at developing stem cell-based products for wound healing, gearing up toward a broader focus on tissue engineering."
This wouldn't be necessary if their hydrogel worked as miraculously as some have relentlessly stated.
Sharon already has been working with the clinicians at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the burn unit, says Davis, So we are very encouraged, even though we know we have many regulatory hurdles.
It's likely effective enough to commercialize due to low manufacturing costs. Regulatory hurdles wouldn't be a problem if clinical results were remarkable.
I'll grant you that at times the tenor of the article isn't best (at least in terms of our ultimate hopes about the product) but you are drawing too far reaching conclusions based on what was said.
First, even if it does outperform existing wound care products that does not mean it would immediately envelope the market and dominate. A friend of mine is in medical sales and they're getting new products all the time, but most hospitals just auto-order product. So when he comes in to tell them about the countless things available that showed improved healing (he's specifically in the hard to heal wound care market, diabetic ulcers etc.) the doctors are resistant to change from a product they know what to expect from. Not to mention, corruption is quite pervasive in the medical industry and who knows what doctors might be getting in return for sticking with a specific product.
Second, as seabs pointed out, the original intent of Gerecht's lab with this research was to utilize stem cells for neo-vascularization. The dextran hydrogel blew them away with the results it got alone. But if you look at the lab's site you'll see several research papers published since the one concerning the hydrogel that are using stem cells to achieve their goals. And from an investment stand point, it's just smart to diversify what you can offer.
Third, the FDA doesn't work that way. The thalidomide tragedy in 1959 brought about sweeping reform and increased regulatory practices for the agency. Only in spectacular situations where it serves the public's best interest (e.g. a plague) to forgo these regulations do drugs and/or devices come onto the market without following the procedures outlined by the FDA. Take the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the 80s for example. Several other countries were rolling out all sorts of different kinds of treatments but the FDA (as noble as their intentions might have been) squashed most other products in favor of AZT and even sent it through a battery of trials. And in that case we're talking about a much more dire need than a device that can completely regenerate skin tissue.
Lastly, these quotes are from the investor, not the researchers scientists. Let's say that he knows for a fact right now that it completely regenerates human skin. What would be the benefit of him announcing that to the world prior to it being improved and, most importantly, prior to him commercializing it for profit? There wouldn't be any benefit and in fact it would probably be harmful to his bottom line. Think of the swarms of investors that would pile into Gerecht's office offering up a much better deal than Gemstone Therapeutics could possibly provide.
Now, none of this is to say I'm 100% convinced that the hydrogel will work, just that nothing I've read so far makes me definitively believe the opposite is true either. An article like that is fun to dissect and try to infer some greater meaning from but at the end of the day it's really only the published papers that matter.
"The U.S. wound care market has been estimated at as much as $21 billion annually. And while many large companies dominate, Davis says there is room in niche markets, such as the treatment of diabetic ulcers. The key is pricing the product right, he says, And we think we can do that."
If they have to compete on price, in niche markets, then their hydrogel can't outperform existing wound care products.
"Eventually, the startup plans to look at developing stem cell-based products for wound healing, gearing up toward a broader focus on tissue engineering."
This wouldn't be necessary if their hydrogel worked as miraculously as some have relentlessly stated.
Sharon already has been working with the clinicians at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the burn unit, says Davis, So we are very encouraged, even though we know we have many regulatory hurdles.
It's likely effective enough to commercialize due to low manufacturing costs. Regulatory hurdles wouldn't be a problem if clinical results were remarkable.
I'll grant you that at times the tenor of the article isn't best (at least in terms of our ultimate hopes about the product) but you are drawing too far reaching conclusions based on what was said.
First, even if it does outperform existing wound care products that does not mean it would immediately envelope the market and dominate. A friend of mine is in medical sales and they're getting new products all the time, but most hospitals just auto-order product. So when he comes in to tell them about the countless things available that showed improved healing (he's specifically in the hard to heal wound care market, diabetic ulcers etc.) the doctors are resistant to change from a product they know what to expect from. Not to mention, corruption is quite pervasive in the medical industry and who knows what doctors might be getting in return for sticking with a specific product.
Second, as seabs pointed out, the original intent of Gerecht's lab with this research was to utilize stem cells for neo-vascularization. The dextran hydrogel blew them away with the results it got alone. But if you look at the lab's site you'll see several research papers published since the one concerning the hydrogel that are using stem cells to achieve their goals. And from an investment stand point, it's just smart to diversify what you can offer.
Third, the FDA doesn't work that way. The thalidomide tragedy in 1959 brought about sweeping reform and increased regulatory practices for the agency. Only in spectacular situations where it serves the public's best interest (e.g. a plague) to forgo these regulations do drugs and/or devices come onto the market without following the procedures outlined by the FDA. Take the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the 80s for example. Several other countries were rolling out all sorts of different kinds of treatments but the FDA (as noble as their intentions might have been) squashed most other products in favor of AZT and even sent it through a battery of trials. And in that case we're talking about a much more dire need than a device that can completely regenerate skin tissue.
Lastly, these quotes are from the investor, not the researchers scientists. Let's say that he knows for a fact right now that it completely regenerates human skin. What would be the benefit of him announcing that to the world prior to it being improved and, most importantly, prior to him commercializing it for profit? There wouldn't be any benefit and in fact it would probably be harmful to his bottom line. Think of the swarms of investors that would pile into Gerecht's office offering up a much better deal than Gemstone Therapeutics could possibly provide.
Now, none of this is to say I'm 100% convinced that the hydrogel will work, just that nothing I've read so far makes me definitively believe the opposite is true either. An article like that is fun to dissect and try to infer some greater meaning from but at the end of the day it's really only the published papers that matter.
I won't expect stem cell therapy will be available for skin repair soon...
The biomaterials will still play the leading role in the next generation.
The only person who know the dextran hydrogel well is Dr Sun, but he is no longer in the team or works on this any more.
I therefore won't expect too much !
But i already have the scars ? ... so how would that be of benefit ?
The idea is to remove the scarred tissue to create a new wound bed that would then have the hydrogel applied to it. The hydrogel would then enhance the body's healing process to allow for complete regeneration.
So, you would need to have the scars removed (through excision or some other means) and then the hydrogel would be applied like it was in the paper.
"The U.S. wound care market has been estimated at as much as $21 billion annually. And while many large companies dominate, Davis says there is room in niche markets, such as the treatment of diabetic ulcers. The key is pricing the product right, he says, And we think we can do that."
If they have to compete on price, in niche markets, then their hydrogel can't outperform existing wound care products.
"Eventually, the startup plans to look at developing stem cell-based products for wound healing, gearing up toward a broader focus on tissue engineering."
This wouldn't be necessary if their hydrogel worked as miraculously as some have relentlessly stated.
Sharon already has been working with the clinicians at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the burn unit, says Davis, So we are very encouraged, even though we know we have many regulatory hurdles.
It's likely effective enough to commercialize due to low manufacturing costs. Regulatory hurdles wouldn't be a problem if clinical results were remarkable.
I'll grant you that at times the tenor of the article isn't best (at least in terms of our ultimate hopes about the product) but you are drawing too far reaching conclusions based on what was said.
First, even if it does outperform existing wound care products that does not mean it would immediately envelope the market and dominate. A friend of mine is in medical sales and they're getting new products all the time, but most hospitals just auto-order product. So when he comes in to tell them about the countless things available that showed improved healing (he's specifically in the hard to heal wound care market, diabetic ulcers etc.) the doctors are resistant to change from a product they know what to expect from. Not to mention, corruption is quite pervasive in the medical industry and who knows what doctors might be getting in return for sticking with a specific product.
Second, as seabs pointed out, the original intent of Gerecht's lab with this research was to utilize stem cells for neo-vascularization. The dextran hydrogel blew them away with the results it got alone. But if you look at the lab's site you'll see several research papers published since the one concerning the hydrogel that are using stem cells to achieve their goals. And from an investment stand point, it's just smart to diversify what you can offer.
Third, the FDA doesn't work that way. The thalidomide tragedy in 1959 brought about sweeping reform and increased regulatory practices for the agency. Only in spectacular situations where it serves the public's best interest (e.g. a plague) to forgo these regulations do drugs and/or devices come onto the market without following the procedures outlined by the FDA. Take the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the 80s for example. Several other countries were rolling out all sorts of different kinds of treatments but the FDA (as noble as their intentions might have been) squashed most other products in favor of AZT and even sent it through a battery of trials. And in that case we're talking about a much more dire need than a device that can completely regenerate skin tissue.
Lastly, these quotes are from the investor, not the researchers scientists. Let's say that he knows for a fact right now that it completely regenerates human skin. What would be the benefit of him announcing that to the world prior to it being improved and, most importantly, prior to him commercializing it for profit? There wouldn't be any benefit and in fact it would probably be harmful to his bottom line. Think of the swarms of investors that would pile into Gerecht's office offering up a much better deal than Gemstone Therapeutics could possibly provide.
Now, none of this is to say I'm 100% convinced that the hydrogel will work, just that nothing I've read so far makes me definitively believe the opposite is true either. An article like that is fun to dissect and try to infer some greater meaning from but at the end of the day it's really only the published papers that matter.
I won't expect stem cell therapy will be available for skin repair soon...
The biomaterials will still play the leading role in the next generation.
The only person who know the dextran hydrogel well is Dr Sun, but he is no longer in the team or works on this any more.
I therefore won't expect too much !
Agreed on stem cells. They face a much tougher road in terms of FDA regulations.
However, I don't understand why you think Sun no longer working there has any impact on the success of the device. I've talked to Sun directly and he still thinks highly of the hydrogel and has continued his work in the field in his new position at Columbia University. He only left JHU because funding ran out for his position there. So there isn't anything to glean from that in regards to the efficacy of the hydrogel.
But i already have the scars ? ... so how would that be of benefit ?
The idea is to remove the scarred tissue to create a new wound bed that would then have the hydrogel applied to it. The hydrogel would then enhance the body's healing process to allow for complete regeneration.
So, you would need to have the scars removed (through excision or some other means) and then the hydrogel would be applied like it was in the paper.
>
"The U.S. wound care market has been estimated at as much as $21 billion annually. And while many large companies dominate, Davis says there is room in niche markets, such as the treatment of diabetic ulcers. The key is pricing the product right, he says, And we think we can do that."
If they have to compete on price, in niche markets, then their hydrogel can't outperform existing wound care products.
"Eventually, the startup plans to look at developing stem cell-based products for wound healing, gearing up toward a broader focus on tissue engineering."
This wouldn't be necessary if their hydrogel worked as miraculously as some have relentlessly stated.
Sharon already has been working with the clinicians at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the burn unit, says Davis, So we are very encouraged, even though we know we have many regulatory hurdles.
It's likely effective enough to commercialize due to low manufacturing costs. Regulatory hurdles wouldn't be a problem if clinical results were remarkable.
I'll grant you that at times the tenor of the article isn't best (at least in terms of our ultimate hopes about the product) but you are drawing too far reaching conclusions based on what was said.
First, even if it does outperform existing wound care products that does not mean it would immediately envelope the market and dominate. A friend of mine is in medical sales and they're getting new products all the time, but most hospitals just auto-order product. So when he comes in to tell them about the countless things available that showed improved healing (he's specifically in the hard to heal wound care market, diabetic ulcers etc.) the doctors are resistant to change from a product they know what to expect from. Not to mention, corruption is quite pervasive in the medical industry and who knows what doctors might be getting in return for sticking with a specific product.
Second, as seabs pointed out, the original intent of Gerecht's lab with this research was to utilize stem cells for neo-vascularization. The dextran hydrogel blew them away with the results it got alone. But if you look at the lab's site you'll see several research papers published since the one concerning the hydrogel that are using stem cells to achieve their goals. And from an investment stand point, it's just smart to diversify what you can offer.
Third, the FDA doesn't work that way. The thalidomide tragedy in 1959 brought about sweeping reform and increased regulatory practices for the agency. Only in spectacular situations where it serves the public's best interest (e.g. a plague) to forgo these regulations do drugs and/or devices come onto the market without following the procedures outlined by the FDA. Take the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the 80s for example. Several other countries were rolling out all sorts of different kinds of treatments but the FDA (as noble as their intentions might have been) squashed most other products in favor of AZT and even sent it through a battery of trials. And in that case we're talking about a much more dire need than a device that can completely regenerate skin tissue.
Lastly, these quotes are from the investor, not the researchers scientists. Let's say that he knows for a fact right now that it completely regenerates human skin. What would be the benefit of him announcing that to the world prior to it being improved and, most importantly, prior to him commercializing it for profit? There wouldn't be any benefit and in fact it would probably be harmful to his bottom line. Think of the swarms of investors that would pile into Gerecht's office offering up a much better deal than Gemstone Therapeutics could possibly provide.
Now, none of this is to say I'm 100% convinced that the hydrogel will work, just that nothing I've read so far makes me definitively believe the opposite is true either. An article like that is fun to dissect and try to infer some greater meaning from but at the end of the day it's really only the published papers that matter.
I won't expect stem cell therapy will be available for skin repair soon...
The biomaterials will still play the leading role in the next generation.
The only person who know the dextran hydrogel well is Dr Sun, but he is no longer in the team or works on this any more.
I therefore won't expect too much !
Agreed on stem cells. They face a much tougher road in terms of FDA regulations.
However, I don't understand why you think Sun no longer working there has any impact on the success of the device. I've talked to Sun directly and he still thinks highly of the hydrogel and has continued his work in the field in his new position at Columbia University. He only left JHU because funding ran out for his position there. So there isn't anything to glean from that in regards to the efficacy of the hydrogel.
So in other words ... this would be a cure for scars ? ...