Malleable, cryopreserved osteogenic compositions with viable cells

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 10780197
  • Patent Number
    10,780,197
  • Date Filed
    Tuesday, October 29, 2013
    11 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, September 22, 2020
    4 years ago
  • CPC
  • Field of Search
    • CPC
    • A61L27/365
  • International Classifications
    • A61L27/36
    • Term Extension
      219
Abstract
A bone graft composition comprising a viable, osteogenic cellular material combined with a viscous cryoprotectant that includes a penetrating cryoprotective agent and a non-penetrating cryoprotective agent. The viscosity of the cryoprotectant is such that the composition is malleable, cohesive and capable of being formed into desired shapes.
Description
FIELD

This application relates to a bone graft composition, useful in surgical applications, comprising viable cellular material combined with a viscous cryoprotectant.


SUMMARY

According to an exemplary embodiment, the bone graft composition comprises a viable, osteogenic cellular material combined with a viscous cryoprotectant that includes a penetrating cryoprotective agent and a non-penetrating cryoprotective agent. According to an exemplary embodiment, the viscosity of the cryoprotectant is such that the composition is malleable, cohesive and capable of being formed into desired shapes. According to another exemplary embodiment, the osteogenic cellular material includes viable mesenchymal stem cells. According to yet another embodiment, the osteogenic composition includes at least one of demineralized cortical bone, demineralized cancellous bone, growth factors, bone marrow, BMP-2, BMP-4, BMP-7, or a combination thereof. The characteristics of viscous cryoprotectant allow the composition to be frozen and subsequently thawed and implanted into a patient in need thereof while preserving the viability of the mesenchymal stem cells in the composition.


According to one aspect, the viable osteogenic cellular material is autogenous bone matrix having a population of endogenous osteopotent and/or osteogenic cells. According to another aspect, the viable osteogenic cellular material is allogeneic bone matrix having a population of endogenous osteopotent and/or osteogenic cells. The viable osteogenic cellular material may be substantially depleted of blood cells. The cellular material may include mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow, adipose tissue, muscle, synovium, synovial fluid, dental pulp and/or umbilical cord origin.


According to another aspect, non-penetrating cryoprotective agent is one of alginate, hyaluronic acid, hydroxyethyl starch, methylcellulose, carboxymethylcellulose, hydroxymethylcellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyethylene glycol, chitosan, glycerol, or a combination thereof. The penetrating cryoprotective agent is one of dimethyl sulfoxide, glycerol, propylene glycol, ethylene glycol, propanediol, or a combination thereof.


According to another exemplary embodiment, the bone graft composition further comprises a scaffold material. For example, the scaffold material is one of non-demineralized, partially demineralized and demineralized cortical bone matrix; nondemineralized, partially demineralized and demineralized cancellous bone matrix; hydroxyapatite, tri-calcium phosphate, calcium sulfate, collagen or a combination thereof.


According to yet another exemplary embodiment, the viable osteogenic cellular material comprises particles cohesively bound by the viscous cryoprotectant. Alternatively, the viable osteogenic cellular material may be coated or encapsulated by the viscous cryoprotectant.







DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Aspects of the invention are disclosed in the following description. Alternate embodiments may be devised without departing from the spirit or the scope of the invention. Additionally, well-known elements of the invention will not be described in detail or omitted so as not to obscure the relevant details of the invention.


Example 1

Viscous cryoprotectant compositions were created for subsequent combination with tissue components. A 10% (v/v) dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) solution was created in an isotonic, pH neutral solution with acetate and gluconate buffers. Pre-weighed quantities of sodium alginate were dissolved in the 10% DMSO solution to achieve concentrations of 1%-4% (w/v) alginate. Alginates had been pre-selected with a Brookfield viscosity specification in the range of 100-10,000 cps when tested at 2% in water at 25 degrees C.


Relative apparent viscosities were determined for each of the final cryoprotectant solutions and ranked such that 7>6>5>4>3>2>1, as shown in Table 1.














TABLE 1







Cryoprotectant
Alginate
Alginate
Relative



Solution ID
Concentration
Viscosity Spec
Viscosity









A
1%
100-300 cps
1



B
2%
100-300 cps
2



C
4%
100-300 cps
5



D
1%
>2000 cps
3



E
1.5% 
>2000 cps
4



F
2%
>2000 cps
6



G
4%
>2000 cps
7










Example 2

Viable cellular cancellous bone was ground and sieved to 425-2000 μm. Cortical bone was ground, sieved to 125-1000 μm, and demineralized to <8% residual calcium content to create hydrated demineralized bone matrix (DBM). Tissue components were mixed in cancellous:DBM volume ratios of 10:3-2:1. Tissue mixtures were combined with cryoprotectants essentially identical to those of Example 1 at a cancellous:cryoprotectant volume ratio of 5:1. Tissue and cryoprotectant components were mixed to form malleable compositions with variously satisfactory cohesiveness and formability, as shown in Table 2.












TABLE 2





Cancellous:DBM
Cryoprotectant
Cancellous:Cryo
Cohesiveness/


(v:v)
Solution ID
(v:v)
Formability







10:3
D
5:1
poor


10:3
E
5:1
poor


10:3
C
5:1
fair


10:3
F
5:1
fair


 2:1
F
5:1
fair


 2:1
G
5:1
good









Example 3

Viable cellular cancellous bone was ground and sieved to 425-2000 μm. Cortical bone was ground, sieved to 100-710 μm, demineralized to <8% residual calcium content, and lyophilized to create lyophilized DBM. Tissue components were mixed at a cancellous:DBM volume ratio of 2:1. The tissue mixture was combined with cryoprotectants essentially identical to those of Example 1 at cancellous:cryoprotectant volume ratios of 10:3-5:2. Tissue and cryoprotectant components were mixed and evaluated for cohesiveness and formability; the results are summarized in Table 3.












TABLE 3





Cancellous:DBM
Cryoprotectant
Cancellous:Cryo
Cohesiveness/


(v:v)
Solution ID
(v:v)
Formability







2:1
G
10:3
fair


2:1
G
 5:2
good









Example 4

Viable cellular cancellous bone was ground and sieved to 425-2000 μm. Cortical bone was ground, sieved to 100-710 μm, demineralized to <8% residual calcium content, and lyophilized to create lyophilized DBM. Lyophilized DBM was subsequently rehydrated in an isotonic, neutral pH solution and mixed with cancellous bone at a cancellous:DBM volume ratio of 10:7. The tissue mixture was combined with a cryoprotectant essentially identical to Solution G in Example 1 at a cancellous:cryoprotectant volume ratio of 10:3. Tissue and cryoprotectant components were mixed and evaluated for cohesiveness and formability; the results are summarized in Table 4.












TABLE 4





Cancellous:DBM
Cryoprotectant
Cancellous:Cryo
Cohesiveness/


(v:v)
Solution ID
(v:v)
Formability







10:7
G
10:3
good









Example 5

Viscous cryoprotectant compositions were created for subsequent combination with tissue components. Pre-weighed quantities of sodium alginate having a Brookfield viscosity specification of >2000 cps when tested at 2% in water at 25 degrees C. were suspended in measured volumes of DMSO. Measured quantities of an isotonic, pH neutral solution with acetate and gluconate buffers were mixed with the alginate/DMSO suspensions to create substantially homogeneous cryoprotectant solutions with final DMSO concentrations of 5%-10% (v/v) and alginate concentrations of 2%-4% (w/v).


Relative apparent viscosities were determined for each of the final cryoprotectant solutions and ranked such that 7>6>5>4>3>2>1, as shown in Table 5.














TABLE 5







Cryoprotectant
Alginate
DMSO
Relative



Solution ID
Concentration
Concentration
Viscosity









H
2%
 5%
1



I
2.5% 
 5%
2



J
3%
 5%
4



K
4%
 5%
6



L
2%
10%
3



M
2.5% 
10%
5



N
3%
10%
6



O
4%
10%
7










Example 6

Viable cellular cancellous bone was ground and sieved to 425-2000 μm. Cortical bone was ground, sieved to 125-1000 μm, and demineralized to <8% residual calcium content to create hydrated DBM. Tissue components were mixed at cancellous:DBM volume ratios of 5:1-2:1. Tissue mixtures were combined with a cryoprotectant essentially identical to Solution 0 of Example 5 with the addition of 2% (w/v) human serum albumin at cancellous:cryoprotectant volume ratios of 5:1-4:1. Tissue and cryoprotectant components were mixed and evaluated for cohesiveness and formability, the results of which are summarized in Table 6.











TABLE 6





Cancellous:DBM
Cancellous:Cryo
Cohesiveness/


(v:v)
(v:v)
Formability







5:1
5:1
fair


4:1
5:1
fair


3:1
5:1
good


2:1
5:1
good


5:1
4:1
fair


4:1
4:1
fair


3:1
4:1
good


2:1
4:1
better









Example 7

Viable cellular cancellous bone was ground and sieved to 425-2000 μm. Cortical bone was ground, sieved to 125-1000 μm, and demineralized to <8% residual calcium content to create hydrated DBM. Tissue components were mixed at a cancellous:DBM volume ratio of 2:1. Cryoprotectant solutions were created consisting of DMSO at 5%-10% (v/v), human serum albumin at 0%-2% (w/v), and alginate at 4% (w/v) in an isotonic, neutral pH parenteral solution. Tissue mixtures were combined with cryoprotectants at a cancellous:cryoprotectant volume ratio of 4:1. Tissue and cryoprotectant components were mixed to create substantially homogeneous malleable compositions. Compositions were frozen to −80±5° C. to cryopreserve tissue components and viable cells.


Compositions were subsequently thawed and tested for cell viability (% viable cells) and cell concentrations (cells per cc of tissue). Compositions were rinsed immediately after thawing with phosphate buffered saline to dilute and decant the viscous cryoprotectant solutions. The remaining tissue components were treated with 3 mg/ml collagenase in phosphate buffered saline at 37° C. to release cells off bone matrix for counting. Released cells were washed and resuspended in Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium with 10% fetal bovine serum and then stained with Trypan blue. Live (negative staining) and dead (positive staining) cells were counted with the aid of a hemocytometer and microscope. The results are summarized in Table 7.













TABLE 7





Comp-
DMSO


Avg.


osition
Concen-
Human Serum
Avg.
Cell



tration
Albumin
Cell
Count


ID
(v/v)
Concentration (w/v)
Viability
(cells/cc)







A
 10%
0%
76.4%
4,154,500


B
7.5%
0%
74.7%
3,787,000


C
  5%
0%
77.2%
4,399,500


D
 10%
2%
76.8%
4,301,500


E
7.5%
2%
80.6%
4,063,500


F
  5%
2%
77.1%
3,279,500









Example 8

Viable cellular cancellous bone was ground and sieved to 425-2000 μm. Cortical bone was ground, sieved to 125-1000 μm, and demineralized to <8% residual calcium content to create hydrated DBM. Tissue components were mixed at cancellous:DBM volume ratios of 5:2 to 5:3. Cryoprotectant solutions were created consisting of DMSO at 10% (v/v), human serum albumin at 2% (w/v), and alginate at 6% (w/v) in an isotonic, neutral pH parenteral solution. Alginates in this example had molecular weights (MW) between 50,000 and 150,000 g/mol. Tissue mixtures were combined with cryoprotectants at cancellous:cryoprotectant volume ratios of 5:2 to 2:1. Tissue and cryoprotectant components were mixed to create substantially homogeneous malleable compositions. Compositions were frozen to −80±5° C. to cryopreserve tissue components and viable cells.


Compositions were subsequently thawed and tested for cell viability (% viable cells), cell concentrations (cells per cc of tissue), and osteogenic potential. Compositions were rinsed immediately after thawing with phosphate buffered saline to dilute and decant the viscous cryoprotectant solutions. The remaining tissue components were treated with 3 mg/ml collagenase in phosphate buffered saline at 37° C. to release cells off bone matrix for counting. Released cells were washed and resuspended in Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium with 10% fetal bovine serum and then stained with Trypan blue. Live (negative staining) and dead (positive staining) cells were counted with the aid of a hemocytometer and microscope. Cells were plated and cultured in expansion medium through one passage. Cells were then switched into osteogenic medium and subsequently stained for the presence of the bone mineralization marker alkaline phosphatase. The results are summarized in Table 8.














TABLE 8









Avg.



Comp-

Can-

Cell
Alk.


osition
Alginate
cellous:Cryo
Avg. Cell
Count
Phos.


ID
Lot ID
(v:v)
Viability
(cells/cc)
Staining







A
1
5:2
85.5%
2,761,500
Positive


B
1
2:1
86.3%
2,732,750
Positive


C
2
5:2
87.8%
2,824,750
Positive


D
2
2:1
89.0%
2,767,000
Positive








Claims
  • 1. A bone graft composition comprising: an allograft bone scaffold including viable osteogenic cells native to the bone scaffold;an allograft demineralized bone matrix, wherein ratio of the bone scaffold to the allograft demineralized bone matrix ranges from 5:2 to 5:3; anda viscous cryoprotectant, wherein the bone scaffold to the viscous cryoprotectant ratio ranges from 5:2 to 2:1;wherein said viscous cryoprotectant includes at least one penetrating cryoprotective agent and at least one non-penetrating cryoprotective agent and wherein at least seventy percent (70%) of the viable osteogenic cells are viable after storage in the cryopreservative at −80 degrees Celsius (−80 C) or lower for a period of fourteen (14) days.
  • 2. The bone graft composition of claim 1, wherein the bone scaffold further comprises a population of endogenous osteopotent cells.
  • 3. The bone graft composition of claim 2, wherein the bone scaffold is substantially depleted of blood cells.
  • 4. The bone graft composition of claim 1, wherein the viable osteogenic cells include mesenchymal stem cells.
  • 5. The bone graft composition of claim 1, wherein the bone graft composition further comprising at least one of allograft non-demineralized, partially demineralized and demineralized cortical bone matrix; and at least one of allograft non-demineralized, partially demineralized and demineralized cancellous bone matrix.
  • 6. The bone graft composition of claim 1, further comprising an osteoinductive material.
  • 7. The bone graft composition of claim 6, wherein the osteoinductive material is at least one of demineralized cortical bone, demineralized cancellous bone, growth factors, bone marrow, BMP-2, BMP-4, BMP-7 or a combination thereof.
  • 8. The bone graft composition of claim 1, wherein the non-penetrating cryoprotective agent is one of alginate, hyaluronic acid, hydroxyethyl starch, methylcellulose, carboxymethylcellulose, hydroxymethylcellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyethylene glycol, chitosan, glycerol, or a combination thereof.
  • 9. The bone graft composition of claim 1, wherein the penetrating cryoprotective agent is one of dimethyl sulfoxide, glycerol, propylene glycol, ethylene glycol, propanediol, or a combination thereof.
  • 10. A method of preserving the viability during freezing of a bone graft material comprising combining bone graft material with a viscous cryoprotectant, wherein the bone graft material to viscous cryoprotectant ratio ranges from 5:2 to 2:1; combining the bone graft material with an allograft demineralized bone matrix, wherein ratio of the bone scaffold to the allograft demineralized bone matrix ranges from 5:2 to 5:3; and wherein (i) the viscous cryoprotectant includes at least one non-penetrating cryoprotective agent and at least one penetrating cryoprotective agent and (ii) at least seventy percent (70%) of the bone graft material is viable after storage in the cryopreservative at −80 degrees Celsius (−80 C) or lower for a period of fourteen (14) days, wherein the bone graft material comprises an allograft bone scaffold including viable, native osteogenic cells.
  • 11. The bone graft composition of claim 1, wherein the bone scaffold comprises particles cohesively bound by the viscous cryoprotectant.
  • 12. The bone graft composition of claim 1, wherein the bone scaffold is coated by the viscous cryoprotectant.
  • 13. The bone graft composition of claim 1, wherein the allograft bone matrix is from viable cancellous bone, and wherein the allograft bone scaffold is obtained from viable cortical bone, orthe allograft bone matrix is obtained from the viable cortical bone, and wherein the allograft bone scaffold is obtained from the viable cancellous bone.
  • 14. The method of claim 10, wherein the allograft bone matrix is from viable cancellous bone, and wherein the allograft bone scaffold is obtained from viable cortical bone, orthe allograft bone matrix is obtained from the viable cortical bone, and wherein the allograft bone scaffold is obtained from the viable cancellous bone.
  • 15. The bone graft composition of claim 1, wherein the allograft bone scaffold is cohesively bound, coated, or encapsulated by the viscous cryoprotectant.
  • 16. The bone graft composition of claim 1, wherein a viscosity of the cryoprotectant is higher than 2000 centipoises (cps).
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims the benefit of the filing date of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/719,868 which was filed on Oct. 29, 2012. The content of U.S. Application No. 61/719,868 is incorporated by reference as part of this application.

US Referenced Citations (32)
Number Name Date Kind
4065816 Sawyer Jan 1978 A
4108161 Samuels et al. Aug 1978 A
4802853 Krasner Feb 1989 A
5345746 Franchi Sep 1994 A
5385229 Bittmann et al. Jan 1995 A
5480424 Cox Jan 1996 A
5531791 Wolfinbarger, Jr. Jul 1996 A
5676146 Scarborough Oct 1997 A
5697383 Manders et al. Dec 1997 A
5910315 Stevenson et al. Jun 1999 A
5989498 Odland Nov 1999 A
6024735 Wolfinbarger, Jr. Feb 2000 A
6083690 Harris et al. Jul 2000 A
6189537 Wolfinbarger, Jr. Feb 2001 B1
6203755 Odland Mar 2001 B1
6254635 Schroeder et al. Jul 2001 B1
6293970 Wolfinbarger, Jr. Sep 2001 B1
6294187 Boyce Sep 2001 B1
6311690 Jefferies Nov 2001 B1
6432436 Gertzman et al. Aug 2002 B1
6652818 Mills et al. Nov 2003 B1
6739112 Marino May 2004 B1
7162850 Marino Jan 2007 B2
7892724 Shimko Feb 2011 B2
9687348 Vunjak-Novakovic Jun 2017 B2
20010039458 Boyer, II et al. Nov 2001 A1
20020018796 Wironen Feb 2002 A1
20040230309 DiMauro Nov 2004 A1
20060083769 Kumar et al. Apr 2006 A1
20060240064 Hunter et al. Oct 2006 A9
20070260326 Williams Nov 2007 A1
20080262633 Williams Oct 2008 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (4)
Number Date Country
WO 9739104 Oct 1997 WO
WO-0232474 Apr 2002 WO
WO-2007133451 Nov 2007 WO
WO-2009134815 Nov 2009 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (16)
Entry
Ginis et al., Evaluation of bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells after cryopreservation and hypothermic storage in clinically safe medium. Tissue Engineering Part C: Methods. Jan. 30, 2012;18(6):453-63.
Bradley et al., Histologic Evaluation of a Stem Cell—Based Sinus-Augmentation Procedure, J Periodontol 2009;80:679-686. (Year: 2009).
Alberts et al., Chapter 23 Specialized Tissues, Stem Cells and Tissue Renewal, Molecular Biology of the Cell, 5th Edition, 2008, p. 1457, Garland Science, New York, New York.
An et al., “Comparison Between Allograft Plus Demineralized Bone Matrix Versus Autograft in Anterior Cervical Fusion”, Spine, 1995, 20(20):2211-2216.
Caplan, A., “What's in a Name?”, Tissue Engineering, 2010, 16(8):2415-2417.
Cook et al., “In Vivo Evaluation of Demineralized Bone Matrix as a Bone Graft Substitute in Posterior Spinal Fusion”, Spine, 1995, 20(8):877-886.
Gazdag et al., “Alternatives to Autogenous Bone Graft: Efficacy and Indications”, J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 1995, 3(1):1-8.
Lambrecht and Marks, “Human Osteoclast-like Cells in Primary Cultures” Clinical Anatomy, 1996, 9:41-45.
Laursen et al., “Optimal handling of fresh cancellous bone graft. Different peroperative storing techniques evaluated by in vitro osteo-blast-like cell metabolism”, Acta Orthop Scand, 2003, 74(4):490-496.
Meyer H., “Properties of Human Trabecular Bone Cells from Elderly Women: Implications for Cell-Based Bone Engraftment” Cells Tissues Organs, 2004, 177:57-67.
Robey et al., “Human Bone Cells In Vitro”, Calcif Tissue Int, 1985, 37:453-460.
Sakaguchi et al., “Suspended cells from trabecular bone by collagenase digestion become virtually identical to mesenchymal stem cells obtained from marrow aspirates”, Blood, 2004, 104(9):2728-2735.
International Search Report in International Application No. PCT/US07/10589 dated Oct. 24, 2007, 1 page.
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority in International Application No. PCT/US07/10589 dated Oct. 24, 2007, 3 pages.
International Search Report in International Application No. PCT/US2009/041999 dated Jun. 24, 2009, 2 pages.
Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority in International Application No. PCT/US2009/041999 dated Jun. 24, 2009, 5 pages.
Provisional Applications (1)
Number Date Country
61719868 Oct 2012 US