Malleable, cryopreserved osteogenic compositions with viable cells

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 11633522
  • Patent Number
    11,633,522
  • Date Filed
    Monday, August 17, 2020
    4 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, April 25, 2023
    a year ago
  • CPC
  • Field of Search
    • US
    • NON E00000
  • International Classifications
    • A61L27/36
    • Disclaimer
      This patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer.
      Term Extension
      136
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 mixes 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. IDC-2531














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







Human Serum





DMSO
Albumin
Avg.
Avg. Cell


Composition
Concentration
Concentration
Cell
Count


ID
(v/v)
(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. IDC-28,T 1 Table 8:














TABLE 8









Avg.






Avg.
Cell
Alk.


Composition
Alginate
Cancellous:Cryo
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: bone particles containing viable osteogenic cellular material native to the bone particles;a viscous cryoprotectant comprising at least one penetrating cryoprotective agent and at least one non-penetrating cryoprotective agent, wherein the at least one non-penetrating cryoprotective agent comprises alginate,wherein the viscous cryoprotectant comprises a concentration of alginate of 4% to 6%; anda demineralized bone matrix,wherein a volume ratio of the bone particles to the demineralized bone matrix is in a range from 5:2 to 53, and wherein the bone graft composition is homogenous and malleable,wherein a second volume ratio of the bone particles to the viscous cryoprotectant is from 5:2 to 2:1, andwherein at least seventy percent of the viable osteogenic cellular material is viable after storage in the viscous cryoprotectant at −80 degrees Celsius or lower for a period of fourteen days.
  • 2. The bone graft composition of claim 1, wherein the bone particles are from viable cancellous bone, and the demineralized bone matrix is from cortical bone.
  • 3. The bone graft composition of claim 1, wherein the bone particles are cohesively bounded by the viscous cryoprotectant.
  • 4. The bone graft composition of claim 1, wherein the bone particles are coated or encapsulated by the viscous cryoprotectant.
  • 5. The bone graft composition of claim 1, wherein a viscosity of the viscous cryoprotectant is higher than 2000 centipoises (cps).
  • 6. The bone graft composition of claim 1, wherein the non-penetrating cryoprotective agent further comprises one or more of hyaluronic acid, hydroxyethyl starch, methylcellulose, carboxymethylcellulose, hydroxymethylcellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyethylene glycol, chitosan, and glycerol.
  • 7. 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.
  • 8. A method of preserving viability of a bone graft material, the method comprising: combining viable bone graft material with a demineralized bone matrix, wherein a volume ratio of the viable bone graft material to the demineralized bone matrix ranges from 5:2 to 5:3 and wherein the viable bone graft material contains viable osteogenic cells inherent thereto; andcombining the viable bone graft material and the demineralized bone matrix with a viscous cryoprotectant into a homogenous composition for preserving the viability of the viable bone graft material, wherein the viscous cryoprotectant includes at least one non-penetrating cryoprotective agent and at least one penetrating cryoprotective agent, wherein the at least one non-penetrating cryoprotective agent comprises alginate,wherein a second volume ratio of the viable bone graft material to the viscous cryoprotectant is from 5:2 to 2:1,wherein the viscous cryoprotectant comprises a concentration of alginate of 4% to 6%, and wherein at least seventy percent of the viable osteogenic cellular material is viable after storage in the viscous cryoprotectant at −80 degrees Celsius or lower for a period of fourteen days.
  • 9. The method claim 8, wherein the viable bone graft material is from viable cancellous bone, and the demineralized bone matrix is from viable cortical bone.
  • 10. The method claim of 8, wherein the viable bone graft material is from viable cortical bone, and the demineralized bone matrix is from viable cancellous bone.
  • 11. The method claim 8, wherein the viable bone graft material is cohesively bounded by the viscous cryoprotectant.
  • 12. The method of claim 8, wherein a viscosity of the viscous cryoprotectant is higher than 2000 centipoises (cps).
  • 13. The method claim of 8, wherein the non-penetrating cryoprotective agent further comprises one or more of hyaluronic acid, hydroxyethyl starch, methylcellulose, carboxymethylcellulose, hydroxymethylcellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyethylene glycol, chitosan, and glycerol.
  • 14. The method claim of 8, wherein the penetrating cryoprotective agent is one of dimethyl sulfoxide, glycerol, propylene glycol, ethylene glycol, propanediol, or a combination thereof.
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/066,589 filed Oct. 29, 2013, which claims the benefit of priority of U.S. provisional application No. 61/719,868 filed on Oct. 29, 2012, each of which are hereby incorporated by reference herein as if set forth herein in their entireties.

US Referenced Citations (39)
Number Name Date Kind
4065816 Sawyer Jan 1978 A
4108161 Samuels et al. Aug 1978 A
4802853 Krasner Feb 1989 A
5071741 Brockbank Dec 1991 A
5118512 O'Leary Jun 1992 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
5788941 Dalmasso Aug 1998 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. et al. Sep 2001 B1
6294187 Boyce et al. Sep 2001 B1
6295187 Pinarbasi Sep 2001 B1
6311690 Jefferies Nov 2001 B1
6432436 Gertzman et al. Aug 2002 B1
6652818 Mills et al. Nov 2003 B1
6652872 Nevo Nov 2003 B2
6739112 Marino May 2004 B1
7162850 Marino et al. Jan 2007 B2
7892724 Shimko et al. Feb 2011 B2
8460860 Williams Jun 2013 B2
9352003 Semler May 2016 B1
9687348 Vunjak-Novakovic et al. Jun 2017 B2
20010039458 Boyer, II et al. Nov 2001 A1
20020018796 Wironen Feb 2002 A1
20040230309 DiMauro et al. Nov 2004 A1
20060083769 Kumar et al. Apr 2006 A1
20060240064 Hunter et al. Oct 2006 A9
20070260326 Williams et al. Nov 2007 A1
20080262633 Williams et al. Oct 2008 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (4)
Number Date Country
1997039104 Oct 1997 WO
2002032474 Apr 2002 WO
2007133451 Nov 2007 WO
2009134815 Nov 2009 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (20)
Entry
Alberts et al., “Chapter 23 Specialized Tissues, Stem Cells and Tissue Renewal”, Molecular Biology of the Cell, 5th Edition, Garland Science, 2008, p. 1457.
An et al., “Comparison between allograft plus demineralized bone matrix versus autograft in anterior cervical fusion| A prospective multicenter study”, SPINE, 1995, pp. 2211-2216, 20, No. 20.
Caplan, “What's in a Name?”, Tissue Engineering, 2010, pp. 2415-2417, 16, No. 8.
Cook et al., “In vivo evaluation of demineralized bone matrix as a bone graft substitute for posterior spinal fusion”, SPINE, 1995, pp. 877-886, 20, No. 8.
Gazdag et al., “Alternatives to autogenous bone graft: Efficacy and indications”, J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 1995, pp. 1-8, 3, No. 1.
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, 2012, pp. 453-463, 18, No. 6.
International Search Report for PCT/US2007/010589, ISA, dated Sep. 22, 2007, pp. 1.
International Search Report for PCT/US2009/041999, ISA, dated Jun. 8, 2009, pp. 2.
Lambrecht et al., “Human osteoclast-like cells in primary culture”, Clinical Anatomy, 1996, pp. 41-45, 9, No. 1.
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, pp. 490-496, 74, No. 4.
Mayer, “Properties of human trabecular bone cells from elderly women: Implications for cell-based bone engraftment” Cells Tissues Organs, 2004, pp. 57-67, 177, No. 2.
McAllister et al., “Histologic evaluation of a stem cell-based sinus-augmentation procedure”, J Periodontal, 2009, pp. 679-686, 80, No. 4.
Robey et al., “Human bone cells in vitro”, Calcif Tissue Int, 1985, pp. 453-460, 37, No. 5.
Sakaguchi et al., “Suspended cells from trabecular bone by collagenase digestion become virtually identical to mesenchymal stem cells obtained from marrow aspirates”, Blood, 2004, pp. 2728-2735, 104, No. 9.
Written Opinion for PCT/US2007/010589, ISA, dated Sep. 22, 2007, pp. 3.
Written Opinion for PCT/US2009/041999, ISA, dated Jun. 8, 2009, pp. 5.
Kylmaoja et al., “Osteoclasts and remodeling based bone formation”, Current Stem Cell Research & Therapy, 2016, Abstract, 11, No. 8.
Matter et al., “Biomechanical examinations of cancellous bone concerning the influence of duration and temperature of cryopreservation”, J Biomed Mater Res, 2001, pp. 40-44, 55, No. 1.
Oh et al., “A new bone banking technique to maintain osteoblast viability in frozen human iliac cancellous bone”, Cryobiology, 2002, pp. 279-287, 44, No. 3.
Van der Donk et al., “Rinsing morselized allografts improves bone and tissue ingrowth”, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 2003, pp. 302-310, No. 408.
Provisional Applications (1)
Number Date Country
61719868 Oct 2012 US
Continuations (1)
Number Date Country
Parent 14066589 Oct 2013 US
Child 16995128 US