The Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee is in talks with the government over potential plans to distribute COVID-19 treatments in primary care.

Community pharmacies should be reimbursed for their additional costs during the COVID-19 pandemic “as soon as possible”, the prime minister has told The Pharmaceutical Journal.

The General Pharmaceutical Council has said it is “double, treble, quadruple-checking” for any “flexibility” that would allow all overseas candidates to sit the March 2021 registration assessment exam in their countries of residence.

Starting COVID-19 patients on prophylactic anticoagulation within 24 hours of being admitted to hospital has been linked to a reduced risk of mortality.

Some 180 women were prescribed valproate, a medicine used to treat epilepsy and bipolar disorder, during their pregnancy within a 2.5 year interval, NHS data has revealed.

The latest information about the novel coronavirus identified in Wuhan, China, and advice on how pharmacists can help concerned patients and the public.

The type 2 diabetes mellitus drug semaglutide is effective for weight loss in non-diabetic overweight or obese adults, when taken alongside a reduced-calorie diet and exercise, researchers have found.

Consultations on the reclassification of two progestogen-only contraceptive pills from prescription-only to pharmacy medicines have been launched.

Community pharmacies will receive an estimated 12 referrals from the Discharge Medicines Service per year.

Researchers around the world are working at record speed to find the best ways to treat and prevent COVID-19, from investigating the possibility of repurposing existing drugs to searching for novel therapies against the virus.

The General Pharmaceutical Council has said most candidates living in countries with a two-hour or more time difference from the UK will be able to apply to sit the registration assessment at home.

Around half of Wales’ community pharmacies have expressed interest to health boards in providing COVID-19 vaccinations as part of the national programme.

Community pharmacies able to administer up to 400 COVID-19 vaccines per week can now apply to become designated vaccination sites, NHS England has said.

More than half of patients with asthma in the UK are “potentially overusing” short-acting β2-agonists, according to research.

By Mike Cloonan, CEO of Sionna Therapeutics, as part of the From The Trenches feature of LifeSciVC An insightful piece on this blog following the JPM healthcare conference noted the “refreshing burst of enthusiasm” in the biotech sector. It’s true

The post Lessons From A Private Funding Round: Science, Relationships, And Experience appeared first on LifeSciVC.

By Aimee Raleigh, Principal at Atlas Venture, as part of the From The Trenches feature of LifeSciVC Ever wondered what goes into diligencing a new idea, program, company, or platform? While each diligence is unique and every investor will have

The post Deconstructing the Diligence Process: An Approach to Vetting New Product Theses appeared first on LifeSciVC.

By Haojing Rong and Aimee Raleigh, as part of the From The Trenches feature of LifeSciVC This blog post is the second in a series on key diligence concepts and questions. If you missed the intro blog post yesterday, click

The post Pharmacology: The Anchor for Nearly Every Diligence appeared first on LifeSciVC.

Novartis recently announced the acquisition of Mariana Oncology, an emerging biotech focused on advancing a radioligand therapeutics platform, for up to $1.75 billion in upfronts and future milestones. The capstone of its three short years of operations, this acquisition represents

The post Mariana Oncology’s Radiopharm Platform Acquired By Novartis appeared first on LifeSciVC.

By Ankit Mahadevia, former CEO of Spero Therapeutics, as part of the From The Trenches feature of LifeSciVC Drug development is complex. So is running a business. Sometimes, the work of doing both can make your head spin. In my

The post Boiling It Down: Conveying Complexity For Decision-makers appeared first on LifeSciVC.

By Ivana Magovčević-Liebisch, CEO of Vigil Neuroscience, as part of the From The Trenches feature of LifeSciVC In the last decade, our industry has made great strides in combating cancer by harnessing the body’s own immune system. As it was

The post Neuro-Immunology: The Promise Of A Differentiated Approach To Neurodegenerative Disease appeared first on LifeSciVC.

Having just turned 50, I’ve been reflecting on my first half-century of late… many fun and impactful moments, a few regrets, and a life I’ve tried to live to the fullest. One thread that has run throughout it has been

The post A Molecular Biologist’s Advice For Life appeared first on LifeSciVC.

By Aimee Raleigh, Principal at Atlas Venture, as part of the From The Trenches feature of LifeSciVC From the outside, one might assume all biotech venture capital (VC) firms are more similar than different. However, once you look under the

The post A Primer on Early-Stage Biotech VC appeared first on LifeSciVC.

By Jonathan Montagu, CEO of HotSpot Therapeutics, as part of the From The Trenches feature of LifeSciVC HotSpot’s trip to Barcelona for the recent European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Meeting was no ‘European Vacation,’ but it was certainly

The post ESMO Reflections: Glimmers of Hope with the Next Wave of I-O Therapies? appeared first on LifeSciVC.

An AllTrials report for the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee this week has found that 33 NHS trust sponsors and six UK universities are reporting none of their clinical trial results, while others have gone from 0% to 100% following an announcement from the Select Committee in January that universities and NHS […]

PDUFA V commitments signal a strong commitment to tolerance of open debate in the face of uncertainty.

I can admit to a rather powerful lack of enthusiasm when reading about interpersonal squabbles. It’s even worse in the scientific world: when I read about debates getting mired in personal attacks I tend to simply stop reading and move on to something else.

However, the really interesting part of this week’s meeting of an FDA joint Advisory Committee to discuss the controversial diabetes drug Avandia – at least in the sense of likely long-term impact – is not the scientific question under discussion, but the surfacing and handling of the raging interpersonal battle going on right now inside the Division of Cardiovascular and Renal Products. So I'll have to swallow my distaste and follow along with the drama.

Two words that make us mistrust Duke:  Anil Potti Christian Laettner

Not that the scientific question at hand – does Avandia pose significant heart risks? – isn't interesting. It is. But if there’s one thing that everyone seems to agree on, it’s that we don’t have good data on the topic. Despite the re-adjudication of RECORD, no one trusts its design (and, ironically, the one trial with a design to rigorously answer the question was halted after intense pressure, despite an AdComm recommendation that it continue).  And no one seems particularly enthused about changing the current status of Avandia: in all likelihood it will continue to be permitted to be marketed under heavy restrictions. Rather than changing the future of diabetes, I suspect the committee will be content to let us slog along the same mucky trail.

The really interesting question, that will potentially impact CDER for years to come, is how it can function with frothing, open dissent among its staffers. As has been widely reported, FDA reviewer Tom Marciniak has written a rather wild and vitriolic assessment of the RECORD trial, excoriating most everyone involved. In a particularly stunning passage, Marciniak appears to claim that the entire output of anyone working at Duke University cannot be trusted because of the fraud committed by Duke cancer researcher Anil Potti:

I would have thought that the two words “Anil Potti” are sufficient for convincing anyone that Duke University is a poor choice for a contractor whose task it is to confirm the integrity of scientific research. 

(One wonders how far Marciniak is willing to take his guilt-by-association theme. Are the words “Cheng Yi Liang” sufficient to convince us that all FDA employees, including Marciniak, are poor choices for deciding matter relating to publicly-traded companies? Should I not comment on government activities because I’m a resident of Illinois (my two words: “Rod Blagojevich”)?)

Rather than censoring or reprimanding Marciniak, his supervisors have taken the extraordinary step of letting him publicly air his criticisms, and then they have in turn publicly criticized his methods and approach.

I have been unable to think of a similar situation at any regulatory agency. The tolerance for dissent being displayed by FDA is, I believe, completely unprecedented.

And that’s the cliffhanger for me: can the FDA’s commitment to transparency extend so far as to accommodate public disagreements about its own approval decisions? Can it do so even when the disagreements take an extremely nasty and inappropriate tone?

• Rather than considering that open debate is a good thing, will journalists jump on the drama and portray agency leadership as weak and indecisive?
• Will the usual suspects in Congress be able to exploit this disagreement for their own political gain? How many House subcommittees will be summoning Janet Woodcock in the coming weeks?

I think what Bob Temple and Norman Stockbridge are doing is a tremendous experiment in open government. If they can pull it off, it could force other agencies to radically rethink how they go about crafting and implementing regulations. However, I also worry that it is politically simply not a viable approach, and that the agency will ultimately be seriously hurt by attacks from the media and legislators.

Where is this coming from?

As part of its recent PDUFA V commitment, the FDA put out a fascinating draft document, Structured Approach to Benefit-Risk Assessment in Drug Regulatory Decision-Making. It didn't get a lot of attention when first published back in February (few FDA documents do). However, it lays out a rather bold vision for how the FDA can acknowledge the existence of uncertainty in its evaluation of new drugs. Its proposed structure even envisions an open and honest accounting of divergent interpretations of data:

When they're frothing at the mouth, even Atticus doesn't let them publish a review

A framework for benefit-risk decision-making that summarizes the relevant facts, uncertainties, and key areas of judgment, and clearly explains how these factors influence a regulatory decision, can greatly inform and clarify the regulatory discussion. Such a framework can provide transparency regarding the basis of conflicting recommendations made by different parties using the same information.

(Emphasis mine.)

Of course, the structured framework here is designed to reflect rational disagreement. Marciniak’s scattershot insults are in many ways a terrible first case for trying out a new level of transparency.

The draft framework notes that safety issues, like Avandia, are some of the major areas of uncertainty in the regulatory process. Contrast this vision of coolly and systematically addressing uncertainties with the sad reality of Marciniak’s attack:

In contrast to the prospective and highly planned studies of effectiveness, safety findings emerge from a wide range of sources, including spontaneous adverse event reports, epidemiology studies, meta-analyses of controlled trials, or in some cases from randomized, controlled trials. However, even controlled trials, where the evidence of an effect is generally most persuasive, can sometimes provide contradictory and inconsistent findings on safety as the analyses are in many cases not planned and often reflect multiple testing. A systematic approach that specifies the sources of evidence, the strength of each piece of evidence, and draws conclusions that explain how the uncertainty weighed on the decision, can lead to more explicit communication of regulatory decisions. We anticipate that this work will continue beyond FY 2013.

I hope that work will continue beyond 2013. Thoughtful, open discussions of real uncertainties are one of the most worthwhile goals FDA can aspire to, even if it means having to learn how to do so without letting the Marciniaks of the world scuttle the whole endeavor.

Are we looking at our enrollment data in the right way?

Session Details:

June 25, 1:45PM - 3:15PM

• Session Number: 241
• Room Number: 205B

1. Enrollment Analytics: Moving Beyond the Funnel
Paul Ivsin
VP, Consulting Director
CAHG Clinical Trials

2. Use of Analytics for Operational Planning
Diana Chung, MSc
Associate Director, Clinical Operations
Gilead
3. Using Enrollment Data to Communicate Effectively with Sites
Gretchen Goller, MA
Senior Director, Patient Access and Retention Services
PRA

“Children are not small adults.” We invoke this saying, in a vague and hand-wavy manner, whenever we talk about the need to study drugs in pediatric populations. It’s an interesting idea, but it really cries out for further elaboration. If they’re not small adults, what are they? Are pediatric efficacy and safety totally uncorrelated with adult efficacy and safety? Or are children actually kind of like small adults in certain important ways?

Pediatric post-marketing studies have been completed for over 200 compounds in the years since BPCA (2002, offering a reward of 6 months extra market exclusivity/patent life to any drug conducting requested pediatric studies) and PREA (2007, giving FDA power to require pediatric studies) were enacted. I think it is fair to say that at this point, it would be nice to have some sort of comprehensive idea of how FDA views the risks associated with treating children with medications tested only on adults. Are they in general less efficacious? More? Is PK in children predictable from adult studies a reasonable percentage of the time, or does it need to be recharacterized with every drug?

Essentially, my point is that BPCA/PREA is a pretty crude tool: it is both too broad in setting what is basically a single standard for all new adult medications, and too vague as to what exactly that standard is.

In fact, a 2008 published review from FDA staffers and a 2012 Institute of Medicine report both show one clear trend: in a significant majority of cases, pediatric studies resulted in validating the adult medication in children, mostly with predictable dose and formulation adjustments (77 of 108 compounds (71%) in the FDA review, and 27 of 45 (60%) in the IOM review, had label changes that simply reflected that use of the drug was acceptable in younger patients).

So, it seems, most of the time, children are in fact not terribly unlike small adults.

But it’s also true that the percentages of studies that show lack of efficacy, or bring to light a new safety issue with the drug’s use in children, is well above zero. There is some extremely important information here.

To paraphrase John Wanamaker: we know that half our PREA studies are a waste of time; we just don’t know which half.

This would seem to me to be the highest regulatory priority – to be able to predict which new drugs will work as expected in children, and which may truly require further study. After a couple hundred compounds have gone through this process, we really ought to be better positioned to understand how certain pharmacological properties might increase or decrease the risks of drugs behaving differently than expected in children. Unfortunately, neither the FDA nor the IOM papers venture any hypotheses about this – both end up providing long lists of examples of certain points, but not providing any explanatory mechanisms that might enable us to engage in some predictive risk assessment.

While FDASIA did not advance PREA in terms of more rigorously defining the scope of pediatric requirements (or, better yet, requiring FDA to do so), it did address one lingering concern by requiring that FDA publish non-compliance letters for sponsors that do not meet their commitments. (PREA, like FDAAA, is a bit plagued by lingering suspicions that it’s widely ignored by industry.)

The first batch of letters and responses has been published, and it offers some early insights into the problems engendered by the nebulous nature of PREA and its implementation.

These examples, unfortunately, are still a bit opaque – we will need to wait on the FDA responses to the sponsors to see if some of the counter-claims are deemed credible. In addition, there are a few references to prior deferral requests, but the details of the request (and rationales for the subsequent FDA denials) do not appear to be publicly available. You can read FDA’s take on the new postings on their blog, or in the predictably excellent coverage from Alec Gaffney at RAPS.

Looking through the first 4 drugs publicly identified for noncompliance, the clear trend is that there is no trend. All these PREA requirements have been missed for dramatically different reasons.

Here’s a quick rundown of the drugs at issue – and, more interestingly, the sponsor responses:

1. Renvela - Genzyme (full response)

Genzyme appears to be laying responsibility for the delay firmly at FDA’s feet here, basically claiming that FDA continued to pile on new requirements over time:

Genzyme’s correspondence with the FDA regarding pediatric plans and design of this study began in 2006 and included a face to face meeting with FDA in May 2009. Genzyme submitted 8 revisions of the pediatric study design based on feedback from FDA including that received in 4 General Advice Letters. The Advice Letter dated February 17, 2011  contained further recommendations on the study design, yet still required the final clinical study report  by December 31, 2011.

This highlights one of PREA’s real problems: the requirements as specified in most drug approval letters are not specific enough to fully dictate the study protocol. Instead, there is a lot of back and forth between the sponsor and FDA, and it seems that FDA does not always fully account for their own contribution to delays in getting studies started.

2. Hectorol - Genzyme (full response)

In this one, Genzyme blames the FDA not for too much feedback, but for none at all:

On December 22, 2010, Genzyme submitted a revised pediatric development plan (Serial No. 212) which was intended to address FDA feedback and concerns that had been received to date. This submission included proposed protocol HECT05310. [...] At this time, Genzyme has not received feedback from the FDA on the protocol included in the December 22, 2010 submission.

If this is true, it appears extremely embarrassing for FDA. Have they really not provided feedback in over 2.5 years, and yet still sending noncompliance letters to the sponsor? It will be very interesting to see an FDA response to this.

3. Cleviprex – The Medicines Company (full response)

This is the only case where the pharma company appears to be clearly trying to game the system a bit. According to their response:

Recognizing that, due to circumstances beyond the company’s control, the pediatric assessment could not be completed by the due date, The Medicines Company notified FDA in September 2010, and sought an extension. At that time, it was FDA’s view that no extensions were available. Following the passage of FDASIA, which specifically authorizes deferral extensions, the company again sought a deferral extension in December 2012. 

So, after hearing that they had to move forward in 2010, the company promptly waited 2 years to ask for another extension. During that time, the letter seems to imply that they did not try to move the study forward at all, preferring to roll the dice and wait for changing laws to help them get out from under the obligation.

4. Twinject/Adrenaclick – Amedra (full response)

The details of this one are heavily redacted, but it may also be a bit of gamesmanship from the sponsor. After purchasing the injectors, Amedra asked for a deferral. When the deferral was denied, they simply asked for the requirements to be waived altogether. That seems backwards, but perhaps there's a good reason for that.

---

This new 10-minute TEDMED talk is getting quite a bit of attention:


 (if embedded video does not work, try the TED site itself.)

In it, Roger Stein claims to have created an approach to advancing drugs through clinical trials that will "fundamentally change the way research for cancer and lots of other things gets done".

Because the costs of bringing a drug to market are so high, time from discovery to marketing is so long, and the chances of success of any individual drug are so grim, betting on any individual drug is foolish, according to Stein. Instead, risks for a large number of potential assets should be pooled, with the eventual winners paying for the losers.

To do this, Stein proposes what he calls a "megafund" - a large collection of assets (candidate therapies). Through some modeling and simulations, Stein suggests some of the qualities of an ideal megafund: it would need in the neighborhood of $3-15 billion to acquire and manage 80-150 drugs. A fund of this size and with these assets would be able to provide an equity yield of about 12%, which would be "right in the investment sweet spot of pension funds and 401(k) plans".

Here's what I find striking about those numbers: let's compare Stein's Megafund to everyone's favorite Megalosaurus, the old-fashioned Big Pharma dinosaur sometimes known as Pfizer:

	Megafund (Stein)	Megalosaurus (Pfizer)
Funding	$3-15 billion	$9 billion estimated 2013 R&D spend
Assets	80-150	81 (in pipeline, plus many more in preclinical)
Return on Equity	12% (estimated)	9.2% (last 10 years) to 13.2% (last 5)

Since Pfizer's a dinosaur, it can't possibly compete with the sleek, modern Megafund, right? Right?

These numbers look remarkably similar. Pfizer - and a number of its peers - are spending Megafund-sized budget each year to shepherd through a Megafund-sized number of compounds. (Note many of Pfizer's peers have substantially fewer drugs in their published pipelines, but they own many times more compounds - the pipeline is just the drugs what they've elected to file an IND on.)

What am I missing here? I understand that a fund is not a company, and there may be some benefits to decoupling asset management decisions from actual operations, but this won't be a tremendous gain, and would presumably be at least partially offset by increased transaction costs (Megafund has to source, contract, manage, and audit vendors to design and run all its trials, after all, and I don't know why I'd think it could do that any more cheaply than Big Pharma can). And having a giant drug pipeline's go/no go decisions made by "financial engineers" rather than pharma industry folks would seem like a scenario that's only really seen as an upgrade by the financial engineers themselves.
A tweet from V.S. Schulz pointed me to a post on Derek Lowe's In the Pipeline blog. which lead to a link to this paper by Stein and 2 others in Nature Biotechnology from a year and a half ago. The authors spend most of their time differentiating themselves from other structures in the technical, financial details rather than explaining why megafund would work better at finding new drugs. However, they definitely think this is qualitatively different from existing pharma companies, and offer a couple reasons. First,

[D]ebt financing can be structured to be more “patient” than private or public equity by specifying longer maturities; 10- to 20-year maturities are not atypical for corporate bonds. ... Such long horizons contrast sharply with the considerably shorter horizons of venture capitalists, and the even shorter quarterly earnings cycle and intra-daily price fluctuations faced by public companies.

I'm not sure where this line of though is coming from. Certainly all big pharma companies' plans extend decades into the future - there may be quarterly earnings reports to file, but that's a force exerted far more on sales and marketing teams than on drug development. The financing of pharmaceutical development is already extremely long term.

Even in the venture-backed world, Stein and team are wrong if they believe there is pervasive pressure to magically deliver drugs in record time. Investors and biotech management are both keenly aware of the tradeoffs between speed and regulatory success. Even this week's came-from-nowhere Cinderella story, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, was founded with venture money over a decade ago - these "longer maturities" are standard issue in biotech. We aren't making iPhone apps here, guys.

Second,

Although big pharma companies are central to the later stages of drug development and the marketing and distributing of approved drugs, they do not currently play as active a role at the riskier preclinical and early stages of development

Again, I'm unsure why this is supposed to be so. Of Pfizer's 81 pipeline compounds, 55 are in Phase 1 or 2 - a ratio that's pretty heavy on early, risky project, and that's not too different from industry as a whole. Pfizer does not publish data on the number of compounds it currently has undergoing preclinical testing, but there's no clear reason I can think of to assume it's a small number.

So, is Megafund truly a revolutionary idea, or is it basically a mathematical deck-chair-rearrangement for the "efficiencies of scale" behemoths we've already got?

[Image: the world's first known dino, Megalosaurus, via Wikipedia.]

• How to Catalyze a Clinical Trial - My inaugural post introducing the blog and its purpose
• Video: Predicting Referral Conversion in Clinical Trial Advertising - A somewhat technical but very important topic, how to visualize and model the “real time” results of recruitment advertising at the sites.
• The Crystal Ball is on the Fritz - What to do with a broken enrollment feasibility process, and how asking will never be as good as measuring

• The New Breed of Clinical Trial Matchmakers - A (hopefully pretty complete, thanks to knowledgeable commenters) listing of services looking to match interested patients to clinical trials
• Rethinking Patient Enrollment, in One Graphic - The perils of predictability in site-based enrollment
• Seize the Data! Will Big Data Save Us from Ourselves? - My take on what I consider to be the large and serious obstacles in the way of “Big Data” solutions for patient recruitment

Please take a look, and I will see you back here soon.

[Photo credit: detour sign via Flikr user crossley]

It is a surprisingly common peril among analysts: we don’t have the data to answer the question we’re interested in, so we answer a related question where we do have data. Unfortunately, the new answer turns out to shed no light on the original interesting question.

This is sometimes referred to as the Streetlight Effect – a phenomenon aptly illustrated by Mutt and Jeff over half a century ago:

This is the situation that the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development seems to have gotten itself into in its latest "Impact Report".  It’s worth walking through the process of how an interesting question ends up in an uninteresting answer.

So, here’s an interesting question:

My company owns a drug that may be approvable through FDA’s 505(b)(2) pathway. What is the estimated time and cost difference between pursuing 505(b)(2) approval and conventional approval?

That’s "interesting", I suppose I should add, for a certain subset of folks working in drug development and commercialization. It’s only interesting to that peculiar niche, but for those people I suspect it’s extremely interesting - because it is a real situation that a drug company may find itself in, and there are concrete consequences to the decision.

Unfortunately, this is also a really difficult question to answer. As phrased, you'd almost need a randomized trial to answer it. Let’s create a version which is less interesting but easier to answer:

What are the overall development time and cost differences between drugs seeking approval via 505(b)(2) and conventional pathways?

This is much easier to answer, as pharmaceutical companies could look back on development times and costs of all their compounds, and directly compare the different types. It is, however, a much less useful question. Many new drugs are simply not eligible for 505(b)(2) approval. If those drugs

Extreme qualitative differences of 505(b)(2) drugs. Source: Thomson Reuters analysis via RAPS

are substantially different in any way (riskier, more novel, etc.), then they will change the comparison in highly non-useful ways. In fact, in 2014, only 1 drug classified as a New Molecular Entity (NME) went through 505(b)(2) approval, versus 32 that went through conventional approval. And in fact, there are many qualities that set 505(b)(2) drugs apart.

So we’re likely to get a lot of confounding factors in our comparison, and it’s unclear how the answer would (or should) guide us if we were truly trying to decide which route to take for a particular new drug. It might help us if we were trying to evaluate a large-scale shift to prioritizing 505(b)(2) eligible drugs, however.

Unfortunately, even this question is apparently too difficult to answer. Instead, the Tufts CSDD chose to ask and answer yet another variant:

What is the difference in time that it takes the FDA for its internal review process between 505(b)(2) and conventionally-approved drugs?

This question has the supreme virtue of being answerable. In fact, I believe that all of the data you’d need is contained within the approval letter that FDA posts publishes for each new approved drug.

But at the same time, it isn’t a particularly interesting question anymore. The promise of the 505(b)(2) pathway is that it should reduce total development time and cost, but on both those dimensions, the report appears to fall flat.

• Cost: This analysis says nothing about reduced costs – those savings would mostly come in the form of fewer clinical trials, and this focuses entirely on the FDA review process.
• Time: FDA review and approval is only a fraction of a drug’s journey from patent to market. In fact, it often takes up less than 10% of the time from initial IND to approval. So any differences in approval times will likely easily be overshadowed by differences in time spent in development. 

But even more fundamentally, the problem here is that this study gives the appearance of providing an answer to our original question, but in fact is entirely uninformative in this regard. The accompanying press release states:

The 505(b)(2) approval pathway for new drug applications in the United States, aimed at avoiding unnecessary duplication of studies performed on a previously approved drug, has not led to shorter approval times.

This is more than a bit misleading. The 505(b)(2) statute does not in any way address approval timelines – that’s not it’s intent. So showing that it hasn’t led to shorter approval times is less of an insight than it is a natural consequence of the law as written.

Most importantly, showing that 505(b)(2) drugs had a longer average approval time than conventionally-approved drugs in no way should be interpreted as adding any evidence to the idea that those drugs were slowed down by the 505(b)(2) process itself. Because 505(b)(2) drugs are qualitatively different from other new molecules, this study can’t claim that they would have been developed faster had their owners initially chosen to go the route of conventional approval. In fact, such a decision might have resulted in both increased time in trials and increased approval time.

This study simply is not designed to provide an answer to the truly interesting underlying question.

[Disclosure: the above review is based entirely on a CSDD press release and summary page. The actual report costs $125, which is well in excess of this blog’s expense limit. It is entirely possible that the report itself contains more-informative insights, and I’ll happily update that post if that should come to my attention.]

Hospitals have been forced to innovate with new ways of hydrating patients and giving them medications, after a key factory that produces IV fluid bags flooded during Hurricane Helene. (This story first aired on Morning Edition on Nov. 7, 2024.)

More people are getting cancer in their 20s, 30s, and 40s, and surviving, thanks to rapid advancement in care. Many will have decades of life ahead of them, which means they face greater and more complex challenges in survivorship. Lourdes Monje is navigating these waters at age 29.

Participant reported relief from chronic low back pain and reduced need for pain-relief medications.

Industri slot online terus mekar dan mengukir epik baru dalam dunia judi online. Tahun 2024 menjadi saksi bagi loncatan tinggi dalam inovasi dan hiburan, terutama dari para provider terkemuka yang…

The post Nama-Nama Provider Slot Online Terbaik 2024 appeared first on Biosimilarnews.

Seolah-olah melintasi portal waktu, kita memasuki tahun 2024 dengan deretan provider judi slot online yang tidak hanya menemani, tetapi juga menggoda imajinasi. Setiap klik, setiap putaran gulungan, membuka lembaran baru…

The post Provider Judi Slot Gacor Online Terbaik serta Populer di Tahun 2024 appeared first on Biosimilarnews.

In 2010, Melanie Reid fell off a horse and was paralyzed below the shoulders.

“You think, ‘I am where I am; nothing’s going to change,’ ” she said, but many years after her accident, she participated in a medical trial of a new, noninvasive rehabilitative device that can deliver more electrical stimulation than similar devices without harming the user. For Reid, use of the device has led to small improvements in her ability to use her hands, and meaningful changes to her daily life.

“Everyone thinks with spinal injury all you want to do is be able to walk again, but if you’re a tetraplegic or quadriplegic, what matters most is working hands,” said Reid, a columnist for The Times, as part of a press briefing. “There’s no miracles in spinal injury, but tiny gains can be life-changing.”

For the study, Reid used a new noninvasive therapeutic device produced by Onward Medical. The device, ARC-EX (“EX” indicating “external”), uses electrodes placed along the spine near the site of injury—in the case of quadriplegia, the neck—to promote nerve activity and growth during physical-therapy exercises. The goal is to not only increase motor function while the device is attached and operating, but the long-term effectiveness of rehabilitation drills. A study focused on arm and hand abilities in patients with quadriplegia was published 20 May in Nature Medicine.

Researchers have been investigating electrical stimulation as a treatment for spinal cord injury for roughly 40 years, but “one of the innovations in this system is using a very high-frequency waveform,” said coauthor Chet Moritz, a neurotechnologist at the University of Washington. The ARC-EX uses a 10-kilohertz carrier frequency overlay, which researchers think may numb the skin beneath the electrode, allowing patients to tolerate five times as much amperage as from similar exploratory devices. For Reid, this manifested as a noticeable “buzz,” which felt strange, but not painful.

The study included 60 participants across 14 sites around the world. Each participant undertook two months of standard physical therapy, followed by two months of therapy combined with the ARC-EX. Although aspects of treatment such as electrode placement were fairly standardized, the current amplitude was personalized to each patient, and sometimes individual exercises, said Moritz.

The ARC-EX uses a 10-kilohertz current to provider stronger stimulation for people with spinal cord injuries.

Over 70 percent of patients showed an increase in at least one measurement of both strength and function between standard therapy and ARC-EX therapy. These changes also meant that 87 percent of study participants noted some improvement in quality of life in a followup questionnaire. No major safety concerns tied to the device or rehabilitation process were reported.

Onward will seek approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the device by the end of 2024, said study coauthor Grégoire Courtine, a neuroscientist and cofounder of Onward Medical. Onward is also working on an implantable spinal stimulator called ARC-IM; other prosthetic approaches, such as robotic exoskeletons, are being investigated elsewhere. ARC-EX was presented as a potentially important cost-accessible, noninvasive treatment option, especially in the critical window for recovery a year or so after a spinal cord injury. However, the price to insurers or patients of a commercial version is still subject to negotiation.

The World Health Organization says there are over 15 million people with spinal cord injuries. Moritz estimates that around 90 percent of patients, even many with no movement in their hands, could benefit from the new therapy.

Dimitry Sayenko, who studies spinal cord injury recovery at Houston Methodist and was not involved in the study, praised the relatively large sample size and clear concern for patient safety. But he stresses that the mechanisms underlying spinal stimulation are not well understood. “So far it’s literally plug and play,” said Sayenko. “We don’t understand what’s happening under the electrodes for sure—we can only indirectly assume or speculate.”

The new study supports the idea that noninvasive spinal cord stimulation can provide some benefit to some people but was not designed to help predict who will benefit, precisely how people will benefit, or how to optimize care. The study authors acknowledged the limited scope and need for further research, which might help turn currently “tiny gains” into what Sayenko calls “larger, more dramatic, robust effects.”

Tech startups are stepping up to meet the needs of 60 million people worldwide who use opioids, representing about 1 percent of the world’s adult population. In the United States, deaths involving synthetic opioids have risen 1,040 percent from 2013 to 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic and continued prevalence of fentanyl have since worsened the toll, with an estimated 81,083 fatal overdoses in 2023 alone.

Innovations include biometric monitoring systems that help doctors determine proper medication dosages, nerve stimulators that relieve withdrawal symptoms, wearable and ingestible systems that watch for signs of an overdose, and autonomous drug delivery systems that could prevent overdose deaths.

Helping Patients Get the Dosage They Need

For decades, opioid blockers and other medications that suppress cravings have been the primary treatment tool for opioid addiction. However, despite its clinical dominance, this approach remains underutilized. In the United States, only about 22 percent of the 2.5 million adults with opioid use disorder receive medication-assisted therapy such as methadone, Suboxone, and similar drugs.

Determining patients’ ideal dosage during the early stages of treatment is crucial for keeping them in recovery programs. The shift from heroin to potent synthetic opioids, like fentanyl, has complicated this process, as the typical recommended medication doses can be too low for those with a high fentanyl tolerance.

A North Carolina-based startup is developing a predictive algorithm to help clinicians tailor these protocols and track real-time progress with biometric data. OpiAID, which is currently working with 1,000 patients across three clinical sites, recently launched a research pilot with virtual treatment provider Bicycle Health. Patients taking Suboxone will wear a Samsung Galaxy Watch6 to measure their heart rate, body movements, and skin temperature. OpiAID CEO David Reeser says clinicians can derive unique stress indications from this data, particularly during withdrawal. (He declined to share specifics on how the algorithm works.)

“Identifying stress biometrically plays a role in how resilient someone will be,” Reeser adds. “For instance, poor heart rate variability during sleep could indicate that a patient may be more susceptible that day. In the presence of measurable amounts of withdrawal, the potential for relapse on illicit medications may be more likely.”

Nerve Stimulators Provide Opioid Withdrawal Relief

While OpiAID’s software solution relies on monitoring patients, electrical nerve stimulation devices take direct action. These behind-the-ear wearables distribute electrodes at nerve endings around the ear and send electrical pulses to block pain signals and relieve withdrawal symptoms like anxiety and nausea.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared several nerve stimulator devices, such as DyAnsys’ Drug Relief, which periodically administers low-level electrical pulses to the ear’s cranial nerves. Others include Spark Biomedical’s Sparrow system and NET Recovery’s NETNeuro device.

Masimo’s behind-the-ear Bridge device costs US $595 for treatment providers.Masimo

Similarly, Masimo’s Bridge relieves withdrawal symptoms by stimulating the brain and spinal cord via electrodes. The device is intended to help patients initiating, transitioning into, or tapering off medication-assisted treatment. In a clinical trial, Bridge reduced symptom severity by 85 percent in the first hour and 97 percent by the fifth day. A Masimo spokesperson said the company’s typical customers are treatment providers and correctional facilities, though it’s also seeing interest from emergency room physicians.

Devices Monitor Blood Oxygen to Prevent Overdose Deaths

In 2023, the FDA cleared Masimo’s Opioid Halo device to monitor blood oxygen levels and alert emergency contacts if it detects opioid-induced respiratory depression, the leading cause of overdose deaths. The product includes a pulse oximeter cable and disposable sensors connected to a mobile app.

Opioid Halo utilizes Masimo’s signal extraction technology, first developed in the 1990s, which improves upon conventional oxygen monitoring techniques by filtering out artifacts caused by blood movement. Masimo employs four signal-processing engines to distinguish the true signal from noise that can lead to false alarms; for example, they distinguish between arterial blood and low-oxygen venous blood.

Masimo’s Opioid Halo system is available over-the-counter without a prescription. Masimo

Opioid Halo is available over-the-counter for US $250. A spokesperson says sales have continued to show promise as more healthcare providers recommend it to high-risk patients.

An Ingestible Sensor to Watch Over Patients

Last year, in a first-in-human clinical study, doctors used an ingestible sensor to monitor vital signs from patients’ stomachs. Researchers analyzed the breathing patterns and heart rates of 10 sleep study patients at West Virginia University. Some participants had episodes of central sleep apnea, which can be a proxy for opioid-induced respiratory depression. The capsule transmitted this data wirelessly to external equipment linked to the cloud.

Celero’s Rescue-Rx capsule would reside in a user’s stomach for one week.Benjamin Pless/Celero Systems

“To our knowledge, this is the first time anyone has demonstrated the ability to accurately monitor human cardiac and respiratory signals from an ingestible device,” says Benjamin Pless, one of the study’s co-authors. “This was done using very low-power circuitry including a radio, microprocessor, and accelerometer along with software for distinguishing various physiological signals.”

Pless and colleagues from MIT and Harvard Medical School started Celero Systems to commercialize a modified version of that capsule, one that will also release an opioid antagonist after detecting respiratory depression. Pless, Celero’s CEO, says the team has successfully demonstrated the delivery of nalmefene, an opioid antagonist similar to Narcan, to rapidly reverse overdoses.

Celero’s next step is integrating the vitals-monitoring feature for human trials. The company’s final device, Rescue-Rx, is intended to stay in the stomach for one week before passing naturally. Pless says Rescue-Rx’s ingestible format will make the therapy cheaper and more accessible than wearable autoinjectors or implants.

Celero’s capsule can detect vital signs from within the stomach. www.youtube.com

Autonomous Delivery of Overdose Medication

Rescue-Rx isn’t the only autonomous drug-delivery project under development. A recent IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems paper introduced a wrist-worn near-infrared spectroscopy sensor to detect low blood oxygen levels related to an overdose.

Purdue University biomedical engineering professor Hugh Lee and graduate student Juan Mesa, who both co-authored the study, say that while additional human experiments are necessary, the findings represent a valuable tool in counteracting the epidemic. “Our wearable device consistently detected low-oxygenation events, triggered alarms, and activated the circuitry designed to release the antidote through the implantable capsule,” they wrote in an email.

Lee and Purdue colleagues founded Rescue Biomedical to commercialize the A2D2 system, which includes a wristband and an implanted naloxone capsule that releases the drug if oxygen levels drop below 90 percent. Next, the team will evaluate the closed-loop system in mice.

This story was updated on 27 August 2024 to correct the name of Masimo’s Opioid Halo device.

Blood pressure is one of the critical vital signs for health, but standard practice can only capture a snapshot, using a pressure cuff to squeeze arteries. Continuous readings are available, but only by inserting a transducer directly into an artery via a needle and catheter. Thanks to researchers at Caltech, however, it may soon be possible to measure blood pressure continuously at just about any part of the body.

In a paper published in July in PNAS Nexus, the researchers describe their resonance sonomanometry (RSM) approach to reading blood pressure. This new technology uses ultrasound to measure the dimensions of artery walls. It also uses sound waves to find resonant frequencies that can reveal the pressure within those walls via arterial wall tension. This information is sufficient to calculate the absolute pressure within the artery at any moment, without the need for calibration.

This last factor is important, as other non-invasive approaches only provide relative changes in blood pressure. They require periodic calibration using readings from a traditional pressure cuff. The RSM technology eliminates the need for calibration, making continuous readings more reliable.

How resonance sonomanometry works

The researchers’ RSM system uses an ultrasound transducer to measure the dimensions of the artery. It also transmits sound waves at different frequencies. The vibrations cause the arterial walls to move in and out in response, creating a distinct pattern of motion. When the resonant frequency is transmitted, the top and bottom of the artery will move in and out in unison.

This resonant frequency can be used to determine the tension of the artery walls. The tension in the walls is directly correlated with the fluid pressure of the blood within the artery. As a result, the blood pressure can be calculated at any instant based on the dimensions of the artery and its resonant frequency.

The researchers have validated this approach with both mockups and human subjects. They first tested the technology on an arterial model that used a thin-walled rubber tubing and a syringe to vary the pressure. They tested this mockup using multiple pressures and tubing of different diameters.

The researchers then took measurements with human subjects at their carotid arteries (located in the neck), using a standard pressure cuff to take intermittent measurements. The RSM technology was successful, and subsequently was also demonstrated on axillary (shoulder), brachial (arm), and femoral (leg) arteries. The readings were so clear that the researchers mention that they might even be able to detect blood pressure changes related to respiration and its impact on thoracic pressure.

Unlike traditional pressure cuff approaches, RSM provides data during the entire heartbeat cycle, and not just the systolic and diastolic extremes (In other words, the two numbers you receive during a traditional blood pressure measurement). And the fact that RSM works with different-sized arteries means that it should be applicable across different body sizes and types. Using ultrasound also eliminates possible complications such as skin coloration that can affect light-based devices.

The researchers tested their ultrasound-based blood pressure approach on subjects’ carotid arteries.Esperto Medical

“I’m a big fan of continuous monitoring; a yearly blood pressure reading in the doctor’s office is insufficient for decision making,” says Nick van Terheyden, M.D., the digital health leader with Iodine Software, a company providing machine learning technologies to improve healthcare insights. “A new approach based on good old rules of math and physics is an exciting development.”

The Caltech researchers have created a spinoff company, Esperto Medical, to develop a commercial product using RSM technology. The company has created a transducer module that is smaller than a deck of cards, making it practical to incorporate into a wearable armband. They hope to miniaturize the hardware to the point that it could be incorporated into a wrist-worn device. According to Raymond Jimenez, Esperto Medical’s chief technology officer, “this technology poses the potential to unlock accurate, calibration-free [blood pressure measurements] everywhere—in the clinic, at the gym, and even at home.”

It appears that there’s a significant market for such a product. “92 percent of consumers who intend to buy a wearable device are willing to pay extra for a health-related feature, and blood pressure ranks first among such features,” says Elizabeth Parks, the president of Internet of Things consulting firm Parks Associates.

In the future, rather than relying on arm-squeezing blood pressure cuffs, smart watches may be able to directly monitor blood pressure throughout the day, just as they already do for heart rate and other vital signs.

If you’ve ever tried to get a bandage to stick to your elbow, you understand the difficulty in creating wearable devices that attach securely to the human body. Add digital electronic circuitry, and the problem becomes more complicated. Now include the need for the device to fix breaks and damage automatically—and let’s make it biodegradable while we’re at it—and many researchers would throw up their hands in surrender.

Fortunately, an international team led by researchers at Korea University Graduate School of Converging Science and Technology (KU-KIST) persevered, and has developed conductor materials that it claims are stretchable, self-healing, and biocompatible. Their project was described this month in the journal Science Advances.

The biodegradable conductor offers a new approach to patient monitoring and delivering treatments directly to the tissues and organs where they are needed. For example, a smart patch made of these materials could measure motion, temperature, and other biological data. The material could also be used to create sensor patches that can be implanted inside the body, and even mounted on the surface of internal organs. The biocompatible materials can be designed to degrade after a period of time, eliminating the need for an invasive procedure to remove the sensor later.

“This new technology is a glimpse at the future of remote healthcare,” says Robert Rose, CEO of Rose Strategic Partners, LLC. “Remote patient monitoring is an industry still in its early stages, but already we are seeing the promise of what is not only possible, but close on the horizon. Imagine a device implanted at a surgical site to monitor and report your internal healing progress. If it is damaged, the device can heal itself, and when the job is done, it simply dissolves. It sounds like science fiction, but it’s now science fact.”

Self-healing elastics

After being cut a ribbonlike film was able to heal itself in about 1 minute.Suk-Won Hwang

The system relies on two different layers of flexible material, both self-healing: one is for conduction and the other is an elastomer layer that serves as a substrate to support the sensors and circuitry needed to collect data. The conductor layer is based on a substance known by the acronym PEDOT:PSS, which is short for Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate. It’s a conductive polymer widely used in making flexible displays and touch panels, as well as wearable devices. To increase the polymer’s conductivity and self-healing properties, the research team used additives including polyethylene glycol and glycol, which helped increase conductivity as well as the material’s ability to automatically repair damage such as cuts or tears.

In order to conform to curved tissues and survive typical body motion, the substrate layer must be extremely flexible. The researchers based it on elastomers that can match the shape of curved tissues, such as skin or individual organs.

These two layers stick to each other, thanks to chemical bonds that can connect the polymer chains of the plastic films in each layer. Combined, these materials create a system that is flexible and stretchable. In testing, the researchers showed that the materials could survive stretching up to 500 percent.

The self-healing function arises from the material’s ability to reconnect to itself when cut or otherwise damaged. This self-healing feature is based on a chemical process called disulfide metathesis. In short, polymer molecules containing pairs of linked sulfur atoms, called disulfides, have the ability to reform themselves after being severed. The phenomenon arises from a chemical process called disulfide-disulfide shuffling reactions, in which disulfide bonds in the molecule break and then reform, not necessarily between the original partners. According to the KU-KIST researchers, after being cut, their material was able to recover conductivity in its circuits within about two minutes without any intervention. The material was also tested for bending, twisting, and its ability to function both in air and under water.

This approach offers many advantages over other flexible electronics designs. For example, silver nanowires and carbon nanotubes have been used as the basis for stretchable devices, but they can be brittle and lack the self-healing properties of the KU-KIST materials. Other materials such as liquid metals can self-heal, but they are typically difficult to handle and integrate into wearable circuitry.

As a demonstration, the team created a multifunction sensor that included humidity, temperature, and pressure sensors that was approximately 4.5 square centimeters. In spite of being cut in four separate locations, it was able to heal itself and continue to provide sensor readings.

Implant tested in a rat

To take the demonstration a step further, the researchers created a 1.8-cm² device that was attached to a rat’s bladder. The device was designed to wrap around the bladder and then adhere to itself, so no adhesives or sutures were required to attach the sensor onto the bladder. The team chose the bladder for their experiments because, under normal conditions, its size can change by 300 percent.

The device incorporated both electrodes and pressure sensors, which were able to detect changes in the bladder pressure. The electrodes could detect bladder voiding, through electromyography signals, as well as stimulate the bladder to induce urination. As with the initial demonstration, intentional damage to the device’s circuitry healed on its own, without intervention.

The biocompatible and biodegradable nature of the materials is important because it means that devices fabricated with them can be worn on the skin, as well as implanted within the body. The fact that the materials are biodegradable means that implants would not need a second surgical procedure to remove them. They could be left in place after serving their purpose, and they would be absorbed by the body.

According to Suk-Won Hwang, assistant professor at KU-KIST, a few hurdles remain on the path to commercialization. “We need to test the biocompatibility of some of the materials used in the conductor and substrate layers. While scalable production appears to be feasible, the high cost of disulfide derivatives might make the technology too expensive, aside from some special applications,” he says. “Biocompatibility testing and material synthesis optimization will take one to two years, at least.”

For the first time, scientists have created a flexible programmable chip that is not made of silicon. The new ultralow-power 32-bit microprocessor from U.K.-based Pragmatic Semiconductor and its colleagues can operate while bent, and can run machine learning workloads. The microchip’s open-source RISC-V architecture suggests it might cost less than a dollar, putting it in a position to power wearable healthcare electronics, smart package labels, and other inexpensive items, its inventors add.

For example, “we can develop an ECG patch that has flexible electrodes attached to the chest and a flexible microprocessor connected to flexible electrodes to classify arrhythmia conditions by processing the ECG data from a patient,” says Emre Ozer, senior director of processor development at Pragmatic, a flexible chip manufacturer in Cambridge, England. Detecting normal heart rhythms versus an arrhythmia “is a machine learning task that can run in software in the flexible microprocessor,” he says.

Flexible electronics have the potential for any application requiring interactions with soft materials, such as devices worn on or implanted within the body. Those applications could include on-skin computers, soft robotics, and brain-machine interfaces. But, conventional electronics are made of rigid materials such as silicon.

Open-source, Flexible, and Fast Enough

Pragmatic sought to create a flexible microchip that cost significantly less to make than a silicon processor. The new device, named Flex-RV, is a 32-bit microprocessor based on the metal-oxide semiconductor indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO).

Attempts to create flexible devices from silicon require special packaging for the brittle microchips to protect them from the mechanical stresses of bending and stretching. In contrast, pliable thin-film transistors made from IGZO can be made directly at low temperatures onto flexible plastics, leading to lower costs.

The new microchip is based on the RISC-V instruction set. (RISC stands for reduced instruction set computer.) First introduced in 2010, RISC-V aims to enable smaller, lower-power, better-performing processors by slimming down the core set of instructions they can execute.

“Our end goal is to democratize computing by developing a license-free microprocessor,” Ozer says.

RISC-V’s is both free and open-source, letting chip designer dodge the costly licensing fees associated with proprietary architectures such as x86 and Arm. In addition, proprietary architectures offer limited opportunities to customize them, as adding new instructions is generally restricted. In contrast, RISC-V encourages such changes.

A bent Flex-RV microprocessor runs a program to print ‘Hello World’. Pragmatic Semiconductor

“We chose the Serv designed by Olof Kindgren... as the open source 32-bit RISC-V CPU when we designed Flex-RV,” Ozer says. “Serv is the smallest RISC-V processor in the open-source community.”

Other processors have been built using flexible semiconductors, such as Pragmatic’s 32-bit PlasticARM and an ultracheap microcontroller designed by engineers in Illinois. Unlike these earlier devices, Flex-RV is programmable and can run compiled programs written in high-level languages such as C. In addition, the open-source nature of RISC-V also let the researchers equip Flex-RV with a programmable machine learning hardware accelerator, enabling artificial intelligence applications.

Each Flex-RV microprocessor has a 17.5 square millimeter core and roughly 12,600 logic gates. The research team found Flex-RV could run as fast as 60 kilohertz while consuming less than 6 milliwatts of power.

All previous flexible non-silicon microprocessors were tested solely on the wafers they were made on. In contrast, Flex-RV was tested on flexible printed circuit boards, which let the researchers see how well it operated when flexed. The Pragmatic team found that Flex-RV could still execute programs correctly when bent to a curve with a radius of 3 millimeters. Performance varied between a 4.3 percent slowdown to a 2.3 percent speedup depending on the way it was bent. “Further research is needed to understand how bending conditions such as direction, orientation and angle impact performance at macro and micro scales,” Ozer says.

Silicon microchips can run at gigahertz speeds, much faster than Flex-RV, but that shouldn’t be a problem, according to Ozer. “Many sensors—for example, temperature, pressure, odor, humidity, pH, and so on—in the flexible electronics world typically operate very slowly at hertz or kilohertz regimes,” he says. “These sensors are used in smart packaging, labels and wearable healthcare electronics, which are the emerging applications for which flexible microprocessors will be useful. Running the microprocessor at 60 kHz would be more than enough to meet the requirements of these applications.”

Ozer and his team suggest each Flex-RV might cost less than a dollar. Although Ozer did not want to say how much less than a dollar it might cost, he says they are confident such low costs are possible “thanks to low-cost flexible chip fabrication technology by Pragmatic and a license-free RISC-V technology.”

The scientists detailed their findings online 25 September in the journal Nature.

Neuralink’s visual prosthesis Blindsight has been designated a breakthrough device by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which potentially sets the technology on a fast track to approval.

In confirming the news, an FDA spokesperson emphasized that the designation does not mean that Blindsight is yet considered safe or effective. Technologies in the program have potential to improve the current standard of care and are novel compared to what’s available on the market, but the devices still have to go through full clinical trials before seeking FDA approval.

Still, the announcement is a sign that Neuralink is moving closer to testing Blindsight in human patients. The company is recruiting people with vision loss for studies in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

Visual prostheses work by capturing visual information with a video camera, typically attached to glasses or a headset. Then a processor converts the data to an electrical signal that can be relayed to the nervous system. Retinal implants have been a common approach, with electrodes feeding the signal to nerves in the retina, at the back of the eye, from where it travels on to the brain. But Blindsight uses a brain implant to send the signal directly to neurons in the visual cortex.

In recent years, other companies developing artificial vision prosthetics have reached clinical research trials or beyond, only to struggle financially, leaving patients without support. Some of these technologies live on with new backing: Second Sight’s Orion cortical implant project is now in a clinical trial with Cortigent, and Pixium Vision’s Prima system is now owned by Science, with ex-Neuralink founder Max Hodak at the helm. No company has yet commercialized a visual prosthetic that uses a brain implant.

Elon Musk’s Claims About Blindsight

Very little information about Blindsight is publicly available. As of this writing, there is no official Blindsight page on the Neuralink website, and Neuralink did not respond to requests for comment. It’s also unclear how exactly Blindsight relates to a brain-computer interface that Neuralink has already implanted in two people with paralysis, who use their devices to control computer cursors.

Experts who spoke with IEEE Spectrum felt that, if judged against the strong claims made by Neuralink’s billionaire co-founder Elon Musk, Blindsight will almost certainly disappoint. However, some were still open to the possibility that Neuralink could successfully bring a device to market that can help people with vision loss, albeit with less dramatic effects on their sense of sight. While Musk’s personal fortune could help Blindsight weather difficulties that would end other projects, experts did not feel it was a guarantee of success.

After Neuralink announced on X (formerly Twitter) that Blindsight had received the breakthrough device designation, Musk wrote:

The Blindsight device from Neuralink will enable even those who have lost both eyes and their optic nerve to see.

Provided the visual cortex is intact, it will even enable those who have been blind from birth to see for the first time.

To set expectations correctly, the vision will be at first be [sic] low resolution, like Atari graphics, but eventually it has the potential be [sic] better than natural vision and enable you to see in infrared, ultraviolet or even radar wavelengths, like Geordi La Forge.

Musk included a picture of La Forge, a character from the science-fiction franchise Star Trek who wears a vision-enhancing visor.

Experts Puncture the Blindsight Hype

“[Musk] will build the best cortical implant we can build with current technology. It will not produce anything like normal vision. [Yet] it might produce vision that can transform the lives of blind people,” said Ione Fine, a computational neuroscientist at the University of Washington, who has written about the potential limitations of cortical implants, given the complexity of the human visual system. Fine previously worked for the company Second Sight.

A successful visual prosthetic might more realistically be thought of as assistive technology than a cure for blindness. “At best, we’re talking about something that’s augmentative to a cane and a guide dog; not something that replaces a cane and a guide dog,” said Philip Troyk, a biomedical engineer at the Illinois Institute of Technology.

Restoring natural vision is beyond the reach of today’s technology. But among Musks recent claims, Troyk says that a form of infrared sensing is plausible and has already been tested with one of his patients, who used it for help locating people within a room. That patient has a 400-electrode device implanted in the visual cortex as part of a collaborative research effort called the Intracortical Visual Prosthesis Project (ICVP). By comparison, Blindsight may have more than 1,000 electrodes, if it’s a similar device to Neuralink’s brain-computer interface.

Experts say they’d like more information about Neuralink’s visual prosthetic. “I’m leery about the fact that they are very superficial in their description of the devices,” said Gislin Dagnelie, a vision scientist at Johns Hopkins University who has been involved in multiple clinical trials for vision prosthetics, including a Second Sight retinal implant, and who is currently collaborating on the ICVP. “There’s no clear evaluation or pre-clinical work that has been published,” says Dagnelie. “It’s all based on: ‘Trust us, we’re Neuralink.’”

In the short term, too much hype could mislead clinical trial participants. It could also degrade interest in small but meaningful advancements in visual prosthetics. “Some of the [Neuralink] technology is exciting, and has potential,” said Troyk. “The way the messaging is being done detracts from that, potentially.”

This article is part of our exclusive IEEE Journal Watch series in partnership with IEEE Xplore.

Any imaging technique that allows scientists to observe the inner workings of a living organism, in real-time, provides a wealth of information compared to experiments in a test tube. While there are many such imaging approaches in existence, they require test subjects—in this case rodents—to be tethered to the monitoring device. This limits the ability of animals under study to roam freely during experiments.

Researchers have recently designed a new microscope with a unique feature: It’s capable of transmitting real-time imaging from inside live mice via Bluetooth to a nearby phone or laptop. Once the device has been further miniaturized, the wireless connection will allow mice and other test subject animals to roam freely, making it easier to observe them in a more natural state.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first Bluetooth wireless microscope,” says Arvind Pathak, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Through a series of experiments, Pathak and his colleagues demonstrate how the novel wireless microscope, called BLEscope, offers continuous monitoring of blood vessels and tumors in the brains of mice. The results are described in a study published 24 September in IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

Microscopes have helped shed light on many biological mysteries, but the devices typically require that cells be removed from an organism and studied in a test tube. Any opportunity to study the biological process as it naturally occurs in the in the body (“in vivo”) tends to offer more useful and thorough information.

Several different miniature microscopes designed for in vivo experiments in animals exist. However, Pathak notes that these often require high power consumption or a wire to be tethered to the device to transmit the data—or both—which may restrict an animal’s natural movements and behavior.

“To overcome these hurdles, [Johns Hopkins University Ph.D. candidate] Subhrajit Das and our team designed an imaging system that operates with ultra-low power consumption—below 50 milliwatts—while enabling wireless data transmission and continuous, functional imaging at spatial resolutions of 5 to 10 micrometers in [rodents],” says Pathak.

The researchers created BLEscope using an off-the-shelf, low-power image sensor and microcontroller, which are integrated on a printed circuit board. Importantly, it has two LED lights of different colors—green and blue—that help create contrast during imaging.

“The BLE protocol enabled wireless control of the BLEscope, which then captures and transmits images wirelessly to a laptop or phone,” Pathak explains. “Its low power consumption and portability make it ideal for remote, real-time imaging.”

Pathak and his colleagues tested BLEscope in live mice through two experiments. In the first scenario, they added a fluorescent marker into the blood of mice and used BLEscope to characterize blood flow within the animals’ brains in real-time. In the second experiment, the researchers altered the oxygen and carbon dioxide ratios of the air being breathed in by mice with brain tumors, and were able to observe blood vessel changes in the fluorescently marked tumors.

“The BLEscope’s key strength is its ability to wirelessly conduct high-resolution, multi-contrast imaging for up to 1.5 hours, without the need for a tethered power supply,” Pathak says.

However, Pathak points out that the current prototype is limited by its size and weight. BLEscope will need to be further miniaturized, so that it doesn’t interfere with animals’ abilities to roam freely during experiments.

“We’re planning to miniaturize the necessary electronic components onto a flexible light-weight printed circuit board, which would reduce weight and footprint of the BLEscope to make it suitable for use on freely moving animals,” says Pathak.

This story was updated on 14 October 2024, to correct a statement about the size of the BLEscope.

Over the past 20 years, technological advances have enabled inventors to go from strength to strength. And yet, according to the legendary inventor Dean Kamen, innovation has stalled. Kamen made a name for himself with inventions including the first portable insulin pump for diabetics, an advanced wheelchair that can climb steps, and the Segway mobility device. Here, he talks about his plan for enabling innovators.

How has inventing changed since you started in the 1990s?

Dean Kamen: Kids all over the world can now be inventing in the world of synthetic biology the way we played with Tinkertoys and Erector Sets and Lego. I used to put pins and smelly formaldehyde in frogs in high school. Today in high school, kids will do experiments that would have won you the Nobel Prize in Medicine 40 years ago. But none of those kids are likely in any short time to be on the market with a pharmaceutical that will have global impact. Today, while invention is getting easier and easier, I think there are some aspects of innovation that have gotten much more difficult.

Can you explain the difference?

Kamen: Most people think those two words mean the same thing. Invention is coming up with an idea or a thing or a process that has never been done that way before. [Thanks to] more access to technology and 3D printers and simulation programs and virtual ways to make things, the threshold to be able to create something new and different has dramatically lowered.

Historically, inventions were only the starting point to get to innovation. And I’ll define an innovation as something that reached a scale where it impacted a piece of the world, or transformed it: the wheel, steam, electricity, Internet. Getting an invention to the scale it needs to be to become an innovation has gotten easier—if it’s software. But if it’s sophisticated technology that requires mechanical or physical structure in a very competitive world? It’s getting harder and harder to do due to competition, due to global regulatory environments.

[For example,] in proteomics [the study of proteins] and genomics and biomedical engineering, the invention part is, believe it or not, getting a little easier because we know so much, because there are development platforms now to do it. But getting a biotech product cleared by the Food and Drug Administration is getting more expensive and time consuming, and the risks involved are making the investment community much more likely to invest in the next version of Angry Birds than curing cancer.

A lot of ink has been spilled about how AI is changing inventing. Why hasn’t that helped?

Kamen: AI is an incredibly valuable tool. As long as the value you’re looking for is to be able to collect massive amounts of data and being able to process that data effectively. That’s very different than what a lot of people believe, which is that AI is inventing and creating from whole cloth new and different ideas.

How are you using AI to help with innovation?

Kamen: Every medical school has incredibly brilliant professors and grad students with petri dishes. “Look, I can make nephrons. We can grow people a new kidney. They won’t need dialysis.” But they only have petri dishes full of the stuff. And the scale they need is hundreds and hundreds of liters.

I started a not-for-profit called ARMI—the Advanced Regenerative Manufacturing Institute—to help make it practical to manufacture human cells, tissues, and organs. We are using artificial intelligence to speed up our development processes and eliminate going down frustratingly long and expensive [dead-end] paths. We figure out how to bring tissue manufacturing to scale. We build the bioreactors, sensor technologies, robotics, and controls. We’re going to put them together and create an industry that can manufacture hundreds of thousands of replacement kidneys, livers, pancreases, lungs, blood, bone, you name it.

So ARMI’s purpose is to help would-be innovators?

Kamen: We are not going to make a product. We’re not even going to make a whole company. We’re going to create baseline core technologies that will enable all sorts of products and companies to emerge to create an entire new industry. It will be an innovation in health care that will lower costs because cures are much cheaper than chronic treatments. We have to break down the barriers so that these fantastic inventions can become global innovations.

This article appears in the November 2024 print issue as “The Inventor’s Inventor.”

Manu Prakash spoke with IEEE Spectrum shortly after returning to Stanford University from a month aboard a research vessel off the coast of California, where he was testing tools to monitor oceanic carbon sequestration. The associate professor conducts fieldwork around the world to better understand the problems he’s working on, as well as the communities that will be using his inventions.

Prakash develops imaging instruments and diagnostic tools, often for use in global health and environmental sciences. His devices typically cost radically less than conventional equipment—he aims for reductions of two or more orders of magnitude. Whether he’s working on pocketable microscopes, mosquito or plankton monitors, or an autonomous malaria diagnostic platform, Prakash always includes cost and access as key aspects of his engineering. He calls this philosophy “frugal science.”

Why should we think about science frugally?

Manu Prakash: To me, when we are trying to ask and solve problems and puzzles, it becomes important: In whose hands are we putting these solutions? A frugal approach to solving the problem is the difference between 1 percent of the population or billions of people having access to that solution.

Lack of access creates these kinds of barriers in people’s minds, where they think they can or cannot approach a kind of problem. It’s important that we as scientists or just citizens of this world create an environment that feels that anybody has a chance to make important inventions and discoveries if they put their heart to it. The entrance to all that is dependent on tools, but those tools are just inaccessible.

How did you first encounter the idea of “frugal science”?

Prakash: I grew up in India and lived with very little access to things. And I got my Ph.D. at MIT. I was thinking about this stark difference in worlds that I had seen and lived in, so when I started my lab, it was almost a commitment to [asking]: What does it mean when we make access one of the critical dimensions of exploration? So, I think a lot of the work I do is primarily driven by curiosity, but access brings another layer of intellectual curiosity.

How do you identify a problem that might benefit from frugal science?

Prakash: Frankly, it’s hard to find a problem that would not benefit from access. The question to ask is “Where are the neglected problems that we as a society have failed to tackle?” We do a lot of work in diagnostics. A lot [of our solutions] beat the conventional methods that are neither cost effective nor any good. It’s not about cutting corners; it’s about deeply understanding the problem—better solutions at a fraction of the cost. It does require invention. For that order of magnitude change, you really have to start fresh.

Where does your involvement with an invention end?

Prakash: Inventions are part of our soul. Your involvement never ends. I just designed the 415th version of Foldscope [a low-cost “origami” microscope]. People only know it as version 3. We created Foldscope a long time ago; then I realized that nobody was going to provide access to it. So we went back and invented the manufacturing process for Foldscope to scale it. We made the first 100,000 Foldscopes in the lab, which led to millions of Foldscopes being deployed.

So it’s continuous. If people are scared of this, they should never invent anything [laughs], because once you invent something, it’s a lifelong project. You don’t put it aside; the project doesn’t put you aside. You can try to, but that’s not really possible if your heart is in it. You always see problems. Nothing is ever perfect. That can be ever consuming. It’s hard. I don’t want to minimize this process in any way or form.

Acadia Pharmaceuticals did not disclose the buyer of the priority review voucher. The biotech received the voucher last year alongside the regulatory decision that made its drug Daybue the first FDA-approved treatment for the rare disease Rett syndrome.

The post Acadia Pharma Sells Voucher for Speedier FDA Drug Review for $150M appeared first on MedCity News.

Mental health experts are hopeful about the de-stigmatization of behavioral health, the promise of AI and other areas, they shared at a recent conference.

The post 4 Areas Within Mental Health Care that Give Executives Hope appeared first on MedCity News.

When it comes to the effects that the upcoming Trump presidency will have on healthcare, attendees’ attitudes ranged from cautiously optimistic to fairly anxious. Some of the issues they highlighted included mental health parity, telehealth prescribing flexibilities, and the role of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The post How Did Attendees at a Behavioral Health Conference React to Trump’s Victory? appeared first on MedCity News.

Navigating the regulatory and ethical requirements of different medical data providers across many different countries, as well as safeguarding patient privacy, is a mammoth task that requires extra resources and expertise.  

The post AI is Revolutionizing Healthcare, But Are We Ready for the Ethical Challenges?  appeared first on MedCity News.