By Mike Cloonan, Chief Executive Officer of Sionna Therapeutics, as part of the From The Trenches feature of LifeSciVC The drug development process in rare diseases is rife with challenges especially when companies target significant differentiation or first-in-class targets. Identifying

The post Looking for Opportunities to Accelerate Clinical Research in Rare Diseases appeared first on LifeSciVC.

By Ankit Mahadevia, chairman of Spero Therapeutics, as part of the From The Trenches feature of LifeSciVC A common theme in startup literature is that by cutting a range of unnecessary tasks, a step-change in results will follow.  I’ve found

The post Keeping It Simple: What Really Matters For Emerging Enterprises   appeared first on LifeSciVC.

By Ivana Magovčević-Liebisch, CEO of Vigil Neuroscience, as part of the From The Trenches feature of LifeSciVC In an industry where boom and bust cycles occur regularly and 90 percent of drug candidates fail to reach the market, an outstanding

The post Reflections On My Experience As A Board Member 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.

The UK body that oversees health research is writing a new strategy on clinical trial transparency and it wants to hear opinions on it. The Health Research Authority (HRA) says its strategy aims to “make transparency easy, make compliance clear and make information public.” It has opened a public consultation on the strategy and some […]

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 […]

When university and hospital trusts were called to the UK parliament last year to answer questions on why they were not following the rules on reporting results, we saw how effective the questioning from politicians was. Those of you who watched the parliamentary session saw the pressure the university representatives were put under. Because the politicians asked […]

New research has shown that the majority of clinical trials which should be following the US law on reporting results aren’t. Less than half (41%) of clinical trial results were reported on time and 1 in 3 trials (36%) remain unreported. The research also found that clinical trials sponsored by companies are the most likely […]

A judge in New York has ruled that hundreds of clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov are breaking the law by not reporting results. The ruling came in a court case launched against the US Department of Health and Human Services by two plaintiffs, a family doctor and a professor of journalism. The case focused on […]

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

Results reporting requirements are pretty clear. Maybe critics should re-check their methods?

Ben Goldacre has rather famously described the clinical trial reporting requirements in the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 as a “fake fix” that was being thoroughly “ignored” by the pharmaceutical industry.

Pharma: breaking the law in broad daylight?

He makes this sweeping, unconditional proclamation about the industry and its regulators on the basis of  a single study in the BMJ, blithely ignoring the fact that a) the authors of the study admitted that they could not adequately determine the number of studies that were meeting FDAAA requirements and b) a subsequent FDA review that identified only 15 trials potentially out of compliance, out of a pool of thousands.


Despite the fact that the FDA, which has access to more data, says that only a tiny fraction of studies are potentially noncompliant, Goldacre's frequently repeated claims that the law is being ignored seems to have caught on in the general run of journalistic and academic discussions about FDAAA.

And now there appears to be additional support for the idea that a large percentage of studies are noncompliant with FDAAA results reporting requirements, in the form of a new study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology: "Public Availability of Results of Trials Assessing Cancer Drugs in the United States" by Thi-Anh-Hoa Nguyen, et al.. In it, the authors report even lower levels of FDAAA compliance – a mere 20% of randomized clinical trials met requirements of posting results on clinicaltrials.gov within one year.

Unsurprisingly, the JCO results were immediately picked up and circulated uncritically by the usual suspects.

I have to admit not knowing much about pure academic and cooperative group trial operations, but I do know a lot about industry-run trials – simply put, I find the data as presented in the JCO study impossible to believe. Everyone I work with in pharma trials is painfully aware of the regulatory environment they work in. FDAAA compliance is a given, a no-brainer: large internal legal and compliance teams are everywhere, ensuring that the letter of the law is followed in clinical trial conduct. If anything, pharma sponsors are twitchily over-compliant with these kinds of regulations (for example, most still adhere to 100% verification of source documentation – sending monitors to physically examine every single record of every single enrolled patient - even after the FDA explicitly told them they didn't have to).

I realize that’s anecdotal evidence, but when such behavior is so pervasive, it’s difficult to buy into data that says it’s not happening at all. The idea that all pharmaceutical companies are ignoring a highly visible law that’s been on the books for 6 years is extraordinary. Are they really so brazenly breaking the rules? And is FDA abetting them by disseminating incorrect information?

Those are extraordinary claims, and would seem to require extraordinary evidence. The BMJ study had clear limitations that make its implications entirely unclear. Is the JCO article any better?

Some Issues

In fact, there appear to be at least two major issues that may have seriously compromised the JCO findings:

1. Studies that were certified as being eligible for delayed reporting requirements, but do not have their certification date listed.

The study authors make what I believe to be a completely unwarranted assumption:

In trials for approval of new drugs or approval for a new indication, a certification [permitting delayed results reporting] should be posted within 1 year and should be publicly available.

It’s unclear to me why the authors think the certifications “should be” publicly available. In re-reading FDAAA section 801, I don’t see any reference to that being a requirement. I suppose I could have missed it, but the authors provide a citation to a page that clearly does not list any such requirement.

But their methodology assumes that all trials that have a certification will have it posted:

If no results were posted at ClinicalTrials.gov, we determined whether the responsible party submitted a certification. In this case, we recorded the date of submission of the certification to ClinicalTrials.gov.

If a sponsor gets approval from FDA to delay reporting (as is routine for all drugs that are either not approved for any indication, or being studied for a new indication – i.e., the overwhelming majority of pharma drug trials), but doesn't post that approval on the registry, the JCO authors deem that trial “noncompliant”. This is not warranted: the company may have simply chosen not to post the certification despite being entirely FDAAA compliant.

2. Studies that were previously certified for delayed reporting and subsequently reported results

It is hard to tell how the authors treated this rather-substantial category of trials. If a trial was certified for delayed results reporting, but then subsequently published results, the certification date becomes difficult to find. Indeed, it appears in the case where there were results, the authors simply looked at the time from study completion to results posting. In effect, this would re-classify almost every single one of these trials from compliant to non-compliant. Consider this example trial:

• Phase 3 trial completes January 2010
• Certification of delayed results obtained December 2010 (compliant)
• FDA approval June 2013
• Results posted July 2013 (compliant)

In looking at the JCO paper's methods section, it really appears that this trial would be classified as reporting results 3.5 years after completion, and therefore be considered noncompliant with FDAAA. In fact, this trial is entirely kosher, and would be extremely typical for many phase 2 and 3 trials in industry.

Time for Some Data Transparency

The above two concerns may, in fact, be non-issues. They certainly appear to be implied in the JCO paper, but the wording isn't terribly detailed and could easily be giving me the wrong impression.

However, if either or both of these issues are real, they may affect the vast majority of "noncompliant" trials in this study. Given the fact that most clinical trials are either looking at new drugs, or looking at new indications for new drugs, these two issues may entirely explain the gap between the JCO study and the unequivocal FDA statements that contradict it.

I hope that, given the importance of transparency in research, the authors will be willing to post their data set publicly so that others can review their assumptions and independently verify their conclusions. It would be more than a bit ironic otherwise.
Thi-Anh-Hoa Nguyen, Agnes Dechartres, Soraya Belgherbi, and Philippe Ravaud (2013). Public Availability of Results of Trials Assessing Cancer Drugs in the United States JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2012.46.9577

“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.

---

1. Misstated an odds ratio of 4 as “4 times more likely to”
2. Overstated the recruitment success findings as being based on a sample 3 times larger than it actually was
3. Re-interpreted, without reservation, a statistical association as a causal relationship
4. Misstated the difference between the patient involvement categories as being a matter of merely “involving just one or two patients in the study team”

And you did these consistently and repeatedly – in Dr Wykes's blog post, in the KCL press release, and in the NIHR-written Guardian article.

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article on the use of “Big Data” to identify and solicit potential clinical trial participants. The premise is that large consumer data aggregators like Experian can target patients with certain diseases through correlations with non-health behavior. Examples given include “a preference for jazz” being associated with arthritis and “shopping online for clothes” being an indicator of obesity.

We've seen this story before.

In this way, allegedly, clinical trial patient recruitment companies can more narrowly target their solicitations* for patients to enroll in clinical trials.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I should mention that I was interviewed by the reporter of this article, although I am not quoted. My comments generally ran along three lines, none of which really fit in with the main storyline of the article:

1. I am highly skeptical that these analyses are actually effective at locating patients
   
2. These methods aren't really new – they’re the same tactics that direct marketers have been using for years
   
3. Most importantly, the clinical trials community can – and should – be moving towards open and collaborative patient engagement. Relying on tactics like consumer data snooping and telemarketing is an enormous step backwards.

The first point is this: certainly some diseases have correlates in the real world, but these correlates tend to be pretty weak, and are therefore unreliable predictors of disease. Maybe it’s true that those struggling with obesity tend to buy more clothes online (I don’t know if it’s true or not – honestly it sounds a bit more like an association built on easy stereotypes than on hard data). But many obese people will not shop online (they will want to be sure the clothes actually fit), and vast numbers of people with low or average BMIs will shop for clothes online.  So the consumer data will tend to have very low predictive value. The claims that liking jazz and owning cats are predictive of having arthritis are even more tenuous. These correlates are going to be several times weaker than basic demographic information like age and gender. And for more complex conditions, these associations fall apart.

Marketers claim to solve this by factoring a complex web of associations through a magical black box – th WSJ article mentions that they “applied a computed algorithm” to flag patients. Having seen behind the curtain on a few of these magic algorithms, I can confidently say that they are underwhelming in their sophistication. Hand-wavy references to Big Data and Algorithms are just the tools used to impress pharma clients. (The down side to that, of course, is that you can’t help but come across as big brotherish – see this coverage from Forbes for a taste of what happens when people accept these claims uncritically.)

But the effectiveness of these data slice-n-dicing activities is perhaps beside the point. They are really just a thin cover for old-fashioned boiler room tactics: direct mail and telemarketing. When I got my first introduction to direct marketing in the 90’s, it was the exact same program – get lead lists from big companies like Experian, then aggressively mail and call until you get a response.

The limited effectiveness and old-school aggressiveness of these programs comes is nicely illustrated in the article by one person’s experience:

Larna Godsey, of Wichita, Kan., says she received a dozen phone calls about a diabetes drug study over the past year from a company that didn't identify itself. Ms. Godsey, 63, doesn't suffer from the disease, but she has researched it on the Internet and donated to diabetes-related causes. "I don't know if it's just a coincidence or if they're somehow getting my information," says Ms. Godsey, who filed a complaint with the FTC this year.

The article notes that one recruitment company, Acurian, has been the subject of over 500 FTC complaints regarding its tactics. It’s clear that Big Data is just the latest buzzword lipstick on the telemarketing pig. And that’s the real shame of it.

We have arrived at an unprecedented opportunity for patients, researchers, and private industry to come together and discuss, as equals, research priorities and goals. Online patient communities like Inspire and PatientsLikeMe have created new mechanisms to share clinical trial opportunities and even create new studies. Dedicated disease advocates have jumped right into the world of clinical research, with groups like the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and Michael J. Fox Foundation no longer content with raising research funds, but actively leading the design and operations of new studies.

Some – not yet enough – pharmaceutical companies have embraced the opportunity to work more openly and honestly with patient groups. The scandal of stories like this is not the Wizard of Oz histrionics of secret computer algorithms, but that we as an industry continue to take the low road and resort to questionable boiler room tactics.

It’s past time for the entire patient recruitment industry to drop the sleaze and move into the 21st century. I would hope that patient groups and researchers will come together as well to vigorously oppose these kinds of tactics when they encounter them.

• 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]

The good folks down at eyeforpharma have asked me to write a few blog posts in the run-up to their Patient Centered Clinical Trials conference in Boston this September. In my second article -Buzzword Innovation: The Patient Centricity “Fad” and the Token Patient - I went over some concerns I have regarding the sudden burst of enthusiasm for patient centricity in the clinical trial world.

Apparently, that hit a nerve – in an email, Ulrich Neumann tells me that “your last post elicited quite a few responses in my inbox (varied, some denouncing it as a fad, others strongly protesting the notion, hailing it as the future).”

In preparing my follow up post, I’ve spoken to a couple people on the leading edge of patient engagement:

• Abbe Steel, CEO of HealthiVibe, which is focused on bringing greater patient input into the earliest stages of trial design through focus groups and patient surveys
• Casey Quinlan, co-founder of Patients for Clinical Research, which aims to be a force in patient education and engagement for clinical trials

In addition to their thoughts, eyeforpharma is keenly interested in hearing from more people. They've even posted a survey – from Ulrich:

To get a better idea of what other folks think of the idea, I am sending out a little ad hoc survey. Only 4 questions (so people hopefully do it). Added benefit: There is a massive 50% one-time discount for completed surveys until Friday connected to it as an incentive).

So, here are two things for you to do:

1. Complete the survey and share your thoughts
2. Come to the conference and tell us all exactly what you think

Look forward to seeing you there.

[Conflict of Interest Disclosure: I am attending the Patient Centered Clinical Trials conference. Having everyone saying the same thing at such conferences conflicts with my ability to find them interesting.]

On this date 349 years ago, Samuel Pepys relates in his famous diary a remarkable story about an upcoming medical experiment. As far as I can tell, this is the first written description of a paid research subject.

According to his account, the man (who he describes as “a little frantic”) was to be paid to undergo a blood transfusion from a sheep. It was hypothesized that the blood of this calm and docile animal would help to calm the man.

Some interesting things to note about this experiment:

• Equipoise. There is explicit disagreement about what effect the experimental treatment will have: according to Pepys, "some think it may have a good effect upon him as a frantic man by cooling his blood, others that it will not have any effect at all".
• Results published. An account of the experiment was published just two weeks later in the journal Philosophical Transactions. 
• Medical Privacy. In this subsequent write-up, the research subject is identified as Arthur Coga, a former Cambridge divinity student. According to at least one account, being publicly identified had a bad effect on Coga, as people who had heard of him allegedly succeeded in getting him to spend his stipend on drink (though no sources are provided to confirm this story).
• Patient Reported Outcome. Coga was apparently chosen because, although mentally ill, he was still considered educated enough to give an accurate description of the treatment effect. 

Depending on your perspective, this may also be a very early account of the placebo effect, or a classic case of ignoring the patient’s experience. Because even though his report was positive, the clinicians remained skeptical. From the journal article:

The Man after this operation, as well as in it, found himself very well, and hath given in his own Narrative under his own hand, enlarging more upon the benefit, he thinks, he hath received by it, than we think fit to own as yet.

…and in fact, a subsequent diary entry from Pepys mentions meeting Coga, with similarly mixed impressions: “he finds himself much better since, and as a new man, but he is cracked a little in his head”.

The amount Coga was paid for his participation? Twenty shillings – at the time, that was exactly one Guinea.

[Image credit: Wellcome Images]

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.]

Maybe those pesky sites are good for something after all. 

It's been six years since Pfizer boldly announced the launch of its "clinical trial in a box". The REMOTE trial was designed to be entirely online, and involved no research sites: study information and consent was delivered via the web, and medications and diaries were shipped directly to patients' homes.

Despite the initial fanfare, within a month REMOTE's registration on ClinicalTrials.gov was quietly reduced from 600 to 283. The smaller trial ended not with a bang but a whimper, having randomized only 18 patients in over a year of recruiting.

Still, the allure of direct to patient clinical trials remains strong, due to a confluence of two factors. First, a frenzy of interest in running "patient centric clinical trials". Sponsors are scrambling to show they are doing something – anything – to show they have shifted to a patient-centered mindset. We cannot seem to agree what this means (as a great illustration of this, a recent article in Forbes on "How Patients Are Changing Clinical Trials" contained no specific examples of actual trials that had been changed by patients), but running a trial that directly engages patients wherever they are seems like it could work.

The less-openly-discussed other factor leading to interest in these DIY trials is sponsors' continuing willingness to heap almost all of the blame for slow-moving studies onto their research sites. If it’s all the sites’ fault – the reasoning goes – then cutting them out of the process should result in trials that are both faster and cheaper. (There are reasons to be skeptical about this, as I have discussed in the past, but the desire to drop all those pesky sites is palpable.)

However, while a few proof-of-concept studies have been done, there really doesn't seem to have been another trial to attempt a full-blown direct-to-patient clinical trial. Other pilots have been more successful, but had fairly lightweight protocols. For all its problems, REMOTE was a seriously ambitious project that attempted to package a full-blown interventional clinical trial, not an observational study.

In this context, it's great to see published results of the TAPIR Trial in vasculitis, which as far as I can tell is the first real attempt to run a DIY trial of a similar magnitude to REMOTE.

TAPIR was actually two parallel trials, identical in every respect except for their sites: one trial used a traditional group of 8 sites, while the other was virtual and recruited patients from anywhere in the country. So this was a real-time, head-to-head assessment of site performance.

And the results after a full two years of active enrollment?

• Traditional sites: 49 enrolled
• Patient centric: 10 enrolled

Even though we’re six years later, and online/mobile communications are even more ubiquitous, we still see the exact same struggle to enroll patients.

Maybe it’s time to stop blaming the sites? To be fair, they didn’t exactly set the world on fire – and I’m guessing the total cost of activating the 8 sites significantly exceeded the costs of setting up the virtual recruitment and patient logistics. But still, the site-less, “patient centric” approach once again came up astonishingly short.
Krischer J, Cronholm PF, Burroughs C, McAlear CA, Borchin R, Easley E, Davis T, Kullman J, Carette S, Khalidi N, Koening C, Langford CA, Monach P, Moreland L, Pagnoux C, Specks U, Sreih AG, Ytterberg S, Merkel PA, & Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium. (2017). Experience With Direct-to-Patient Recruitment for Enrollment Into a Clinical Trial in a Rare Disease: A Web-Based Study. Journal of medical Internet research, 19 (2) PMID: 28246067

Your daily light exposure impacts your health. A new study finds that too much light at night and not enough natural light during the day can be harmful. This story first aired on Morning Edition on Nov. 4, 2024.

President-elect Donald Trump tried unsuccessfully to get rid of the Affordable Care Act during his first term. What action will he take this time around?

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.

NPR's Leila Fadel talks with actor Patrick Dempsey about his efforts to raise money for cancer treatment and prevention.

Sudan's civil war has displaced 10 million citizens. Here are profiles of two young people from the most vulnerable groups: an unaccompanied minor caring for twin brothers, a woman who was raped.

Journalist Annie Lowrey has a rare disease that causes a near-constant itch that doesn't respond to most treatments. She likens the itchiness to a car alarm: "You can't stop thinking about it."

Sweat: We all do it. It plays an essential role in controlling body temperature by cooling the skin through evaporation. But it can also carry salts and other molecules out of the body in the process. In medieval Europe, people would lick babies; if the skin was salty, they knew that serious illness was likely. (We now know that salty skin can be an indicator for cystic fibrosis.)

Scientists continue to study how the materials in sweat can reveal details about an individual’s health, but often they must rely on gathering samples from subjects during strenuous exercise in order to get samples that are sufficiently large for analysis.

Now researchers in China have developed a wearable sensor system that can collect and process small amounts of sweat while providing continuous detection. They have named the design a “skin-interfaced intelligent graphene nanoelectronic” patch, or SIGN for short. The researchers, who described their work in a paper published in Advanced Functional Materials, did not respond to IEEE Spectrum’s interview requests.

The SIGN sensor patch relies on three separate components to accomplish its task. First, the sweat must be transported from the skin into microfluidic chambers. Next, a special membrane removes impurities from the fluid. Finally, this liquid is delivered to a bioreceptor that can be tuned to detect different metabolites.

The transport system relies on a combination of hydrophilic (water-attracting) and hydrophobic (water-repelling) materials. This system can move aqueous solutions along microchannels, even against gravity. This makes it possible to transport small samples with precision, regardless of the device’s orientation.

The fluid is transported to a Janus membrane, where impurities are blocked. This means that the sample that reaches the sensor is more likely to produce accurate results.

Finally, the purified sweat arrives at a flexible biosensor. This graphene sensor is activated by enzymes designed to detect the desired biomarker. The result is a transistor that can accurately measure the amount of the biomarker in the sample.

At its center, the system has a membrane that removes impurities from sweat and a biosensor that detects biomarkers.Harbin Institute of Technology/Shenyang Aerospace University

One interesting feature of the SIGN patch is that it can provide continuous measurements. The researchers tested the device through multiple cycles of samples with known concentrations of a target biomarker, and it was about as accurate after five cycles as it was after just one. This result suggests that it could be worn over an extended period without having to be replaced.

Continuous measurements can provide useful longitudinal data. However, Tess Skyrme, a senior technology analyst at the research firm IDTechEx, points out that continuous devices can have very different sampling rates. “Overall, the right balance of efficient, comfortable, and granular data collection is necessary to disrupt the market,” she says, noting that devices also need to optimize “battery life, calibration, and data accuracy.”

The researchers have focused on lactate—a metabolite that can be used to assess a person’s levels of exercise and fatigue—as the initial biomarker to be detected. This function is of particular interest to athletes, but it can also be used to monitor the health status of workers in jobs that require strenuous physical activity, especially in hazardous or extreme working conditions.

Not all experts are convinced that biomarkers in sweat can provide accurate health data. Jason Heikenfeld, director of the Novel Device Lab at the University of Cincinnati, has pivoted his research on wearable biosensing from sweat to the interstitial fluid between blood vessels and cells. “Sweat glucose and lactate are way inferior to measures that can be made in interstitial fluid with devices like glucose monitors,” he tells Spectrum.

The researchers also developed a package to house the sensor. It’s designed to minimize power consumption, using a low-power microcontroller, and it includes a Bluetooth communications chip to transmit data wirelessly from the SIGN patch. The initial design provides for 2 hours of continuous use without charging, or up to 20 hours in standby mode.

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

Sea turtles are remarkable creatures for a number of reasons, including the way they hear underwater—not through openings in the form of ears, but by detecting vibrations directly through the skin covering their auditory system. Inspired by this ability to detect sound through skin, researchers in China have created a heart-monitoring system, which initial tests in humans suggest may be a viable for monitoring heartbeats.

A key way in which doctors monitor heart health involves “listening” to the heartbeat, either using a stethoscope or more sophisticated technology, like echocardiograms. However, these approaches require a visit to a specialist, and so researchers have been keen to develop alternative, lower cost solutions that people can use at home, which could also allow for more frequent testing and monitoring.

Junbin Zang, a lecturer at the North University of China, and his colleagues specialize in creating heart-monitoring technologies. Their interest was piqued when they learned about the inner workings of the sea turtle’s auditory system, which is able to detect low-frequency signals, especially in the 300- to 400-hertz range.

“Heart sounds are also low-frequency signals, so the low-frequency characteristics of the sea turtle’s ear have provided us with great inspiration,” explains Zang.

At a glance, it looks like turtles don’t have ears. Their auditory system instead lies under a layer of skin and fat, through which it picks up vibrations. As with humans, a small bone in the ear vibrates as sounds hit it, and as it oscillates, those pulses are converted to electrical signals that are sent to the brain for processing and interpretation.

iStock

But sea turtles have a unique, slender T-shaped conduit that encapsulates their ear bones, restricting the movement of the similarly T-shaped ear bones to only vibrate in a perpendicular manner. This design provides their auditory system with high sensitivity to vibrations.

Zang and his colleagues set out to create a heart monitoring system with similar features. They created a T-shaped heart-sound sensor that imitates the ear bones of sea turtles using a tiny MEMS cantilever beam sensor. As sound hits the sensor, the vibrations cause deformations in its beam, and the fluctuations in the voltage resistance are then translated into electrical signals.

The researchers first tested the sensor’s ability to detect sound in lab tests, and then tested the sensor’s ability to monitor heartbeats in two human volunteers in their early 20s. The results, described in a study published 1 April in IEEE Sensors Journal, show that the sensor can effectively detect the two phases of a heartbeat.

“The sensor exhibits excellent vibration characteristics,” Zang says, noting that it has a higher vibration sensitivity compared to other accelerometers on the market.

However, the sensor currently picks up a significant amount of background noise, which Zang says his team plans to address in future work. Ultimately, they are interested in integrating this novel bioinspired sensor into devices they have previously created—including portable handheld and wearable versions, and a relatively larger version for use in hospitals—for the simultaneous detection of electrocardiogram and phonocardiogram signals.

This article appears in the July 2024 print issue as “Sea Turtles Inspire Heart-Monitor Design.”

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.”

UPDATE 31 OCTOBER 2024: No. 1 no longer. The would-have-been groundbreaking study published in Nature Communications by Amit Goyal et al. claiming the world’s highest-performing high-temperature superconducting wires yet has been retracted by the authors.

The journal’s editorial statement that now accompanies the paper says that after publication, an error in the calculation of the reported performance was identified. All of the study’s authors agreed with the retraction.

The researchers were first alerted to the issue by Evgeny Talantsev at the Mikheev Institute of Metal Physics in Ekaterinburg, Russia, and Jeffery Tallon at the Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. In a 2015 study, the two researchers had suggested upper limits for thin-film superconductors, and Tallon notes follow-up papers showed these limits held for more than 100 known superconductors. “The Goyal paper claimed current densities 2.5 times higher, so it was immediately obvious to us that there was a problem here,” he says.

Upon request, Goyal and his colleagues “very kindly agreed to release their raw data and did so quickly,” Tallon says. He and Talantsev discovered a mistake in the conversion of magnetization units.

“Most people who had been in the game for a long time would be fully conversant with the units conversion because the instruments all deliver magnetic data in [centimeter-gram-second] gaussian units, so they always have to be converted to [the International System of Units],” Tallon says. “It has always been a little tricky, but students are asked to take great care and check their numbers against other reports to see if they agree.”

In a statement, Goyal notes he and his colleagues “intend to continue to push the field forward” by continuing to explore ways to enhance wire performance using nanostructural modifications. —Charles Q. Choi

Original article from 17 August, 2024 follows:

Superconductors have for decades spurred dreams of extraordinary technological breakthroughs, but many practical applications for them have remained out of reach. Now a new study reveals what may be the world’s highest-performing high-temperature superconducting wires yet, ones that carry 50 percent as much current as the previous record-holder. Scientists add this advance was achieved without increased costs or complexity to how superconducting wires are currently made.

Superconductors conduct electricity with zero resistance. Classic superconductors work only at super-cold temperatures below 30 degrees Kelvin. In contrast, high-temperature superconductors can operate at temperatures above 77 K, which means they can be cooled to superconductivity using comparatively inexpensive and less burdensome cryogenics built around liquid nitrogen coolant.

Regular electrical conductors all resist electron flow to some degree, resulting in wasted energy. The fact that superconductors conduct electricity without dissipating energy has long lead to dreams of significantly more efficient power grids. In addition, the way in which rivers of electric currents course through them means superconductors can serve as powerful electromagnets, for applications such as maglev trains, better MRI scanners for medicine, doubling the amount of power generated from wind turbines, and nuclear fusion power plants.

“Today, companies around the world are fabricating kilometer-long, high-temperature superconductor wires,” says Amit Goyal, SUNY Distinguished Professor and SUNY Empire Innovation Professor at the University of Buffalo in New York.

However, many large-scale applications for superconductors may stay fantasies until researchers can find a way to fabricate high-temperature superconducting wires in a more cost-effective manner.

In the new research, scientists have created wires that have set new records for the amount of current they can carry at temperatures ranging from 5 K to 77 K. Moreover, fabrication of the new wires requires processes no more complex or costly than those currently used to make high-temperature superconducting wires.

“The performance we have reported in 0.2-micron-thick wires is similar to wires almost 10 times thicker,” Goyal says.

At 4.2 K, the new wires carried 190 million amps per square centimeter without any externally applied magnetic field. This is some 50 percent better than results reported in 2022 and a full 100 percent better than ones detailed in 2021, Goyal and his colleagues note. At 20 K and under an externally applied magnetic field of 20 tesla—the kind of conditions envisioned for fusion applications—the new wires may carry about 9.3 million amps per square centimeter, roughly 5 times greater than present-day commercial high-temperature superconductor wires, they add.

Another factor key to the success of commercial high-temperature superconductor wires is pinning force—the ability to keep magnetic vortices pinned in place within the superconductors that could otherwise interfere with electron flow. (So in that sense higher pinning force values are better here—more conducive to the range of applications expected for such high-capacity, high-temperature superconductors.) The new wires showed record-setting pinning forces of more than 6.4 trillion newtons at 4.3 K under a 7 tesla magnetic field. This is more than twice as much as results previously reported in 2022.

The new wires are based on rare-earth barium copper oxide (REBCO). The wires use nanometer-sized columns of insulating, non-superconducting barium zirconate at nanometer-scale spacings within the superconductor that can help pin down magnetic vortices, allowing for higher supercurrents.

The researchers made these gains after a few years spent optimizing deposition processes, Goyal says. “We feel that high-temperature superconductor wire performance can still be significantly improved,” he adds. “We have several paths to get to better performance and will continue to explore these routes.”

Based on these results, high-temperature superconductor wire manufacturers “will hopefully further optimize their deposition conditions to improve the performance of their wires,” Goyal says. “Some companies may be able to do this in a short time.”

The hope is that superconductor companies will be able to significantly improve performance without too many changes to present-day manufacturing processes. “If high-temperature superconductor wire manufacturers can even just double the performance of commercial high-temperature superconductor wires while keeping capital equipment costs the same, it could make a transformative impact to the large-scale applications of superconductors,” Goyal says.

The scientists detailed their findings on 7 August in the journal Nature Communications.

This story was updated on 19 August 2024 to correct Amit Goyal’s title and affiliation.

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.”

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.

Imagine you’re a baby cocoa plant, just unfurling your first tentative roots into the fertile, welcoming soil.

Somewhere nearby, a predator stirs. It has no ears to hear you, no eyes to see you. But it knows where you are, thanks in part to the weak electric field emitted by your roots.

It is microscopic, but it’s not alone. By the thousands, the creatures converge, slithering through the waterlogged soil, propelled by their flagella. If they reach you, they will use fungal-like hyphae to penetrate and devour you from the inside. They’re getting closer. You’re a plant. You have no legs. There’s no escape.

But just before they fall upon you, they hesitate. They seem confused. Then, en masse, they swarm off in a different direction, lured by a more attractive electric field. You are safe. And they will soon be dead.

If Eleonora Moratto and Giovanni Sena get their way, this is the future of crop pathogen control.

Many variables are involved in the global food crisis, but among the worst are the pests that devastate food crops, ruining up to 40 percent of their yield before they can be harvested. One of these—the little protist in the example above, an oomycete formally known as Phytophthora palmivora—has a US $1 billion appetite for economic staples like cocoa, palm, and rubber.

There is currently no chemical defense that can vanquish these creatures without poisoning the rest of the (often beneficial) organisms living in the soil. So Moratto, Sena, and their colleagues at Sena’s group at Imperial College London settled on a non-traditional approach: They exploited P. palmivora’s electric sense, which can be spoofed.

All plant roots that have been measured to date generate external ion flux, which translates into a very weak electric field. Decades of evidence suggests that this signal is an important target for predators’ navigation systems. However, it remains a matter of some debate how much their predators rely on plants’ electrical signatures to locate them, as opposed to chemical or mechanical information. Last year, Moratto and Sena’s group found that P. palmivora spores are attracted to the positive electrode of a cell generating current densities of 1 ampere per square meter. “The spores followed the electric field,” says Sena, suggesting that a similar mechanism helps them find natural bioelectric fields emitted by roots in the soil.

That got the researchers wondering: Might such an artificial electric field override the protists’ other sensory inputs, and scramble their compasses as they tried to use plant roots’ much weaker electrical output?

To test the idea, the researchers developed two ways to protect plant roots using a constant vertical electric field. They cultivated two common snacks for P. palmivora—a flowering plant related to cabbage and mustard, and a legume often used as a livestock feed plant—in tubes in a hydroponic solution.

Two electric-field configurations were tested: A “global” vertical field [left] and a field generated by two small nearby electrodes. The global field proved to be slightly more effective.Eleonora Moratto

In the first assay, the researchers sandwiched the plant roots between rows of electrodes above and below, which completely engulfed them in a “global” vertical field. For the second set, the field was generated using two small electrodes a short distance away from the plant, creating current densities on the order of 10 A/m². Then they unleashed the protists.

With respect to the control group, both methods successfully diverted a significant portion of the predators away from the plant roots. They swarmed the positive electrode, where—since zoospores can’t survive for longer than about 2 to 3 hours without a host—they presumably starved to death. Or worse. Neil Gow, whose research presented some of the first evidence for zoospore electrosensing, has other theories about their fate. “Applied electrical fields generate toxic products and steep pH gradients near and around the electrodes due to the electrolysis of water,” he says. “The tropism towards the electrode might be followed by killing or immobilization due to the induced pH gradients.”

Not only did the technique prevent infestation, but some evidence indicates that it may also mitigate existing infections. The researchers published their results in August in Scientific Reports.

The global electric field was marginally more successful than the local. However, it would be harder to translate from lab conditions into a (literal) field trial in soil. The local electric field setup would be easy to replicate: “All you have to do is stick the little plug into the soil next to the crop you want to protect,” says Sena.

Moratto and Sena say this is a proof of concept that demonstrates a basis for a new, pesticide-free way to protect food crops. (Sena likens the technique to the decoys used by fighter jets to draw away incoming missiles by mimicking the signals of the original target.) They are now looking for funding to expand the project. The first step is testing the local setup in soil; the next is to test the approach on Phytophthora infestans, a meaner, scarier cousin of P. palmivora.

P. infestans attacks a more varied diet of crops—you may be familiar with its work during the Irish potato famine. The close genetic similarities imply another promising candidate for electrical pest control. This investigation, however, may require more funding. P. infestans research can be undertaken only under more stringent laboratory security protocols.

The work at Imperial ties into the broader—and somewhat charged—debate around electrostatic ecology; that is, the extent to which creatures including ticks make use of heretofore poorly understood electrical mechanisms to orient themselves and in other ways enhance their survival. “Most people still aren’t aware that naturally occurring electricity can play an ecological role,” says Sam England, a behavioral ecologist with Berlin’s Natural History Museum. “So I suspect that once these electrical phenomena become more well known and understood, they will inspire a greater number of practical applications like this one.”

The teachings of Mahatma Gandhi were arguably India’s greatest contribution to the 20th century. Raghunath Anant Mashelkar has borrowed some of that wisdom to devise a frugal new form of innovation he calls “Gandhian engineering.” Coming from humble beginnings, Mashelkar is driven to ensure that the benefits of science and technology are shared more equally. He sums up his philosophy with the epigram “more from less for more.” This engineer has led India’s preeminent R&D organization, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, and he has advised successive governments.

What was the inspiration for Gandhian engineering?

Raghunath Anant Mashelkar: There are two quotes of Gandhi’s that were influential. The first was, “The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.” He was saying that when resources are exhaustible, you should get more from less. He also said the benefits of science must reach all, even the poor. If you put them together, it becomes “more from less for more.”

My own life experience inspired me, too. I was born to a very poor family, and my father died when I was six. My mother was illiterate and brought me to Mumbai in search of a job. Two meals a day was a challenge, and I walked barefoot until I was 12 and studied under streetlights. So it also came from my personal experience of suffering because of a lack of resources.

How does Gandhian engineering differ from existing models of innovation?

Mashelkar: Conventional engineering is market or curiosity driven, but Gandhian engineering is application and impact driven. We look at the end user and what we want to achieve for the betterment of humanity.

Most engineering is about getting more from more. Take an iPhone: They keep creating better models and charging higher prices. For the poor it is less from less: Conventional engineering looks at removing features as the only way to reduce costs.

In Gandhian engineering, the idea is not to create affordable [second-rate] products, but to make high technology work for the poor. So we reinvent the product from the ground up. While the standard approach aims for premium price and high margins, Gandhian engineering will always look at affordable price, but high volumes.

The Jaipur foot is a light, durable, and affordable prosthetic.Gurinder Osan/AP

What is your favorite example of Gandhian engineering?

Mashelkar: My favorite is the Jaipur foot. Normally, a sophisticated prosthetic foot costs a few thousand dollars, but the Jaipur foot does it for [US] $20. And it’s very good technology; there is a video of a person wearing a Jaipur foot climbing a tree, and you can see the flexibility is like a normal foot. Then he runs one kilometer in 4 minutes, 30 seconds.

What is required for Gandhian engineering to become more widespread?

Mashelkar: In our young people, we see innovation and we see passion, but compassion is the key. We also need more soft funding [grants or zero-interest loans], because venture capital companies often turn out to be “vulture capital” in a way, because they want immediate returns.

We need a shift in the mindset of businesses—they can make money not just from premium products for those at the top of the pyramid, but also products with affordable excellence designed for large numbers of people.

This article appears in the November 2024 print issue as “The Gandhi Inspired Inventor.”

As a leader who has committed much of his career to improving healthcare — an industry that holds millions of people’s lives in its hands — I took from this terrifying incident a new guiding principle. Healthcare needs to pursue a zero-failure rate.

The post What My Daughter’s Harrowing Alaska Airlines Flight Taught Me About Healthcare appeared first on MedCity News.

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.

Three ways health plans can engage, connect with, and delight their pregnant members to nurture goodwill, earn long-term trust, and foster loyal relationships that last.

The post Pregnant and Empowered: Why Trust is the Latest Form of Member Engagement 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.

Value-based care contracting is especially difficult for behavioral health providers, Taft Parsons III, chief psychiatric officer at CVS Health/Aetna, pointed out during a conference this week.

The post CVS Health Exec: Payers Need to Stop Making Behavioral Health Providers Jump Through Hoops In Order to Participate in Value-Based Care appeared first on MedCity News.

The vast majority of older adults want to age at home. To support that goal, doctors should encourage them to consider their care options — long before they need assistance.

The post Through Early Discussions About Elder Care, Doctors Can Empower Seniors to Age in Place appeared first on MedCity News.

While startups in highly regulated industries like healthcare and finance are almost certain to face heightened scrutiny, there are controllable factors that can offset these challenges.

The post The Startup Economy is Turbulent. Here’s How Founders Can Recognize and Avoid Common Pitfalls appeared first on MedCity News.

The FDA has proposed removing oral phenylephrine from its guidelines for over-the-counter drugs due to inefficacy as a decongestant. Use of this ingredient in cold and allergy medicines grew after a federal law required that pseudoephedrine-containing products be kept behind pharmacy counters.

The post FDA Takes Step Toward Removal of Ineffective Decongestants From the Market appeared first on MedCity News.

Two executives at behavioral health care companies discussed why it’s important for provider organizations to partner with the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline during a panel at the Behavioral Health Tech conference.

The post There’s an Opportunity for More Providers to Partner with the 988 Lifeline, Execs Say appeared first on MedCity News.

By fostering collaboration and seamless data integration into healthcare systems, the industry is laying the groundwork for a future in which “personalized medicine” is so commonplace within clinical practice that we will just start calling it “medicine.”

The post Driving Genetic Testing Adoption and Improved Patient Care through Health Data Intelligence appeared first on MedCity News.

Access to care isn’t enough. Healthcare organizations need to build trust in order to reach underserved communities, experts said on a recent panel.

The post How Can Healthcare Organizations Earn Trust with Marginalized Communities? appeared first on MedCity News.