LEBRON James took a social media hiatus throughout the NBA playoffs. Now that he’s king again, he unloaded perfectly.

Les spectateurs québécois auront encore l’embarras du choix durant le temps des Fêtes.

APPLE could be set to make its biggest new product announcement since the iPhone, with the company believed to be working on a game changer.

GOT a hankering for bacon? The best bacon from across Australia has been judged at Australian Bacon Week.

Many parents opt for more expensive baby milk, equating higher costs with better quality, the watchdog found.

Those who work in public administration and defence operate in the most heavily unionised sector of the labour market.

‘Self-taught’ athlete Phoenix Martin is a gold medal winner thanks to his determination to succeed, and the help of his coach...his dad.

La présence de lésions intestinales serait associée à une hausse importante du risque de développer la maladie de Parkinson.

The Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR), under the ministry of commerce and industry, has released a list of registered interested parties regarding the ongoing Second Sunset Review anti─dumping

The Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR), under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, has issued a notice to all interested parties involved in the sunset review of the anti─dumping investigation

The Indian healthcare industry is looking to invest further in computational infrastructure as data integration frameworks and regulatory compliance are pivotal to ensure intelligent clinical support

The National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL), under the Quality Council of India (QCI), has announced a collaborative effort with Man─Made Textile Research Association (MANTRA) in Surat to deliver a specialized technical training programme on medical textiles testing.

WITTMANN BATTENFELD will present the latest solutions for time and cost optimisation in the production of parts with nano structures at Compamed, booth No. F03-1 in hall 8b.

James Hicks, healthcare application development and processing engineer at Syensqo explores the latest trends, challenges and solutions in sterilisation.

Global temperatures through September point to 2024 besting 2023 as the hottest year on record. How many future years set records depends in part on the outcome of the 2024 U.S. presidential election

Culture may play a role in how birds build collectively in the Kalahari Desert

Two years of experimentation taught a Nashville guitarist not every musical myth makes sense

Arriving in two boxes reminiscent of Apple product packaging – one for the chest piece (the part that contacts the body), and another for the detachable earpiece (tubes + ear tips) – the CORE 500 is clearly an upgrade from the Eko DUO stethoscope. Similar to its predecessor, the CORE 500 can be used with […]

Today’s guest post comes from Josh Marsh, Vice President and General Manager, Sonexus™ Access and Patient Support at Cardinal Health

Josh discusses challenges manufacturers may face when outsourcing patient support programs. He outlines a process that smoothly transitions hubs and minimizes disruptions for patients and healthcare providers.

To learn more, download the 3-step guide to patient hub transitions.

Read on for Josh’s insights.
Read more »

This week, I’m rerunning some popular posts while we put the finishing touches on DCI’s new 2024-25 Economic Report on Pharmaceutical Wholesalers and Specialty Distributors.

Click here to see the original post from June 2024.

---

The 340B contract pharmacy market shows little sign of slowing down. Drug Channels Institute’s exclusive analysis of the 2024 market reveals that:Read more »

On December 3, a federal appeals court ruled against one of the FDA’s untouchable restrictions on industry—thou shalt not promote the off-label use of pharmaceutical products. An industry that is little interested in constitutional law suddenly finds itself talking about the First Amendment and whether, and on what grounds, the case will be appealed. Meantime, the court’s decision left FDA Matters torn between cheering and booing. Patients are poorly served if their doctor is prescribing drugs without being able to tap into all sources of relevant knowledge. However, permitting off-label promotion undercuts the incentive for companies to thoroughly investigate the safety and efficacy of a drug for a second or third use.

At a time when FDA’s responsibilities continue to grow rapidly, the agency has been caught in an across-the-board reduction (sequester) in federal discretionary spending, effective March 2, 2013. Although Congress may yet reverse course and restore money to affected federal agencies, this is not considered a high probability. Altogether, FDA will lose about $209 million between now and September 30, 2013. This will reduce inspections, slow drug and device approvals, and restrict implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act and other recent legislation. Because of the many questions about the process and outcome, this is FDA Matters’ primer on the sequester of FDA funds.

“The Hill” newspaper recently reported that: “a survey of federal budgets devoted to developing and enforcing regulations found that many agencies will spend more in 2013 and 2014 than in previous years, indicating that the writing and enforcing of new regulations is largely unimpeded by the massive cuts, known as sequestration.” That certainly sounds authoritative…until you look at the analysis. In fact, the report’s authors appear to know nothing about the federal budget and have used inherently unreliable data in calculating FY 13 and FY 14 spending levels. One can only hope that the authors—allegedly academic experts--know more about regulatory policy than they do about federal budgets.

The New York legislature passed two bills on June 7, 2024 directed at children’s use of online technologies – the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act (S7694) that restricts access to addictive algorithmic feeds and the New York Child Data Protection Act (S7695) that bans sites from collecting, using, sharing or selling personal […]

Effective on October 21st of this year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a new final rule that is intended to better combat ​“fake” reviews and testimonials by prohibiting the sale or purchase of “fake reviews” as well as granting the agency the opportunity to seek civil penalties against ​willful violators. The FTC made only […]

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

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

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

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

A new type of drug that targets chemotherapy directly to cancer cells reduces the risk of death from the most common type of bladder cancer by 30%, a phase III trial in the New England Journal of Medicine has suggested.

There has been considerable noise coming out of the UK lately about successes in clinical trial enrollment.

First, a couple months ago came the rather dramatic announcement that clinical trial participation in the UK had "tripled over the last 6 years". That announcement, by the chief executive of the

Sweet creature of bombast: is Sir John writing press releases for the NIHR?

National Institute of Health Research's Clinical Research Network, was quickly and uncritically picked up by the media.

That immediately caught my attention. In large, global trials, most pharmaceutical companies I've worked with can do a reasonable job of predicting accrual levels in a given country. I like to think that if participation rates in any given country had jumped that heavily, I’d have heard something.

(To give an example: looking at a quite-typical study I worked on a few years ago: UK sites were overall slightly below the global average. The highest-enrolling countries were about 2.5 times as fast. So, a 3-fold increase in accruals would have catapulted the UK from below average to the fastest-enrolling country in the world.)

Further inquiry, however, failed to turn up any evidence that the reported tripling actually corresponded to more human beings enrolled in clinical trials. Instead, there is some reason to believe that all we witnessed was increased reporting of trial participation numbers.

Now we have a new source of wonder, and a new giant multiplier coming out of the UK. As the Director of the NIHR's Mental Health Research Network, Til Wykes, put it in her blog coverage of her own paper:

Our research on the largest database of UK mental health studies shows that involving just one or two patients in the study team means studies are 4 times more likely to recruit successfully.

Again, amazing! And not just a tripling – a quadrupling!

Understand: I spend a lot of my time trying to convince study teams to take a more patient-focused approach to clinical trial design and execution. I desperately want to believe this study, and I would love having hard evidence to bring to my clients.

At first glance, the data set seems robust. From the King's College press release:

Published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, the researchers analysed 374 studies registered with the Mental Health Research Network (MHRN).

Studies which included collaboration with service users in designing or running the trial were 1.63 times more likely to recruit to target than studies which only consulted service users.  Studies which involved more partnerships - a higher level of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) - were 4.12 times more likely to recruit to target.

But here the first crack appears. It's clear from the paper that the analysis of recruitment success was not based on 374 studies, but rather a much smaller subset of 124 studies. That's not mentioned in either of the above-linked articles.

And at this point, we have to stop, set aside our enthusiasm, and read the full paper. And at this point, critical doubts begin to spring up, pretty much everywhere.

First and foremost: I don’t know any nice way to say this, but the "4 times more likely" line is, quite clearly, a fiction. What is reported in the paper is a 4.12 odds ratio between "low involvement" studies and "high involvement" studies (more on those terms in just a bit).  Odds ratios are often used in reporting differences between groups, but they are unequivocally not the same as "times more likely than".

This is not a technical statistical quibble. The authors unfortunately don’t provide the actual success rates for different kinds of studies, but here is a quick example that, given other data they present, is probably reasonably close:

• A Studies: 16 successful out of 20 
• Probability of success: 80% 
• Odds of success: 4 to 1
• B Studies: 40 successful out of 80
• Probability of success: 50%
• Odds of success: 1 to 1

From the above, it’s reasonable to conclude that A studies are 60% more likely to be successful than B studies (the A studies are 1.6 times as likely to succeed). However, the odds ratio is 4.0, similar to the difference in the paper. It makes no sense to say that A studies are 4 times more likely to succeed than B studies.

This is elementary stuff. I’m confident that everyone involved in the conduct and analysis of the MHRN paper knows this already. So why would Dr Wykes write this? I don’t know; it's baffling. Maybe someone with more knowledge of the politics of British medicine can enlighten me.

If a pharmaceutical company had promoted a drug with this math, the warning letters and fines would be flying in the door fast. And rightly so. But if a government leader says it, it just gets recycled verbatim.

The other part of Dr Wykes's statement is almost equally confusing. She claims that the enrollment benefit occurs when "involving just one or two patients in the study team". However, involving one or two patients would seem to correspond to either the lowest ("patient consultation") or the middle level of reported patient involvement (“researcher initiated collaboration”). In fact, the "high involvement" categories that are supposed to be associated with enrollment success are studies that were either fully designed by patients, or were initiated by patients and researchers equally. So, if there is truly a causal relationship at work here, improving enrollment would not be merely a function of adding a patient or two to the conversation.

There are a number of other frustrating aspects of this study as well. It doesn't actually measure patient involvement in any specific research program, but uses just 3 broad categories (that the researchers specified at the beginning of each study). It uses an arbitrary and undocumented 17-point scale to measure "study complexity", which collapses and quite likely underweights many critical factors into a single number. The enrollment analysis excluded 11 studies because they weren't adequate for a factor that was later deemed non-significant. And probably the most frustrating facet of the paper is that the authors share absolutely no descriptive data about the studies involved in the enrollment analysis. It would be completely impossible to attempt to replicate its methods or verify its analysis. Do the authors believe that "Public Involvement" is only good when it’s not focused on their own work?

However, my feelings about the study and paper are an insignificant fraction of the frustration I feel about the public portrayal of the data by people who should clearly know better. After all, limited evidence is still evidence, and every study can add something to our knowledge. But the public misrepresentation of the evidence by leaders in the area can only do us harm: it has the potential to actively distort research priorities and funding.

Why This Matters

We all seem to agree that research is too slow. Low clinical trial enrollment wastes time, money, and the health of patients who need better treatment options.

However, what's also clear is that we lack reliable evidence on what activities enable us to accelerate the pace of enrollment without sacrificing quality. If we are serious about improving clinical trial accrual, we owe it to our patients to demand robust evidence for what works and what doesn’t. Relying on weak evidence that we've already solved the problem ("we've tripled enrollment!") or have a method to magically solve it ("PPI quadrupled enrollment!") will cause us to divert significant time, energy, and human health into areas that are politically favored but less than certain to produce benefit. And the overhyping those results by research leadership compounds that problem substantially. NIHR leadership should reconsider its approach to public discussion of its research, and practice what it preaches: critical assessment of the data.
Ennis L, & Wykes T (2013). Impact of patient involvement in mental health research: longitudinal study. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science PMID: 24029538

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 decade following passage of FDAAA has been one of easing standards for drug approvals in the US, most notably with the advent of “breakthrough” designation created by FDASIA in 2012 and the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016.

Although, as of this writing, there is no nominee for FDA Commissioner, it appears to be safe to say that the current administration intends to accelerate the pace of deregulation, mostly through further lowering of approval requirements. In fact, some of the leading contenders for the position are on record as supporting a return to pre-Kefauver-Harris days, when drug efficacy was not even considered for approval.

Build a better mouse model, and pharma will beat a path to your door - no laws needed.

In this context, it is at least refreshing to read a proposal to increase efficacy standards. This comes from two bioethicists at McGill University, who make the somewhat-startling case for a higher degree of efficacy evaluation before a drug begins any testing in humans.

We contend that a lack of emphasis on evidence for the efficacy of drug candidates is all too common in decisions about whether an experimental medicine can be tested in humans. We call for infrastructure, resources and better methods to rigorously evaluate the clinical promise of new interventions before testing them on humans for the first time.

The author propose some sort of centralized clearinghouse to evaluate efficacy more rigorously. It is unclear what they envision this new multispecialty review body’s standards for green-lighting a drug to enter human testing. Instead they propose three questions:

• What is the likelihood that the drug will prove clinically useful?
• Assume the drug works in humans. What is the likelihood of observing the preclinical results?
• Assume the drug does not work in humans. What is the likelihood of observing the preclinical results?

These seem like reasonable questions, I suppose – and are likely questions that are already being asked of preclinical data. They certainly do not rise to the level of providing a clear standard for regulatory approval, though perhaps it’s a reasonable place to start.

The most obvious counterargument here is one that the authors curiously don’t pick up on at all: if we had the ability to accurately (or even semiaccurately) predict efficacy preclinically, pharma sponsors would already be doing it. The comment notes: “More-thorough assessments of clinical potential before trials begin could lower failure rates and drug-development costs.” And it’s hard not to agree: every pharmaceutical company would love to have even an incrementally-better sense of whether their early pipeline drugs will be shown to work as hoped.

The authors note

Commercial interests cannot be trusted to ensure that human trials are launched only when the case for clinical potential is robust. We believe that many FIH studies are launched on the basis of flimsy, underscrutinized evidence.

However, they do not produce any evidence that industry is in any way deliberately underperforming their preclinical work, merely that preclinical efficacy is often difficult to reproduce and is poorly correlated with drug performance in humans.

Pharmaceutical companies have many times more candidate compounds than they can possibly afford to put into clinical trials. Figuring out how to lower failure rates – or at least the total cost of failure - is a prominent industry obsession, and efficacy remains the largest source of late-stage trial failure. This quest to “fail faster” has resulted in larger and more expensive phase 2 trials, and even to increased efficacy testing in some phase 1 trials. And we do this not because of regulatory pressure, but because of hopes that these efforts will save overall costs. So it seems beyond probable that companies would immediately invest more in preclinical efficacy testing, if such testing could be shown to have any real predictive power. But generally speaking, it does not.

As a general rule, we don’t need regulations that are firmly aligned with market incentives, we need regulations if and when we think those incentives might run counter to the general good. In this case, there are already incredibly strong market incentives to improve preclinical assessments. Where companies have attempted to do something with limited success, it would seem quixotic to think that regulatory fiat will accomplish more.

(One further point. The authors try to link the need for preclinical efficacy testing to the 2016 Bial tragedy. This seems incredibly tenuous: the authors speculate that perhaps trial participants would not have been harmed and killed if Bial had been required to produce more evidence of BIA102474’s clinical efficacy before embarking on their phase 1 trials. But that would have been entirely coincidental in this case: if the drug had in fact more evidence of therapeutic promise, the tragedy still would have happened, because it had nothing at all to do with the drug’s efficacy.

This is to some extent a minor nitpick, since the argument in favor of earlier efficacy testing does not depend on a link to Bial. However, I bring it up because a) the authors dedicate the first four paragraphs of their comment to the link, and b) there appears to be a minor trend of using the death and injuries of that trial to justify an array of otherwise-unrelated initiatives. This seems like a trend we should discourage.)

[Update 2/23: I posted this last night, not realizing that only a few hours earlier, John LaMattina had published on this same article. His take is similar to mine, in that he is suspicious of the idea that pharmaceutical companies would knowingly push ineffective drugs up their pipeline.]

Kimmelman, J., & Federico, C. (2017). Consider drug efficacy before first-in-human trials Nature, 542 (7639), 25-27 DOI: 10.1038/542025a

For the first time, a small group of patients with amputations below the knee were able to control the movements of their prosthetic legs through neural signals—rather than relying on programmed cycles for all or part of a motion—and resume walking with a natural gait. The achievement required a specialized amputation surgery combined with a non-invasive surface electrode connection to a robotic prosthetic lower leg. A study describing the technologies was published today in the journal Nature Medicine.

“What happens then is quite miraculous. The patients that have this neural interface are able to walk at normal speeds; and up and down steps and slopes; and maneuver obstacles really without thinking about it. It’s natural. It’s involuntary,” said co-author Hugh Herr, who develops bionic prosthetics at the MIT Media Lab. “Even though their limb is made of titanium and silicone—all these various electromechanical components—the limb feels natural and it moves naturally, even without conscious thought.”

The approach relies on surgery at the amputation site to create what the researchers call an agonist-antagonist myoneural Interface, or AMI. The procedure involves connecting pairs of muscles (in the case of below-the-knee amputation, two pairs), as well as the introduction of proprietary synthetic elements.

The interface creates a two-way connection between body and machine. Muscle-sensing electrodes send signals to a small computer in the prosthetic limb that interprets them as angles and forces for joints at the ankle and ball of the foot. It also sends information back about the position of the artificial leg, restoring a sense of where the limb is in space, also known as proprioception.

Video 1 www.youtube.com

“The particular mode of control is far beyond what anybody else has come up with,” said Daniel Ferris, a neuromechanical engineer at the University of Florida; Ferris was not involved in the study, but has worked on neural interfaces for controlling lower limb prostheses. “It’s a really novel idea that they’ve built on over the last eight years that’s showing really positive outcomes for better bionic lower legs.” The latest publication is notable for a larger participant pool than previous studies, with seven treatment patients and seven control patients with amputations and typical prosthetic legs.

To test the bionic legs, patients were asked to walk on level ground at different speeds; up and down slopes and stairs; and to maneuver around obstacles. The AMI users had a more natural gait, more closely resembling movement by someone using a natural limb. More naturalistic motion can improve freedom of movement, particularly over challenging terrain, but in other studies researchers have also noted reduced energetic costs, reduced stress on the body, and even social benefits for some amputees.

Co-author Hyungeun Song, a postdoctoral researcher at MIT, says the group was surprised by the efficiency of the bionic setup. The prosthetic interface sent just 18 percent of the typical amount of information that’s sent from a limb to the spine, yet it was enough to allow patients to walk with what was considered a normal gait.

Next Steps for the Bionic Leg

AMI amputations have now become the standard at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Massachusetts, where co-author Matthew Carty works. And because of patient benefits in terms of pain and ease of using even passive (or non-robotic) prosthetics, this technique—or something similar—could spread well beyond the current research setting. To date, roughly 60 people worldwide have received AMI surgery above or below either an elbow or knee.

In principle, Herr said, someone with a previously amputated limb, such as himself, could undergo AMI rehabilitation, and he is strongly considering the procedure. More than 2 million Americans are currently living with a lost limb, according to the Amputee Coalition, and nearly 200,000 lower legs are amputated each year in the United States.

On the robotics side, there are already commercial leg prosthetics that could be made compatible with the neural interface. The area in greatest need of development is the connection between amputation site and prosthesis. Herr says commercialization of that interface might be around five years away.

Herr says his long-term goal is neural integration and embodiment: the sense that a prosthetic is part of the body, rather than a tool. The new study “is a critical step forward—pun intended.”

In the spirit of the Halloween season, IEEE Spectrum presents a pair of stories that—although grounded in scientific truth rather than the macabre—were no less harrowing for those who lived them. In today’s installment, Robert Langer had to push back against his field’s conventional wisdom to pioneer a drug-delivery mechanism vital to modern medicine.

Nicknamed the Edison of Medicine, Robert Langer is one of the world’s most-cited researchers, with over 1,600 published papers, 1,400 patents, and a top-dog role as one of MIT’s nine prestigious Institute Professors. Langer pioneered the now-ubiquitous drug delivery systems used in modern cancer treatments and vaccines, indirectly saving countless lives throughout his 50-year career.

But, much like Edison and other inventors, Langer’s big ideas were initially met with skepticism from the scientific establishment.

He came up in the 1970s as a chemical engineering postdoc working in the lab of Dr. Judah Folkman, a pediatric surgeon at the Boston Children’s Hospital. Langer was tasked with solving what many believed was an impossible problem—isolating angiogenesis inhibitors to halt cancer growth. Folkman’s vision of stopping tumors from forming their own self-sustaining blood vessels was compelling enough, but few believed it possible.

Langer encountered both practical and social challenges before his first breakthrough. One day, a lab technician accidentally spilled six months’ worth of samples onto the floor, forcing him to repeat the painstaking process of dialyzing extracts. Those months of additional work steered Langer’s development of novel microspheres that could deliver large molecules of medicine directly to tumors.

In the 1970s, Langer developed these tiny microspheres to release large molecules through solid materials, a groundbreaking proof-of-concept for drug delivery.Robert Langer

Langer then submitted the discovery to prestigious journals and was invited to speak at a conference in Michigan in 1976. He practiced the 20-minute presentation for weeks, hoping for positive feedback from respected materials scientists. But when he stepped off the podium, a group approached him and said bluntly, “We don’t believe anything you just said.” They insisted that macromolecules were simply too large to pass through solid materials, and his choice of organic solvents would destroy many inputs. Conventional wisdom said so.

Nature published Langer’s paper three months later, demonstrating for the first time that non-inflammatory polymers could enable the sustained release of proteins and other macromolecules. The same year, Science published his isolation mechanism to restrict tumor growth.

Langer and Folkman’s research paved the way for modern drug delivery.MIT and Boston Children’s Hospital

Even with impressive publications, Langer still struggled to secure funding for his work in controlling macromolecule delivery, isolating the first angiogenesis inhibitors, and testing their behavior. His first two grant proposals were rejected on the same day, a devastating blow for a young academic. The reviewers doubted his experience as “just an engineer” who knew nothing about cancer or biology. One colleague tried to cheer him up, saying, “It’s probably good those grants were rejected early in your career. Since you’re not supporting any graduate students, you don’t have to let anyone go.” Langer thought the colleague was probably right, but the rejections still stung.

His patent applications, filed alongside Folkman at the Boston Children’s Hospital, were rejected five years in a row. After all, it’s difficult to prove you’ve got something good if you’re the only one doing it. Langer remembers feeling disappointed but not crushed entirely. Eventually, other scientists cited his findings and expanded upon them, giving Langer and Folkman the validation needed for intellectual property development. As of this writing, the pair’s two studies from 1976 have been cited nearly 2,000 times.

As the head of MIT’s Langer Lab, he often shares these same stories of rejection with early-career students and researchers. He leads a team of over 100 undergrads, grad students, postdoctoral fellows, and visiting scientists, all finding new ways to deliver genetically engineered proteins, DNA, and RNA, among other research areas. Langer’s reputation is further bolstered by the many successful companies he co-founded or advised, like mRNA leader Moderna, which rose to prominence after developing its widely used COVID-19 vaccine.

Langer sometimes thinks back to those early days—the shattered samples, the cold rejections, and the criticism from senior scientists. He maintains that “Conventional wisdom isn’t always correct, and it’s important to never give up—(almost) regardless of what others say.”

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.

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.

Many companies are entering the digital youth mental health space, but it’s important to know which ones are effective, according to a panel of investors at the Behavioral Health Tech conference.

The post Measuring Impact in Digital Youth Mental Health: What Investors Look For 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.

Among the topics INVEST will highlight are AI in life sciences, the investor perspective in healthcare and strategic priorities for hospitals.

The post A Sneak Peek of INVEST 2025 Agenda appeared first on MedCity News.

AbbVie schizophrenia drug candidate emraclidine failed to beat a placebo in two Phase 2 clinical trials. The drug, once projected to compete with Bristol Myers Squibb’s Cobenfy, is from AbbVie’s $8.7 billion acquisition of Cerevel Therapeutics.

The post AbbVie Drug Expected to Rival Bristol Myers’s New Schizophrenia Med Flunks Phase 2 Test appeared first on MedCity News.

Neurogene’s Rett syndrome gene therapy has preliminary data supporting safety and efficacy of the one-time treatment. But a late-breaking report of a serious complication in a patient who received the high dose sent shares of the biotech downward.

The post Neurogene Gene Therapy Shows Signs of Efficacy in Small Study, But an Adverse Event Spooks Investors appeared first on MedCity News.

Faulty diagnostic tests can compromise both patient care and the nation’s response to infectious diseases—as made all too clear earlier this month when the Food and Drug Administration issued a safety alert about a COVID-19 test that carries a high risk of false negative results.

In vitro diagnostics (IVDs) play an indispensable role in modern medicine. Health care providers routinely rely on these tests—which analyze samples such as blood or saliva—to help diagnose conditions and guide potentially life-altering treatment decisions. In 2017, for example, clinicians ordered blood tests during about 45% of emergency room visits in the United States, according to the Centers...

This paper begins with a look at both optimization modeling and discrete-event simulation modeling, and explores how they can most effectively work together to create additional analytic value. It then considers two examples of a combined optimization and simulation approach and discusses the resulting benefits.

Feb 28, 2023

Policymakers need to act now and place child welfare professionals, not law enforcement actors, at the border to effectively screen and interview migrant children. Information sharing practices need to be improved, with a movement away from paper documents that can easily get lost to an approach that is digital, secure, and accessible by the child, their guardian, their lawyer, and their doctor. Further, the enforcement processing facilities need to undergo an immediate infrastructural transformation with the addition of new design features that are necessary and sensitive to the majority demographic that are held within facilities—children and families.

These actions are doable and require no legislative action. Migrant children deserve decisive action to ensure that their health, safety, and well-being is not jeopardized as they seek refuge in the United States.

Benazir Bhutto claimed that the Sindh Government had informed her that if she goes to Larkhana (her ancestral home), she would be attacked.

Complicating the PPP decision-making are growing indications of a leadership struggle.