<p>In May 2024, Malaysia’s National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency (NPRA) announced that it will trial new timelines for variation applications&nbsp;of registered pharmaceutical products and natural health supplements (TMHS).</p>

<p>In October 2024, China based Bio-Thera Solutions&nbsp;(Bio-Thera)&nbsp;and Hungary’s Gedeon Richter announced they have reached an exclusive commercialization and license agreement for BAT2206, a biosimilar candidate to&nbsp;Johnson &amp; Johnson’s Stelara (ustekinumab).</p>

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

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

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

The UK’s first postal inhaler recycling scheme has been launched by pharmaceutical company Chiesi to support a more sustainable way of living for people with respiratory illnesses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By 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 Peter Tummino, CSO of Nimbus Therapeutics, as part of the From The Trenches feature of LifeSciVC  “Over the next five to 10 years, our goal is to become a company that’s leading the world in personalized medicines, a company

The post Medicinal Chemistry In The Age Of Artificial Intelligence 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 […]

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 […]

Even by the already-painfully-embarrassingly-low standards of clinical trial enrollment in general, patient enrollment in cancer clinical trials is slow. Horribly slow. In many cancer trials, randomizing one patient every three or four months isn't bad at all – in fact, it's par for the course. The most
commonly-cited number is that only 3% of cancer patients participate in a trial – and although exact details of how that number is measured are remarkably difficult to pin down, it certainly can't be too far from reality.

Ultimately, the cost of slow enrollment is borne almost entirely by patients; their payment takes the form of fewer new therapies and less evidence to support their treatment decisions.

So when a couple dozen thousand of the world's top oncologists fly into Chicago to meet, you'd figure that improving accrual would be high on everyone’s agenda. You can't run your trial without patients, after all.

But every year, the annual ASCO meeting underdelivers in new ideas for getting more patients into trials. I suppose this a consequence of ASCO's members-only focus: getting the oncologists themselves to address patient accrual is a bit like asking NASCAR drivers to tackle the problems of aerodynamics, engine design, and fuel chemistry.

Nonetheless, every year, a few brave souls do try. Here is a quick rundown of accrual-related abstracts at this year’s meeting, conveniently sorted into 3 logical categories:

1. As Lord Kelvin may or may not have said, “If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it.”

• Abstract e15572: Inadequate data availability on clinical trial accrual and its effect on progress in cancer research

Probably the most sensible of this year's crop, because rather than trying to make something out of nothing, the authors measure exactly how pervasive the nothing is. Specifically, they attempt to obtain fairly basic patient accrual data for the last three years' worth of clinical trials in kidney cancer. Out of 108 trials identified, they managed to get – via search and direct inquiries with the trial sponsors – basic accrual data for only 43 (40%).

That certainly qualifies as “terrible”, though the authors content themselves with “poor”.

Interestingly, exactly zero of the 32 industry-sponsored trials responded to the authors' initial survey. This fits with my impression that pharma companies continue to think of accrual data as proprietary, though what sort of business advantage it gives them is unclear. Any one company will have only run a small fraction of these studies, greatly limiting their ability to draw anything resembling a valid conclusion.

• Abstract TPS6645: Predictors of accrual success for cooperative group trials: The Cancer and Leukemia Group B (Alliance) experience

CALGB investigators look at 110 trials over the past 10 years to see if they can identify any predictive markers of successful enrollment. Unfortunately, the trials themselves are pretty heterogeneous (accrual periods ranged from 6 months to 8.8 years), so finding a consistent marker for successful trials would seem unlikely.

And, in fact, none of the usual suspects (e.g., startup time, disease prevalence) appears to have been significant. The exception was provision of medication by the study, which was positively associated with successful enrollment.

The major limitation with this study, apart from the variability of trials measured, is in its definition of “successful”, which is simply the total number of planned enrolled patients. Under both of their definitions, a slow-enrolling trial that drags on for years before finally reaching its goal is successful, whereas if that same trial had been stopped early it is counted as unsuccessful. While that sometimes may be the case, it's easy to imagine situations where allowing a slow trial to drag on is a painful waste of resources – especially if results are delayed enough to bring their relevance into question.

Even worse, though, is that a trial’s enrollment goal is itself a prediction. The trial steering committee determines how many sites, and what resources, will be needed to hit the number needed for analysis. So in the end, this study is attempting to identify predictors of successful predictions, and there is no reason to believe that the initial enrollment predictions were made with any consistent methodology.

2. If you don't know, maybe ask somebody?

• Abstract 8592: Strategies to overcome barriers to accrual (BtA) to NCI-sponsored clinical trials: A project of the NCI-Myeloma Steering Committee Accrual Working Group (NCI-MYSC AWG)
  
• Abstract 1596: Rapid online feedback to improve clinical trial accrual: CODEL anaplastic glioma (AG) (NCCTG/Alliance N0577) as a model

With these two abstracts we celebrate and continue the time-honored tradition of alchemy, whereby we transmute base opinion into golden data. The magic number appears to be 100: if you've got 3 digits' worth of doctors telling you how they feel, that must be worth something.

In the first abstract, a working group is formed to identify and vote on the major barriers to accrual in oncology trials. Then – and this is where the magic happens – that same group is asked to identify and vote on possible ways to overcome those barriers.

In the second, a diverse assortment of community oncologists were given an online survey to provide feedback on the design of a phase 3 trial in light of recent new data. The abstract doesn't specify who was initially sent the survey, so we cannot tell response rate, or compare survey responders to the general population (I'll take a wild guess and go with “massive response bias”).

Market research is sometimes useful. But what cancer clinical trial do not need right now are more surveys are working groups. The “strategies” listed in the first abstract are part of the same cluster of ideas that have been on the table for years now, with no appreciable increase in trial accrual.

3. The obligatory “What the What?” abstract

• Abstract 6564: Minority accrual on a prospective study targeting a diverse U.S. breast cancer population: An analysis of Wake Forest CCOP research base protocol 97609

The force with which my head hit my desk after reading this abstract made me concerned that it had left permanent scarring.

If this had been re-titled “Poor Measurement of Accrual Factors Leads to Inaccurate Accrual Reporting”, would it still have been accepted for this year’s meeting? That's certainly a more accurate title.

Let’s review: a trial intends to enroll both white and minority patients. Whites enroll much faster, leading to a period where only minority patients are recruited. Then, according to the authors, “an almost 4-fold increase in minority accrual raises question of accrual disparity.” So, sites will only recruit minority patients when they have no choice?

But wait: the number of sites wasn't the same during the two periods, and start-up times were staggered. Adjusting for actual site time, the average minority accrual rate was 0.60 patients/site/month in the first part and 0.56 in the second. So the apparent 4-fold increase was entirely an artifact of bad math.

This would be horribly embarrassing were it not for the fact that bad math seems to be endemic in clinical trial enrollment. Failing to adjust for start-up time and number of sites is so routine that not doing it is grounds for a presentation.

The bottom line

What we need now is to rigorously (and prospectively) compare and measure accrual interventions. We have lots of candidate ideas, and there is no need for more retrospective studies, working groups, or opinion polls to speculate on which ones will work best.  Where possible, accrual interventions should themselves be randomized to minimize confounding variables which prevent accurate assessment. Data needs to be uniformly and completely collected. In other words, the standards that we already use for clinical trials need to be applied to the enrollment measures we use to engage patients to participate in those trials.

This is not an optional consideration. It is an ethical obligation we have to cancer patients: we need to assure that we are doing all we can to maximize the rate at which we generate new evidence and test new therapies.

[Image credit: Logarithmic turtle accrual rates courtesy of Flikr user joleson.]

This morning I ran across a bit of a coffee-spitter: in the middle of an otherwise opaquely underinformative press release fromTranscelerate Biopharma about the launch of their

Counterfeits flooding the market? Really?

"Comparator Network" - which will perhaps streamline member companies' ability to obtain drugs from each other for clinical trials using active comparator arms -  the CEO of the consortium, Dalvir Gill, drops a rather remarkable quote:

"Locating and accessing these comparators at the right time, in the right quantities and with the accompanying drug stability and regulatory information we need, doesn't always happen efficiently. This is further complicated by infiltration of the commercial drug supply chain by counterfeit drugs.  With the activation of our Comparator Network the participating TransCelerate companies will be able to source these comparator drugs directly from each other, be able to secure supply when they need it in the quantities they need, have access to drug data and totally mitigate the risk of counterfeit drugs in that clinical trial."

Counterfeit drugs have even been known to have been involved in clinical drug trials.^{[citation needed]}

The articles identified through the search had to match the corresponding trial in terms of the information registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (i.e., same objective, same sample size, same primary outcome, same location, same responsible party, same trial phase, and same sponsor) and had to present results for the primary outcome. 

So it appears that a reviewed had to score the journal article as an exact match on 8 criteria in order for the trial to be considered the same. That could easily lead to exclusion of journal articles on the basis of very insubstantial differences. The authors provide no detail on this; and again, that would be easy to verify if the study dataset was published. 

The reason I harp on this, and worry about the matching methodology, is that two of the authors of this study were also involved in a methodologically opaque and flawed study about clinical trial results posted in the JCO. In that study, as well, the authors appeared to use an incorrect methodology to identify published clinical trials. When I pointed the issues out, the corresponding author merely reiterated what was already (insufficiently) in the paper's Methodology section.

I find it strange beyond belief, and more than a little hypocritical, that researchers would use a public, taxpayer-funded database as the basis of their studies, and yet refuse to provide their data for public review. There are no technological or logistical issues preventing this kind of sharing, and there is an obvious ethical point in favor of transparency.

But if the authors are reasonably close to correct in their results, I'm not sure what to make of this study. 

The Nature article covering this study contend that

[T]he [ClinicalTrials.gov] database was never meant to replace journal publications, which often contain longer descriptions of methods and results and are the basis for big reviews of research on a given drug.

I suppose that some journal articles have better methodology sections, although this is far from universally true (and, like this study here, these methods are often quite opaquely described and don't support replication). As for results, I don't believe that's the case. In this study, the opposite was true: ClinicalTrial.gov results were generally more complete than journal results. And I have no idea why the registry wouldn't surpass journals as a more reliable and complete source of information for "big reviews".

Perhaps it is a function of my love of getting my hands dirty digging into the data, but if we are witnessing a turning point where journal articles take a distant back seat to the ClinicalTrials.gov registry, I'm enthused. ClinicalTrials.gov is public, free, and contains structured data; journal articles are expensive, unparsable, and generally written in painfully unclear language. To me, there's really no contest. 

Carolina Riveros, Agnes Dechartres, Elodie Perrodeau, Romana Haneef, Isabelle Boutron, & Philippe Ravaud (2013). Timing and Completeness of Trial Results Posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and Published in Journals PLoS Medicine DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001566

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

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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

Dunia perjudian daring telah menyaksikan kemunculan penyedia perangkat lunak yang menghebohkan, dan di antara mereka, Pragmatic Play telah berhasil menarik perhatian para pemain dengan berbagai slot online unggulan. Dalam artikel…

The post Menjelajahi Dunia Keajaiban Slot Online Pragmatic Play appeared first on Biosimilarnews.

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

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

Mengungkap rahasia menang mudah dalam bermain slot online gacor menjadi dambaan setiap pemain judi daring. Pertama, perhatikan dengan seksama pemilihan mesin slot yang tepat. Pilihlah mesin dengan tingkat pembayaran atau…

The post Tips Rahasia Menang Mudah Main Slot Online Gacor appeared first on Biosimilarnews.

Mesin slot sering kali memiliki istilah maxwin yang mengacu pada jumlah tertinggi yang bisa dimenangkan seorang pemain dalam permainan. Maxwins dalam slot biasanya dikaitkan dengan kombinasi simbol tertentu yang, jika…

The post Cara Melihat Maxwin Saat Bermain Slot appeared first on Biosimilarnews.

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

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

Keuntungan besar dan kegembiraan yang ditawarkan oleh mesin slot online membuatnya semakin populer. Namun, dalam lautan situs slot yang ada, bagaimana Anda bisa menemukan situs slot terbaik yang dapat memberikan…

The post Link Daftar Situs Slot Gacor Gampang Menang Maxwin Terpercaya Hari Ini appeared first on Biosimilarnews.

Neurosurgeon Vitor Mendes Pereira has grown accustomed to treating brain aneurysms with only blurry images for guidance.

Equipped with a rough picture of the labyrinthine network of arteries in the brain, he does his best to insert mesh stents or coils of platinum wire—interventions intended to promote clotting and to seal off a bulging blood vessel.

The results are not always perfect. Without a precise window into the arterial architecture at the aneurysm site, Pereira says that he and other neurovascular specialists occasionally misplace these implants, leaving patients at a heightened risk of stroke, clotting, inflammation, and life-threatening ruptures. But a new fiber-optic imaging probe offers hope for improved outcomes.

Pereira et al./Science Translational Medicine

According to Pereira’s early clinical experience, the technology—a tiny snake-like device that winds its way through the intricate maze of brain arteries and, using spirals of light, captures high-resolution images from the inside-out—provides an unprecedented level of structural detail that enhances the ability of clinicians to troubleshoot implant placement and better manage disease complications.

“We can see a lot more information that was not accessible before,” says Pereira, director of endovascular research and innovation at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto. “This is, for us, an incredible step forward.”

And not just for brain aneurysms. In a report published today in Science Translational Medicine, Pereira and his colleagues describe their first-in-human experience using the platform to guide treatment for 32 people with strokes, artery hardening, and various other conditions arising from aberrant blood vessels in the brain.

Whereas before, with technologies such as CT scans, MRIs, ultrasounds, and x-rays, clinicians had a satellite-like view of the brain’s vascular network, now they have a Google Street View-like perspective, complete with in-depth views of artery walls, plaques, immune cell aggregates, implanted device positions, and more.

“The amount of detail you could get you would never ever see with any other imaging modality,” says Adnan Siddiqui, a neurosurgeon at the University at Buffalo, who was not involved in the research. “This technology holds promise to be able to really transform the way we evaluate success or failure of our procedures, as well as to diagnose complications before they occur.”

A Decade of Innovation

The new fiber-optic probe is flexible enough to snake through the body’s arteries and provide previously unavailable information to surgeons.Pereira et al./Science Translational Medicine

The new imaging platform is the brainchild of Giovanni Ughi, a biomedical engineer at the University of Massachusetts’ Chan Medical School in Worcester. About a decade ago, he set out to adapt a technique called optical coherence tomography (OCT) for imaging inside the brain’s arteries.

OCT relies on the backscattering of near-infrared light to create cross-sectional images with micrometer-scale spatial resolution. Although OCT had long been used in clinical settings to generate pictures from the back of the eye and from inside the arteries that supply blood to the heart, the technology had proven difficult to adapt for brain applications owing to several technical challenges.

One major challenge is that the fiber-optic probes used in the technology are typically quite stiff, making them too rigid to twist and bend through the convoluted passageways of the brain’s vasculature. Additionally, the torque cables—traditionally used to rotate the OCT lens to image surrounding vessels and devices in three dimensions as the probe retracts—were too large to fit inside the catheters that are telescopically advanced into the brain’s arteries to address blockages or other vascular issues.

“We had to invent a new technology,” Ughi explains. “Our probe had to be very, very flexible, but also very, very small to be compatible with the clinical workflow.”

To achieve these design criteria, Ughi and his colleagues altered the properties of the glass at the heart of their fiber-optic cables, devised a new system of rotational control that does away with torque cables, miniaturized the imaging lens, and made a number of other engineering innovations.

The end result: a slender probe, about the size of a fine wire, that spins 250 times per second, snapping images as it glides back through the blood vessel. Researchers flush out blood cells with a tablespoon of liquid, then manually or automatically retract the probe, revealing a section of the artery about the length of a lip balm tube.

St. Michael’s Foundation

Clinical Confirmation

After initial testing in rabbits, dogs, pigs, and human cadavers, Ughi’s team sent the device to two clinical groups: Pereira’s in Toronto and Pedro Lylyk’s at the Sagrada Familia Clinic in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Across the two groups, neurosurgeons treated the 32 participants in the latest study, snaking the imaging probe through the patients’ groins or wrists and into their brains.

The procedure was safe and well-tolerated across different anatomies, underlying disease conditions, and the complexity of prior interventions. Moreover, the information provided frequently led to actionable insights—in one case, prompting clinicians to prescribe anti-platelet drugs when hidden clots were discovered; in another, aiding in the proper placement of stents that were not flush against the arterial wall.

“We were successful in every single case,” Ughi says. “So, this was a huge confirmation that the technology is ready to move forward.”

“We can see a lot more information that was not accessible before.” —Vitor Mendes Pereira, St. Michael’s Hospital

A startup called Spryte Medical aims to do just that. According to founder and CEO David Kolstad, the company is in discussions with regulatory authorities in Europe, Japan, and the United States to determine the steps necessary to bring the imaging probe to market.

At the same time, Spryte—with Ughi as senior director of advanced development and software engineering—is working on machine learning software to automate the image analysis process, thus simplifying diagnostics and treatment planning for clinicians.

Bolstered by the latest data, cerebrovascular specialists like Siddiqui now say they are chomping at the bit to get their hands on the imaging probe once it clears regulatory approval.

“I’m really impressed,” Siddiqui says. “This is a tool that many of us who do these procedures wish they had.”

The future of an innovative retinal implant and dozens of its users just got brighter, after Science, a bioelectronics startup run by Neuralink’s cofounder, Max Hodak, acquired Pixium’s technology at the last minute.

Pixium Vision, whose Prima system to tackle vision loss is implanted in 47 people across Europe and the United States, was in danger of disappearing completely until Science stepped in to buy the French company’s assets in April, for an undisclosed amount.

Pixium has been developing Prima for a decade, building on work by Daniel Palanker, a professor of ophthalmology at Stanford University. The 2-by-2-millimeter square implant is surgically implanted under the retina, where it turns infrared data from camera-equipped glasses into pulses of electricity. These replace signals generated by photoreceptor rods and cones, which are damaged in people suffering from age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

Early feasibility studies in the E.U. and the United States suggested Prima was safe and potentially effective, but Pixium ran out of money last November before the final results of a larger, multiyear pivotal trial in Europe.

“It’s very important to us to avoid another debacle like Argus II.”

With the financial and legal clock ticking down, the trial data finally arrived in March this year. “And the results from that were just pretty stunning,” says Max Hodak, Science’s founder and CEO, in his first interview since the acquisition.

Although neither Pixium nor Science has yet released the full dataset, Hodak shared with IEEE Spectrum videos of three people using Prima, each of them previously unable to read or recognize faces due to AMD. The videos show them slowly but fluently reading a hardback book, filling in a crossword puzzle, and playing cards.

“This is legit ‘form vision’ that I don’t think any device has ever done,” says Hodak. Form vision is the ability to recognize visual elements as parts of a larger object. “It’s this type of data that convinced us. And from there we were like, this should get to patients.”

As well as buying the Prima technology, Hodak says that Science will hire the majority of Pixium’s 35 engineering and regulatory staff, in a push to get the technology approved in Europe as quickly as possible.

The Prima implant receives visual data and is powered by near-infrared signals beamed from special spectacles.Pixium

Another priority is supporting existing Prima patients, says Lloyd Diamond, Pixium’s outgoing CEO. “It’s very important to us to avoid another debacle like Argus II,” he says, referring to another retinal implant whose manufacturer went out of business in 2022, leaving users literally in the dark.

Diamond is excited to be working with Science, which is based in Silicon Valley with a chip foundry in North Carolina. “They have a very deep workforce in software development, in electronic development, and in biologic research,” he says. “And there are probably only a few foundries in the world that could manufacture an implant such as ours. Being able to internalize part of that process is a very big advantage.”

Hodak hopes that a first-generation Prima product could quickly be upgraded with a wide-angle camera and the latest electronics. “We think that there’s one straight shrink, where we’ll move to smaller pixels and get higher visual acuity,” he says. “After that, we’ll probably move to a 3D electrode design, where we’ll be able to get closer to single-cell resolution.” That could deliver even sharper artificial vision.

In parallel, Science will continue Pixium’s discussions with the FDA in the United States about advancing a clinical trial there.

The success of Prima is critical, says Hodak, who started Science in 2021 after leaving Neuralink, a brain-computer interface company he cofounded with Elon Musk. “Elon can do whatever he wants for as long as he wants, but we need something that can finance future development,” he says. “Prima is big enough in terms of impact to patients and society that it is capable of helping us finance the rest of our ambitions.”

These include a next-generation Prima device, which Hodak says he is already talking about with Palanker, and a second visual prosthesis, currently called the Science Eye. This will tackle retinitis pigmentosa, a condition affecting peripheral vision—the same condition targeted by Second Sight’s ill-fated Argus II device.

“The Argus II just didn’t work that well,” says Hodak. “In the end, it was a pure bridge to nowhere.” Like the Argus II and Prima, the Science Eye relies on camera glasses and an implant, but with the addition of optogenetic therapy. This uses a genetically engineered virus to deliver a gene to specific optic nerve cells in the retina, making them light-sensitive at a particular wavelength. A tiny implanted display with a resolution sharper than an iPhone screen then enables fine control over the newly sensitized cells.

That system is still undergoing animal trials, but Hodak is almost ready to pull the trigger on its first human clinical studies, likely in Australia and New Zealand.

“In the long term, I think precision optogenetics will be more powerful than Prima’s electrical stimulation,” he says. “But we’re agnostic about which approach works to restore vision.”

One thing he does believe vehemently, unlike Musk, is that the retina is the best place to put an implant. Neuralink and Cortigent (the successor company of Second Sight) are both working on prosthetics that target the brain’s visual cortex.

“There’s a lot that you can do in cortex, but vision is not one of them,” says Hodak. He thinks the visual cortex is too complex, too distributed, and too difficult to access surgically to be useful.

“As long as the optic nerve is intact, the retina is the ideal place to think about restoring vision to the brain,” he says. “This is all a question of effect size. If someone has been in darkness for a decade, with no light, no perception, and you can give them any type of visual stimulus, they’re going to be into it. The Pixium patients can intuitively read, and that was really what convinced us that this was worth picking up and pursuing.”

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

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

Helping Patients Get the Dosage They Need

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

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

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

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

Nerve Stimulators Provide Opioid Withdrawal Relief

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

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

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

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

Devices Monitor Blood Oxygen to Prevent Overdose Deaths

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

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

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

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

An Ingestible Sensor to Watch Over Patients

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

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

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

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

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

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

Autonomous Delivery of Overdose Medication

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How resonance sonomanometry works

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elon Musk’s Claims About Blindsight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Experts Puncture the Blindsight Hype

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

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

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

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

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

Surgical stitches that generate electricity can help wounds heal faster in rats, a new study from China finds.

In the body, electricity helps the heart beat, causes muscles to contract, and enables the body to communicate with the brain. Now scientists are increasingly using electricity to promote healing with so-called electroceuticals. These electrotherapies often seek to mimic the electrical signals the body naturally uses to help new cells migrate to wounds to support the healing process.

In the new study, researchers focused on sutures, which are used to close wounds and surgical incisions. Despite the way in which medical devices have evolved rapidly over the years, sutures are generally limited in capability, says Zhouquan Sun, a doctoral candidate at Donghua University in Shanghai. “This observation led us to explore integrating advanced therapeutics into sutures,” Sun says.

Prior work sought to enhance sutures by adding drugs or growth factors to the stitches. However, most of these drugs either had insignificant effects on healing, or triggered side-effects such as allergic reactions or nausea. Growth factors in sutures often degraded before they could have any effect, or failed to activate entirely.

The research team that created the new sutures previously developed fibers for electronics for nearly 10 years for applications such as sensors. “This is our first attempt to apply fiber electronics in the biomedical field,” says Chengyi Hou, a professor of materials science and engineering at Donghua University.

Making Electrical Sutures Work

The new sutures are roughly 500 microns wide, or about five times the width of the average human hair. Like typical sutures, the new stitches are biodegradable, avoiding the need for doctors to remove the stitches and potentially cause more damage to a wound.

Each suture is made of a magnesium filament core wrapped in poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA) nanofibers, a commercially available, inexpensive, biodegradable polymer used in sutures. The suture also includes an outer sheath made of polycaprolactone (PCL), a biodegradable polyester and another common suture material.

Previously, electrotherapy devices were often bulky and expensive, and required wires connected to an external battery. The new stitches are instead powered by the triboelectric effect, the most common cause of static electricity. When two different materials repeatedly touch and then separate—in the case of the new suture, its core and sheath—the surface of one material can steal electrons from the surface of the other. This is why rubbing feet on a carpet or a running a comb through hair can build up electric charge.

A common problem sutures face is how daily movements may cause strain that reduce their efficacy. The new stitches take advantage of these motions to help generate electricity that helps wounds heal.

The main obstacle the researchers had to surmount was developing a suture that was both thin and strong enough to serve in medicine. Over the course of nearly two years, they tinkered with the molecular weights of the polymers they used and refined their fiber spinning technology to reduce their suture’s diameter while maintaining strength, Sun says.

In lab experiments on rats, the sutures generated about 2.3 volts during normal exercise. The scientists found the new sutures could speed up wound healing by 50 percent over the course of 10 days compared to conventional sutures. They also significantly lowered bacteria levels even without the use of daily wound disinfectants, suggesting they could reduce the risk of post-operation infections.

“Future research may delve deeper into the molecular mechanisms of how electrical stimulation facilitated would healing,” says Hui Wang, a chief physician at Shanghai Sixth People’s Hospital.

Further tests are needed in clinical settings to assess how effective these sutures are in humans. If such experiments prove successful, “this bioabsorbable electrically stimulating suture could change how we treat injuries in the future,” Hou says.

The scientists detailed their findings online 8 October in the journal Nature Communications.

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

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

Why should we think about science frugally?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where does your involvement with an invention end?

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

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

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.”

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.

During a panel discussion at the Behavioral Health Tech conference, experts shared the promise psychedelic medicines hold for mental health and why employers may want to consider offering them as a workplace benefit.

The post 4 Things Employers Should Know About Psychedelic Medicines 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.

Autolus Therapeutics’ Aucatzyl is now FDA approved for treating advanced cases of B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia. While it goes after the same target as Gilead Sciences’ Tecartus, Autolus engineered its CAR T-therapy with properties that could improve safety, efficacy, and durability.

The post ‘Serial Killing’ Cell Therapy From Autolus Lands FDA Approval in Blood Cancer 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.

By adopting a contingent workforce model and investing in the right data tools to power better informed decision-making and talent strategy, healthcare organizations can begin to address staffing challenges and turn their talent goals into reality. 

The post Closing Staffing Gaps in Healthcare by Utilizing Diverse Pipelines of Contingent Talent appeared first on MedCity News.

As radiopharmaceuticals enter a new phase, industry leaders must rethink external services and internal capabilities to master the complexities of delivering advanced therapies.

The post Unlocking the Future of Radioligand Therapy: From Discovery to Delivering at Scale appeared first on MedCity News.

Experts agree that the incoming Trump administration will likely shake things up in the prescription drug world — most notably when it comes to research and development, drug pricing and PBM reform.

The post What Might the Future of Prescription Drugs Look Like Under Trump? appeared first on MedCity News.