Des voleurs ont réussi à dérober un guichet automatique en le tirant à travers la devanture vitrée de l’immeuble à l’aide d’un camion.

Non aux rencontres amoureuses, au sexe, au mariage ou à élever des enfants avec un homme.

Le ministre du Travail, Steven MacKinnon, ordonne la reprise des activités dans les ports au pays qui sont à l’arrêt en raison de conflits de travail.

Amoury Lapointe a résisté à son arrestation lors d’une intervention de routine à laquelle il refusait de se soumettre dans son «véhicule diplomatique»

Attaque avec une voiture en Chine: 35 morts et des dizaines de blessés.

Pour la première fois, une ex-directrice de l’école Bedford explique de vive voix avoir alerté plusieurs fois ses supérieurs quant au climat toxique.

L’ex-premier ministre de la Colombie-Britannique John Horgan est décédé à l’âge de 65 ans après une bataille contre le cancer.

Les progressistes s’inquiètent de voir les États-Unis basculer dans le fascisme depuis l’élection de Donald Trump.

Dans ses guéguerres avec Ottawa, le gouvernement de la CAQ ne recule devant aucune bassesse pour marquer des points.

Laissez les beaux-pères au chalet et vos candidats libres de vous étonner. S’ils en sont capables, ils le feront.

À l’exception notable des électeurs conservateurs.

Le jury au procès du père accusé d’avoir décimé sa famille a eu droit à une véritable incursion dans la scène de crime.

Florence et Marianne seront finalement au concert de leur idole, vendredi, à Toronto, mais elles ont eu toute une frousse.

On apprend aujourd’hui que certains CPE, subventionnés avec votre argent, pratiquent une discrimination scandaleuse dans l’accueil des enfants.

Ce n’est pas mon opinion, mais celle d’endocrinologues, qui sont les plus crédibles dans ce débat.

Le Parti Québécois misera sur sa présidente, Catherine Gentilcore, pour tenter de ravir la circonscription de Terrebonne à la CAQ.

Le Bloc Québécois trône toujours en tête, à 35% des intentions de vote, selon un sondage Léger-Le Journal-TVA.

Donald Trump's second term as U.S. president carries implications at home and abroad. That includes potentially wreaking havoc on global economies through the aggressive use of tariffs.

Samsung has upped the TV stakes with a new range of smart TVs with “QLED” displays.

Gros succès en France, le drame biographique est présenté samedi au Festival Cinemania.

Des Swifties québécoises racontent leur expérience durant un concert de la tournée «Eras».

La nouvelle saison sera déposée sur illico+ le 13 novembre.

Geoff Molson, Kent Hughes et Martin St-Louis avaient promis que le Canadien de Montréal serait dans le «mix» cette saison.

La ville de Québec pourra compter sur des prestations du groupe La Bottine Souriante et de la DJ belge MATTN pour l’amener en 2025.

La majorité des billets encore offerts en ligne pour aller voir Taylor Swift à Toronto sont des arnaques, constate un expert en cybersécurité.

Le film québécois a devancé plusieurs grandes productions hollywoodiennes

Elle tiendra la vedette de l’adaptation québécoise du succès mondial Ménopause aux côtés de Claudine Mercier, Catherine Sénart et Geneviève Charest.

BREAKING: A major undersea earthquake measuring 7.3 has struck the Philippines southeast of the island Jolo.

Une étude rapporte que la perturbation de l’équilibre du microbiote intestinal par le stress dérègle la fonction des cellules immunitaires.

Une étude récente confirme que les personnes obèses, même sans anomalies métaboliques, sont à plus haut risque de plusieurs types de cancer.

Une découverte biochimique intrigante pourrait permettre d’identifier rapidement les patients à haut risque.

Public Sector Enterprises Selection Board (PSEB) is seeking qualified candidates for the post of managing director at the Karnataka Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Limited (KAPL) in Bengaluru. The candidate will be

The Embassy of India in Iraq has extended an invitation to Indian businesses to participate in the "Medico Expo," officially known as the Erbil International Health Exhibition. This prestigious event, set to be the

In this episode you can hear Olivia Friett, editor of Medical Plastics News talk to Erik Haines, managing director at Guidepoint Qsight where we will discuss Qsight Prospector, a data-driven sales intelligence programme.

Brightmark CEO Bob Powell discusses Plastics Renewal technology and how to bring sustainability into the medical industry.

Syensqo, previously part of Solvay Group and a global provider of advanced performance materials and chemical solutions, is making its debut at Compamed 2024.

In this episode of The FemTech series Olivia Friett is joined by Jane Kennedy and Dr. MaryAnn Ferreux where we will discuss the inequality in women's health and how we can overcome the obstacles that come with this.

The unexpected discovery of a geometric phase shows how math and physics are tightly intertwined

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a video:

¿Qué son los biosimilares? Los biosimilares son un tipo de medicamento que se usa para tratar una variedad de afecciones, como enfermedades crónicas de la piel y los intestinos, artritis, diabetes, afecciones renales, degeneración macular y algunos tipos de cáncer. Un biosimilar es un tipo de medicamento biológico. La mayoría de los medicamentos biológicos se elaboran usando fuentes vivas, como células animales, bacterias o levaduras. Debido a que en su mayoría provienen de fuentes vivas, todos los tipos de productos biológicos tienen diferencias menores que ocurren naturalmente entre los lotes de producción. Así como los medicamentos de marca tienen versiones genéricas, los biológicos originales pueden tener biosimilares. La cuidadosa revisión de datos, estudios y pruebas por parte de la FDA ayuda a garantizar que los productos biosimilares brinden los mismos beneficios de tratamiento que el producto biológico original aprobado por la FDA. Los biosimilares pueden brindarle más acceso a tratamientos importantes y también pueden ahorrarle dinero, dependiendo de su cobertura de seguro. Se han aprobado muchos biosimilares diferentes y se esperan aún más. Para obtener más información, visite www.fda.gov/biosimilars

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a video:

La FDA monitorea continuamente datos en tiempo real de pacientes, fabricantes de medicamentos y profesionales de la salud, incluyendo informes de reacciones adversas a los medicamentos de receta. Según estos datos, podemos actualizar las etiquetas de los medicamentos o, en casos excepcionales, solicitar la retirada del mercado. Aprenda más sobre el proceso de la FDA para el monitoreo continuo de los medicamentos aprobados.

Para obtener más información sobre el papel de la FDA en la regulación y la aprobación de medicamentos, visite nuestro sitio web en www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients-drug...

Vea esta serie de tres partes: www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0AE2C851E6968546

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a video:

La FDA monitorea continuamente datos en tiempo real de pacientes, fabricantes de medicamentos y profesionales de la salud, incluyendo informes de reacciones adversas a los medicamentos de receta. Según estos datos, podemos actualizar las etiquetas de los medicamentos o, en casos excepcionales, solicitar la retirada del mercado. Aprenda más sobre el proceso de la FDA para el monitoreo continuo de los medicamentos aprobados.

Para obtener más información sobre el papel de la FDA en la regulación y la aprobación de medicamentos, visite nuestro sitio web en www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients-drug...

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.

<p>On 19&nbsp;September 2024, the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP)&nbsp;adopted a positive opinion,&nbsp;recommending the granting of marketing authorization&nbsp;for&nbsp;two aflibercept biosimilars:&nbsp;&nbsp;Sandoz’s Afqlir and Samsung Bioepis’s Opuviz.&nbsp;These products are biosimilars of the reference product Eylea, developed by Regeneron and Bayer.</p>

<p>The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval for two&nbsp;biosimilars, Formycon’s FYB202/Otulfi (ustekinumab-aauz) and Samsung Bioepis’ Soliris biosimilar, Epysqli (eculizumab-aagh), on 27 September and 22 July 2024, respectively. FYB202/Otulfi, a biosimilar referencing&nbsp;Johnson &amp; Johnson’s Stelara, while Epysqli is a biosimilar referencing Alexion’s Soliris.</p>

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

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

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.

CDMO Avid Bioservices is being acquired by the private equity firms GHO Capital Partners and Ampersand Capital Partners. Avid specializes in manufacturing biologic products for companies at all stages of development.

The post Private Equity Is Picking Up Biologics CDMO Avid Bioservices in $1.1B Acquisition appeared first on MedCity News.