Today’s guest post comes from George Moore, Chief Information Technology Officer at CareMetx.

As George explains using novel survey data, manufacturers view new technologies  as crucial for patient services. He then explains how digital technology, artificial intelligence (AI), and machine learning (ML) can be used to improve patient adherence and increase hub efficiencies.

To learn more, download CareMetx’s new 2024 Patient Services Report: Revealing Manufacturer Priorities: Patients Naturally Take Center Stage.

Read on for George’s insights.
Read more »

Today’s guest post comes from Greg Skalicky, President, EVERSANA and Faruk Abdullah, President, Professional Services & Chief Business Officer, EVERSANA

Greg and Faruk walk through the marketplace pressures driving Direct-to-Patient commercialization models. They argue that a technology-enabled infrastructure,  combined with clinical and reimbursement support specialists, can improve  patients' access to new therapies, shorten the time to therapy, and enable better overall clinical outcomes.

Click here to learn more about EVERSANA’s Direct-to-Patient care model.

Read on for Greg and Faruk’s insights.
Read more »

Disclosure: I sit on the Planning Committee for the FDLI Ad-Promo conference. This is an unpaid, volunteer position. The contents of this post were not discussed with or influenced by any member of the FDLI staff.

This post provides some of the highlights from FDLI's ad-promo conference. An on-demand version of the conference presentations is available on-demand at: https://www.fdli.org/2023/11/advertising-promotion-for-medical-products-conference-on-demand/

The Food and Drug Law Institute's (FDLI) Advertising & Promotion for Medical Products conference wrapped up last week. I attended the conference and also moderated a panel on data privacy and concerns about the use of health data for the targeting of advertising.

The first day kicked off with a fireside chat with Arun Rao from the Department of Justice (DOJ), Lauren Roth from the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), and Serena Viswanathan from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), led by Christine Simmon of FDLI.

FDA and FTC both noted their recent guidance updates. For FDA, that means the new Communications From Firms to Health Care Providers Regarding Scientific Information on Unapproved Uses of Approved/Cleared Medical Products Questions and Answers Guidance for Industry (SIUU) and the newly finalized Presenting Quantitative Efficacy and Risk Information in Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Promotional Labeling and Advertisements. 

FTC has also been busy, providing updated guidance on endorsements, reviews and testimonials, and a distinct Health Products Compliance Guidance.

DOJ, FDA, and FTC also mentioned the extent to which they are still very much digging out from the backlog created by the pandemic. More than three years after COVID-19 first came to our shores, its effects are very much still being felt.

Rao also mentioned a new policy from DOJ to create a safe harbor for self-reported disclosures made in connection with a merger or acquisition. Under this new policy, companies that learn of wrongdoing at a company they have acquired can be protected from later liability if they report the wrongdoing to DOJ within six months of closing the merger or acquisition. This is as Rao described it a "very big juicy carrot" to encourage self-reporting of wrongdoing, and it also ramps up the need for effective due diligence during the M&A to ensure that all wrongdoing is uncovered and can be reported.

One final point mentioned by Roth is the importance to FDA of combatting misinformation about medical products. Commissioner Califf has repeatedly warned about the need to combat misinformation, and it is not a stretch to see FDA's SIUU guidance as one small step in that direction. By providing further guidance about exactly how sponsors can share truthful, not misleading information about unapproved uses, FDA is enabling efforts to get good information from the people who should be seen as the most reliable source of that information, the product's sponsors.

The next session of the day included an update from OPDP, APLB, CDRH, and CVM related to advertising and promotion.

Katie Gray from OPDP gave a detailed presentation on the Recorlev enforcement action from earlier this year and an overview of the SIUU guidance. Lisa Stockbridge from APLB provided a reminder on reminder advertising, indicating that this well-established category of communication continues to cause firms difficulties. Debra Wolf of CDRH emphasized that although there has not been a significant amount of publicly available enforcement actions from CDRH, the Agency continues to have many private communications with firms about their marketing efforts.

The next plenary session covered scientific exchange and pre-approval communications. Elisabethann Wright of Cooley provided particular insight into the EU's approach, which of course varies widely by country, and has been especially active on platforms such as LinkedIn. Of note is the extremely active role played by the industry's own associations in not merely promulgating guidance and establishing codes of conduct but in regularly enforcing violations of those codes against member companies.

After lunch, the first set of breakout sessions occurred including the panel I moderated on data privacy. I found the discussion very lively and enjoyed hearing from Elisa Jillson from the FTC, Lyra Correa from HHS's Office of Civil Rights, and Nancy Perkins from Arnold & Porter. I have previously opined that the 2020s will be most known for its focus on privacy, and while the cookie-less future we keep hearing about gets pushed back once again, there's growing awareness and concern about how much deeply personal information has been given up and on how companies are using (or misusing) that data.

Simultaneous sessions looked at the recently finalized guidance from the FDA on Presenting Quantitative Efficacy and Risk Information in Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Promotional Labeling and Advertisements while another session looked more into the promotion of veterinary products. Because I was leading another session, I couldn't attend either, but I'm looking forward to using that link provided earlier to view the recordings. 

The afternoon plenary sessions resumed with a look at FTC's role in enforcement of healthcare advertising and closed out with a session on that perennial chestnut of social media usage.

Day two of the conference kicked off with an enlightening discussion of so-called CFL (Consistent with FDA-Labeling) claims. Torrey Cope of Sidley Austin provided an insightful look not just at FDA's enforcement post-guidance for claims that failed to meet the CFL standard, but also for taking the time to examine the nature and wording around the acceptance by FDA of so-called Real-World Evidence (RWE) in the context of product approvals. RWE is not the sole source of CFL claims, but Cope was able to provide some valuable lessons.

The afternoon's breakout sessions included one on artificial intelligence (which I attended), promotional challenges in rare disease treatments, and navigating accelerated approval promotion.

The closing session focused on other avenues for enforcement, including of course, the Better Business Bureau National Advertising Division's (NAD), as well as general counsel to general counsel complaint letters, filing complaints with the FDA, and perhaps even bringing a Lanham Act case.

The NAD's finding against Novartis earlier this year was of course a hot topic. But it is worth noting that in a more recent case, Viiv simply declined to participate in the NAD process. NAD referred the matter to FDA and FTC noting that decision, but as of the writing of this post, no further action by the government has been seen.

Alan Minsk of Arnall Golden Gregory noted the importance of determining your goal when looking at the appropriate path. If your goal is get a competitor in trouble then you really need to rely on the government or the courts, but if your goal is primarily to just get the company to stop the use of misleading promotion, then NAD or a direct complaint letter might be a far more cost-effective solution.

Overall, the conference was a huge success, though my opinion should be viewed as biased because I sit on the conference planning committee. FDA is definitely digging itself out from the pandemic backlog. I fully expect we'll see more from the Agency, as a very active 2023 has already demonstrated.

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

FDA is the only federal agency that touches the lives of every American several times every day. Despite this, FDA will probably not be mentioned when President Obama delivers his State of the Union (SOTU) address to Congress on February 12. Instead, FDA Matters provides its third annual “State of the FDA.” As reflected in last week’s column, I think that FDA did well in 2012. And 2013 is very promising. Potential funding cutbacks are the primary impediment to future successes.

Chicken was once an expensive delicacy. In 1928, America’s quest for a better diet and a better standard of living was summarized by the campaign promise of “a chicken in every pot.” Today, chicken is a ubiquitous, low-cost source of protein, which we largely take for granted. Despite depletion of ocean-based stocks, fish hold similar potential. To begin this transformation, FDA must approve a scientifically-based innovative product—a faster growing genetically-engineered (GE) Atlantic salmon. When FDA Matters wrote about this subject 18 months ago, I believed the agency was near to approval of this first-ever food product from a GE animal. It is still not resolved and there are implications for all innovations that require FDA approval.

It is often said that medicine is both an art and a science. In an imperfect world this is both inevitable and desirable. But it is extremely important that the two should not be confused with each other. In particular, because the “science” side of the equation has achieved overwhelming prestige and authority, it is...

Click here to continue reading...

Early in the pandemic there was a widespread belief that science would be our salvation. With the help of science we would be spared the worst consequences, such as occurred during the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic. A vaccine would arrive, reliably, after a few hard months of research, and in short order the problem would...

Click here to continue reading...

Fake news didn’t just become a problem because of Trump, or the pandemic. It’s been around for a long while. The problem can’t begin to be solved unless the medical and scientific community accepts that it has an absolute responsibility to aggressively debunk fake news and defend and support scientific principles. Click here to read...

Click here to continue reading...

<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>On 3^&nbsp;June 2024,&nbsp;Resolution&nbsp;RDC No. 876 was published in Brazil in the Official Journal of the Union (DOU)[1],&nbsp;modifying the current regulations regarding the post-registration of biological products (RDC 413/2020).</p>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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 […]

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

Session Details:

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

• Session Number: 241
• Room Number: 205B

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

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

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

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

Pharma: breaking the law in broad daylight?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time for Some Data Transparency

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

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

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

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

• Both are university/private collaborations, and both (perhaps unsurprisingly) are rooted in California: Heath eHeart is jointly run by UCSF and the American Heart Association, while Quantified Diet is run by app developer Lift with scientific support from a (unidentified?) team at Berkeley.
• Both are pushing for a million or more participants, dwarfing even very large traditional studies by orders of magnitude.
• Health eHeart is entirely observational, and researchers will have the ability to request its data to test their own hypotheses, whereas Quantified Diet is a controlled, randomized trial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emteq Labs wants eyewear to be the next frontier of wearable health technology.

The Brighton, England-based company introduced today its emotion-sensing eyewear, Sense. The glasses contain nine optical sensors distributed across the rims that detect subtle changes in facial expression with more than 93 percent accuracy when paired with Emteq’s current software. “If your face moves, we can capture it,” says Steen Strand, whose appointment as Emteq’s new CEO was also announced today. With that detailed data, “you can really start to decode all kinds of things.” The continuous data could help people uncover patterns in their behavior and mood, similar to an activity or sleep tracker.

Emteq is now aiming to take its tech out of laboratory settings with real-world applications. The company is currently producing a small number of Sense glasses, and they’ll be available to commercial partners in December.

The announcement comes just weeks after Meta and Snap each unveiled augmented reality glasses that remain in development. These glasses are “far from ready,” says Strand, who led the augmented reality eyewear division while working at Snap from 2018 to 2022. “In the meantime, we can serve up lightweight eyewear that we believe can deliver some really cool health benefits.”

Fly Vision Vectors

While current augmented reality (AR) headsets have large battery packs to power the devices, glasses require a lightweight design. “Every little bit of power, every bit of weight, becomes critically important,” says Strand. The current version of Sense weighs 62 grams, slightly heavier than the Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses, which weigh in at about 50 grams.

Because of the weight constraints, Emteq couldn’t use the power-hungry cameras typically used in headsets. With cameras, motion is detected by looking at how pixels change between consecutive images. The method is effective, but captures a lot of redundant information and uses more power. The eyewear’s engineers instead opted for optical sensors that efficiently capture vectors when points on the face move due to the underlying muscles. These sensors were inspired by the efficiency of fly vision. “Flies are incredibly efficient at measuring motion,” says Emteq founder and CSO Charles Nduka. “That’s why you can’t swat the bloody things. They have a very high sample rate internally.”

Sense glasses can capture data as often as 6,000 times per second. The vector-based approach also adds a third dimension to a typical camera’s 2D view of pixels in a single plane.

These sensors look for activation of facial muscles, and the area around the eyes is an ideal spot. While it’s easy to suppress or force a smile, the upper half of our face tends to have more involuntary responses, explains Nduka, who also works as a plastic surgeon in the United Kingdom. However, the glasses can also collect information about the mouth by monitoring the cheek muscles that control jaw movements, conveniently located near the lower rim of a pair of glasses. The data collected is then transmitted from the glasses to pass through Emteq’s algorithms in order to translate the vector data into usable information.

In addition to interpreting facial expressions, Sense can be used to track food intake, an application discovered by accident when one of Emteq’s developers was wearing the glasses while eating breakfast. By monitoring jaw movement, the glasses detect when a user chews and how quickly they eat. Meanwhile, a downward-facing camera takes a photo to log the food, and uses a large language model to determine what’s in the photo, effectively making food logging a passive activity. Currently, Emteq is using an instance of OpenAI’s GPT-4 large language model to accomplish this, but the company has plans to create their own algorithm in the future. Other applications, including monitoring physical activity and posture, are also in development.

One Platform, Many Uses

Nduka believes Emteq’s glasses represent a “fundamental technology,” similar to how the accelerometer is used for a host of applications in smartphones, including managing screen orientation, tracking activity, and even revealing infrastructure damage.

Similarly, Emteq has chosen to develop the technology as a general facial data platform for a range of uses. “If we went deep on just one, it means that all the other opportunities that can be helped—especially some of those rarer use cases—they’d all be delayed,” says Nduka. For example, Nduka is passionate about developing a tool to help those with facial paralysis. But a specialized device for those patients would have high unit costs and be unaffordable for the target user. Allowing more companies to use Emteq’s intellectual property and algorithms will bring down cost.

In this buckshot approach, the general target for Sense’s potential use cases is health applications. “If you look at the history of wearables, health has been the primary driver,” says Strand. The same may be true for eyewear, and he says there’s potential for diet and emotional data to be “the next pillar of health” after sleep and physical activity.

How the data is delivered is still to be determined. In some applications, it could be used to provide real-time feedback—for instance, vibrating to remind the user to slow down eating. Or, it could be used by health professionals only to collect a week’s worth of at-home data for patients with mental health conditions, which Nduka notes largely lack objective measures. (As a medical device for treatment of diagnosed conditions, Sense would have to go through a more intensive regulatory process.) While some users are hungry for more data, others may require a “much more gentle, qualitative approach,” says Strand. Emteq plans to work with expert providers to appropriately package information for users.

Interpreting the data must be done with care, says Vivian Genaro Motti, an associate professor at George Mason University who leads the Human-Centric Design Lab. What expressions mean may vary based on cultural and demographic factors, and “we need to take into account that people sometimes respond to emotions in different ways,” Motti says. With little regulation of wearable devices, she says it’s also important to ensure privacy and protect user data. But Motti raises these concerns because there is a promising potential for the device. “If this is widespread, it’s important that we think carefully about the implications.”

Privacy is also a concern to Edward Savonov, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Alabama, who developed a similar device for dietary tracking in his lab. Having a camera mounted on Emteq’s glasses could pose issues, both for the privacy of those around a user and a user’s own personal information. Many people eat in front of their computer or cell phone, so sensitive data may be in view.

For technology like Sense to be adopted, Sazonov says questions about usability and privacy concerns must first be answered. “Eyewear-based technology has potential for a great future—if we get it right.”

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

What was the inspiration for Gandhian engineering?

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

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

How does Gandhian engineering differ from existing models of innovation?

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

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

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

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

What is your favorite example of Gandhian engineering?

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

What is required for Gandhian engineering to become more widespread?

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

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

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

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

The post Pregnant and Empowered: Why Trust is the Latest Form of Member Engagement appeared first on MedCity News.

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

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

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

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

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.

Here’s how four different health systems are partnering with Microsoft to save time for clinicians.

The post How 4 Health Systems Are Partnering with Microsoft 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.

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

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

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.

The Pew Charitable Trusts sent comments Jan. 4 to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) urging them to support the easy exchange of individuals’ health records through a pair of regulations.

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

The Food and Drug Administration published a concept paper in early January that describes a preliminary proposal for how the agency will ensure that companies developing antibiotics for administration to animals establish defined, evidence-based durations of use for all medically important antibiotics.

Modern innovation typically occurs one step-improvement at a time. Some clients initially question whether their new application of an existing technology is patentable. Usually, the answer is ‘yes.’ Under U.S. law (and most other jurisdictions), an innovation to an existing technology is patentable so long as at least one claim limitation is novel and non-obvious....… Continue Reading

Pharmaceutical and biotech companies breathed a sigh of relief Monday when the Federal Circuit unanimously ruled in a precedential opinion that the mere sale of manufacturing services to create embodiments of a patented product is not a “commercial sale” of the invention that triggers the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA).[1]  The en banc opinion...… Continue Reading

Some interesting presentations on the last day of the JPMorgan Healthcare Conference that concentrated on common themes – the increasing importance of ancillary business line to bolster core business revenue and of filling in holes to achieve scale and full-service offerings. Genesis Healthcare – The largest U.S. skilled nursing facility (SNF) provider, which also is...… Continue Reading

The upcoming U.S. presidential election is stirring discussions around healthcare, especially the cost of prescription drugs and the […]

The post Impact of Trump and Harris on Prescription Drug Pricing appeared first on World of DTC Marketing.

With Trump’s victory, healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry could shift significantly. Based on Trump’s first-term policies, his administration […]

The post Impact of Trump on Drug Pricing Policies appeared first on World of DTC Marketing.

Given his views on vaccines, pharma companies, and medical science, if Robert F. Kennedy Jr. assumed control of […]

The post The Danger of An RFK Jr Leading The FDA appeared first on World of DTC Marketing.

We’ve all seen Medicare Advantage (MA) plans become a significant player in the healthcare industry. Yet, with the […]

The post The Dark Side of Medicare Advantage Incentives appeared first on World of DTC Marketing.