An AllTrials report for the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee this week has found that 33 NHS trust sponsors and six UK universities are reporting none of their clinical trial results, while others have gone from 0% to 100% following an announcement from the Select Committee in January that universities and NHS […]

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

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

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

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.]

[Fair Warning: I have generally tried to keep this blog separate from my corporate existence, but am making an exception for two quick posts about the upcoming DIA 2013 Annual Meeting.]

Improving Enrollment in Pediatric Clinical Trials

Logistically, ethically, and emotionally, involving children in medical research is greatly different from the same research in adults. Some of the toughest clinical trials I've worked on, across a number of therapeutic areas, have been pediatric ones. They challenge you to come up with different approaches to introducing and explaining clinical research – approaches that have to work for doctors, kids, and parents simultaneously.

On Thursday June 27, Don Sickler, one of my team members, will be chairing a session titled “Parents as Partners: Engaging Caregivers for Pediatric Trials”. It should be a good session.

Joining Don are 2 people I've had the pleasure of working with in the past. Both of them combine strong knowledge of clinical research with a massive amount of positive energy and enthusiasm (no doubt a big part of what makes them successful).

However, they also differ in one key aspect: what they work on. One of them – Tristen Moors from Hyperion Therapeutics - works on an ultra-rare condition, Urea Cycle Disorder, a disease affecting only a few hundred children every year. On the other hand, Dr. Ann Edmunds is an ENT working in a thriving private practice. I met her because she was consistently the top enroller in a number of trials relating to tympanostomy tube insertion. Surgery to place “t-tubes” is one of the most common and routine outpatients surgeries there is, with an estimated half million kids getting tubes each year.

Each presents a special challenge: for rare conditions, how do you even find enough patients? For routine procedures, how do you convince parents to complicate their (and their children’s) lives by signing up for a multi-visit, multi-procedure trial?

Ann and Tristen have spent a lot of time tackling these issues, and should have some great advice to give.

For more information on the session, here’s Don’s posting on our news blog.

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

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

• How to Catalyze a Clinical Trial - My inaugural post introducing the blog and its purpose
• Video: Predicting Referral Conversion in Clinical Trial Advertising - A somewhat technical but very important topic, how to visualize and model the “real time” results of recruitment advertising at the sites.
• The Crystal Ball is on the Fritz - What to do with a broken enrollment feasibility process, and how asking will never be as good as measuring

• The New Breed of Clinical Trial Matchmakers - A (hopefully pretty complete, thanks to knowledgeable commenters) listing of services looking to match interested patients to clinical trials
• Rethinking Patient Enrollment, in One Graphic - The perils of predictability in site-based enrollment
• Seize the Data! Will Big Data Save Us from Ourselves? - My take on what I consider to be the large and serious obstacles in the way of “Big Data” solutions for patient recruitment

Please take a look, and I will see you back here soon.

[Photo credit: detour sign via Flikr user crossley]

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, here are two things for you to do:

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

Look forward to seeing you there.

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

But while we can all agree that "patient engagement is good" in a highly general sense, we don't have much consensus on what the implications of that idea might be. There is precious little hard evidence about how to either attract engaged patients, or how we might effectively turn "regular patients" into "engaged patients".

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

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

Some interesting things to note about this experiment:

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

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

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

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

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

[Image credit: Wellcome Images]

Maybe those pesky sites are good for something after all. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dalam dunia perjudian online yang terus berkembang, pencarian para pemain untuk menemukan peluang terbaik dalam meraih kemenangan mengarah pada fenomena populer: kumpulan game slot gacor dengan persentase RTP tertinggi hari…

The post Kumpulan Game Slot Gacor Dengan Persentase RTP Tertinggi Hari Ini 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.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has revolutionized healthcare by providing radiation-free, non-invasive 3-D medical images. However, MRI scanners often consume 25 kilowatts or more to power magnets producing magnetic fields up to 1.5 tesla. These requirements typically limits scanners’ use to specialized centers and departments in hospitals.

A University of Hong Kong team has now unveiled a low-power, highly simplified, full-body MRI device. With the help of artificial intelligence, the new scanner only requires a compact 0.05 T magnet and can run off a standard wall power outlet, requiring only 1,800 watts during operation. The researchers say their new AI-enabled machine can produce clear, detailed images on par with those from high-power MRI scanners currently used in clinics, and may one day help greatly improve access to MRI worldwide.

To generate images, MRI applies a magnetic field to align the poles of the body’s protons in the same direction. An MRI scanner then probes the body with radio waves, knocking the protons askew. When the radio waves turn off, the protons return to their original alignment, transmitting radio signals as they do so. MRI scanners receive these signals, converting them into images.

More than 150 million MRI scans are conducted worldwide annually, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. However, despite five decades of development, clinical MRI procedures remain out of reach for more than two-thirds of the world’s population, especially in low- and middle-income countries. For instance, whereas the United States has 40 scanners per million inhabitants, in 2016 there were only 84 MRI units serving West Africa’s population of more than 370 million.

This disparity largely stems from the high costs and specialized settings required for standard MRI scanners. They use powerful superconducting magnets that require a lot of space, power, and specialized infrastructure. They also need rooms shielded from radio interference, further adding to hardware costs, restricting their mobility, and hampering their availability in other medical settings.

Scientists around the globe have already been exploring low-cost MRI scanners that operate at ultra-low-field (ULF) strengths of less than 0.1 T. These devices may consume much less power and prove potentially portable enough for bedside use. Indeed, as the Hong Kong team notes, MRI development initially focused on low fields of about 0.05 T, until the introduction of the first whole-body 1.5 T superconducting scanner by General Electric in 1983.

The new MRI scanner (top left) is smaller than conventional scanners, and does away with bulky RF shielding and superconducting magnetics. The new scanner’s imaging resolution is on par with conventional scanners (bottom).Ed X. Wu/The University of Hong Kong

Current ULF MRI scanners often rely on AI to help reconstruct images from what signals they gather using relatively weak magnetic fields. However, until now, these devices were limited to solely imaging the brain, extremities, or single organs, Udunna Anazodo, an assistant professor of neurology and neurosurgery at McGill University in Montreal who did not take part in the work, notes in a review of the new study.

The Hong Kong team have now developed a whole-body ULF MRI scanner in which patients are placed between two permanent neodymium ferrite boron magnet plates—one above the body and the other below. Although these permanent magnets are far weaker than superconductive magnets, they are low-cost, readily available, and don’t require liquid helium or to be cooled to superconducting temperatures. In addition, the amount of energy ULF MRI scanners deposit into the body is roughly one-thousandth that from conventional scanners, making heat generation during imaging much less of a concern, Anazodo notes in her review. ULF MRI is also much quieter than regular MRI, which may help with pediatric scanning, she adds.

The new machine consists of two units, each roughly the size of a hospital gurney. One unit houses the MRI device, while the other supports the patient’s body as it slides into the scanner.

To account for radio interference from both the outside environment and the ULF MRI’s own electronics, the scientists deployed 10 small sensor coils around the scanner and inside the electronics cabinet to help the machine detect potentially disruptive radio signals. They also employed deep learning AI methods to help reconstruct images even in the presence of strong noise. They say this eliminates the need for shielding against radio waves, making the new device far more portable than conventional MRI.

In tests on 30 healthy volunteers, the device captured detailed images of the brain, spine, abdomen, heart, lung, and extremities. Scanning each of these targets took eight minutes or less for image resolutions of roughly 2 by 2 by 8 cubic millimeters. In Anazodo’s review, she notes the new machine produced image qualities comparable to those of conventional MRI scanners.

“It’s the beginning of a multidisciplinary endeavor to advance an entirely new class of simple, patient-centric and computing-powered point-of-care diagnostic imaging device,” says Ed Wu, a professor and chair of biomedical engineering at the University of Hong Kong.

The researchers used standard off-the-shelf electronics. All in all, they estimate hardware costs at about US $22,000. (According to imaging equipment company Block Imaging in Holt, Michigan, entry-level MRI scanners start at $225,000, and advanced premium machines can cost $500,000 or more.)

The prototype scanner’s magnet assembly is relatively heavy, weighing about 1,300 kilograms. (This is still lightweight compared to a typical clinical MRI scanner, which can weigh up to 17 tons, according to New York University’s Langone Health center.) The scientists note that optimizing the hardware could reduce the magnet assembly’s weight to about 600 kilograms, which would make the entire scanner mobile.

The researchers note their new device is not meant to replace conventional high-magnetic-field MRI. For instance, a 2023 study notes that next-generation MRI scanners using powerful 7 T magnets could yield a resolution of just 0.35 millimeters. Instead, ULF MRI can complement existing MRI by going to places that can’t host standard MRI devices, such as intensive care units and community clinics.

In an email, Anazodo adds this new Hong Kong work is just one of a number of exciting ULF MRI scanners under development. For instance, she notes that Gordon Sarty at the University of Saskatchewan and his colleagues are developing that device that is potentially even lighter, cheaper and more portable than the Hong Kong machine, which they are researching for use in whole-body imaging on the International Space Station.

Wu and his colleagues detailed their findings online 10 May in the journal Science.

This article appears in the July 2024 print issue as “Compact MRI Ditches Superconducting Magnets.”

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.”

Nearly every day since she was a child, Alex Leow, a psychiatrist and computer scientist at the University of Illinois Chicago, has played the piano. Some days she plays well, and other days her tempo lags and her fingers hit the wrong keys. Over the years, she noticed a pattern: How well she plays depends on her mood. A bad mood or lack of sleep almost always leads to sluggish, mistake-prone music.

In 2015, Leow realized that a similar pattern might be true for typing. She wondered if she could help people with psychiatric conditions track their moods by collecting data about their typing style from their phones. She decided to turn her idea into an app.

After conducting a pilot study, in 2018 Leow launched BiAffect, a research app that aims to understand mood-related symptoms of bipolar disorder through keyboard dynamics and sensor data from users’ smartphones. Now in use by more than 2,700 people who have volunteered their data to the project, the app tracks typing speed and accuracy by swapping the phone’s onscreen keyboard with its own nearly identical one.

The software then generates feedback for users, such as a graph displaying hourly keyboard activity. Researchers get access to the donated data from users’ phones, which they use to develop and test machine learning algorithms that interpret data for clinical use. One of the things Leow’s team has observed: When people are manic—a state of being overly excited that accompanies bipolar disorder—they type “ferociously fast,” says Leow.

Compared to a healthy user [top], a person experiencing symptoms of bipolar disorder [middle] or depression [bottom] may use their phone more than usual and late at night. BiAffect measures phone usage and orientation to help track those symptoms. BiAffect

BiAffect is one of the few mental-health apps that take a passive approach to collecting data from a phone to make inferences about users’ mental states. (Leow suspects that fewer than a dozen are currently available to consumers.) These apps run in the background on smartphones, collecting different sets of data not only on typing but also on the user’s movements, screen time, call and text frequency, and GPS location to monitor social activity and sleep patterns. If an app detects an abrupt change in behavior, indicating a potentially hazardous shift in mental state, it could be set up to alert the user, a caretaker, or a physician.

Such apps can’t legally claim to treat or diagnose disease, at least in the United States. Nevertheless, many researchers and people with mental illness have been using them as tools to track signs of depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, and bipolar disorder. “There’s tremendous, immediate clinical value in helping people feel better today by integrating these signals into mental-health care,” says John Torous, director of digital psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, in Boston. Globally, one in 8 people live with a mental illness, including 40 million with bipolar disorder.

These apps differ from most of the more than 10,000 mental-health and mood apps available, which typically ask users to actively log how they’re feeling, help users connect to providers, or encourage mindfulness. The popular apps Daylio and Moodnotes, for example, require journaling or rating symptoms. This approach requires more of the user’s time and may make these apps less appealing for long-term use. A 2019 study found that among 22 mood-tracking apps, the median user-retention rate was just 6.1 percent at 30 days of use.

App developers are trying to avoid the pitfalls of previous smartphone-psychiatry startups, some of which oversold their capabilities before validating their technologies.

But despite years of research on passive mental-health apps, their success is far from guaranteed. App developers are trying to avoid the pitfalls of previous smartphone psychiatry startups, some of which oversold their capabilities before validating their technologies. For example, Mindstrong was an early startup with an app that tracked taps, swipes, and keystrokes to identify digital biomarkers of cognitive function. The company raised US $160 million in funding from investors, including $100 million in 2020 alone, and went bankrupt in February 2023.

Mindstrong may have folded because the company was operating on a different timeline from the research, according to an analysis by the health-care news website Stat. The slow, methodical pace of science did not match the startup’s need to return profits to its investors quickly, the report found. Mindstrong also struggled to figure out the marketplace and find enough customers willing to pay for the service. “We were first out of the blocks trying to figure this out,” says Thomas Insel, a psychiatrist who cofounded Mindstrong.

Now that the field has completed a “hype cycle,” Torous says, app developers are focused on conducting the research needed to prove their apps can actually help people. “We’re beginning to put the burden of proof more on those developers and startups, as well as academic teams,” he says. Passive mental-health apps need to prove they can reliably parse the data they’re collecting, while also addressing serious privacy concerns.

Passive sensing catches mood swings early

A crucial component of managing psychiatric illness is tracking changes in mental states that can lead to more severe episodes of the disease. Bipolar disorder, for example, causes intense swings in mood, from extreme highs during periods of mania to extreme lows during periods of depression. Between 30 and 50 percent of people with bipolar disorder will attempt suicide at least once in their lives. Catching early signs of a mood swing can enable people to take countermeasures or seek help before things get bad.

But detecting those changes early is hard, especially for people with mental illness. Observations by other people, such as family members, can be subjective, and doctor and counselor sessions are too infrequent.

That’s where apps come in. Algorithms can be trained to spot subtle deviations from a person’s normal routine that might indicate a change in mood—an objective measure based on data, like a diabetic tracking blood sugar. “The ability to think objectively about my own thinking is really key,” says retired U.S. major general Gregg Martin, who has bipolar disorder and is an advisor for BiAffect.

The data from passive sensing apps could also be useful to doctors who want to see objective data on their patients in between office visits, or for people transitioning from inpatient to outpatient settings. These apps are “providing a service that doesn’t exist,” says Colin Depp, a clinical psychologist and professor at the University of California, San Diego. Providers can’t observe their patients around the clock, he says, but smartphone data can help close the gap.

Depp and his team have developed an app that uses GPS data and microphone-based sensing to determine the frequency of conversations and make inferences about a person’s social interactions and isolation. The app also tracks “location entropy,” a metric of how much a user moves around outside of routine locations. When someone is depressed and mostly stays home, location entropy decreases.

Depp’s team initially developed the app, called CBT2go, as a way to test the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy in between therapy sessions. The app can now intervene in real time with people experiencing depressive or psychotic symptoms. This feature helps people identify when they feel lonely or agitated so they can apply coping skills they’ve learned in therapy. “When people walk out of the therapist’s office or log off, then they kind of forget all that,” Depp says.

Another passive mental-health-app developer, Ellipsis Health in San Francisco, uses software that takes voice samples collected during telehealth calls to gauge a person’s level of depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms. For each set of symptoms, deep-learning models analyze the person’s words, rhythms, and inflections to generate a score. The scores indicate the severity of the person’s mental distress, and are based on the same scales used in standard clinical evaluations, says Michael Aratow, cofounder and chief medical officer at Ellipsis.

Aratow says the software works for people of all demographics, without needing to first capture baseline measures of an individual’s voice and speech patterns. “We’ve trained the models in the most difficult use cases,” he says. The company offers its platform, including an app for collecting the voice data, through health-care providers, health systems, and employers; it’s not directly available to consumers.

In the case of BiAffect, the app can be downloaded for free by the public. Leow and her team are using the app as a research tool in clinical trials sponsored by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. These studies aim to validate whether the app can reliably monitor mood disorders, and determine whether it could also track suicide risk in menstruating women and cognition in people with multiple sclerosis.

BiAffect’s software tracks behaviors like hitting the backspace key frequently, which suggests more errors, and an increase in typing “@” symbols and hashtags, which suggest more social media use. The app combines this typing data with information from the phone’s accelerometer to determine how the user is oriented and moving—for example, whether the user is likely lying down in bed—which yields more clues about mood.

Ellipsis Health analyzes audio captured during telehealth visits to assign scores for depression, anxiety, and stress.Ellipsis Health

The makers of BiAffect and Ellipsis Health don’t claim their apps can treat or diagnose disease. If app developers want to make those claims and sell their product in the United States, they would first have to get regulatory approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Getting that approval requires rigorous and large-scale clinical trials that most app makers don’t have the resources to conduct.

Digital-health software depends on quality clinical data

The sensing techniques upon which passive apps rely—measuring typing dynamics, movement, voice acoustics, and the like—are well established. But the algorithms used to analyze the data collected by the sensors are still being honed and validated. That process will require considerably more high-quality research among real patient populations.

Greg Mably

For example, clinical studies that include control or placebo groups are crucial and have been lacking in the past. Without control groups, companies can say their technology is effective “compared to nothing,” says Torous at Beth Israel.

Torous and his team aim to build software that is backed by this kind of quality evidence. With participants’ consent, their app, called mindLAMP, passively collects data from their screen time and their phone’s GPS and accelerometer for research use. It’s also customizable for different diseases, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. “It’s a great starting point. But to bring it into the medical context, there’s a lot of important steps that we’re now in the middle of,” says Torous. Those steps include conducting clinical trials with control groups and testing the technology in different patient populations, he says.

How the data is collected can make a big difference in the quality of the research. For example, the rate of sampling—how often a data point is collected—matters and must be calibrated for the behavior being studied. What’s more, data pulled from real-world environments tends to be “dirty,” with inaccuracies collected by faulty sensors or inconsistencies in how phone sensors initially process data. It takes more work to make sense of this data, says Casey Bennett, an assistant professor and chair of health informatics at DePaul University, in Chicago, who uses BiAffect data in his research.

One approach to addressing errors is to integrate multiple sources of data to fill in the gaps—like combining accelerometer and typing data. In another approach, the BiAffect team is working to correlate real-world information with cleaner lab data collected in a controlled environment where researchers can more easily tell when errors are introduced.

Who participates in the studies matters too. If participants are limited to a particular geographic area or demographic, it’s unclear whether the results can be applied to the broader population. For example, a night-shift worker will have different activity patterns from those with nine-to-five jobs, and a city dweller may have a different lifestyle from residents of rural areas.

After the research is done, app developers must figure out a way to integrate their products into real-world medical contexts. One looming question is when and how to intervene when a change in mood is detected. These apps should always be used in concert with a professional and not as a replacement for one, says Torous. Otherwise, the app’s assessments could be dangerous and distressing to users, he says.

When mood tracking feels like surveillance

No matter how well these passive mood-tracking apps work, gaining trust from potential users may be the biggest stumbling block. Mood tracking could easily feel like surveillance. That’s particularly true for people with bipolar or psychotic disorders, where paranoia is part of the illness.

Keris Myrick, a mental-health advocate, says she finds passive mental-health apps “both cool and creepy.” Myrick, who is vice president of partnerships and innovation at the mental-health-advocacy organization Inseparable, has used a range of apps to support her mental health as a person with schizophrenia. But when she tested one passive sensing app, she opted to use a dummy phone. “I didn’t feel safe with an app company having access to all of that information on my personal phone,” Myrick says. While she was curious to see if her subjective experience matched the app’s objective measurements, the creepiness factor prevented her from using the app enough to find out.

Keris Myrick, a mental-health advocate, says she finds passive mental-health apps “both cool and creepy.”

Beyond users’ perception, maintaining true digital privacy is crucial. “Digital footprints are pretty sticky these days,” says Katie Shilton, an associate professor at the University of Maryland focused on social-data science. It’s important to be transparent about who has access to personal information and what they can do with it, she says.

“Once a diagnosis is established, once you are labeled as something, that can affect algorithms in other places in your life,” Shilton says. She cites the misuse of personal data in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which the consulting firm collected information from Facebook to target political advertising. Without strong privacy policies, companies producing mental-health apps could similarly sell user data—and they may be particularly motivated to do so if an app is free to use.

Conversations about regulating mental-health apps have been ongoing for over a decade, but a Wild West–style lack of regulation persists in the United States, says Bennett of DePaul University. For example, there aren’t yet protections in place to keep insurance companies or employers from penalizing users based on data collected. “If there aren’t legal protections, somebody is going to take this technology and use it for nefarious purposes,” he says.

Some of these concerns may be mediated by confining all the analysis to a user’s phone, rather than collecting data in a central repository. But decisions about privacy policies and data structures are still up to individual app developers.

Leow and the BiAffect team are currently working on a new internal version of their app that incorporates natural-language processing and generative AI extensions to analyze users’ speech. The team is considering commercializing this new version in the future, but only following extensive work with industry partners to ensure strict privacy safeguards are in place. “I really see this as something that people could eventually use,” Leow says. But she acknowledges that researchers’ goals don’t always align with the desires of the people who might use these tools. “It is so important to think about what the users actually want.”

This article appears in the July 2024 print issue as “The Shrink in Your Pocket.”

For people with diabetes, glucose monitors are a valuable tool to monitor their blood sugar. The current generation of these biosensors detect glucose levels with thin, metallic filaments inserted in subcutaneous tissue, the deepest layer of the skin where most body fat is stored.

Medical technology company Biolinq is developing a new type of glucose sensor that doesn’t go deeper than the dermis, the middle layer of skin that sits above the subcutaneous tissue. The company’s “intradermal” biosensors take advantage of metabolic activity in shallower layers of skin, using an array of electrochemical microsensors to measure glucose—and other chemicals in the body—just beneath the skin’s surface.

Biolinq just concluded a pivotal clinical trial earlier this month, according to CEO Rich Yang, and the company plans to submit the device to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval at the end of the year. In April, Biolinq received US $58 million in funding to support the completion of its clinical trials and subsequent submission to the FDA.

Biolinq’s glucose sensor is “the world’s first intradermal sensor that is completely autonomous,” Yang says. While other glucose monitors require a smartphone or other reader to collect and display the data, Biolinq’s includes an LED display to show when the user’s glucose is within a healthy range (indicated by a blue light) or above that range (yellow light). “We’re providing real-time feedback for people who otherwise could not see or feel their symptoms,” Yang says. (In addition to this real-time feedback, the user can also load long-term data onto a smartphone by placing it next to the sensor, like Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre, another glucose monitor.)

More than 2,000 microsensor components are etched onto each 200-millimeter silicon wafer used to manufacture the biosensors.Biolinq

Biolinq’s hope is that its approach could lead to sustainable changes in behavior on the part of the individual using the sensor. The device is intentionally placed on the upper forearm to be in plain sight, so users can receive immediate feedback without manually checking a reader. “If you drink a glass of orange juice or soda, you’ll see this go from blue to yellow,” Yang explains. That could help users better understand how their actions—such as drinking a sugary beverage—change their blood sugar and take steps to reduce that effect.

Biolinq’s device consists of an array of microneedles etched onto a silicon wafer using semiconductor manufacturing. (Other glucose sensors’ filaments are inserted with an introducer needle.) Each chip has a small 2-millimeter by 2-millimeter footprint and contains seven independent microneedles, which are coated with membranes through a process similar to electroplating in jewelry making. One challenge the industry has faced is ensuring that microsensors do not break at this small scale. The key engineering insight Biolinq introduced, Yang says, was using semiconductor manufacturing to build the biosensors. Importantly, he says, silicon “is harder than titanium and steel at this scale.”

Miniaturization allows for sensing closer to the surface of the skin, where there is a high level of metabolic activity. That makes the shallow depth ideal for monitoring glucose, as well as other important biomarkers, Yang says. Due to this versatility, combined with the use of a sensor array, the device in development can also monitor lactate, an important indicator of muscle fatigue. With the addition of a third data point, ketones (which are produced when the body burns fat), Biolinq aims to “essentially have a metabolic panel on one chip,” Yang says.

Using an array of sensors also creates redundancy, improving the reliability of the device if one sensor fails or becomes less accurate. Glucose monitors tend to drift over the course of wear, but with multiple sensors, Yang says that drift can be better managed.

One downside to the autonomous display is the drain on battery life, Yang says. The battery life limits the biosensor’s wear time to 5 days in the first-generation device. Biolinq aims to extend that to 10 days of continuous wear in its second generation, which is currently in development, by using a custom chip optimized for low-power consumption rather than off-the-shelf components.

The company has collected nearly 1 million hours of human performance data, along with comparators including commercial glucose monitors and venous blood samples, Yang says. Biolinq aims to gain FDA approval first for use in people with type 2 diabetes not using insulin and later expand to other medical indications.

This article appears in the August 2024 print issue as “Glucose Monitor Takes Page From Chipmaking.”

In the United States alone, more than 100,000 people currently need a lifesaving organ transplant. Instead of waiting for donors, one way to solve this crisis in the future is to assemble replacement organs with bio-printing—3D printing that uses inks containing living cells. Scientists in Israel have found that origami techniques could help fold sensors into bio-printed materials to help determine whether they are behaving safely and properly.

Although bio-printing something as complex as a human organ is still a distant possibility, there are a host of near-term applications for the technique. For example, in drug research, scientists can bio-print living, three-dimensional tissues with which to examine the effects of various compounds.

Ideally, researchers would like to embed sensors within bio-printed items to keep track of how well they are behaving. However, the three-dimensional nature of bio-printed objects makes it difficult to lodge sensors within them in a way that can monitor every part of the structures.

“It will, hopefully in the future, allow us to monitor and assess 3D biostructures before we would like to transplant them.” —Ben Maoz, Tel Aviv University

Now scientists have developed a 3D platform inspired by origami that can help embed sensors in bio-printed objects in precise locations. “It will, hopefully in the future, allow us to monitor and assess 3D biostructures before we would like to transplant them,” says Ben Maoz, a professor of biomedical engineering at Tel Aviv University in Israel.

The new platform is a silicone rubber device that can fold around a bio-printed structure. The prototype holds a commercial array of 3D electrodes to capture electrical signals. It also possesses other electrodes that can measure electrical resistance, which can reveal how permeable cells are to various medications. A custom 3D software model can tailor the design of the origami and all the electrodes so that the sensors can be placed in specific locations in the bio-printed object.

The scientists tested their device on bio-printed clumps of brain cells. The research team also grew a layer of cells onto the origami that mimicked the blood-brain barrier, a cell layer that protects the brain from undesirable substances that the body’s blood might be carrying. By folding this combination of origami and cells onto the bio-printed structures, Maoz and his colleagues were able to monitor neural activity within the brain cells and see how their synthetic blood-brain barrier might interfere with medications intended to treat brain diseases.

Maoz says the new device can incorporate many types of sensors beyond electrodes, such as temperature or acidity sensors. It can also incorporate flowing liquid to supply oxygen and nutrients to cells, the researchers note.

Currently, this device “will mainly be used for research and not for clinical use,” Maoz says. Still, it could “significantly contribute to drug development—assessing drugs that are relevant to the brain.”

The researchers say they can use their origami device with any type of 3D tissue. For example, Maoz says they can use it on bio-printed structures made from patient cells “to help with personalized medicine and drug development.”

The origami platform could also help embed devices that can modify bio-printed objects. For instance, many artificially grown tissues function better if they are placed under the kinds of physical stresses they might normally experience within the body, and the origami platform could integrate gadgets that can exert such mechanical forces on bio-printed structures. “This can assist in accelerating tissue maturation, which might be relevant to clinical applications,” Maoz says.

The scientists detailed their findings in the 26 June issue of Advanced Science.

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.

For the first time, scientists have created a flexible programmable chip that is not made of silicon. The new ultralow-power 32-bit microprocessor from U.K.-based Pragmatic Semiconductor and its colleagues can operate while bent, and can run machine learning workloads. The microchip’s open-source RISC-V architecture suggests it might cost less than a dollar, putting it in a position to power wearable healthcare electronics, smart package labels, and other inexpensive items, its inventors add.

For example, “we can develop an ECG patch that has flexible electrodes attached to the chest and a flexible microprocessor connected to flexible electrodes to classify arrhythmia conditions by processing the ECG data from a patient,” says Emre Ozer, senior director of processor development at Pragmatic, a flexible chip manufacturer in Cambridge, England. Detecting normal heart rhythms versus an arrhythmia “is a machine learning task that can run in software in the flexible microprocessor,” he says.

Flexible electronics have the potential for any application requiring interactions with soft materials, such as devices worn on or implanted within the body. Those applications could include on-skin computers, soft robotics, and brain-machine interfaces. But, conventional electronics are made of rigid materials such as silicon.

Open-source, Flexible, and Fast Enough

Pragmatic sought to create a flexible microchip that cost significantly less to make than a silicon processor. The new device, named Flex-RV, is a 32-bit microprocessor based on the metal-oxide semiconductor indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO).

Attempts to create flexible devices from silicon require special packaging for the brittle microchips to protect them from the mechanical stresses of bending and stretching. In contrast, pliable thin-film transistors made from IGZO can be made directly at low temperatures onto flexible plastics, leading to lower costs.

The new microchip is based on the RISC-V instruction set. (RISC stands for reduced instruction set computer.) First introduced in 2010, RISC-V aims to enable smaller, lower-power, better-performing processors by slimming down the core set of instructions they can execute.

“Our end goal is to democratize computing by developing a license-free microprocessor,” Ozer says.

RISC-V’s is both free and open-source, letting chip designer dodge the costly licensing fees associated with proprietary architectures such as x86 and Arm. In addition, proprietary architectures offer limited opportunities to customize them, as adding new instructions is generally restricted. In contrast, RISC-V encourages such changes.

A bent Flex-RV microprocessor runs a program to print ‘Hello World’. Pragmatic Semiconductor

“We chose the Serv designed by Olof Kindgren... as the open source 32-bit RISC-V CPU when we designed Flex-RV,” Ozer says. “Serv is the smallest RISC-V processor in the open-source community.”

Other processors have been built using flexible semiconductors, such as Pragmatic’s 32-bit PlasticARM and an ultracheap microcontroller designed by engineers in Illinois. Unlike these earlier devices, Flex-RV is programmable and can run compiled programs written in high-level languages such as C. In addition, the open-source nature of RISC-V also let the researchers equip Flex-RV with a programmable machine learning hardware accelerator, enabling artificial intelligence applications.

Each Flex-RV microprocessor has a 17.5 square millimeter core and roughly 12,600 logic gates. The research team found Flex-RV could run as fast as 60 kilohertz while consuming less than 6 milliwatts of power.

All previous flexible non-silicon microprocessors were tested solely on the wafers they were made on. In contrast, Flex-RV was tested on flexible printed circuit boards, which let the researchers see how well it operated when flexed. The Pragmatic team found that Flex-RV could still execute programs correctly when bent to a curve with a radius of 3 millimeters. Performance varied between a 4.3 percent slowdown to a 2.3 percent speedup depending on the way it was bent. “Further research is needed to understand how bending conditions such as direction, orientation and angle impact performance at macro and micro scales,” Ozer says.

Silicon microchips can run at gigahertz speeds, much faster than Flex-RV, but that shouldn’t be a problem, according to Ozer. “Many sensors—for example, temperature, pressure, odor, humidity, pH, and so on—in the flexible electronics world typically operate very slowly at hertz or kilohertz regimes,” he says. “These sensors are used in smart packaging, labels and wearable healthcare electronics, which are the emerging applications for which flexible microprocessors will be useful. Running the microprocessor at 60 kHz would be more than enough to meet the requirements of these applications.”

Ozer and his team suggest each Flex-RV might cost less than a dollar. Although Ozer did not want to say how much less than a dollar it might cost, he says they are confident such low costs are possible “thanks to low-cost flexible chip fabrication technology by Pragmatic and a license-free RISC-V technology.”

The scientists detailed their findings online 25 September in the journal Nature.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was the inspiration for Gandhian engineering?

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

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

How does Gandhian engineering differ from existing models of innovation?

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

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

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

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

What is your favorite example of Gandhian engineering?

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

What is required for Gandhian engineering to become more widespread?

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

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

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

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.”

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.

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

The post Measuring Impact in Digital Youth Mental Health: What Investors Look For appeared first on MedCity News.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

Fort Health’s $5.5 million in funding was led by Twelve Below and Vanterra and included participation from Redesign Health, Blue Venture Fund and True Wealth Ventures.

The post Fort Health Secures $5.5M to Expand Access to Integrated Pediatric Mental Health Care 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 joined dozens of research, health care, and nonprofit stakeholders in urging President-elect Joe Biden to prioritize and strengthen the national response to antibiotic resistance.

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.

Research has consistently demonstrated strong links between people’s health and societal sectors such as employment, community development, education, housing, and transportation.

Over the past year, COVID-19 has taken a grave toll in lives as well as on medical and health care systems worldwide. The pandemic has laid bare the importance of public health readiness and the myriad consequences when such a crisis strikes an unprepared population.

Chicken products cause an estimated 1 in 7 of the nation’s human Salmonella illnesses each year, partly because the pathogen can easily contaminate the environments where birds are raised. To reduce the risk that contaminated meat will reach consumers, poultry companies need measures that control the bacterium on farms where chickens are bred and raised.

The United States is grappling with two severe health crises: the COVID-19 pandemic and an opioid epidemic that appears to be worsening as more people deal with stress and isolation as they face increased barriers to medical care. Preliminary numbers for 2020 show that overdose deaths were outpacing the record-setting number of more than 71,000 fatalities in 2019.

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

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.

Hospitals across the U.S. have significantly restricted the use of pain medications containing narcotics. This shift comes amid […]

The post Pain Management in Crisis: Why Hospitals Are Limiting Pain Medications and What This Means for Patients 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.

To mark Breast Cancer Awareness Month, we speak to inspiring Singaporeans about their journey in battling and overcoming cancer.  Warda Ismail gets anxious about things easily, especially when it comes to her health.  So much so that her doctor once told her that she is a "borderline hypochondriac", she shared with AsiaOne in an interview.  For the uninitiated, hypochondria is a condition where a person is excessively and unduly worried about having a serious illness. To keep her mind at ease, the 44-year-old preschool educator has the habit of going for regular medical checkups.  Though she was vigilant, her worst nightmare came true — she was diagnosed with breast cancer on May 8 this year.  And in the midst of her recovery journey, she got more terrible news — her mother, who had been caring for her, was diagnosed with stage-three gall bladder cancer.  Despite the string of unfortunate events, Warda persevered and tried to have a more positive outlook on life and her health. 

HONG KONG — China's National Health Commission (NHC) published its first set of guidelines to standardise the diagnosis and treatment of obesity, with more than half of China's adults already overweight and obese, and the rate expected to keep rising.  The guidelines, made public on October 17, come as China experiences an upward morbidity trend of its overweight and obese population. The rate of overweight or obese people could reach 65.3 per cent by 2030, the NHC said.   "Obesity has become a major public health issue in China, ranking as the sixth leading risk factor for death and disability in the country," the guidelines said. China is facing a twin challenge that feeds its weight problem: In a modernising economy underpinned by technological innovation, more jobs have become static or desk-bound, while a prolonged slowdown in growth is forcing people to adopt cheaper, unhealthy diets.