Archive for the ‘health’ Category

The hot topic from the final day of this year’s American College of Cardiology (ACC) has got to be the big debate which took place between two influential and outspoken cardiologists during one of the penultimate sessions of the congress. 

Dr Steve Nissen, head of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation and a past president of the American College of Cardiology and Dr Robert Harrington, MD, director of the Duke Cardiovascular Research Institute, debated the issue of pharmaceutical company support of medical research or continuing medical education (CME). 

Growing concerns on industry influence and funding of education programs for doctors has brought to light numerous high-profile scandals that some believe have been exaggerated to demonize companies that take big financial risks to develop drugs.  Pharmaceutical and medical device companies currently fund $1 billion of CME.

Nissen’s argument didn’t start well; he mistakenly said that the American Heart Association (AHA) had a financial relationship with Coca-Cola which influenced statements that a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages needed more study, and that the findings of an observational study linking soda consumption to obesity were not conclusive.

However, Dr Harrington, challenged his statement, ensuring him that the logo (above) used in this campaign belonged to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) who collaborated with Diet Coke in the red dress campaign to raise awareness of heart disease among women.  This was confirmed by AHA president Clyde Yancy, MD.

Nissen dismissed protests from the AHA saying the AHA and NHLBI have an ongoing partnership to promote public education about heart disease in women and that partnership linked the AHA to the red dress displayed on the Diet Coke can.

The NHLBI, responded in detail: “National Wear Red Day is designed by The Heart Truth and its campaign partners, including the American Heart Association, as the first Friday in February when Americans nationwide are encouraged to wear red to show their support for women’s heart disease awareness. The AHA participates in National Wear Red Day, which they sometimes refer to as Go Red for Women Day. (National Wear Red Day is a trademark of the Department of Health and Human Services and the American Heart Association.)”

Nissen and Harrington then went on to discuss CME education which Nissen found to be “marketing, not education.” Harrington was listed as a defender of the CME system, but he spent most of his presentation attacking industry-funded CME. “We need to take a stand about what’s right and what’s appropriate,” he said. However, Harrington maintained that new checks and balances could make things better, including having companies pool their money and prohibiting companies from choosing lecture topics. “If we’re willing to be manipulated there are a lot of people who want to manipulate us,” he said.

What do you think? CME - marketing or education?

The headline ‘Bespoke Cancer Cure’ hit the front page of the Daily Mail yesterday.  Not that one would question the credibility of the Daily Mail’s reporting, but my first reaction was to assume huge exaggeration on the Mail’s part.  However, they’re not that far off the mark.  Scientists at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge have sequenced the DNA mutations that lead to both lung and skin cancer.  This ground breaking discovery opens up a huge range of possibilities, from early identification of the cancer to new and better targeted treatments. 

Without trying to detract from the importance of such a discovery, I think it is fair to say that it is a rare occurrence when a cancer related story doesn’t hit the headlines in some form or another.  However, with expressions such as ‘DNA mutation‘ or ‘Genetic abnormalities’, there does seem to be a certain level of scientific understanding assumed.   So for those of you who are not experts in cancer genetics, and more importantly, those of you who care, I have written a basic explanation of the origins of cancer.

What causes cancer?

Essentially, cancers are caused by specific abnormalities in the genetic material of cells.  Every cell has a series of natural defence mechanisms in order to prevent a cancerous growth occurring.  However, if all of these mechanisms are bypassed then the cell will become cancerous and a malignant tumour may form.  Below is a brief outline of the various stages a cell must overcome in order to become cancerous.

• Disregard the internal and external signals that regulate cell growth
• Avoid the cells last resort defence mechanism of self destruction
• Avoid the cell’s predetermined replication limit and do not evolve into a specialised cell type
• Remain highly susceptible to mutation
• Escape from their home tissues, i.e. cells from the heart travel to the liver
• Survive and grow in foreign sites

So hopefully with a greater understanding of the origins of cancer, you will be in a better position to truly appreciate the importance of this latest breakthrough.  By being able to identify the very point when a cells defence system begins to break down, we may one day be in a position to identify and eliminate cancer before it even begins.

In my opinion Dr Jan Lundberg is one of those legendary scientific superstars, who starts a project with the end in mind and who carries out much of his work based on high quality science, both basic and clinical.   Dr Lundberg has been drug discovery chief at AstraZeneca for the last 10 years and is moving to lead R&D for Lilly, which can only mean great things for the future of the Indianapolis drug maker.

Eli Lilly announced that Jan Lundberg is to become executive vice president, science and technology, and president, Lilly Research Laboratories, replacing Steven Paul who retires at the end of February 2010.

Dr Lundberg is one of a few long standing industry experts that has built his reputation, somewhat un-intentionally and modestly, through a consistent approach to delivering strategy, insight and direction to some of the industry’s most challenging hurdles. Dr Lundberg has embraced new technology, new discovery techniques and has led key business deals to seek out and discover molecules with the most potential to reach the market, making a difference to future therapeutics.

Who knows what Lilly will move into or advance with next? The strategic fit is obvious, with Lilly long being one of the industry’s front runners as the ‘partner of choice’, with a central focus on innovation and an open approach to accessing it, be it through in-house discovery or in-licensing. Dr Lundberg shares a drive and courage to seek out and harness innovation, having struck deals with direct competitors Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck for example, with a view to finding lead compounds with the potential to go all the way to market.

One thing is certain; Dr Lundberg will be greatly missed by the Stockholm/Uppsala biomedical cluster, which contributes more than any other Swedish region to the nation’s international reputation. Dr Lundberg has been a prominent feature in the positive growth and strengthening of AstraZeneca’s commercial and scientific achievements which has in turn, elevated Sweden’s position on a global scale as a lead player in scientific innovation and expertise.
Congratulations Lilly, for netting a terrific catch.

Good luck Dr Lundberg, I look forward to following your future successes.

Watch this space…

One story that dominated the nationals this weekend were results from a recent draft report by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) which concluded that the current daily calorie intake- 2,500 for men and 2,000 for women- may be wrong.  SACN are now suggesting that the recommended daily intake could be increased by up to 16%.

But surely this will lead to serious misinterpretation?

According the The Times on Saturday, 60% of us are already eating more than our daily allowance.  In addition, Amanda Ursell, nutritionist and writer for The Times, suggests that those people currently maintaining a normal and steady weight consuming the current daily allowance, could gain up to two stone in a year by following the new suggested intake!  Currently the NHS is spending an estimated £4.2 billion on over-weight and obese individuals, a figure that could rise dramatically, should these new guidelines be put in place.

Worryingly, it won’t be those maintaining a healthy weight who take any notice of the increase in daily allowance.  Unfortunately many of the 60% already eating over the daily allowance, who may be unaware of how many calories they are consuming, may start to think it’s ok to eat an extra two packets of crisps a day, fuelling the forever growing ‘obesity crisis’ in the UK.

Should this report really be taken seriously?  Should the National Obesity Forum not be trying to persuade people not to believe this outrageous new proposal?

I’m sure I’m not the only one waiting with anticipation to see what will come out of the current FDA Hearing on Social Media. The very fact that this meeting is taking place puts the FDA under pressure to issue some coherent guidance on how pharma companies can and should be engaging in dialogue with patients and physicians online and how to address the issues around adverse event reporting. We’re fortunate enough to have a colleague at the hearing and below is her update from yesterday’s session. The updates are also being posted www.HealthieRForum.com

HealthieRForum Exclusive: From the Floor of the FDA Social Media Hearing

Nicole Preiss-Riley, Senior Vice President in Ruder Finn’s Healthcare practice, is onsite at the FDA hearing on social media.  Based on the sessions from the first half of the day, here’s what she has to report:

Presenters were asked to focus their remarks on five key questions:

1.     For what online communications are manufacturers, packers or distributors accountable?

2.     How can manufacturers, packers or distributors fulfill regulatory requirements in their Internet and social media promotion, particularly when using tools that are associated with space limitations and tools that allow for real-time communications?

3.     What parameters should apply to the posting of corrective information on Web sites controlled by third parties?

4.     When is the use of links appropriate?

5.     How should adverse event reporting be addressed online?

Thus far, presenters have selectively responded to questions rather than answering each one of the five as part of their respective comments – much of the discussion has focused on the unique character of social media and the value it provides to both providers and consumers.

It’s clear that the pharmaceutical and medical device companies are eager to work with the FDA to determine parameters for working within the social media sphere as well as a plan for implementing those guidelines.  However, the question has been raised repeatedly as to what product-related information companies should be responsible for conveying.

Much of the commentary has focused on moderated sites (i.e., WebMD) that have discrete editorial roles. What has not yet been addressed with any robust discussion is the broader social media landscape of bloggers and opinion-based Web sites.

How this type of content can or should be regulated has not been touched yet. One independent blogger who is scheduled to present at the hearing tomorrow said, “It’s been a good meeting so far.  Based on what’s been said, I hope the FDA will come up with guidance within the next year.”

I remember hearing how few companies | brands listed on the Dow Jones over the past 50 years are still in there, so I was surprised to find out Tongrentang which has been successfully in business for almost four centuries.

The Chinese medicine company enjoyed a royal warrant from the Qing dynasty until their overthrow in 1911 and has operated out of the same premises in Beijing for over three centuries.

The company survived the world war, civil war and the cultural revolution to become arguably the pre-eminent brand for the supply of Chinese medicine products. Over the past decade Li Ka-shing better known for his pioneering investment in Orange and 3 invested in Tongrentang to become its largest shareholder.

The company survived by sticking to what it did well, being true to itself and providing for a need that is timeless: that is the desire for good health. They also knew when to move with them times, with a recent move into wellness, international outlets and even a website (love the cheesy communist design cues, not so keen on the language button that doesn’t work properly.