Top GSK executives such as Luc Debruyne, president of GSK Vaccines (pictured), talk about the company’s vaccine and oncology aspirations.
There is growing chatter among congressional aides that the pharma industry should ante up some resources to help address some yet-unresolved healthcare issues.
As I consider the move from clinical to commercialization, it reminds me of the American electoral system – primary elections that are tightly focused and a general election where a candidate faces a vastly broader audience and has the opportunity to engage on a much larger stage and with far greater impact.
Having passed through much of the proof-of-concept gauntlet, the company and its products’ next big test will come in its Phase 3 trials, where the concept meets uncertainty at the macro scale.
Market access is all about getting the right drugs to the right patients at the right time and for the right price. But to do so, every pharma or biotech company must face a mounting set of challenges, including, most prominently, high research costs and tighter budgets.
Ever heard of the company Galvani Bioelectronics? The name probably sounds familiar because the company was recently the subject of nearly every news media outlet, including the Wall Street Journal.
When life sciences and healthcare organizations look at their medication compliance numbers, they often feel like a baseball manager with a slumping hitter. The data shows that the hitter is 0 for 22, with 10 strikeouts, over the last few games. But it offers little guidance on why the player doesn’t appear to be able to hit water if he fell out of a boat or what the manager can do to get to the hitter back on track again.
Data is exponentially increasing while habits remain steeped in legacy systems and the past when it comes to safety and pharmacovigilance (PV) in the pharmaceutical ecosystem.
About 50 percent of all Phase III trials fail. That is an expensive problem for the pharmaceutical industry, as a 2014 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated the average cost of a Phase III trial to be $20 million.
As the biopharmaceutical industry is becoming more comfortable with the principle of calibrating its efforts with a focus on patients, one question is beginning to float to the top: What strategy would generate a maximum amount of patient-centricity? In recent decades, focus groups, advisory boards, and various patient-engagement initiatives have emerged and informed mainly post-approval activities. Patient leadership councils (PLCs) are now starting to take patient engagement to unprecedented levels. Patient influence is forecast to rise.
As head of global information for a major biopharmaceutical company, I try to anticipate what might be the next service line that we should provide to our internal customers and what might be the next big thing in terms of information provision, rights requirements, and the like. To ensure that my corporate information center runs optimally, there are five areas of improvement I continue to focus on, which not only keeps my team current, highly-skilled, collaborative and empowered, but also demonstrates a positive ROI for our parent organization.
Following Luc Debruyne’s participation in an educational session at this year’s BIO International Convention, the president of GSK Vaccines sat down with me to shares his insights on the world of vaccines. During our conversation, (much of which was captured in the September 2016 feature article in Life Science Leader magazine), I asked Debruyne about some of the challenges faced by vaccine developers when it comes to viruses like Ebola and Zika.
Not long ago, a research team from the CDC fleshed out the measles activity in the United States. Much of the recent measles outbreak was linked to international travel and Disney Theme parks. While the threat may have come from imported infections, the reason the measles threat became a reality was largely the result of unvaccinated Americans. According to Luc Debruyne, president of GSK Vaccines and the subject of a feature article in Life Science Leader magazine’s September 2016 issue, the anti-vaccination movement is actually referred to as vaccine hesitancy, and is not just a U.S. but global phenomenon.
While at Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Axel Hoos, M.D., Ph.D. brought ipilimumab (the pioneering CTL-4 immuno-oncology drug) to market, essentially launching the field of immuno-oncology. So, I was curious as to why he decided to join GSK, where he currently serves as SVP therapeutic area head for oncology R&D and head of immuno-oncology. But to understand Hoos’ (the subject of Life Science Leader magazine’s September 2016 feature article) path to GSK, you need to first know why he went to BMS in the first place.
My colleague, Ed Miseta, chief editor of Clinical Leader, recently asked, “Can Better Patient Experiences Lead To Better Medicines?” via an article he developed from an interview with Thomas Goetz, cofounder of Iodine, a digital health company. According to Miseta, Goetz is attempting to turn patient experiences into better medicines and is combining data and design to help patients locate the best treatments based on preferences, demographics, and experiences. But truthfully it wasn’t Goetz’s work that intrigued me (but still worth your reading about), but rather Miseta’s question.
How much science does a business person need to know? In this industry, the more the better. Without at least an excellent layperson’s understanding of the company’s scientific underpinnings, a life science executive will remain vulnerable to the greatest of all hazards in managing the business — today’s news.