Christophe Weber, the current and still nascent CEO of Takeda, is also an unavoidable symbol of the company’s current transformation into a global organization as the first non-Japanese person to head a Japan-based pharma company.
Biopharma challenges, such as developing innovative therapeutics at a price and cost we can all afford, might benefit from an outsider’s perspective — especially if we ever hope to push our industry to a point somewhere beyond the cutting edge.
CMS has received dramatic and overwhelming rejection from Congress and stakeholders demanding the proposal be withdrawn or substantially modified.
The drug pricing debate has been particularly challenging for our industry, and, with the presidential election coming up, I can’t help feeling that the attacks will only get worse.
The challenges of conducting a Phase 3 trial and then using that data to get an approval from the FDA are something every head of clinical research knows very well. Agile Therapeutics hired Elizabeth Garner as chief medical officer and SVP of clinical development to take control of the process.
If you had told Lawrence Blatt a decade ago that he and his team from then-fledging startup Alios BioPharma would today be working under the Big Pharma umbrella of Johnson & Johnson, he’d likely have written you off as delusional.
“It was a little frustrating for me, because you feel like your ideas and IP are tied up in the company.It did slow me down for a few years, and I was not able to regain control of that IP until 2006.”
At a recent conference I overheard a VC admit that a few years ago if a biotech startup approached their company with an idea, no matter how good the data might seems, if it involved Alzheimer’s disease, his company was not interested in backing it.
Suresh Kumar, EVP of external affairs, “Sanofi EVP Weighs In On The Politics Of Drug Pricing,” chaired an Responding to Ebola panelat Davos (i.e., the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting, held in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland) in 2015, he found the experience enlightening. “
The first time I sat down for a conversation with Peter Hecht, CEO and cofounder of Ironwood Pharmaceuticals toward developing the March 2016 Life Science Leader magazine cover feature, he prefaced responding to my first question by saying, “In general, I’m not a big fan of the ‘Great Man’ theory of history.
Millennials, the single largest demographic in the workplace today, are often derided as lazy, disrespectful, and needy. They’re also criticized as being so addicted to technology that they email and text message information that should be communicated face-to-face to supervisors and coworkers.
When a pharma is divesting an asset, how important is it to take the asset and the people (i.e., the champions and asset experts) when determining your capital allocation? When do you say that the people have to be included, and what are some of the considerations on the intellectual capital, besides the actual product?
Can Biopharma Jump The S Curve: Part 4 of 4
A paradigm shift is underway in process validation. The FDA revised the guidance to industry for process validation in January 2011. This guidance defines process validation as “the collection and evaluation of data, from the process design stage through commercial production which establishes scientific evidence that a process is capable of consistently delivering quality product.” The new emphasis is on “scientific” rather than “documented” evidence.
A behind-the-scenes look at some of the challenges being faced by executives trying to develop drugs in today’s current R&D environment. The Price Of Market Access - Part 3 of 4.
Pharmacogenomics, pharmacogenetics, precision medicine, personalized medicine: terms often used interchangeably to talk about the tailoring of disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment for individual patients based on their uniqueness. The goal is better patient outcome, along with cost reduction and better overall efficiency of the healthcare ecosystem.
If the BIO International Convention did nothing but assemble the 16,000 people who came to this year’s meeting in San Francisco, simply giving them a space to talk, that alone would be a great achievement.
As a past BIO educational planning committee co-chair, I am well aware of the amount of effort that goes into the successful planning one of our industry’s biggest gatherings — BIO International’s Annual Convention. Typically drawing more than 15,000 attendees from nearly every U.S. state and over 65 countries, this year’s event took place June 6 – 9 at the Moscone Center in San Francisco. And while I have always been a big fan of BIO, this year’s event made me wonder: Is BIO too big to be effective? After all, the event boasts having 7 product zones, 18 educational tracks, 6 super sessions, 2 keynotes, and 3 fireside chats. That doesn’t even include the roughly 4,000 companies represented at the event, 1,800 of which typically exhibit.