Comments for Popper and Co.

Comment on Telehealth Saves Lives, Reduces Costs: A Physician’s Perspective by evan

evan — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:49:59 +0000

Telemedicine is GREAT for those in rural areas. Gives more access to specialty doctors they otherwise would not have simply by finding a doctor online. I think the main limitation of telehealth and telemedicine is reimbursement. And I hope it will be adopted soon enough into employer benefits and even with health insurance companies.

Comment on Digital Meets Health by Kathleen Malaspina

Kathleen Malaspina — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:57:46 +0000

Like you I am always interested to hear John Moore’s perspective on the topic of mHealth and since I didn’t attend this year’s Summit I was interested to read his comments. But I agree with your comments above, it’s a matter of perspective. There are lots of small mHealth companies that have either very recently formed or are on an early-stage growth path with an uncertain future. We haven’t yet seen any level of market consolidation that would lead me to believe mHealth is in high gear. In your recent poll I rated it in 1st gear, closing in on 2nd gear.

Perhaps with all the hype around mHealth some entrants have overlooked some of the basics and have entered the space prematurely, but I expect those to make just as quick an exit as entry. With any successful product or service clearly identifying the unmet need, the customer benefit and establishing a solid reason to believe is just good marketing.

Comment on Digital Meets Health by Jeannie Capone, RN

Jeannie Capone, RN — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:29:09 +0000

I am an NP student and also attended the #mHealth Summit. I appreciated this article. For an NP-student’s perspective, I wrote here: http://jeannieologist.tumblr.com/post/13997080103/a-thorough-retrospective-on-the-mhealth-summit-

I can tell you that I am pumped up about using apps as motivational tools and data trackers, but when it comes down to specific recommendations, I agree with Chilmark in saying that we are “stalled” at the provider level because there are no true guidelines leveraged towards providers.

Besides, where will I find time to review the patient-data in the 15 minute patient visit? I am hoping to dig up CPT codes that reimburse for more preventable/promotional visits. Yet, at end of day, those visits are not quite as financially rewarding as a “good old 9914″.

Thanks for reading,
Jeannie
@jeannieologist

PS. Rewarding HP and disease prevention at the Primary Care level will be the sea change in promoting mHealth apps and patient-report in the future.

Comment on Through the Murky Slog: Part II—A New Light for Cancer Therapies? by Dennis Steindler

Dennis Steindler — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:00:12 +0000

I think that Shane’s, Ken’s, Caroline’s and PopperandCo’s perspectives on cancer and future directions for new therapies are spot on. With a health challenge that has as one of its major hallmarks a constantly evolving cell and molecular (and disease state) phenotype, the emerging idea of living with cancer as a chronic disease through the applications of adaptive therapies seems worthy of pursuit and investment.

Comment on Marrying Targeted Therapies with Companion Diagnostics: The Novartis MDx Model by ken

ken — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 10:56:15 +0000

Thanks Paul.

Comment on Marrying Targeted Therapies with Companion Diagnostics: The Novartis MDx Model by Paul Sonnier (@WirelessHealth1)

Paul Sonnier (@WirelessHealth1) — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 17:43:42 +0000

Ken,

Thanks again for your response and I really enjoyed our phone conversation. Here’s another angle: Pharma producing mobile/wireless companion diagnostic devices. An example: “Medical Diagnostics via Cell Phone – Cell Phone Counts Cells” http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/89/i31/8931scene2.html. I had the pleasure to see this project presented by Aydogan Ozcan during the UCSD von Liebig Center’s TATRC/Qualcomm Wireless Health Innovation Challenge, held earlier this year here in La Jolla.
Again, medical device development is a bit of a stretch for pharma, but this is thinking outside the box – also, this is where strategic partnering can be of value. Of note is that this is a core focus of the Wireless-Life Sciences Alliance. (Note that I shared the above news in the now 6,500+ Wireless Health group, here: http://lnkd.in/gj-jnS)

Lastly, as we discussed, here’s a reference for my first response to your blog post: Early Cancer Diagnosis Startup Wins Entrepreneur Challenge
http://www.jacobsschool.ucsd.edu/news/news_releases/release.sfe?id=853
http://www.xconomy.com/san-diego/2009/06/02/early-cancer-diagnosis-startup-wins-entrepreneur-challenge/
Company website: http://www.biologicaldynamics.com/home/Welcome.html

Best,
Paul

Comment on Marrying Targeted Therapies with Companion Diagnostics: The Novartis MDx Model by Ken

Ken — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:10:00 +0000

Thanks Paul. Yes, once treatment is initiated it is important to be able to monitor disease progression in order to determine if the drug is working . This is particularly important in cases where it might not generally be possible to accurately measure anything (such as a reduction in tumor mass) for perhaps several months. For many types of cancer it is difficult to get an early read on disease progression because of the difficulties associated with measuring tumor mass or other morphological changes. CD4 counts and viral load are good measures of disease progression in HIV patients. Molecular markers can be more precise and they may start to change (or not…) long before gross morphological changes become apparent. In many cases blood pressure, glucose, weight and other simple parameters are important to track in patients undergoing therapy and many such “markers” can now be monitored and recorded using handheld and portable devices. While this may be, as you suggest, outside the core competency of pharma companies, it represents a significant opportunity for wireless health companies.

Comment on Marrying Targeted Therapies with Companion Diagnostics: The Novartis MDx Model by Paul Sonnier

Paul Sonnier — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 01:24:52 +0000

Hi Caroline,

Great interview!

A quick question: The R&D marriage between companion diagnostics with targeted drug therapies is fascinating, but I’m curious if there are any examples of adding a third element to the equation insofar as also integrating innovative new non-molecular diagnostics technologies into the fray (e.g. biological dynamics-based diagnostics)? Or, perhaps this is outside the core competency of pharma companies, hence not really applicable at this time or in this burgeoning new model?

Thanks,
Paul

Paul Sonnier
VP, Partner Development, Wireless-Life Sciences Alliance http://www.wirelesslifesciences.org/
Founder, 6,000+ Member Wireless Health group on LinkedIn
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2181454

Comment on Point/Counterpoint: On FDA Regulation of DTC Genetic Tests by Ken

Ken — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:33:56 +0000

I think you’ve touched on the central issue – should individuals be shielded from knowledge of their genetic information? Thanks for reading.

Comment on Point/Counterpoint: On FDA Regulation of DTC Genetic Tests by Peter Rogan

Peter Rogan — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:26:11 +0000

The issue is not whether these tests should be offered under medical supervision, but whether the consumers (and their physicians) can appreciate the uncertainty inherent in these results. Most reveal genetic associations and attempt to compute risk based on these associations. Everyone has a different perception and tolerance for risk, and when the risks (increase or decrease) are modest, patients may make or be advised to make changes in their lifestyle that may not be justifiable.