Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Where Does Kaiser Permanente Stand on Doctor Choice? Interview with George Halvorson, CEO, Kaiser Permanente, CA

 Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

George Halvorson – All Videos

SOURCE

https://www.sharecare.com/video/healthmakers/george-halvorson/all-videos

34 Videos

 

Advertisements

Tweets by @pharma_BI and @AVIVA1950 for #PMConf  at The 13th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference, From Concept to the Clinic, November 14–16, 2017, Joseph B. Martin Conference Center, Harvard Medical School, 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur Boston, MA 02115

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

 

All TWEETS from LPBI’s Twitter.com handles at #PMConf 

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

  1. Aviva Lev-Ari Retweeted Gary An

    nice comment

    Aviva Lev-Ari added,

  2. Narrative plan unsupported by facts

  3. Robert C. Green, M.D., M.P.H., Director, Genomes2People Research Program, Professor of Medicine (Genetics), Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Broad Institute and Harvard Medical School pharmacogenomics can harm if odds are so low adherence will be lower

  4. Michael Snyder, Ph.D., Stanford W. Ascherman Professor, Chair, Department of Genetics, Director, Center of GenomiPersonalized Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine Personal sequencing for multiple etiologies rich people are sequenced

  5. Tom Miller, M.S., Founder, Managing Partner, GreyBird Ventures LLC duty to call up therapies that will not work, balance addressed by PM – diagnostics in PM clinical utility from patient selection for the therapy the patient will respond to

  6. Sandro Galea, M.D., School of Public Health, Boston University US expense on Health care the highest in the World comes on the expense of housings, mental health, education – curative vs preventive care MDs are insentiviced to keep patients sick

  7. Robert C. Green, M.D., Broad Institute and HMS Platinum vs gold standard 59 genes will identify 80,000 will get the disease and 47,000 will never get the disease, is the technology the reason for investment vs Family history?

  8. Bryce Olson, Global Marketing Director, Health and Life Sciences Group, Intel Corporation Genome sequencing found his Pi3K Pathway – PIK3CA p.E54 – Anti Inhibitor for Pi3K = Precision Medicine

  9. Sean Khozin, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Director (Acting), Oncology Center of Excellence, FDA 21st Century – metastatic solid tumors – 900 patients: accommodated plan Lab developed Tests: new approach Efficiency, transparency

  10. innovation INFORMS at NIH Center of Excellence – data collection and analysis of multiple data types Biometric sensors collecting data on cancer patients collaboration with Academia, single arm vs randomized decentralized devices are collecting data

  11. FDA considers N of One, small samples, EGFR drug was approved in 2 1/2 years since Phase 1 of NDA New trial designs: reduce bias and alternative end points narrow criteria for participation, more personalized and more patient-centered innovation

  12. Sean Khozin, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Director (Acting), Oncology Center of Excellence, FDA Advances of technology of biomarkers, disease indication Accelerated approval by FDA a collaborative of speeding the process companion diagnosis assays

  13. Unmet need, commitment is there, innovation and connectivity drive access, collaboration not competition – helps Precision medicine in emerging nations. Access to PM anywhere in the world suggested Kristin Pothier, MS, Global Head, Life Sciences EY

  14. Stephen L. Eck, M.D., Ph.D., President, CEO, Aravive Biologics; Board Chairman, PMC Laxo – A molecular target to be found by diagnostics TEST — as a basis to develop a drug Pricing and value – dimensions of Value to society How PM is done today?

  15. Marc S. Williams, MD Geisinger Clinical Genomics vs Physician specialist (i.e.,hypercholestoralemia), both in same place – paper and EMR Outcomes – tracking patients over decades – systems in place to capture the data Virtual Cycle Clinical data

  16. Timothy Cannon, M.D., Inova Molecular Tumor Board, 5 hospital in VA, Precision Genomics Cancer Therapy Poor understanding of molecular results by MDs, Refractory Patients no Forum to discuss other options 220 patients presented beyond InovaOncologi

  17. Scott A. Beck, Mayo Clinic, MN, AZ PM, Genomics sequencing, BioEthics, IT, Translational Perspective in Epi-genomics, Discovery to Translation Applicattions Pharmacy- Formulary – EMR – Champions from Disease areas to practice environment Testing

  18. payment dominates delivery of care, future PM from Genomics cost to patients Transform acceptability of PM suggested Ronald A. Paulus, M.D., M.B.A., President, CEO, Mission Health, NC, ex-Geisinger, CIO

  19. Genomics based PM to be turned into Wellness Strategy – the path not yet knows said Jeffrey R. Balser, M.D., Ph.D., Dean, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; President, CEO, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN

  20. Millianlian Diabetics NOT on Medicare, Analytics: iPhone telling patient dishes to order since SYSTEM KNOWS BLOOD SUGER 24×7 – target care by Analytics Genomics paid by NIH PM Analytics is built at Vanderbilt University MC, Jeffrey R. Balser, CEO

  21. Survival of patient with mutation and targeted drug LIVE LONGER David B. Roth, M.D., Ph.D., Simon Flexner Professor Chair, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania

  22. Lotte Steuten, Ph.D., School of Pharmacy at University of Washington, Seattle aggregate big data , models as evidence, has value to clinical, the model under development NGS Profile of Patient vs current standard of care.

  23. David B. Roth, M.D., Ph.D., UPenn Director, Penn Center for Precision Medicine 5000 patients underwent genome sequencing Interpretation is the issue that is hard Health IT are still in silos: Pharmacy data, financial data, EMR

  24. Michael Pellini, M.D., M.B.A., Chairman, Board of Directors, Foundation Medicine; Board Member, Personalized Medicine Coalition, we know there is value in PM we need to work together on the challenges — to prove the value in PM

  25. Andrea Stern Ferris, M.B.A., President, Chairman of the Board, LUNGevity Foundation – PATIENT to be included in the conversation patient after successful treatment have hope work pay taxes pay to health plans continue family life

  26. Molecular Era, NEJM, 2017, 377, 1813-1823, BRAF in Melanoma – 80% do not need additional therapy vs 20% benefitted in the Non-Molecular Era, data by Dane J. Dickson, CureOne (formerly MED-C); Oregon Health and Science University

  27. CURES – CAR-T are they cures??? A teen-ager’s Value-based Price: $475,000 x years lived suggests  Steven D. Pearson, M.D., M.Sc., Founder, President, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER)

  28. Of 134 drugs in development – 42 have the potential to become Personalized medicine therapies, said Stephen J. Ubl, President, CEO, PhRMA

  29. Transplantation vs enhancement – resistance to senescence and pathogens to be achieved by gene editing suggests George M. Church, Ph.D., Professor of Genetics

  30. Regulatory oversight on engineering embrios is coming, metric of success in recruitment of patients said Arthur L. Caplan, Ph.D., Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Chair, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York Univ

  31. CRISPR does not handle all mutation many require a different editing tool said George M. Church, Ph.D., Professor of Genetics, Health Sciences and Technology, Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology

  32. understand well enough  the gentic application where CRISPR will assist medicine: Retinal degeneration, two aspects one worked in Japan said Katrine Bosley, CEO, Editas Medicine

  33. Aviva Lev-Ari Retweeted Aviva Lev-Ari

    Amazing Power in hands of informed patients

    Aviva Lev-Ari added,

  34. Patients input and sophistication increased – IRB is not aware of the engagement of Patients and their challenging feedback say Deborah Schrag, M.D., M.P.H, Dana Farber

  35. Physicians needs interfaces, dashboard information delivered to MDs, data sits unused, new tools are needed for the data display by relevance to the MDs – clinicians needs decision support in their office

  36. Standards: Toxicity criteria – library of 882 symptoms, Patient reported outcomes by Patients, Resist criteria applied to imaging data criteria for brain tumors said Deborah Schrag, M.D., M.P.H., Chief Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber

  37. drafting document on Verify data integrity in clinical trials, detect discrepancies compromise the integrity of the data – audits by FDA said Sean Khozin, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Director (Acting), Oncology Center of Excellence, FDA

  38. pre-existing autoimmune disease – not indicated for them Immunotherapy even though patients wish to try said Deborah Schrag, M.D., M.P.H., Chief, Division of Population Sciences, Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

  39. Drug approved for one indication, provide new data for supplemental indications said Sean Khozin, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Director (Acting), Oncology Center of Excellence, FDA

  40. Eric G. Klein, Pharm.D, Eli Lilly Aggregate burden of disease, existence of co-morbidities Genomics: WHY is explained – precise tools data vs intelligence – interoperability Past clinical trial, replicate studies retrospective data

  41. linkages vs computational techniques we do not have consistent data, data structured Vital sign or WBC count – we have data standardization is evolving said Deborah Schrag, M.D., M.P.H., Chief, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

  42. use data sets prospective vs retrospective studies asked Amy Abernethy, M.D., Ph.D., Chief Medical Officer, Chief Scientific Officer, Flatiron Health; Board Member, Personalized Medicine Coalition

  43. Clinical sense vs research context, FDA is more comfortable with other than oncology products beyond drugs, namely diagnostics, diagnostics company seeking partnership with many drug areas Thermo FIscher and Novartis partnership

  44. Cost of CT Scan vs an NGS Test – Genomic testing is much cheaper yet volume is still low said Jacob S. Van Naarden, Chief Business Officer, Loxo Oncology

  45. NGS – time results come back what the mutation mean? NOW results come in few days, data analysis assist the said Joydeep Goswami, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.S., President, Clinical Next-Generation Sequencing, Oncology, Thermo Fisher Scientifi

  46. 3D BioPrinting of Drugs and the innovation storm of agents — are both benefits, value based pricing, elasticities, is that price sufficient to support R&D, dynamic environment said Joshua Ofman, SVP, Global Value, Access, Amgen

  47. Awardee of Leadership in PM, Illumina, HC system not yet ready for Precision Medicine

  48. Amgen and Harvard Pilgrims interpretation of Values related to partnerships: Novartis

  49. at Illimina – Consumer Advocacy added to Technology breakthroughs in genome sequencing said Jay T. Flatley, M.S., Executive Chairman, Illumina

  50. National Genomic Service – Sequencing becoming STANDARD of Care, phynotypes, $10 million to be spent NIH said Jay T. Flatley, M.S., Executive Chairman, Illumina

  51. 13th Annual Leadership in Personalized Medicine Award AWARDEE | Jay T. Flatley, M.S., Executive Chairman, Illumina

  52. 13th Annual Leadership in PM Award to Jay T Flatlet, Illumina


LIVE Day Two – 13th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference, From Concept to the Clinic, November 14–16, 2017, Joseph B. Martin Conference Center, Harvard Medical School, 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur Boston, MA 02115

 

JOSEPH B. MARTIN CONFERENCE CENTER

HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL, BOSTON, MA 02115

http://www.personalizedmedicinecoalition.org/Userfiles/PMC-Corporate/file/13th_Annual_PM_Conference37.pdf

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence (LPBI) Group, Boston

pharma_bi-background0238

will cover in REAL TIME the 13th Annual Personalized Medicine, From Concept to the Clinic, November 14–16, 2017, Joseph B. Martin Conference Center, Harvard Medical School, 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur Boston, MA 02115

In attendance, covering LIVE using Social Media

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Editor-in-Chief

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

#PMConf

Agenda · Part II  NOVEMBER 16, 2017 · CONFERENCE PROGRAM | AGENDA

7:00 am Registration and Breakfast

8:00 am Opening Remarks

SPEAKER | Stephen L. Eck, M.D., Ph.D., President, CEO, Aravive Biologics; Board Chairman, Personalized Medicine Coalition

  • 2005 at Pfizer new initiative on Personalized Medicine
  • Left to go to Lilly – not to give a drug to  Patients with KRAS mutation – beginning of PM
  • Laxo – A molecular target to be found by diagnostics TEST  — as a basis to develop a drug
  • Pricing and value – dimensions of Value to society
  • How PM is done today

8:10 am Clinical Adoption of Personalized Medicine: A Two-Part Discussion Pioneering health care providers have begun to explore the business models, operational processes, IT infrastructure and educational programs that are needed to catalyze the paradigm shift toward personalized medicine. This two-part session on clinical adoption will examine the strategic and day-to-day challenges clinical organizations face as they seek to integrate personalized medicine in clinical settings — and the solutions they employ to address those challenges.

SESSION CHAIR | Marcia A. Kean, M.B.A., Chairman, Strategic Initiatives, Feinstein Kean Healthcare

Discussion Part 1

8:15 am The Case for Personalized Medicine in the Clinic: The View From the Corner Office Inspiring an organizational commitment to a new way of practicing medicine requires visionary leadership. This fireside chat will highlight the viewpoints and approaches of leaders who are spearheading efforts to adopt personalized medicine at clinical institutions, with an eye on the value proposition for changing existing norms and practices.

MODERATOR | Howard L. McLeod, Pharm.D., Medical Director, The DeBartolo Family Personalized Medicine Institute, Chair, Department of Individualized Cancer Management, Senior Member, Division of Population Sciences, Moffitt Cancer Center; Board Member, Personalized Medicine Coalition

Jeffrey R. Balser, M.D., Ph.D., Dean, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; President, CEO, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN

  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center [$500 Million in Grants] is a HealthCare System, split from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine [1200 Medical Residents], now they are like Partners
  • BioMedical Informatics very strong at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
  • Jeffrey R. Balser, M.D., Ph.D. was first student of Dan, A pioneer in Personalized Medicine
  • PM and Non-Oncology: PLAVIX – DSS when MD order drugs DSS trigger No PLAVIX to this patient, made second decision in real time by MDs
  • Nashville – four flagship hospitals, largest HMO not for profit in the country
  • PM at Vanderbilt University Medical Center – 25 drugs – given ONLY after Genomic sequencing
  • Millianlian Diabetics NOT on Medicare, Analytics: iPhone telling patient what dishes to order since SYSTEM KNOWS BLOOD SUGER 24×7 – target care by Analytics
  • Genomics paid by NIH
  • PM Analytics is built at Vanderbilt University Medical Center said Jeffrey R. Balser, M.D., Ph.D., Dean, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; President, CEO, Vanderbilt University Medical Center
  • what is the economics benefit of Genomic sequencing: DSS on Drugs – Peterson is documenting drug class by economic benefit – bundle to show value
  • Genomics based PM is on drugs — polimorthism – this drug will not work
  • Disease counseling is harder than drug = wellness strategy is the Fututre
  • Genomics based PM to be turned into Wellness Strategy – the path not yet knows said Jeffrey R. Balser, M.D., Ph.D., Dean, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; President, CEO, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
  • Research Investment is R&D, decisions made to guide all research and investment in PM initiative – not generating money. Pilot studies leads to grants. One study is on Economic benefit of PM

Ronald A. Paulus, M.D., M.B.A., President, CEO, Mission Health, NC, ex-Geisinger, CIO

  • 8 most western counties in NC
  • small group of Genetists:
  1. PM and Oncology and – Cancer therapy from a Genomics stand point
  2. PM and Non-Oncology – Drug-Drug interactions
  3. Clinicians needs actionable information
  4. Primary care practices to adopt PM – HOW, where, why? what will be out of pocket expense to the individual
  5. subsidization is a must
  6. payment dominates delivery of care, future PM from Genomics cost to patients
  7. Transform acceptability of PM suggested Ronald A. Paulus, M.D., M.B.A., President, CEO, Mission Health, NC, ex-Geisinger, CIO

Discussion Part 2

9:00 am Practicing Personalized Medicine: Lessons From the Front Lines To successfully integrate personalized medicine into a health system, administrators and clinicians must also design and implement new processes related to program infrastructure and informatics; help educate physicians and patients about the field; and inspire cultural change within the institution. During this panel discussion, a group of early adopters will share lessons learned from implementing pilot programs across the United States.

MODERATOR | Daryl Pritchard, Ph.D., Senior Vice President, Science Policy, Personalized Medicine Coalition

Bonnie J. Addario, Founder, Chair, Bonnie J. Addario Lung Cancer Foundation; Board Member, Personalized Medicine Coalition; Lung Cancer Survivor

Scott A. Beck, M.B.A., Administrator, Center for Individualized Medicine, Mayo Clinic, MN, AZ

  • PM, Genomics sequencing, BioEthics, IT, Translational Perspective in Epi-genomics,
  • Discovery to Translation Applicattions
  • Pharmacy- Formulary – EMR – Champions from Disease areas to practice environment
  • Testing offering, approve value
  • 25 Projects: PharmacoGenomics Testing to patients, change drug before repeat endoscopy

Timothy Cannon, M.D., Clinical Director, Inova Schar Cancer Institute Molecular Tumor Board

  • 5 hospital in VA,
  • Precision Genomics Cancer Therapy
  • Poor understanding of molecular results by MDs, Refractory Patients – no Forum to discuss other options
  • Molecular Tumor Board for Inova Health System: 220 patients presented beyond Inova
  • Oncologists had concerned that patients are aware of drug that MD can’t deliver to client

Peter Hulick, M.D., M.M.Sc., Medical Director, Center for Personalized Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem

  • 4 hospitals – 950 MDs
  • PCP to get engaged
  • Neurology
  • Genetic Assessment tool DSS offers PCP option for electronic ordering of the Genetic Testing, Results appear in Patients’ charts
  • Proactive testing
  • 20,000 patients in the system to be tested for pharmaco-genomics testing

Marc S. Williams, M.D., F.A.A.P., F.A.C.M.G., F.A.C.M.I., Director, Genomic Medicine Institute, Geisinger – Central PA

  • 30% of providers are Geisinger the rest are not
  • Genomics: PM — Microbiome bank – broad user consent: recontact and return results
  • Genomics Medicine Institute – 2014 Partnership with Regeneron – genomics sequencing and profiling — all result to be used by Geisinger
  • 170,000 patient consented – 90% responded, 8,000 sequences available
  • 80 gene with potential actionability – interpretation by Scientists
  • Pathologic calls return results –
  • Clinical Genomics vs Physician specialist (i.e.,hypercholestoralemia), both in same place – paper and EMR
  • Outcomes – tracking patients over decades – systems in place to capture the data
  • Virtual Cycle Clinical data – dashboards were created to deliver results per week.
  • 1/2 people do not need criteria
  • Geisinger will disseminate internationally

10:15 am Networking Break (sponsored by Moffitt Cancer Center)

10:45 am Harvard Business School Case Study — Intermountain Healthcare: Pursuing Precision Medicine Intermountain has a long history of being at the forefront of health care quality improvement and the development of treatment protocols. In 2013, Intermountain Precision Genomics (IPG) was started with Dr. Lincoln Nadauld as its Executive Director. IPG focused on stage 4 cancer patients and performed three distinct functions: genomic sequencing, interpretation of sequencing results with recommendations for precision therapies, and drug acquisition and reimbursement. A paper published in February 2017 reported that in addition to having a higher quality of life, patients who received the targeted therapies had progression-free survival rates of almost twice as long as other patients. The purpose of our case discussion will be to assess these efforts, to consider their broader applicability and to review IPG’s plans for the future.

PRESENTER | Richard Hamermesh, D.B.A., Co-Faculty Chair, Harvard Business School Kraft Precision Medicine Accelerator

12:00 pm Overview of the International Landscape for Personalized Medicine

PRESENTER | Kristin Pothier, M.S., Global Head, Life Sciences, Parthenon-EY

  • Precision Medicine in the Globe – stackholder ecosystem
  • India
  • Latin America
  • USA
  • Africa
  • EU
  • APAC
  • Middle East

Regional Spotlight:

China – strength emerging 1.4 Billion people, 4.2 million annual incidence of Cancer – systemic challenges will limit access

Brazil – 440,000 cancer incidents a year, 207 Million Corporate, Hospital, Government, Academic research, collaboration vs competition, collaboration will win

Dubai – 28.5 Million population

Qatar

UAE – Initiative to sequence the entire population, 6,000 done

Saudi Arabia

Middle East – 0.4 oncologist for 100,000

Summary – Unmet need, commitment is there, innovation and connectivity drive access, collaboration not competition – helps Precision medicine in emerging nations. Access to PM anywhere in the world suggested Kristin Pothier, M.S., Global Head, Life Sciences, Parthenon-EY

12:30 pm Bag Lunch

1:30 pm Personalized Medicine at FDA: An Inside Look at the Agency’s Priorities for the Field

INTRODUCTION | Cynthia A. Bens, Vice President, Public Policy, Personalized Medicine Coalition

KEYNOTE | Sean Khozin, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Director (Acting), Oncology Center of Excellence, FDA

  • Advances of technology of biomarkers, disease indication
  • Accelerated approval by FDA a collaborative of speeding the process
  • companion diagnosis assays and drug or biologics
  • FDA considers N of One, small samples, EGFR drug was approved in 2 1/2 years since Phase 1 of NDA
  • New trial designs: reduce bias and alternative end points
  • narrow criteria for participation, more personalized and more patient-centered
  • innovation INFORMS at NIH Center of Excellence – data collection and analysis of multiple data types
  • Biometric sensors collecting data on cancer patients
  • collaboration with Academia, single arm vs randomized, decentralized
  • devices are collecting data in clinical trials
  • 21st Century – metastatic solid tumors – 900 patients: accommodated plan
  • Lab developed Tests: new approach
  • Efficiency, transparency

2:00 pm The Patient Perspective on Personalized Medicine

INTRODUCTION | Susan McClure, Founder, Publisher, Genome magazine; Board Member, Personalized Medicine Coalition

  • Precision medicine and relevant information for Patients
  • Genomic sequencing is the Opening Gate to PM

KEYNOTE | Bryce Olson, Global Marketing Director, Health and Life Sciences Group, Intel Corporation

  • genome sequencing found his Pi3K Pathway – PIK3CA p.E54 – Anti Inhibitor for Pi3K = Precision Medicine

2:30 pm Patient 2.0: Exploring the Future of Personalized Medicine Many observers speculate that the coming wave of gene editing, gene therapy, direct-to-consumer genetic tests and the personalized use of wearables will change the psychology, sociology, economy and efficacy of health care. Informed by the previous panel discussions, this conversation will examine the future of personalized medicine and the merits of these emerging trends.

MODERATOR | Robert C. Green, M.D., M.P.H., Director, Genomes2People Research Program, Professor of Medicine (Genetics), Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Broad Institute and Harvard Medical School

  • Neurologist first , Geneticist thereafter
  • Platinum vs gold standard
  • 59 genes will identify 80,000 will get the disease and 47,000 will never get the disease
  • is the technology the reason for investment vs Family history
  • pharmacogenomics can harm, if odds are so low than adherence will be lower

Sandro Galea, M.D., M.P.H., Dr.P.H., Dean, Robert A. Knox Professor, School of Public Health, Boston University

  • Skeptical of societal aspects: race, 50% of the country health getting better vs 50% getting worse but enthusiast on technology
  • US expense on Health care the highest in the World comes on the expense of housings, mental health, education – curative vs preventive care
  • MDs are insentiviced to keep patients sick
  • Folic Acid
  • Nudge behavior
  • invest in long livivng

Tom Miller, M.S., Founder, Managing Partner, GreyBird Ventures LLC

  • duty to call up therapies that will not work, balance addressed by PM – diagnostics in PM
  • clinical utility from patient selection for the therapy the patient will respond to
  • fantasy: Medical decision making to be made to avoid un neccesary care

Michael Snyder, Ph.D., Stanford W. Ascherman Professor, Chair, Department of Genetics, Director, Center of Genomics and Personalized Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine

  • Personal sequencing for multiple etiologies
  • rich people come to get sequenced
  • libraries
  • Providers to be incentivized if patients are health

3:30 pm Closing Remarks

SPEAKER | Edward Abrahams, Ph.D., President, Personalized Medicine Coalition


LIVE Day One – 13th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference, From Concept to the Clinic, November 14–16, 2017, Joseph B. Martin Conference Center, Harvard Medical School, 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur Boston, MA 02115

 

JOSEPH B. MARTIN CONFERENCE CENTER

HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL, BOSTON, MA 02115

http://www.personalizedmedicinecoalition.org/Userfiles/PMC-Corporate/file/13th_Annual_PM_Conference37.pdf

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence (LPBI) Group, Boston

pharma_bi-background0238

will cover in REAL TIME the 13th Annual Personalized Medicine, From Concept to the Clinic, November 14–16, 2017, Joseph B. Martin Conference Center, Harvard Medical School, 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur Boston, MA 02115

In attendance, covering LIVE using Social Media

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Editor-in-Chief

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

@pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

#PMConf

Agenda · Part I  NOVEMBER 15, 2017 · CONFERENCE PROGRAM | AGENDA

7:00 am Registration and Breakfast

8:00 am Opening Remarks SPEAKER | Edward Abrahams, Ph.D., President, Personalized Medicine Coalition

  • 13th Annual PM Conference at HMS
  • Paradigm shift from One medicine FITS ALL – 13 years ago was a promise in 2017 it is a REALITY
  • Liquid biopsies, read and write gene therapy
  • Value, Pricing, Access
  • Evidence for reimbursement and FDA directions
  • Introduction od PM to the Clinic
  • Case study on Value and Healthcare System
  • Future of PM Stanford, BU, Investor
  • Translation to Chinese, 50 guests from 20 countries and 21 from CA

 

8:10 am The State of Personalized Medicine

INTRODUCTION |

Steven D. Averbuch, M.D., Head, Precision Medicine Research & Development, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Board Member, Personalized Medicine Coalition

  • Known Tom for few decades, collecting tissue on lung cancer.
  • EGFR – discovered at HMS

KEYNOTE |

Thomas J. Lynch, Jr., M.D., Executive Vice President, Chief Scientific Officer, Research & Development, Bristol-Myers Squibb

  • Apply right drug to right patient
  • Gefitinig (AstraZeneca) vs Carboplatin/Paclitaxel – lung cancer – advanced NSCLC
  • Gene mutation – EGFR negative vs Positive – cost of sequencing inverse to Moore’s Law
  • Genome Sequenced at <$1,000
  • Lung Adenocarcinoma: 2016: PIK3CA, KRAS, BRAF
  • 2015NEJM – Design drugs: Resistance mutation vs. negative – no mutation EGFR
  • Immune -Biology of Cancer is Complex – Tumor, Effector Cells, Immune regulatory & APGs
  • NEXT opportunities: Novel I-O mechanisms, patient selection is key
  • Biomarkers: PDL-1, MSI – H Tumor mutation Burden (TMB) LAG-3
  • Future: Gene signature
  • Pembrolizumab Free survivsls – 50%
  • BMS – FoundationOne – calibration used by BMS: Mutational Burden: FoundationOne assey: Exploratory analysis: High TMB (Nivoluman vs Chemo, Nivo id bettervs LowTMB
  • Combination Drug Therapy: Nivo +Ipi
  • Assessment of TMB: coding regions of 21K genes: WES vs FoundationOne (F1)
  • TMB in Blood (bTMB) in 2L + NSCLC (POPLAR and OAK)
  • bTMB <16 vs bTMB >16
  • PM – molecular profiling of Hundreds of Cancers and PM of drug treatment driven by molecular profiles
  • F1 is promising

8:40 am 13th Annual Leadership in Personalized Medicine Award

AWARDEE | Jay T. Flatley, M.S., Executive Chairman, Illumina

  • Precision Medicine – still inpact is limited
  • Regulatory and Reimbursement are BARRIERS in the HealthCare system,
  • Kidney Cancer treated off-label – great
  • less 10% of tumors have been sequenced, sufficient tissue needed, physician voted not to sequence deeming it un-actionable
  • Cystic Fibrosis – only sequencing lead to FDA approval, POST marketing required significant resources
  • Translational researchers validated 200 genes
  • 400 genes at FoundationOne
  • DIagnostics companies – reimbursement process is TOO LONG
  • Regulatory – emerging diagnostics: Product in use in clinical trials
  • Risk models to be shared with Diagnostics companies – reimbursement at end of period when results are available
  • Blockchain technology is promising for handling data
  • Rare diseases in Cancer  – One milion genomes sequenced
  • National Genomic Service – Sequencing becoming STANDARD of Care, phynotypes, $10 million to be spent NIH said Jay T. Flatley, M.S., Executive Chairman, Illumina
  • at Illimina – Consumer Advocacy added to Technology breakthroughs in genome sequencing said Jay T. Flatley, M.S., Executive Chairman, Illumina

9:10 am Networking Break

9:35 am Progress in Partnerships: A Two-Part Discussion Aligning the constructs of the health system with the principles of personalized medicine will require stakeholders to scale the most promising cross-sector partnership models. This series of conversations will examine the potential of several of the most promising models that have emerged thus far.

Discussion

Part 1 9:35 am A Model for Risk-Sharing Agreements Between Payers and the Pharmaceutical Industry Many payers are reluctant to assume that covering personalized medicines will help mitigate costs associated with major medical events that require hospitalization. During this fireside chat, however, representatives from Amgen and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care will discuss the logic and implications of their groundbreaking agreement to share the financial risks of covering a targeted medicine based on that premise. Under the terms of the agreement, Amgen agreed to cover treatment costs for patients who have a heart attack or stroke while taking its personalized therapy for familial hypercholesterolemia.

MODERATOR | Meg Tirrell, M.S.J., Reporter, CNBC

Joshua Ofman, M.D., M.S.H.S., Senior Vice President, Global Value, Access and Policy, Amgen

  • Hyperlipidemia – Partnering, Amgen with Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
  • Arrangements: Patients who need the medication will get access to the medication
  • effective stuards: Co-Pay not too high, replacement of medication by generics
  • Medicare has requirements
  • Migraine medications are coming out from Amgen – novel payment
  • Combination drug therapy – Payment system not ready for it yet
  • 3D BioPrinting of Drugs and the innovation storm of agents — are both benefits, value based pricing, elasticities, is that price sufficient to support R&D, dynamic not linear environment said Joshua Ofman, M.D., M.S.H.S., Senior Vice President, Global Value, Access and Policy, Amgen

Michael Sherman, M.D., M.B.A., M.S., Chief Medical Officer, Senior Vice President, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care; Board Member, Personalized Medicine Coalition

  • complications,  cost, outcome work vs does not work
  • Gene therapies coming from Novartis and Partnership with Harvard Pilgrims
  • Value proposition for one drug and one cancer – to assure access Pharma and Payers Partnership
  • Drug and Outcome, high cost drug coming, very expensive, life saver for who needs them

Discussion

  • Pharma’s revenue stream is international, it is in the US that payers require Value

 

Part 2 10:05 am Models for the Development of Personalized Medicine Diagnostics Pharmaceutical and diagnostics companies have responded to a host of complex scientific, regulatory and reimbursement challenges partly by developing innovative partnership models around companion diagnostics. This panel discussion will feature representatives from the pharmaceutical and diagnostics industries, who will discuss the challenges partnerships have helped industry overcome as well as the obstacles that continue to inhibit the development of the diagnostic tools upon which personalized medicine depends. Agenda ·

 

MODERATOR | Alexander Vadas, Ph.D., Managing Director, L.E.K. Consulting

Joydeep Goswami, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.S., President, Clinical Next-Generation Sequencing, Oncology, Thermo Fisher Scientific

  • monitor disease , biopsy changes in 6 month and repeat is needed
  • NGS – results come back in a month what the mutation mean? NOW results come in few days, data analysis  assist the MDs for action in treatment said Joydeep Goswami, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.S., President, Clinical Next-Generation Sequencing, Oncology, Thermo Fisher Scientific
  • How to accelerate the need for safety and the avalangue of innovations
  • Clinical sense vs research context, FDA is more comfortable with other than oncology products beyond drugs, namely diagnostics

Jacob S. Van Naarden, Chief Business Officer, Loxo Oncology

  • Increase in need of drugs in NGS World, Tissue agnostics, ALL the drugs and all the tumors
  • reduction in cost with technology, can’t be too expensive,
  • LOXO drug development  – each testing addresses a focused medical issue  – cancer alterations  for ALL extremely aggressive cancer
  • DNA and RNA based events detected by tools
  • cost of test need to be low, Reference Labs need to collaborate to standarize technology and explain to the Payers
  • Cost of CT Scan vs an NGS Test – Genomic testing is much cheaper said Jacob S. Van Naarden, Chief Business Officer, Loxo Oncology
  • Educational

10:35 am Real-World Personalized Medicine: Examining the Role of Real-World Evidence in Personalizing Health Care FDA has offered a definition of real-world evidence, but the community continues to debate what is needed to fully integrate it into decision-making. This panel will explore what real-world evidence is, how it is being used and what regulatory requirements are needed to realize its potential.

MODERATOR | Amy Abernethy, M.D., Ph.D., Chief Medical Officer, Chief Scientific Officer, Flatiron Health; Board Member, Personalized Medicine Coalition

  • Collection of evidence to accelerate from lab to the Clinic
  • use data sets prospective vs retrospective studies asked Amy Abernethy, M.D., Ph.D., Chief Medical Officer, Chief Scientific Officer, Flatiron Health; Board Member, Personalized Medicine Coalition

Sean Khozin, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Director (Acting), Oncology Center of Excellence, FDA

  • 3/2017 established to have an integrative approach by FDA – real world dat ais important to FDA
  • Drug approved for one indication, provide new data for supplemental indications said Sean Khozin, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Director (Acting), Oncology Center of Excellence, FDA
  • co-morbidities cause EXCLUSION from clinical trials, i.e., HIV patients, experience of patients excluded to learn how differently they can be treated
  • drafting a document on Verify data integrity in clinical trials, detect discrepancies compromise the integrity of the data – audits by FDA said Sean Khozin, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Director (Acting), Oncology Center of Excellence, FDA
  • Validation of devices- FDA Innovation Initiative,

Eric G. Klein, Pharm.D., Senior Director, Oncology, Global Patient Outcomes and Real-World Evidence, Eli Lilly and Company

  • Aggregate burden of disease, existence of co-morbidities
  • Why it was occurring – Genomics: WHY is explained – precise tools
  • data vs intelligence – interoperability
  • Past clinical trial – replicate studies with retrospective data
  • finding the responding patients – pragmatic trial, not randomized, collect end point – very expensive and requires statisticians
  • end pint definition changed

Eleanor M. Perfetto, Ph.D., M.S., Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives, National Health Council

  • How patients  wish to see usage of their experience – how side effect information can be used.
  • New indication
  • reimbursement
  • improved used of existing drug higher rating vs new indications
  • clinical trial design gets input from patients, Patient can announce, dropping participation if a change is not made

Deborah Schrag, M.D., M.P.H., Chief, Division of Population Sciences, Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

  • Major gene mutation and Drugs
  • Drug exposure correlate with evidence, Worldwide,
  • linkages vs computational techniques we do not have consistent data, data structured or not, respond to medication: symptoms, prospects vs Vital sign or WBC count – we have data standardization is evolving said Deborah Schrag, M.D., M.P.H., Chief, Division of Population Sciences, Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
  • clinical decision support what is structured is data upon admission, monitoring the drugs given in this period, turning to patients willing to offer feedback and cooperate
  • pre-existing autoimmune disease – not indicated for them Immunotherapy even though patients wish to try said Deborah Schrag, M.D., M.P.H., Chief, Division of Population Sciences, Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
  • Standards: Toxicity criteria – library of 882 symptoms, Patient reported outcomes by Patients, Resist  criteria applied to imaging data criteria for brain tumors said Deborah Schrag, M.D., M.P.H., Chief, Division of Population Sciences, Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
  • Physicians needs interfaces, dashboard information delivered to MDs, data sits unused, new tools are needed for the data display by relevance to the MDs
  • Patients input and sophistication increased – IRB is not aware of the engagement of Patients and their challenging feedback say Deborah Schrag, M.D., M.P.H, Dana Farber

11:50 am Luncheon

1:00 pm The Designer Genome: Exploring the Implications of Gene Editing and Gene Therapy for the Future of Medicine and Humanity Many scientists believe the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) genetic engineering tool and recent developments in gene therapy will dramatically alter the trajectory of medicine, but the specific implications of these developments for health systems around the world remain unclear. During this session, a panel of experts will discuss the status of these new technologies and how the medical community and regulatory agencies may have to adapt to keep up with forthcoming developments.

MODERATOR | Kevin Davies, Ph.D., Co-Author, DNA: The Story of the Genetic Revolution (with Jim Watson and Andrew Berry); Executive Editor, The CRISPR Journal

Katrine Bosley, CEO, Editas Medicine

  • spectrum of ease to correct a mutation, some mutation are easier than others for editing,
  • understand well enough  the gentic application where CRISPR will assist medicine: Retinal degeneration, two aspects one worked in Japan said Katrine Bosley, CEO, Editas Medicine

Arthur L. Caplan, Ph.D., Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Chair, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center

  • Bioethics, super babies, engineering embrios,
  • Regulatory oversight on engineering embrios is coming, metric of success in recruitment of patients said Arthur L. Caplan, Ph.D., Drs. William F. and Virginia Connolly Mitty Chair, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center
  • cell repair is cheaper that transplantation,
  • clone of super person next door
  • Bioterrorism accomplished by gene engineering !!

George M. Church, Ph.D., Professor of Genetics, Health Sciences and Technology, Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology; Director, Harvard Medical School NHGRI-Center of Excellence in Genomic Science; Director, Harvard Medical School Personal Genome Project; Founding Member, Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University

  • Delivery, more precise,
  • Longevity and aging – one blockbuster is needed
  • Engineered mutation, machine learning
  • CRISPR does not handle all mutation many require a different editing tool said George M. Church, Ph.D., Professor of Genetics, Health Sciences and Technology, Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology; Director, Harvard Medical School NHGRI-Center of Excellence in Genomic Science; Director, Harvard Medical School Personal Genome Project; Founding Member, Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University
  • over regulation – Do not touch germ line – is not desired
  • Transplantation vs enhancement – resistance to senescence and pathogens to be achieved by gene editing suggests George M. Church, Ph.D., Professor of Genetics
  • Bringing back genes – elephants with fur

Jeffrey D. Marrazzo, M.B.A., M.P.A., CEO, Spark Therapeutics

  • Retina degeneration causes blindness, deliver drug to back of the retine, inject genetic material and achieved remarkable results, drug approval of genetic therapy in the US for a genetic disorder in Retina causing blindness
  • 21st Century schema of Payment and benefits

 

2:15 pm Pricing Personalized Medicines The increasing pressure on industry stakeholders to alter their drug pricing practices has particular significance for personalized medicines, which must recoup research and development costs from smaller patient populations. This conversation will explore the pharmaceutical industry’s strategies for facilitating sustainable access to these innovative therapies.

MODERATOR | Meg Tirrell, M.S.J., Reporter, CNBC

Stephen J. Ubl, President, CEO, PhRMA

  • minimum 10% invested in R&D at each Pharma
  • Of 134 drugs in development – 42 have the potential to become Personalized medicine therapies, said Stephen J. Ubl, President, CEO, PhRMA
  • Icer methodology – average patient aggregate data, value pricing is a better model: RA targeted to subset of patients
  • Price gauging is a problem – bring solutions to the table, Patients asks for incentives
  • amortizing costs like mortgage
  • Outcome-based arrangements: If money-based guaranteed it negate Medicaid negotiation power. If transportation is covered – it leads to locking product in use

2:45 pm Networking Break (sponsored by GreyBird Ventures)

3:15 pm Precision Valuation: A Discussion of How Value Assessment Frameworks Can Account for Personalized Medicine Payers control access to personalized medicine, and some have begun to take an interest in findings from value assessment frameworks that are challenged to account for developments in the field. In addition to exploring their potential impact on individualized care, this session will examine how value assessment frameworks can and should consider personalized medicine as part of their processes for evaluating therapeutic options.

MODERATOR | Jennifer Snow, M.P.H., Director, Health Policy, Xcenda, AmerisourceBergen

  • Quality Era moved to Value Era

 

Dane J. Dickson, M.D., CEO, Founder, CureOne (formerly MED-C); Director, Precision Medicine Policy and Registries, Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health and Science University

Molecular Era

  • NEJM, 2017, 377, 1813-1823
  • BRAF in Melanoma – 80% do not need additional therapy vs 20% benefitted in the Non-Molecular Era

data by Dane J. Dickson, M.D., CEO, Founder, CureOne (formerly MED-C); Director, Precision Medicine Policy and Registries, Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health and Science University

 

Robert Dubois, M.D., Ph.D., Executive Vice President, Chief Science Officer, National Pharmaceutical Council

  • Value Assessment and PM: ACC, ASCO, ICER< Memorial Sloan,
  • The patient: survival, QOL, Adverse events, Out of pocket cost, extra survival by disease, treatment burden,
  • PAYERS: One size does not fit all – AVERAGE is meaningless
  • MDs vs Patients – are different in preference

Andrea Stern Ferris, M.B.A., President, Chairman of the Board, LUNGevity Foundation

  • PATIENT to be included in the conversation

Steven D. Pearson, M.D., M.Sc., Founder, President, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER)

  • Precision Medicine vs Value Assessment
  • Novartis CAR-T Kymriah:  relapsed B-cell precursor ALL under 25 – 5 yr survival – 10%
  • Changes associated with Gene therapies: single arm trials, surrogate outcomes, less certainty safety and benefits
  • Gene therapy – >> innovations Kymriah – $475,000 price
  • Long term value for money vs Short term affordability

PRICE-based on Value – discount from prices after rebate to meet ICER value-based Price range

  • More targeted = higher value more favorable cost-effectiveness
  • Rare/ultra-rare populations: broader value range:
  1. Use EARLIER
  2. will it work for patients without genetic marker?
  • Years of Life weighted by an INDEX of quality of life (1=perfect health;  0=dead)
  • willingness to pay: WHO and ACC: 1-3x
  • individual x2 salary
  • Opportunity cost x1 per capita GDP in UK
  • Future of value assessment and precision medicine
  • CURES – CAR-T are they cures???
  • A teen-ager’s Value-based Price: $475,000 x years lived suggestsSteven D. Pearson, M.D., M.Sc., Founder, President, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER)

4:30 pm The Utility Proposition: An Analysis of Case Studies in the Economic Value of Personalized Medicine Although personalized medicine’s proponents contend that the field can deliver economic value by helping doctors avoid prescribing costly but ineffective therapies, the field lacks literature testing that hypothesis. This session will highlight recent studies on the clinical and economic value of personalized medicine, shedding light on what we know about personalized medicine’s clinical and economic utility — and what we don’t.

MODERATOR | Michael Pellini, M.D., M.B.A., Chairman, Board of Directors, Foundation Medicine; Board Member, Personalized Medicine Coalition

  • we know there is value in Personalized Medicine
  • we need to work together to acknowledge the challenges — to prove the value in PM

Lincoln Nadauld, M.D., Ph.D., Executive Director, Precision Medicine, Precision Genomics, Intermountain Healthcare

  • Interpretation by Medical Oncologists beyond: KRAS, BRAF
  • Measuring the value and presenting that to the payers and inside the organizations
  • 2013 –

David B. Roth, M.D., Ph.D., Simon Flexner Professor Chair, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Director, Penn Center for Precision Medicine

  • 5000 patients underwent genome sequencing
  • Interpretation is the issue that is hard
  • Health IT are still in silos: Pharmacy data, financial data, EMR are not integrated yet
  • Survival of patient with mutation and targeted drug LIVE LONGER

Lotte Steuten, Ph.D., M.Sc., Associate Faculty Member, Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research (HICOR), Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; Affiliate Associate Professor, Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, School of Pharmacy at University of Washington, Seattle

  • aggregate big data , models as evidence, has value to clinical, the model under development NGS Profile of Patient vs current standard of care. Model Payer advisor committee, Oncologist Advisory Committee great benefit to PM on the cost side data is for targeting treatment using the promise of PM

5:45 pm Elements Café Cocktail Reception


Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

 

Anti-Müllerian Hormone (AMH), is secreted by growing follicles that contains the egg or ovum. According to regular practice low AMH and high Follicle Stimulating Hormone (FSH) are generally considered as indicators of diminished egg quantity in a female. But, there are several cases the female conceived absolutely normally without any support even after low AMH was reported.

 

Therefore, a new research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association declares that AMH doesn’t dictate a woman’s reproductive potential. Although AMH testing is one of the most common ways that doctors assess a woman’s fertility. Present research says that all it takes is one egg each cycle and AMH is not a marker of whether a female can or cannot become pregnant. So, for women who haven’t yet tried to get pregnant and who are wondering whether they are fertile, an AMH value isn’t going to be helpful in that context. In addition, AMH is not necessarily a good marker to predict that whether one has to cryopreserve her eggs. So, practically doctors don’t yet have a way to definitively predict egg quality or a woman’s long-term ability to conceive, but age is obviously one of the most important factors.

 

The above mentioned study followed 750 women between the ages of 30 and 44 who had been trying to conceive for three months or less. During the 12-month observation period, those with low AMH values of less than 0.7 were not less likely to conceive than those who had normal AMH values. The study had various limitations, however, that are worth noting. The researchers only included women who did not have a history of infertility. Women who sought fertility treatments (about 6 percent) were withdrawn. And only 12 percent of the women were in the 38-to-44 age range. In addition, the number of live births was unavailable.

 

Among women aged 30 to 44 years without a history of infertility who had been trying to conceive for 3 months or less, biomarkers indicating diminished ovarian reserve compared with normal ovarian reserve were not associated with reduced fertility. These findings do not support the use of urinary or blood FSH tests or AMH levels to assess natural fertility for women with these characteristics. The researchers’ next want to see whether low AMH is associated with a higher risk of miscarriage among the women who conceived.

 

Although AMH testing isn’t designed to be an overall gauge of a woman’s fertility, it can still provide valuable information, especially for women who are infertile and seeking treatment. It can assist in diagnosing polycystic ovarian syndrome, and identify when a woman is getting closer to menopause. Previous research also showed that AMH is good predictor of a woman’s response to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization and therefore it can predict the probability of conceiving via in vitro fertilization (I.V.F.).

 

References:

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2656811?JamaNetworkReader=True

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/health/fertility-test-ovarian-reserve.html

 

https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/26/11/2925/656065

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3339896/

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27179263

 


Daily Highlights at 2017 American Heart Association Annual Meeting Scientific Sessions

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Science News

Scientific Sessions 2017

Scientific Sessions: November 11–15

Resuscitation Science Symposium: November 11–13

Cardiovascular Nursing Clinical Symposium: November 13–14

Anaheim, California

SOURCE

http://professional.heart.org/professional/EducationMeetings/MeetingsLiveCME/ScientificSessions/UCM_316934_Science-News-Scientific-Sessions.jsp#mon

 

Late Breaking Clinical Trials 2: Late Breaking Science in Prevention

  • REAL-CAD
    RESULTS: Higher intensity pitavastatin therapy lowered LDL-C and reduced adverse cardiovascular events more than moderate-intensity pitavastatin therapy in this Japanese study population.
  • REVEAL
    RESULTS: Major coronary events lower with anacetrapib for patients with and without DM.
  • FOURIER
    RESULTS: In patients with PAD, evolocumab significantly reduced LDL-C and major cardiovascular events, including death, heart attack, and stroke.
  • FOURIER with MI – Analysis
    RESULTS: In patients with a prior MI, evolocumab significantly reduced the risk for major cardiovascular events, including death, heart attack, and stroke.
  • CANTOS 
    RESULTS: Targeting inflammatory pathways with canakinumab reduced rates of adverse cardiovascular events.

Late Breaking Clinical Trials 3: Latest Insights into Hypertension Management

  • BP TITRE
    RESULTS: More time spent at the target blood pressure resulted in a lower risk for cardiovascular disease and death.
  • SPRINT
    RESULTS: Blood pressure control was similar even with different levels of BP attendance.
  • GATEWAY
    RESULTS: Bariatric surgery reduced the need for antihypertensive drugs while keeping blood pressure controlled.

Late Breaking Clinical Trials 4: Sweet Spot in Cardiometabolic Care

  • CANVAS 
    RESULTS: Canagliflozin reduced adverse cardiovascular events for patient with type 2 diabetes and no history of cardiovascular disease.
  • EXSCEL 
    RESULTS: The treatment effect of exenatide was similar across all risk groups (low – high) for clinical outcomes, regardless of baseline risk. Baseline risk did not predict clinical benefit.
  • EMPA-REG OUTCOME
    RESULTS: In these patients with HF, T2DM, and PAD, empagliflozin compared to placebo reduced the risk of cardiovascular and all-cause death, and HF hospitalizations.
  • BiomarCaRE 
    RESULTS: In the general population, 4 metabolites were noted to be inversely associated with coronary heart disease. This may aid risk stratification.

Other studies of note published Monday

Tuesday, Nov. 14

Late Breaking Clinical Trials 5: New Insights into the Risks, Benefits, and Costs of Antithrombotic Therapy

Late Breaking Clinical Trials 6: Evaluating Quality Improvement and Patient Centered Care Interventions

Wednesday, Nov. 15

Late Breaking Clinical Trials 7:  Innovative Therapies and Novel Applications


2017 Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults – A REPORT OF THE American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

The new Hypertension Guideline changes the definition of hypertension, which is now considered to be any systolic BP measurement of 130 mm Hg or higher—or any diastolic BP measurement of 80 mm Hg or higher.

 

SOURCE

http://professional.heart.org/idc/groups/ahamah-public/@wcm/@sop/@smd/documents/downloadable/ucm_497446.pdf