Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Health Care System by Country’ Category


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

 

Stroke is a leading cause of death worldwide and the most common cause of long-term disability amongst adults, more particularly in patients with diabetes mellitus and arterial hypertension. Increasing evidence suggests that disordered physiological variables following acute ischaemic stroke, especially hyperglycaemia, adversely affect outcomes.

 

Post-stroke hyperglycaemia is common (up to 50% of patients) and may be rather prolonged, regardless of diabetes status. A substantial body of evidence has demonstrated that hyperglycaemia has a deleterious effect upon clinical and morphological stroke outcomes. Therefore, hyperglycaemia represents an attractive physiological target for acute stroke therapies.

 

However, whether intensive glycaemic manipulation positively influences the fate of ischaemic tissue remains unknown. One major adverse event of management of hyperglycaemia with insulin (either glucose-potassium-insulin infusions or intensive insulin therapy) is the occurrence of hypoglycaemia, which can also induce cerebral damage.

 

Doctors all over the world have debated whether intensive glucose management, which requires the use of IV insulin to bring blood sugar levels down to 80-130 mg/dL, or standard glucose control using insulin shots, which aims to get glucose below 180 mg/dL, lead to better outcomes after stroke.

 

A period of hyperglycemia is common, with elevated blood glucose in the periinfarct period consistently linked with poor outcome in patients with and without diabetes. The mechanisms that underlie this deleterious effect of dysglycemia on ischemic neuronal tissue remain to be established, although in vitro research, functional imaging, and animal work have provided clues.

 

While prompt correction of hyperglycemia can be achieved, trials of acute insulin administration in stroke and other critical care populations have been equivocal. Diabetes mellitus and hyperglycemia per se are associated with poor cerebrovascular health, both in terms of stroke risk and outcome thereafter.

 

Interventions to control blood sugar are available but evidence of cerebrovascular efficacy are lacking. In diabetes, glycemic control should be part of a global approach to vascular risk while in acute stroke, theoretical data suggest intervention to lower markedly elevated blood glucose may be of benefit, especially if thrombolysis is administered.

 

Both hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia may lead to further brain injury and clinical deterioration; that is the reason these conditions should be avoided after stroke. Yet, when correcting hyperglycaemia, great care should be taken not to switch the patient into hypoglycaemia, and subsequently aggressive insulin administration treatment should be avoided.

 

Early identification and prompt management of hyperglycaemia, especially in acute ischaemic stroke, is recommended. Although the appropriate level of blood glucose during acute stroke is still debated, a reasonable approach is to keep the patient in a mildly hyperglycaemic state, rather than risking hypoglycaemia, using continuous glucose monitoring.

 

The primary results from the Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort (SHINE) study, a large, multisite clinical study showed that intensive glucose management did not improve functional outcomes at 90 days after stroke compared to standard glucose therapy. In addition, intense glucose therapy increased the risk of very low blood glucose (hypoglycemia) and required a higher level of care such as increased supervision from nursing staff, compared to standard treatment.

 

References:

 

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-provides-answer-long-held-debate-blood-sugar-control-after-stroke

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27873213

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19342845

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20491782

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21211743

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18690907

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Morbid Obesity linked to socioeconomic status was in a Twin Pairs Research on effects of genes and environment in 560 common conditions – Disease and Health by ZIP code (Environment) and genetic code (Human Genome)

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

  • Senior study author Chirag Patel, assistant professor of biomedical informatics in the Blavatnik Institute at HMS.
  • Co-investigators were Braden Tierney and Arjun Manrai of Harvard Medical School, and
  • Jian Yang and Peter Visscher of the University of Queensland, Australia.

Data sets for the study were provided by Aetna insurance company. Aetna had no funding role in the study. The research was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (grants 1078037 and 1113400), National Science Foundation (grant 1636870), and Sylvia and Charles Viertel Charitable Foundation.

 

Detailed study results available here: http://apps.chiragjpgroup.org/catch/

Conclusions 

Nearly 40 percent of the diseases in the study (225 of 560) had a genetic component, while 25 percent (138) were driven at least in part by factors stemming from sharing the same household, social influences, and the like. Cognitive disorders demonstrated the greatest degree of heritability — four out of five diseases showed a genetic component — while connective tissue diseases had the lowest degree of genetic influence. Of all disease categories, eye disorders carried the highest degree of environmental influence, with 27 of 42 diseases showing such effect. They were followed by respiratory diseases, with 34 out of 48 conditions showing an effect from sharing a household. The disease category with lowest environmental influence was reproductive illnesses, with three of 18 conditions showing such effect, and cognitive conditions, with two out of five showing an influence.

Overall, socioeconomic status, climate conditions, and air quality in each twin pair’s ZIP code had a far weaker effect on disease than genes and shared environment — a composite measure of external, nongenetic influences including family and lifestyle, household, and neighborhood.

In total, 145 of 560 diseases were modestly influenced by socio-economic status derived by ZIP code. Thirty-six diseases were influenced at least in part by air quality, and 117 were affected by changes in temperature. The condition with the strongest potential link to socioeconomic status was morbid obesity. While obesity undoubtedly has a genetic component, the researchers said, the findings raise an important question about the influence of environment on genetic predispositions.

“This finding opens up a whole slew of questions, including whether and how a change in socioeconomic status and lifestyle might compare against genetic predisposition to obesity,” Patel said.

Lead poisoning was, not surprisingly, entirely driven by environment. Conditions such as flu and Lyme disease were, again unsurprisingly, affected by differences in climate.

When researchers looked at classes of diseases by monthly health care spending, they found that both genes and environment significantly contributed to cost of care, with the two being nearly equal drivers of spending. Almost 60 percent of monthly health spending could be predicted by analyzing genetic and environmental factors.

Large-scale analysis like this study can help forecast long-term spending for various conditions and inform resource allocation and policy decisions, the researchers said.

Detailed study results available here: http://apps.chiragjpgroup.org/catch/

SOURCE

http://apps.chiragjpgroup.org/catch/

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/researchers-able-to-determine-the-effects-of-genes-and-environment-in-560-common-conditions/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Gazette%202%20stories%201%20event%20(no%20Seen%20or%20Heard)%20(1)

Read Full Post »


Reporter: Gail S. Thornton

 

From The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com)

Published January 9, 2019

Health-Care CEOs Outline Strategies at J.P. Morgan Conference

Chiefs at Johnson & Johnson, CVS discuss what’s next on a range of industry issues

One of the biggest health conferences of the year for investors, the J.P. Morgan Health-Care Conference, is taking place this week in San Francisco. Here are some of the hot topics covered at the four-day event, which wraps up Thursday.

BioMarin Mulls Payment Plans

BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. CEO Jean-Jacques Bienaimé said he would consider pursuing installment payment arrangements for the biotech’s experimental gene therapy for hemophilia. At the conference, Mr. Bienaimé told the Wall Street Journal that the one-time infusion, Valrox, is likely to cost in the millions because studies have shown it can eliminate bleeding episodes in patients, and current hemophilia treatments taken chronically can cost millions over several years. “We’re not trying to charge more than existing therapies,” he said. “We want to offer a better treatment at the same or lower cost.”

Johnson & Johnson Warns on Pricing

As politicians hammer drug prices, Johnson & Johnson CEO Alex Gorsky suggested companies need to police themselves. At the conference, Mr. Gorsky told investors that drug companies should price drugs reasonably and be transparent. “If we don’t do this as an industry, I think there will be other alternatives that will be more onerous for us,” Mr. Gorsky says. Some drugmakers pulled back from price increases in mid-2018 amid heightened political scrutiny, but prices went up for many drugs at the start of 2019.

Marijuana-Derived Drugs Show Promise

 

CVS Discusses New Stores

CVS Health Corp. Chief Executive Larry Merlo began showing initial concepts the company will be testing as it begins piloting new models of its drugstores that incorporate its Aetna combination. The first new test store will open next month in Houston, he told investors, and it will include expanded health-care services including a new concierge who will help patients with questions. 

Aetna Savings On the Way

Mr. Merlo also spelled out when the company will achieve the initial $750 million in synergies it has promised from the CVS-Aetna deal. In the first quarter, he said the company will see benefits from consolidating corporate functions. Savings from procurement and aligning lists of covered drugs should be seen in the first half, he says. Medical-cost savings will start affecting results toward the end of the year, he noted. 

Lilly Cuts Price

Drugmaker Eli Lilly & Co. expects average net US pricing for its drugs–after rebates and discounts–to decline in the low- to mid-single digits on a percentage basis this year, Chief Financial Officer Josh Smiley told the Journal. Lilly’s net prices had risen during the first half of 2018, but dropped in the third quarter as the company took a “restrained approach,” Mr. Smiley said. Lilly, which hasn’t yet reported fourth-quarter results, took some list price increases for cancer drugs in late December but hasn’t raised prices in the new year, he said.

Peter Loftus at peter.loftus@wsj.com and Anna Wilde Mathews at anna.mathews@wsj.com

Read Full Post »


Non pure motives for pushing recertification: The American Board of Internal Medicine attempted to expand its recertification process and keep its medical monopoly that abuses its immense power.

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

“It is incumbent upon The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and/or the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) to engage a respected independent party to assess the impact of The Maintenance of Certification, (MOC) program and make the findings publicly available” required by The American College of Rheumatology

ABIM’s survival as a medical monopoly that abuses its immense power seems less probable with each passing day. And, because of its arrogance and the appearance of corruption it allowed to metastasize inside the organization, the officials there have no one to blame but themselves.

It’s a horror story that has played out for years throughout the U.S. as the ABIM abuses its monopoly power to force doctors to do whatever it decrees, while ignoring the many doctors who have demanded for years that independent researchers conduct comprehensive studies to determine if ABIM’s requirements do anything to improve patient care. This medical protection racket has made millionaires of ABIM top officers, financed a ritzy condominium, limousines and first-class travel, all while sucking huge sums of cash out of the health care system.

But now, after decades of unchecked rule by ABIM, cracks are appearing in the organization’s facade of power. Thousands of doctors began a widespread revolt months ago and, in the last few weeks, evidence that their efforts are succeeding has started rolling in. ABIM officials have proclaimed that they are rushing to make changes—and indeed have announced some changes—but it seems they waited too long and are changing too little.

Rheumatologists, who must fulfill ABIM’s requirements for maintenance of certification, or MOC, recently slapped down the process—and hard.

“There is evidence that many of the MOC requirements have no beneficial impact on clinical care,” the statement says. “Moreover, the direct and indirect costs of the MOC program to physicians and the health care system is excessive.”

The study concluded that internists incur an average of $23,607 in MOC costs over 10 years—with doctors who specialize in cancers and blood diseases out $40,495. All told, the study concluded, MOC will suck $5.7 billion out of the health care system over 10 years, including $5.1 billion in time costs (resulting from 32.7 million physician-hours spent on MOC) and $561 million in testing costs. And remember—all that time and expense is for a program that has not been proven to accomplish anything.

And the NBPAS process is completely different than the one required by ABIM. A two-year recertification through NBPAS costs $169 (a single review course for the ABIM test costs more than $1,000.) It requires that physicians obtain initial certification through ABIM or one of its affiliated organizations. Then, for recertification, it requires physicians to attend 50 hours of what are known as qualified continuing medical education programs every two years. That way, doctors choose what education programs most benefit their practice by attending about 25 hours of those courses and conferences each year. No time is wasted learning about items that have no relevance to the work of a particular doctor.

And the National Board of Physicians and Surgeons (NBPAS) process is completely different than the one required by ABIM. A two-year recertification through NBPAS costs $169 (a single review course for the ABIM test costs more than $1,000.) It requires that physicians obtain initial certification through ABIM or one of its affiliated organizations. Then, for recertification, it requires physicians to attend 50 hours of what are known as qualified continuing medical education programs every two years. That way, doctors choose what education programs most benefit their practice by attending about 25 hours of those courses and conferences each year. No time is wasted learning about items that have no relevance to the work of a particular doctor.

SOURCE

https://www.newsweek.com/abim-american-board-internal-medicine-doctors-revolt-372723

What’s ruining medicine for physicians: MOC costs and requirements

Read Full Post »


CMS initiative in Modernizing Medicare to lead to Lower Prescription Drug Costs

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

CMS Takes Action to Lower Prescription Drug Costs by Modernizing Medicare

 

     

CMS Takes Action to Lower Prescription Drug Costs by Modernizing Medicare 
Proposed regulation for Medicare Parts C & D would strengthen negotiations with prescription drug manufacturers to lower costs and increase transparency for patients

Today, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed polices for 2020 to strengthen and modernize the Medicare Part C and D programs. The proposal would ensure that Medicare Advantage and Part D plans have more tools to negotiate lower drug prices, and the agency is also considering a policy that would require pharmacy rebates to be passed on to seniors to lower their drug costs at the pharmacy counter.

“President Trump is following through on his promise to bring tougher negotiation to Medicare and bring down drug costs for patients, without restricting patient access or choice,” said HHS Secretary Alex Azar. “By bringing the latest tools from the private sector to Medicare Part D, we can save money for taxpayers and seniors, improve access to expensive drugs many seniors need, and expand their choice of plans. The Part D proposals complement efforts to bring down costs in Medicare Advantage and in Medicare Part B through negotiation, all part of the President’s plan to put American patients first by bringing down prescription-drug prices and out-of-pocket costs.”

In the twelve years since the Part D program was launched, many of the tools outlined in today’s proposal have been developed in the commercial health insurance marketplace, and the result has been lower costs for patients. Seniors in Medicare also deserve to benefit from these approaches to reducing costs, so today CMS is proposing to modernize the Medicare Advantage and Part D programs and remove barriers that keep plans from leveraging these tools.

“In designing today’s proposal, foremost in the agency’s mind was the impact on patients, and the proposal is yet another action CMS has taken to deliver on President Trump and Secretary Azar’s commitment on drug prices,” said CMS Administrator Seema Verma. “Today’s changes will provide seniors with more plan options featuring lower costs for prescription drugs, and seniors will remain in the driver’s seat as they can choose the plan that works best for them. The result will be increasing access to the medicines that seniors depend on by lowering their out-of-pocket costs.”

Private plan options for receiving Medicare benefits are increasing in popularity, with almost 37 percent of Medicare beneficiaries expected to enroll in Medicare Advantage in 2019, and Part D enrollment increasing year-over-year as well. The programs are driven by market competition; plans compete for beneficiaries’ business, and each enrollee chooses the plan that best meets his or her needs. Consumer choice puts pressure on plans to improve quality and lower costs.  Premiums in both Medicare Advantage and Part D are projected to decline next year.

Today’s proposed changes include:

  • Providing Part D plans with greater flexibility to negotiate discounts for drugs in “protected” therapeutic classes, so beneficiaries who need these drugs will see lower costs;
  • Requiring Part D plans to increase transparency and provide enrollees and their doctors with a patient’s out-of-pocket cost obligations for prescription drugs when a prescription is written;
  • Codifying a policy similar to the one implemented for 2019 to allow “step therapy” in Medicare Advantage for Part B drugs, encouraging access to high-value products including biosimilars; and
  • Implementing a statutory requirement, recently signed by President Trump, that prohibits pharmacy gag clauses in Part D.

CMS is also considering for a future plan year, which may be as early as 2020, a policy that would ensure that enrollees pay the lowest cost for the prescription drugs they pick up at a pharmacy, after taking into account back-end payments from pharmacies to plans.

Medicare Advantage and Part D will continue to protect patient access, as both programs are embedded with robust beneficiary protections. These include CMS’s review of Part D plan formularies, an expedited appeals process, and a requirement for plans to cover two drugs in every therapeutic class.

CMS looks forward to receiving comments on these proposals and other policies under consideration.

For a blog post on the proposed rule by Secretary Azar and Administrator Verma, please visit: https://www.cms.gov/blog/proposed-changes-lower-drug-prices-medicare-advantage-and-part-d.

For a fact sheet on the proposed rule, please visit: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/contract-year-cy-2020-medicare-advantage-and-part-d-drug-pricing-proposed-rule-cms-4180-p.

The proposed rule (CMS-4180-P) can be downloaded from the Federal Register at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-25945.pdf

###

Get CMS news at cms.gov/newsroom, sign up for CMS news via email and follow CMS on Twitter CMS Administrator @SeemaCMS

SOURCE

https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-takes-action-lower-prescription-drug-costs-modernizing-medicare?mc_cid=ca8901d1c5&mc_eid=32328d8919

Read Full Post »


 

HUBweek 2018, October 8-14, 2018, Greater Boston – “We The Future” – coming together, of breaking down barriers, of convening across disciplinary lines to shape our future

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

HUBweek 2018

Hi Aviva,

 

At HUBweek and in this community, we believe a brighter future is built together. In these times of division, particularly when many are feeling excluded from the benefits brought forth by rapid technological development, there is critical importance in the act of coming together, of breaking down barriers, of convening across disciplinary lines to shape our future.

That’s why this year’s theme for HUBweek is We the Future. It is a call to action and an invitation. Throughout the week, we’ll bring together innovators, artists, and curious minds to explore the ways in which we can shape a more inclusive and equitable future for all.

Today, HUBweek kicks off with dozens of events taking place across the city–from public art tours, a drone zoo, and discussions on nuclear weapons and the impact of emerging technologies on people with disabilities, to a policy hackathon hosted by MIT and the first ever Change Maker Conference.

There are 225+ more experiences to take part in throughout HUBweek–a three-day Forum and a documentary film festival; open dialogues with leading thinkers; a robot block party; and collaborative and participatory art. And we’ve got a little fun in store for you, too–make sure you sign up and stop by The HUB later this week to check it all out.

At its core, HUBweek is a collaboration. If not for our partners and the unwavering support of this community, this would not be a reality. A big thank you to our presenting partners Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Liberty Mutual Insurance, and Merck KGaA, to our sponsors, and to the hundreds of collaborating organizations, speakers, artists, and creative minds that are behind this year’s festival.

On behalf of the HUBweek team and our founders The Boston Globe, Harvard University, Mass. General Hospital, and MIT, we’re thrilled to invite you to join us at HUBweek 2018.

 

Linda Pizzuti Henry

SOURCE

 

From: Linda Pizzuti Henry <hello@hubweek.org>

Reply-To: <hello@hubweek.org>

Date: Monday, October 8, 2018 at 9:38 AM

To: Aviva Lev-Ari <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu>

Subject: Welcome to HUBweek

Read Full Post »


 

Live Coverage: MedCity Converge 2018 Philadelphia: AI in Cancer and Keynote Address

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

8:30 AM -9:15

Practical Applications of AI in Cancer

We are far from machine learning dictating clinical decision making, but AI has important niche applications in oncology. Hear from a panel of innovative startups and established life science players about how machine learning and AI can transform different aspects in healthcare, be it in patient recruitment, data analysis, drug discovery or care delivery.

Moderator: Ayan Bhattacharya, Advanced Analytics Specialist Leader, Deloitte Consulting LLP
Speakers:
Wout Brusselaers, CEO and Co-Founder, Deep 6 AI @woutbrusselaers ‏
Tufia Haddad, M.D., Chair of Breast Medical Oncology and Department of Oncology Chair of IT, Mayo Clinic
Carla Leibowitz, Head of Corporate Development, Arterys @carlaleibowitz
John Quackenbush, Ph.D., Professor and Director of the Center for Cancer Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

Ayan: working at IBM and Thompon Rueters with structured datasets and having gone through his own cancer battle, he is now working in healthcare AI which has an unstructured dataset(s)

Carla: collecting medical images over the world, mainly tumor and calculating tumor volumetrics

Tufia: drug resistant breast cancer clinician but interested in AI and healthcareIT at Mayo

John: taking large scale datasets but a machine learning skeptic

moderator: how has imaging evolved?

Carla: ten times images but not ten times radiologists so stressed field needs help with image analysis; they have seen measuring lung tumor volumetrics as a therapeutic diagnostic has worked

moderator: how has AI affected patient recruitment?

Tufia: majority of patients are receiving great care but AI can offer profiles and determine which patients can benefit from tertiary care;

John: 1980 paper on no free lunch theorem; great enthusiasm about optimization algortihisms fell short in application; can extract great information from e.g. images

moderator: how is AI for healthcare delivery working at mayo?

Tufia: for every hour with patient two hours of data mining. for care delivery hope to use the systems to leverage the cognitive systems to do the data mining

John: problem with irreproducible research which makes a poor dataset:  also these care packages are based on population data not personalized datasets; challenges to AI is moving correlation to causation

Carla: algorithisms from on healthcare network is not good enough, Google tried and it failed

John: curation very important; good annotation is needed; needed to go in and develop, with curators, a systematic way to curate medial records; need standardization and reproducibility; applications in radiometrics can be different based on different data collection machines; developed a machine learning model site where investigators can compare models on a hub; also need to communicate with patients on healthcare information and quality information

Ayan: Australia and Canada has done the most concerning AI and lifescience, healthcare space; AI in most cases is cognitive learning: really two types of companies 1) the Microsofts, Googles, and 2) the startups that may be more pure AI

 

Final Notes: We are at a point where collecting massive amounts of healthcare related data is simple, rapid, and shareable.  However challenges exist in quality of datasets, proper curation and annotation, need for collaboration across all healthcare stakeholders including patients, and dissemination of useful and accurate information

 

9:15 AM–9:45 AM

Opening Keynote: Dr. Joshua Brody, Medical Oncologist, Mount Sinai Health System

The Promise and Hype of Immunotherapy

Immunotherapy is revolutionizing oncology care across various types of cancers, but it is also necessary to sort the hype from the reality. In his keynote, Dr. Brody will delve into the history of this new therapy mode and how it has transformed the treatment of lymphoma and other diseases. He will address the hype surrounding it, why so many still don’t respond to the treatment regimen and chart the way forward—one that can lead to more elegant immunotherapy combination paths and better outcomes for patients.

Speaker:
Joshua Brody, M.D., Assistant Professor, Mount Sinai School of Medicine @joshuabrodyMD

Director Lymphoma therapy at Mt. Sinai

  • lymphoma a cancer with high PD-L1 expression
  • hodgkin’s lymphoma best responder to PD1 therapy (nivolumab) but hepatic adverse effects
  • CAR-T (chimeric BCR and TCR); a long process which includes apheresis, selection CD3/CD28 cells; viral transfection of the chimeric; purification
  • complete remissions of B cell lymphomas (NCI trial) and long term remissions past 18 months
  • side effects like cytokine release (has been controlled); encephalopathy (he uses a hand writing test to see progression of adverse effect)

Vaccines

  •  teaching the immune cells as PD1 inhibition exhausting T cells so a vaccine boost could be an adjuvant to PD1 or checkpoint therapy
  • using Flt3L primed in-situ vaccine (using a Toll like receptor agonist can recruit the dendritic cells to the tumor and then activation of T cell response);  therefore vaccine does not need to be produced ex vivo; months after the vaccine the tumor still in remission
  • versus rituximab, which can target many healthy B cells this in-situ vaccine strategy is very specific for the tumorigenic B cells
  • HoWEVER they did see resistant tumor cells which did not overexpress PD-L1 but they did discover a novel checkpoint (cannot be disclosed at this point)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please follow on Twitter using the following #hashtags and @pharma_BI

#MCConverge

#AI

#cancertreatment

#immunotherapy

#healthIT

#innovation

#precisionmedicine

#healthcaremodels

#personalizedmedicine

#healthcaredata

And at the following handles:

@pharma_BI

@medcitynews

 

Please see related articles on Live Coverage of Previous Meetings on this Open Access Journal

LIVE – Real Time – 16th Annual Cancer Research Symposium, Koch Institute, Friday, June 16, 9AM – 5PM, Kresge Auditorium, MIT

Real Time Coverage and eProceedings of Presentations on 11/16 – 11/17, 2016, The 12th Annual Personalized Medicine Conference, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL, Joseph B. Martin Conference Center, 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur, Boston

Tweets Impression Analytics, Re-Tweets, Tweets and Likes by @AVIVA1950 and @pharma_BI for 2018 BioIT, Boston, 5/15 – 5/17, 2018

BIO 2018! June 4-7, 2018 at Boston Convention & Exhibition Center

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/press-coverage/

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »