jueves, 30 de septiembre de 2010

Sanofi Loses Patent Fight

Sanofi Loses Patent Fight
Drug Discovery & Development - September 30, 2010


WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) - A federal judge in Delaware has ruled against French drug maker Sanofi-Aventis SA in a patent dispute involving its cancer drug Taxotere.
The judge ruled Monday that the claims asserted by the world's third-largest pharmaceutical company involving Taxotere were both invalid and unenforceable.
The ruling comes almost a year after a trial in a lawsuit filed by Sanofi against Hospira Inc. of Lake Forest, Ill., and Toronto's Apotex Corp. which sought to make generic versions of the drug. Taxotere is used to treat breast cancer and prostate cancer, among others.
Date: September 28, 2010
Source: Associated Press

Drugs Before Surgery Reduces Odds of Mastectomy

Drugs Before Surgery Reduces Odds of Mastectomy
Marilynn Marchione
Drug Discovery & Development - September 30, 2010


Taking hormone-blocking pills for a few months before breast cancer surgery can shrink tumors and allow many women to have just the lump removed instead of the whole breast, a new study suggests.
This approach is sometimes tried now in Europe, and the study was the first large test of it in the United States. It won't change practice right away; a second study is starting to try to repeat the results and identify which drugs work best.
Ultimately, though, this new approach could affect the care of tens of thousands of women each year with large tumors whose growth is fueled by estrogen. It might give them not just a gentler surgery option, but also may let many of them skip chemotherapy.
Before being treated with the hormone blockers, most of the women in the study were facing likely mastectomies because their tumors were too large for less drastic surgery.
"Half of them wound up having successful breast-conserving therapy," said Dr. John Olson, breast cancer surgery chief at Duke University. "That is a huge deal."
He led the study and gave results in a telephone news conference Wednesday. They will be presented Saturday at a meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and several other groups in Washington. Results also have been sent to a scientific journal and are under review.
Of the more than more than 200,000 breast cancers diagnosed each year in the U.S., about 70 percent have their growth fueled by the hormone estrogen.
The study involved 374 women at more than 100 sites around the country whose tumors were especially sensitive to estrogen. Doctors already know that chemotherapy is less effective in such women, and they wanted to see whether hormone-blocking drugs would work well enough to allow more of these women to be treated without removing their breasts.
Tamoxifen used to be the gold standard hormone blocker, but newer drugs called aromatase inhibitors do the job with fewer side effects.
The women in the study were randomly assigned to get one of three such medicines: Pfizer Inc.'s Aromasin, Novartis' Femara or AstraZeneca PLC's Arimidex. They cost from $340 to $420 a month, although Arimidex is available in generic form and patents on the others expire within a few years.
After four months, 71 percent on Femara, 67 percent on Arimidex and 61 percent on Aromasin had tumors shrink by half or more. Half of the women who were originally told they needed masectomies were able to have lump-only surgery, as were about 82 percent of those who were thought to be marginal candidates for the less severe operation.
Only 23 women saw their tumors grow 25 percent or more in the four months that surgery was delayed.
That risk is fairly small and compares to what studies testing chemotherapy before surgery have found, said Dr. Harold Burstein, a breast cancer specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston who heads the oncology society's expert panel on hormone treatments.
For most women, delaying surgery to try tumor-shrinking treatment is a reasonable option, he said.
"Hopefully we can build on this and identify women who don't need chemotherapy" and can have hormone-blockers instead, he said.
The side effects of hormone treatment are milder - mostly hot flashes and joint pain, Olson said.
A National Cancer Institute grant paid for most of the study; Pfizer and Novartis contributed some support.
Although the differences in how well the three drugs performed were so small they could have occurred by chance alone, the larger study will test the two with the best results - Femara and Arimidex, Olson said. It also will compare them to chemotherapy as a pre-surgery treatment.
Date: September 29, 2010
Source: Associated Press

Fostamatinib Helpful in RA Patients

Fostamatinib Helpful in RA Patients
Drug Discovery & Development - September 29, 2010


AstraZeneca’s oral syk inhibitor, fostamatinib (R788), recently in-licensed from Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., significantly improved outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who responded inadequately to ongoing treatment with methotrexate (MTX), according to phase 2 study data published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
In the six-month phase 2b study completed by Rigel, known as TASKi2, 67% of patients taking fostamatinib 100mg twice daily achieved the primary efficacy endpoint (ACR 20) at six months, which was significantly higher than placebo.  Thirty-six percent of patients achieved an ACR 20 response after just one week.  Speed of onset may be an important factor in RA because permanent joint damage can occur when the disease is active.  The most common adverse events included diarrhea and upper respiratory infection.
“In this study, we saw a significant clinical benefit in this rheumatoid arthritis population and a manageable safety profile,” said Mark C. Genovese, Division of Rheumatology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.  “Based on the data, further study of fostamatinib as an oral agent for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis is certainly warranted.”
Patients in the study had active RA despite treatment with MTX alone, and were given either fostamatinib 100mg twice daily (bid), fostamatinib 150mg once daily (qd), or placebo.  Significant clinical benefits were reported in both fostamatinib  groups in the key efficacy endpoints of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) patient assessment criteria and Disease Activity Score (DAS) 28 remission criteria.
Date: September 22, 2010
Source: AstraZeneca 

Movetis Begins Phase 3 Trial of Prucalopride

Movetis Begins Phase 3 Trial of Prucalopride
Drug Discovery & Development - September 29, 2010


Movetis NV, the European gastrointestinal speciality pharmaceutical company, announces that it has started a phase 3 clinical trial with prucalopride in male patients with chronic constipation. Positive results from this clinical trial programme should allow Movetis to support a regulatory application for expansion of the current label of Resolor (prucalopride).
Approval of the regulatory application by the registration authorities would enable physicians to prescribe this medication for the treatment of male patients with chronic constipation. The expansion of the current label to include male patients could increase the target EU patient population for the product from 6 million to 7 million.
The screening of the first patients for the phase 3 clinical trial with prucalopride in male patients with chronic constipation has now begun. This twelve-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial will run in nine European countries and involve 348 patients from nine European countries. Movetis expects to submit the data from this phase 3 trial late 2012-early 2013.
The regulatory application that was submitted to the European Medicine Agency (EMA) for the current, approved indication, was supported by the results of a clinical development programme with over 3,000 patients, of whom 511 were male patients. However, the current Resolor label confines its use to women with chronic constipation in whom laxatives have failed to provide adequate relief. This is because of the limited amount of efficacy and safety data with prucalopride in male patients with chronic constipation that was generated in previous clinical studies.
Dirk Reyn, CEO of Movetis commented: “We are pleased to be continuing to advance the development of Resolor as scheduled. The clinical trial programme that we initiated today is the latest step in a well-thought out label expansion strategy for Resolor. In May 2010, we started our first clinical trial with prucalopride in patients with opioid induced constipation, another area of significant unmet medical need. All of the additional indications that we are targeting could eventually double the current European patient population with disorders that could be treated with prucalopride.”
Date: September 24, 2010
Source: Movetis NV 

XOMA Completes Enrollment of Phase 2 Diabetes Trial

XOMA Completes Enrollment of Phase 2 Diabetes Trial
Drug Discovery & Development - September 29, 2010


XOMA Ltd., a leader in the discovery and development of therapeutic antibodies, announced that patient enrollment was recently completed for the company's Phase 2a trial of XOMA 052 in patients with Type 2 diabetes. XOMA 052 is a therapeutic antibody candidate that inhibits the inflammatory cytokine interleukin-1 beta (IL-1 beta) that may be a major cause of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The Phase 2a trial follows the completion of positive Phase 1 trials in Type 2 diabetes patients and is designed to gain additional information on XOMA 052's anti-diabetes activity including glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, impact on biomarkers of cardiovascular risk, and safety. XOMA anticipates reporting top line results in early January 2011 from a planned interim analysis of the first three months of treatment in this six month trial.
In the trial, 74 patients were enrolled and randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive three months of treatment with either XOMA 052 at a single dose level or placebo, respectively, along with metformin, the standard of care. After three months, patients in the active treatment arm are treated for an additional three months at either the same, a higher or a lower dose of XOMA 052. Patients in the placebo group also were continued for an additional three months. In addition to HbA1c, outcomes to be evaluated include fasting blood glucose and levels of C-reactive protein, a biomarker of cardiovascular risk.
XOMA has also completed enrollment in a larger Phase 2b trial of XOMA 052 in patients with Type 2 diabetes. Top line results from this dose-ranging trial, in which 420 patients were enrolled, are expected to be available in the first quarter of 2011. Patients on metformin therapy were randomized equally to one of four XOMA 052 dose groups or placebo for monthly treatments over six months. The primary outcome to be evaluated in this trial is mean change in HbA1c from baseline at the end of treatment. Additional diabetic outcomes as well as inflammatory and cardiovascular disease biomarkers will be evaluated.
The Phase 2 trials follow a successful 98 patient Phase 1 program in Type 2 diabetes patients in which XOMA 052 was shown to be well-tolerated, demonstrated evidence of biological activity in diabetes measures and cardiovascular biomarkers, and had a half-life that may provide convenient dosing of once per month or less frequently.
"The completion of enrollment in the Phase 2 studies of XOMA 052 is an important step forward for XOMA in our efforts to develop a potentially disease-modifying medicine for Type 2 diabetes and other chronic indications," said Steven B. Engle, XOMA's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. "XOMA 052 is designed to treat the inflammatory cause of diabetes and other difficult diseases. It has the potential to provide patients an entirely new approach to controlling their disease."
Date: September 29, 2010
Source: XOMA Ltd. 

Curso Básico para Coordinadores de Estudios Clínicos sobre Entrenamiento de Normas GCP

Curso Básico para Coordinadores de Estudios Clínicos sobre Entrenamiento de Normas GCP
Inicio: 04/11/10
Este programa está dirigido a médicos, bioquímicos, biólogos, enfermeros, secretarias y toda persona que desee adquirir los conocimientos necesarios para ser coordinador de estudios clínicos en un centro de investigación, siguiendo los lineamientos internacionales y regulaciones locales.
Lugar de Realización:
Fundación de Estudios Farmacológicos y de Medicamentos (FEFYM)
Cursos: Tucumán 2133 P.10 Of.88 CF.
Informes e Inscripción:
Tucumán 2133 P.10 Of.85 CF
De Lunes a Viernes de 13 a 18 hs,
después de las 18 hs únicamente por teléfono 4952-3569,
Sra. Graciela Arias graciela.arias@fefym.org.ar
Inscripción abierta hasta completar vacantes
CIERRE DE INSCRIPCION 29/10/10

miércoles, 29 de septiembre de 2010

Biological, clinical, and ethical advances of placebo effects

The Lancet, Volume 375, Issue 9715, Pages 686 - 695, 20 February 2010
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61706-2Cite or Link Using DOI
Dr Damien G Finniss MSc [Med] a , Ted J Kaptchuk b, Franklin Miller PhD c, Prof Fabrizio Benedetti MD

Summary

For many years, placebos have been defined by their inert content and their use as controls in clinical trials and treatments in clinical practice. Recent research shows that placebo effects are genuine psychobiological events attributable to the overall therapeutic context, and that these effects can be robust in both laboratory and clinical settings. There is also evidence that placebo effects can exist in clinical practice, even if no placebo is given. Further promotion and integration of laboratory and clinical research will allow advances in the ethical use of placebo mechanisms that are inherent in routine clinical care, and encourage the use of treatments that stimulate placebo effects.

Rimonabant for prevention of cardiovascular events (CRESCENDO): a randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled trial

The Lancet, Volume 376, Issue 9740, Pages 517 - 523, 14 August 2010
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60935-
Prof Eric J Topol MD a , Prof Marie-Germaine Bousser MD b, Prof Keith AA Fox MBCh c, Mark A Creager MD d, Prof Jean-Pierre Despres MD e, Prof J Donald Easton MD f, Prof Christian W Hamm MD g, Prof Gilles Montalescot MD h, Prof P Gabriel Steg MD i, Prof Thomas A Pearson MD j, Eric Cohen MD k, Christophe Gaudin MD l, Bernard Job MD l, Judith H Murphy MD l, Deepak L Bhatt MD m, for The CRESCENDO Investigators

Summary

Background

Blockade of the endocannabinoid receptor reduces obesity and improves metabolic abnormalities such as triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, and fasting blood glucose. We assessed whether rimonabant would improve major vascular event-free survival.

Methods

This double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was undertaken in 974 hospitals in 42 countries. 18 695 patients with previously manifest or increased risk of vascular disease were randomly assigned to receive either rimonabant 20 mg (n=9381) or matching placebo (n=9314). Randomisation was stratified by centre, implemented with an independent interactive voice response system, and all study personnel and participants were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, as determined via central adjudication. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00263042.

Findings

At a mean follow-up of 13·8 months (95% CI 13·6—14·0), the trial was prematurely discontinued because of concerns by health regulatory authorities in three countries about suicide in individuals receiving rimonabant. All randomised participants were analysed. At the close of the trial (Nov 6, 2008), the composite primary endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 364 (3·9%) patients assigned to rimonabant and 375 (4·0%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·84—1·12, p=0·68). With rimonabant, gastrointestinal (3038 [33%] vs 2084 [22%]), neuropsychiatric (3028 [32%] vs 1989 [21%]), and serious psychiatric side-effects (232 [2·5%] vs 120 [1·3%]) were significantly increased compared with placebo. Four patients in the rimonabant group and one in the placebo group committed suicide.

Interpretation

The premature termination of this trial has important lessons for drug development. A drug that was being marketed for weight loss, but being tested for improving cardiovascular outcomes, induced a level of serious neuropsychiatric effects that was deemed unacceptable by regulatory authorities, and both the drug and the trial were abruptly terminated.

Funding

Sanofi-Aventis.

Discontinuation of imatinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours after 3 years of treatment: an open-label multicentre randomised phase 3 trial

The Lancet Oncology, Early Online Publication, 22 September 2010
doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70222-9Cite or Link Using DOI
Dr Axel Le Cesne MD a, Isabelle Ray-Coquard MD b, Binh Nguyen Bui MD c, Antoine Adenis MD d, Maria Rios MD e, François Bertucci MD f, Florence Duffaud MD g, Christine Chevreau MD h, Didier Cupissol MD i, Angela Cioffi MD a, Jean-François Emile MD j, Sylvie Chabaud MsC b, David Pérol MD b, Jean-Yves Blay MD k, for the French Sarcoma Group

Summary

Background

The effect of imatinib discontinuation on progression-free survival and overall survival in long-lasting responders with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) is unknown. We assessed treatment interruption in patients with non-progressive disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors criteria after 3 years of imatinib in a randomised trial.

Methods

In this open-label national multicentre phase 3 study in France, patients with GIST free of progression after 3 years of imatinib 400 mg/day were randomly assigned to continue or interrupt imatinib. Randomisation was done centrally and independently from other study procedures with computer-generated permuted blocks of two and four patients stratified by participating centre and presence or absence of residual disease on CT scan. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. An interim analysis was planned after the first 50 randomly assigned patients. Analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle—ie, all patients randomly assigned to a study group were included. This study is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov, number NCT00367861.

Findings

434 patients were enrolled in this trial between May 27, 2002, and May 5, 2009. Between June 13, 2005, and May 30, 2007, 50 patients with non-progressive disease who had received 3 years of treatment with imatinib were randomly assigned to continue or interrupt their treatment, 25 patients in each group. By Dec 7, 2009, after a median follow-up of 35 months (95% CI 33—38) after random assignment, 2-year progression-free survival was 80% (95% CI 58—91) in the continuation group and 16% (5—33) in the interruption group (p<0·0001). There was no difference in adverse events grade 3 or greater (oedema and asthenia) between the two groups.

Interpretation

Imatinib interruption after 3 years in responders results in a high risk of rapid progression in patients with advanced GIST. Discontinuation of imatinib is not recommended outside clinical trials unless patients experience significant toxic effects.

Funding

Conticanet, the Ligue Contre Le Cancer du Rhone, and Novartis

Drug interactions in childhood cancer

Drug interactions in childhood cancer
The Lancet Oncology, Early Online Publication, 23 September 2010
doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70105-4
Dr Cyrine Haidar PharmD a, Sima Jeha MD b

Summary

Children with cancer are increasingly benefiting from new treatment strategies and advances in supportive care, as shown by improvements in both survival and quality-of-life. However, the continuous emergence of new cancer drugs and supportive-care drugs has increased the possibility of harmful drug interactions; health-care providers need to be very cautious when combining drugs. We discuss the most common interactions between chemotherapeutic drugs and supportive-care drugs—such as anticonvulsants, antiemetics, uric-acid-lowering compounds, acid suppressants, antimicrobials, and pain-management medications in paediatric patients. We also review the interactions between chemotherapy drugs and food and herbal supplements, and provide recommendations to avoid unwanted and potentially fatal interactions in children with cancer. Because of the constant release of new drugs, health-care providers need to check the most recent references before making recommendations about drug interactions.

Seattle Genetics Drug Meets Study Goal

Seattle Genetics Drug Meets Study Goal
Drug Discovery & Development - September 28, 2010


NEW YORK (AP) - Seattle Genetics Inc., a Bothell, Washington-based biotechnology company, said its cancer drug candidate brentuximab met key goals in a late-stage clinical study.
The company is testing brentuximab, or SGN-35, as a potential treatment for Hodgkin's lymphoma that has recurred or not responded to stem cell treatment. The study of 102 patients showed 75 percent had an objective response to the drug, meaning their tumors shrank. The companies said the median response lasted more than six months.
Full results from the study will be presented at an upcoming scientific meeting.
Seattle Genetics and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co.'s Millennium unit plan to file for marketing approval of brentuximab in the U.S. in the first half of 2011. They also plan to file for approval in the European Union in 2011. The companies are testing the drug as a treatment for other forms of lymphoma and other stages of the disease as well.
Seattle Genetics has the right to sell brentuximab in the U.S. and Canada, and Millennium owns the marketing rights in all other countries.
Date: September 27, 2010
Source: Associated Press

Widening The Hunt for Targeted Cancer Therapy

Widening The Hunt for Targeted Cancer Therapy
Lauran Neergaard
Drug Discovery & Development - September 28, 2010


WASHINGTON (AP) - Cancer is a tale of two sets of genetic code, your own and your tumor's - and tracing the unique areas of damage makes for a way to target treatment.
Fifty years after the discovery of the first direct genetic link to cancer, scientists are assessing the state of so-called targeted therapy - with nearly 30 treatments on the market and a dozen or so more under study.
"We're still not using the 'C' word, 'cure,'" cautioned personalized medicine director Jeff Boyd of Fox Chase Cancer Center, who helped organized a meeting in Philadelphia on Tuesday to mark the anniversary and examine the future of targeted therapy.
But, he added, "there is real potential to transform many cancers into chronic diseases."
One next challenge is how to expand the number of targets to attack, in part by answering what the new chief of the National Cancer Institute calls the "big questions" about what makes this disease so intractable.
Questions like: What makes a tumor metastasize, or spread through the body? Metastasis is what kills, yet scientists don't know why some tumors spread and others don't, and what programs those tumor cells to invade, say, the liver instead of the bone or the lung - factors that undoubtedly could be new treatment targets.
Starting in October, Dr. Harold Varmus, the NCI's director, will begin quizzing top researchers from around the country about which of oncology's underlying mysteries should be part of his "Big Questions Initiative," a new focus of government cancer research.
Answering those questions "would get you over a roadblock that keeps us from making better progress," Varmus told a meeting of his scientific advisers earlier this month.
For Dr. Otis Brawley of the American Cancer Society, such a project might finally offer clues to a huge problem facing patients today: How to tell who needs the most aggressive treatment, and who would be OK skipping the big guns.
A domino effect of genetic alterations is required to cause any of the 200 diseases collectively called cancer. Some occur in the person, making them more prone to illness. But tumors also have their own genetic signature - four to seven genetic changes that are critical to turning, say, a normal breast or colon or liver cell into a cancerous one, and a pattern of activity that signals how aggressive that malignancy will be. Those unique patterns also offer targets for treatment, drugs that zero in on the particular genetic pathways fueling the person's cancer - and even vaccine-like therapies, a fledgling field that aims to train patients' immune systems to recognize and fight their tumors.
It all started with the 1960 publication of what was dubbed the Philadelphia chromosome, a funny-looking chromosome that two scientists - one from the University of Pennsylvania, one from Fox Chase - spotted only in patients with a specific kind of leukemia. Fast-forward to the 2001 approval of the groundbreaking drug Gleevec, which has turned chronic myeloid leukemia from a fast killer into a disease that many patients today manage with a daily pill. It works by targeting the cancer-causing protein produced by the Philadelphia chromosome.
Gleevec wasn't the first genetic targeted therapy for cancer - the decades of research sparked by that discovery actually paid off for some other cancers first.
Boyd predicts there will be more than 100 targeted therapies available within several more years, and the real quest is for targets that prove as crucial to holding cancer in check as Gleevec's did.,
Generating particular excitement now are possible new drugs for hard-to-treat breast cancer, compounds called PARP inhibitors that block enzymes needed for cell growth. Also on the radar are earlier-stage experiments with drugs for melanoma and lung cancer that target different genetic pathways involved in spurring cancer growth.
The biggest threat: Funding for cancer research isn't keeping up with the discovery of possible new targets, said the cancer society's Brawley. The NCI's budget has held at around $5 billion for several years, but federal scientists are bracing for possible cuts in 2012.
And because these targeted therapies work differently - shrinking a tumor or slowing its growth - than the tumor-destroying approaches of chemotherapy and radiation, it's harder to prove a benefit.
But Allison Frey, whose aggressive form of thyroid cancer spread to her liver in inoperable patches, says that approach has made her cancer an illness she can manage much like a diabetic manages insulin. For nearly five years, the Lanoka Harbor, N.J., woman has swallowed an experimental pill called Axitinib that shrank those patches and kept them from growing back, working through a pathway that targets a tumor's blood supply.
"Honestly, to me it's just like any other chronic illness," said Frey, who's part of a study at Fox Chase. "I show up for work every day and live life ... with minimal issues."
Date: September 27, 2010
Source: Associated Press

Introducción al Project Management en Investigación Clínica Farmacológica

Curso de Postgrado
Introducción al Project Management  en Investigación Clínica Farmacológica
Coordinador Docente:  Dr. Sergio Sevilla
Docentes:  Lic.Juan Carlos González, (Project Manager certificado PMI), Ing. Raúl Bellomusto (Project Manager certificado PMI) y Dr. Sergio Sevilla (Project Leader, Kendle Argentina).
Objetivo del curso:
-  Introducir a la metodología básica del Gerenciamiento de Proyectos (Project mangement-PM) de acuerdo a los lineamientos del Project Management Institute® y el PMBOK® Fourth Edition (Project Management Body of Knowledge)
-  Relacionar los conceptos metodológicos de PM con el área de aplicación de Pharmacological Clinical Research
Destinado:  a profesionales del área de Pharmacological Clinical Research: Monitores, Gerentes de Proyecto, Investigadores u otros profesionales que trabajen en modalidad de proyectos.

Modalidad:  charlas teóricas y casos de aplicación de los conceptos
Duración:  4 Media-Jornadas.  Se dictarán los días 14, 15, 21 y 22 de octubre de 2010  de 17:00 a 21:00 hs.
Comienzo y lugar:  Jueves 14 de octubre de 2010 en Tucumán 2133 P.10 Of. 88 CF

Certificaciones:  Fundación de Estudios Farmacológicos y de Medicamentos (FEFyM)

Arancel:   $600   (efectivo, cheque, depósito o transferencia bancaria, TC Visa h/tres pagos s/int o TD Visa)
Informes e Inscripción: Tucumán 2133 P. 10 Of. 85 CF. De 13 a 18 hs, después de las 18 hs. únicamente por teléfono 4952-3569  Sra. Graciela Arias  graciela.arias@fefym.org.ar <mailto:graciela.arias@fefym.org.ar>

martes, 28 de septiembre de 2010

The High Stakes of Running a Successful Oncology Trial

The High Stakes of Running a Successful Oncology Trial
Oncology clinical trials are a high stakes game in the pharmaceutical business. Given that over 500,0001 Americans die each year of cancer, it is the second most common cause of death in the US and afflicts virtually every age group.

Unlike other therapeutic trials, oncology trials are more sensitive in nature and require specific clinical expertise to properly manage. Many participants are required to have already undergone front and even second lines of therapy and only if these have failed are they eligible for the experimental and toxic drugs often required in oncology trials. Costs are high, enrollment can be challenging and you are often working with medically-fragile patients. However, when managed properly, effective oncology trials can save lives, generate new revenue streams and make breakthrough discoveries in a challenging therapeutic area.

According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), more than 1.5 million new cancer diagnoses will be made 2010. While thousands of oncology drugs are being researched at any time, very few will make it all the way to market. While many barriers or reasons for failure can’t be predicted, taking control of the basics of study design and implementation can make all the difference. Taking time up front to ensure you have the right protocol, the right team and the right technology in place can streamline clinical research.

Determine the Best Eligibility Criteria

Setting eligibility criteria should start with serious consideration and an in-depth understanding of your therapeutic area. As a general rule, criteria should be defined by the primary scientific objective of the study, which is driven by an unmet medical need. Setting the criteria can be particularly challenging in oncology trials since many patients have already undergone intense treatments and may have diminished abilities to commit to the rigors of a clinical trial. In addition, the more stringent your eligibility criteria are written, the harder it may be to enroll the appropriate number of participants.

Common eligibility criteria include: specific disease state, age, gender, prior therapies, lab results, activity levels, and current and previous medications. In some cases, tissue samples are critical to the study design. In this case, it’s important to include in your eligibility criteria that the patient must either have previous tissue samples or be willing to undergo a biopsy prior to enrolling in the study.

Regardless of what type of therapy or cancer you are researching, setting effective eligibility criteria is the first step toward running an effective clinical trial.

Understanding Placebo-Controlled Trials

While the use of placebo in oncology clinical trials is rare, there are times when there is a solid rationale. Placebo-controlled trials may be appropriate for highly unpredictable conditions, for conditions where there are no effective therapies available, or when available treatments have serious side effects. Due to ethical considerations, the ability to explain this rationale is critical, particularly in markets where it is more challenging to get approval to perform placebo-controlled oncology trials, such as in Brazil or other Latin American countries. Without a comprehensive and detailed explanation of why the placebo-controlled study is necessary, chances for approval are slim to none.
Under the right circumstances, placebo-controlled trials can be very effective in getting effective therapies to market more quickly.

Choose the Right Investigator

Investigator selection is another key driver of an oncology trial’s success. Not every site is capable of running a study, even if they claim to have plenty of experience or treat a large number of eligible patients. Here are some important considerations to evaluate:

- Patients: Select an investigator with access to the specific types of patients needed for your trial. Since oncology trial patient inclusion and exclusion criteria can be very limiting, this is of the utmost importance.
- Infrastructure: It’s important that every site have the appropriate infrastructure to support the study. Depending on the study design, this could mean many different things.
- Staff: Finding investigators where the staff are engaged in the clinical research process and are well-educated on good clinical practices (GCP) makes a big difference in how well the study is run. It will also aid in getting patients enrolled if the staff believe in the benefits of clinical research.
- Relationships: Consider how you’ll be treating study participants and what testing may need to be done throughout the course of the study. If you know you’ll need tissue samples, find an investigator with access to a credible pathologist. A relationship with a respected radiology department is essential for many oncology trials in order to achieve timely and consistent tumor evaluations. And, most importantly, a team environment between the investigators’ research nurses and coordinators always yields the most successful sites.
- Location, Location, Location: Geography plays a key role in investigator selection. If you need tissue samples to be processed within 48 hours from when they are collected, considering airline schedules will be critical to the study design. If your sites can’t get necessary specimens delivered within that window of time, it doesn’t matter if they have the best staff or most appropriate patient population. It’s also important to consider competition for patients – if there are numerous studies recruiting patients with a rare diagnosis from the same investigator site, it’s probably best to consider other investigators.
Assemble the Best Team
A well-designed study is nothing without a high-performing team. It goes without saying that all members of the team should have an in-depth understanding of oncology. Furthermore, if you can bring together a team with oncology experience in the specific area being studied (ie. hematology/oncology, solid tumors, etc.), you’ll be even better off.

In clinical research, the project manger plays an integral role by overseeing the entire study process. Basic characteristics demonstrated by the best project managers include: sound therapeutic knowledge, confident, organized, with excellent interpersonal skills. In addition, with many studies spanning multiple sites, and even countries, the ability to troubleshoot and solve problems quickly are other important traits to consider when selecting your project manager.

Monitors, otherwise known as clinical research associates (CRAs), need slightly different skills. Attention to detail is extremely important given CRAs are expected to ensure the study is performed in accordance with the protocol, GCP and regulatory guidelines set forth by the FDA.

Physicians, biostatisticians and the data review team also play a key role in the study process. Doing your due diligence to ensure the strongest team members will have the greatest impact on the success of the entire study.

Engage Regulatory Experts

Understanding the regulatory landscape, which can be particularly challenging in oncology, is critical. For example, knowing how to navigate adaptive trial design, or understanding what the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) may be looking for in a study submission can save valuable time and resources. Fortunately, the FDA’s oncology division takes a collaborative approach to working with sponsors, and will often provide input on a study design.

Savvy pharmaceutical companies and CROs may elect to partner with regulatory consultants and/or quality assurance organizations to assist with navigating the complexities of the regulatory environment. Quality assurance organizations can be engaged to conduct audits to ensure GCP and quality are maintained throughout the entire study process. Engaging this type of partner early on is likely to ensure a much smoother process when the study comes to an end. Particularly today as many organizations are running leaner than ever, in an often “virtual” environment, partnering with a well-established regulatory consultant that has seen the big picture of the study from the start, can be extremely valuable.

Embrace Technology

Embracing technology can be one of the most powerful and cost-effective ways to enhance the success of a clinical trial. Technology, such that you’ll find by partnering with a digital clinical research organization (dCRO), can help to run safer trials and deliver higher quality data more efficiently. While most pharmas and CROs are using some level of eClinical technology today they often operate in silos, making processes slightly more efficient, but still worlds away from the fully-integrated system a dCRO can provide.

The benefits of using a fully-integrated technology platform for study management are significant. In fact, this summer, the National Cancer Institute expressed interest in using an Internet-based system for data collection and management in cooperative, large-scale trials, with a goal of streamlining administrative and technical processes2. The interest in using technology is increasing for multiple reasons, one of which is patient enrollment, a common challenge in oncology trials. The ability to view and monitor the number of patients enrolled at every investigator site can help ensure the study is on track right from the start. If enrollment is below expectations, study teams can adjust their strategies and quickly make decisions to help drive enrollment.

Once the study is fully underway, the ability to view data, across all sites at every level, is invaluable. The ability to quickly identify trends and potential problem areas through the use of technology can ensure trials are run as safely as possible.

It’s easy to see that each of these benefits offered through the use of technology can also reduce the total cost of the trial. Since oncology trials are among the most costly to run with extremely high per patient costs, this is an important consideration that can’t be overlooked.

In conclusion, it’s no secret that conducting clinical trials in oncology can be challenging, but the potential rewards are equally significant. With the seriousness of this clinical area combined with all the potential roadblocks along the way, savvy pharmas should do everything possible to streamline the research process – including the use of advanced technology and smart up-front decision-making.

References:
1 http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/acspc-024113.pdf
2 http://www.fiercebiotechit.com/story/nci-plans-clinical-trial-system-reforms/2010-07-20

About the Authors:
David Hinds
David Hinds is a Global Project Director at Clinipace Worldwide. He brings more than 15 years in biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, serving in a variety of roles focused primarily on the strategy and execution of clinical programs. He has held Senior Clinical Operations positions with Exelixis, Kai Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, Genitope, and Intermune. He also worked as an Operations Manager for Pharmacia and a Lead CRA for Quintiles. Mr. Hinds received a B.S. in Biology from the Citadel and an MBA from the Moore School of Business at the University of South Carolina.
Robyn Philip-Norton
Robyn Philip-Norton is a Global Project Director at Clinipace Worldwide, and brings more than 20 years experience in the strategy and implementation of global and local clinical trials. She spent eight years in senior roles in clinical and medical development in both registration and post-market clinical trials. She has held management positions with Covance and The University of Sydney’s NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre. She received a BSc and a MPH from the University of Sydney.

About Clinipace Worldwide:

Clinipace Worldwide is a global technology-driven clinical research organization (CRO) specializing in fully-integrated clinical research services for biopharmaceutical and medical device firms. Its team of therapeutic experts brings extensive knowledge and insight into successful clinical development through proactive clinical trial management. With specific expertise in oncology, among other therapeutic areas, Clinipace Worldwide has managed over 90 contract research projects conducted at almost 3,000 sites with 100,000 patients. Clinipace Worldwide is headquartered in Research Triangle Park, NC with additional domestic operations in Overland Park, KS, and South American operations based in Brazil, Argentina, and Peru. For more information visit our website at clinipace.com.

lunes, 27 de septiembre de 2010

Toxikon Adds New Comet Assay to Portfolio

Toxikon Adds New Comet Assay to Portfolio
Drug Discovery & Development - September 27, 2010


Toxikon, an FDA-registered and independent contract research organization, has added the Comet Assay IV Analysis System to the breadth of its comprehensive genetic and molecular toxicology study offerings.
This technology, developed by Perceptive Instruments Ltd., is considered to be at the forefront of cancer research. Whether it is used to accelerate the development of cancer-fighting drugs or for environmental monitoring, genetic toxicology platforms, like the Comet Assay IV, are important tools in high demand among life science industries.
Along with the Comet Assay, Toxikon also provides a range of services from bioanalysis to chronic studies to FISH, blue and green screen assays to a full battery of genetic toxicology studies for premarket approval and IND submission. Additionally, Toxikon’s state-of-the-art facilities and experienced lab management provide specific solutions that comply and sound data.
Identification of biomarkers linked to adverse effects and target organ toxicities will always be central to preclinical and clinical studies.
Date: September 1, 2010
Source: Toxikon 

sábado, 25 de septiembre de 2010

Reflection paper on guidance for laboratories

Reflection paper on guidance for laboratories that perform the analysis or evaluation of clinical trial samples

Document details

Download documentReflection paper on guidance for laboratories that perform the analysis or evaluation of clinical trial samples
Reference numberEMA/INS/GCP/532137/2010
Statusdraft: consultation open
First published23/09/2010
Last updated 
Consultation start date10/06/2010
Consultation end date28/02/2011
Email address for submissionsGCP@ema.europa.eu

Infographic showing eClinical Solutions for the Clinical Trial Workflow.

Infographic showing eClinical Solutions for the Clinical Trial Workflow.

Jae Chung
I recently gave a presentation at “The Future of Clinical Trials” event in San Francisco.  The presentation focused on why clinical study start up needs to be reinvented.  By reinventing study start up to be more efficient, such efficiency gains would “trickle down” to positively impact study conduct and outcomes.  So what do we mean by trickle down? Trickle down means, if we have access to easy to use solutions in study start up, we will collectively raise our expectations and demand easier to use solutions. Such expectations would “trickle down” to study conduct. At the present time, study sponsors and managers have no choice but to live with the clunky and complex solutions offered by the clinical software providers.
The eClinical software space consists of numerous providers, addressing the clinical study workflow. There are limited cross platform standards, requiring sponsors and sites to use multiple solutions. Plus, most of them are complex, clunky and not optimized for the user experience.
The eClinical infographic below highlights numerous solutions which could benefit from better design and function. By improving study start up  solutions and processes (including Site Identification and Site Activation), people will come to expect better from their existing CTMS and EDC providers.
The infographic scratches the surface of the myriad of eClinical solutions serving the Clinical Research Community.  Have I missed any major categories? If so, please post your comment below, and I’ll be sure to include them in the next version.

About Me
I am the founder of goBalto, the easiest way to start your clinical study on the web. Before goBalto, I co-founded,Celltrion, a leading biopharmaceutical supplier and earned a paycheck from McKinsey & Company. I’m a father of 2, with a 3rd on the way – scheduled for October. I believe drug development can be made more efficient using simple, easy to use yet powerful online tools.

Fusiones y adquisiciones en la Industria Farmacéutica Argentina

g&a

El año en curso se muestra particularmente activo en cuanto a operaciones de fusiones, compras y ventas en el mercado argentino de la Industria Farmacéutica.
Si bien el prólogo se produjo a fines de 2009 en el cual, y como correlato de las decisiones a nivel mundial, se produjo la compra de Wyeth por parte de Pfizer y la integración de Schering Plough y MSD (Merck, Sharp & Dome), el año en curso se mostró intenso en operaciones a nivel nacional.
En efecto en 2010 se registró la compra de de Phoenix a manos del británico GSK (Glaxo Smith kline), Sanofi Aventis (como parte de una decisión mundial que se cumple por etapas regionales) compró la línea Química Medical de Gramon, Recalcine de Chile compró Northia, y se estaría produciendo un reordenamiento accionario del grupo Sidus que incluiría a las cuatro familias integrantes del directorio.
Cómo condimento, la intensa actividad de los accionistas de INSUD, grupo de origen nacional que se viene mostrando sumamente activo especialmente en adquisición de laboratorios extranjeros.
Estos movimientos tienden a generar una recuperación de terreno por parte de las empresas de origen extranjero. En efecto, hasta el inicio del año en curso la Industria Farmacéutica de origen nacional mantenía supremacía en participación de mercado.
La unidad de Mergers & Acquisitions y Desarrollo de Negocios de G&A Pharma Consulting tiene actualmente en carpeta pedidos concretos de compra de productos y laboratorios por parte  de integrantes de la Industria Farmacéutica de sólida trayectoria en el mercado local .
Esto ha llevado a que actualmente estemos recibiendo propuestas de venta, tanto en productos como en cuanto a laboratorios se refiere. La confidencialidad y seriedad en el tratamiento de ofertas y pedidos es absoluta. Agradecemos a los interesados contactarse con Jorge González, a info@gyaphconsulting.com.ar o (011 15 3459 9914 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              011 15 3459 9914      end_of_the_skype_highlighting).

Cracking the Code of Mendelian Disease and Cancer

Personalized Medicine Research Program

52-Week Phase 3 Study in Diabetes

52-Week Phase 3 Study Found Investigational Drug Dapagliflozin Plus Metformin Similar to Glipizide Plus Metformin in Improving Glycosylated Hemoglobin (HbA1c) in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus


Published date :
24 September 2010
AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company today announced results from a randomised, double-blind Phase 3 clinical study in adults with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin therapy alone. The study demonstrated dapagliflozin was non-inferior compared to glipizide (sulphonylurea) in improving glycosylated hemoglobin levels (HbA1c) when added to existing metformin therapy during a 52-week treatment period. The study also demonstrated that dapagliflozin plus metformin achieved significant reductions in key efficacy secondary endpoints: reduction in total body weight from baseline, compared with a weight gain on glipizide plus metformin therapy and a reduced number of patients reporting one or more hypoglycemic events. Treatments were titrated during the first 18 weeks, up to 10 mg/day for dapagliflozin plus metformin (median dose 10 mg/day) or 20 mg/day for glipizide (median dose 20 mg/day). Results from the study were presented at the 46th European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) Annual Meeting.
Overall, the frequencies of adverse events, serious adverse events and study discontinuations were comparable across the two treatment groups; although signs, symptoms and other reports suggestive of urinary tract or genital infections were more common in dapagliflozin treated subjects.
Dapagliflozin, an investigational compound, is a first-in-class sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor and is currently in Phase 3 trials under joint development by AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb as a once-daily oral therapy for the treatment of adult patients with type 2 diabetes. SGLT2 inhibitors, which act independently of insulin mechanisms, facilitate the excretion of glucose and associated calories in the urine, thereby lowering blood glucose levels.
“Type 2 diabetes patients often present with multiple co-morbidities in addition to their blood sugar levels,” said Michael A. Nauck, MD, Head of Diabetes Center, Bad Lauterberg (Germany), principle investigator of the study. “We are pleased to see the results from this Phase 3 study found that dapagliflozin plus metformin compared favorably to glipizide plus metformin, helping patients lower their HbA1c levels with a lower risk of hypoglycemia.”
About The Study
This Phase 3 study was designed to assess whether, after 52 weeks, the change from baseline in HbA1c levels with dapagliflozin plus metformin was non-inferior to glipizide plus metformin in adult patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycemic control on 1500 mg/day or higher doses of metformin therapy alone. Non-inferiority was defined in the study protocol as a treatment group numerical difference in the HbA1c reduction of less than 0.35% for the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval [CI] when either dapagliflozin or glipizide were added to a stable dose of metformin. Key secondary endpoints included the change from baseline in body weight and number of patients reporting hypoglycemic events at week 52.
The study was a 52-week, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, active-controlled Phase 3 study, which included 814 adult patients with type 2 diabetes (aged ≥ 18) whose HbA1c was greater than 6.5% and less than or equal to 10% at baseline. Individuals were randomized to one of two treatment groups: dapagliflozin plus metformin (n=406; starting 2.5 mg per day) or glipizide plus metformin (n=408; starting 5 mg per day). For the first 18 weeks, study drugs were up-titrated as needed (dapagliflozin to less than or equal to 10 mg per day; glipizide to less than or equal to 20 mg per day). The median dose of dapagliflozin was 10 mg. The median dose of glipizide was 20 mg.
Study Results
Using the full analysis, after 52 weeks, individuals taking dapagliflozin plus metformin, compared to those taking glipizide plus metformin, achieved an identical adjusted mean reduction in HbA1c from baseline of -0.52%. Results of the study demonstrated that therapy with dapagliflozin was non-inferior to glipizide when added to existing metformin therapy (difference in adjusted mean change from baseline vs. glipizide as added to existing metformin therapy was 0.00%, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.11).
The study also demonstrated that patients treated with dapagliflozin plus metformin achieved a statistically significant weight loss at 52 weeks when compared to those treated with glipizide plus metformin (-3.22 kg vs. +1.44 kg respectively; p-value less than 0.0001). Significantly more patients achieved a weight loss of greater than or equal to 5% at baseline with dapagliflozin plus metformin (33.3%) compared to glipizide plus metformin (2.5%; p-value less than 0.0001) at week 52.
The number of individuals with any hypoglycemic event was significantly lower for patients treated with dapagliflozin plus metformin as compared to those treated with glipizide plus metformin (3.5% vs. 40.8% respectively; p-value less than 0.0001) at week 52.
The overall proportions of individuals experiencing adverse events after 52 weeks were similar between the two treatment groups: 78.3% for dapagliflozin plus metformin vs. 77.9% for glipizide plus metformin. The most common adverse events for dapagliflozin plus metformin compared to glipizide plus metformin were nasopharyngitis (10.6% vs. 15.0%), hypertension (7.4% vs. 8.6%) and influenza (7.4% vs. 7.4%).  Discontinuations due to adverse events were 9.1% for dapagliflozin plus metformin vs. 5.9% for glipizide plus metformin.
Adverse events suggestive of urinary tract infection and genital infection were analyzed based on predefined groupings of preferred terms for each of these two categories. The percentage of patients with signs, symptoms and other reports suggestive of urinary tract and genital infections was higher for dapagliflozin plus metformin compared to glipizide plus metformin. Signs, symptoms and other reports suggestive of urinary tract infections were 10.8% with dapagliflozin plus metformin vs. 6.4% with glipizide plus metformin. Signs, symptoms and other reports suggestive of genital infections were 12.3% with dapagliflozin plus metformin compared to 2.7% with glipizide plus metformin and most were mild to moderate in intensity. One case of urinary tract infection led to discontinuation in the dapagliflozin group and one case in the glipizide group. 
Three cases of genital infections led to discontinuation in the dapagliflozin treatment group. Two cases of pyelonephritis were reported in the glipizide group.
The overall proportions of individuals experiencing serious adverse events after 52 weeks were similar between the two treatment groups: 8.6% for dapagliflozin plus metformin vs. 11.3% for glipizide plus metformin.
Effects upon blood pressure were examined as exploratory endpoints. Reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure by 4.3 mmHg and 1.6 mmHg, respectively, were observed in the dapagliflozin plus metformin group.  Glipizide plus metformin group was associated with an increase of 0.8 mmHg and a reduction of 0.4 mmHg, in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respectively.  Orthostatic hypotension was not observed.
About Type 2 Diabetes
Type 2 diabetes (diabetes mellitus) is a chronic, progressive disease that is characterised by dysfunction of beta cells in the pancreas, which decreases insulin secretion and leads to elevated glucose levels.  Over time, this sustained hyperglycemia contributes to worsening insulin resistance and further beta cell dysfunction.
Many patients with type 2 diabetes have additional co-morbidities such as obesity and hypertension.  Significant unmet needs exist as nearly half of treated patients remain uncontrolled on their current glucose-lowering regimen and even fewer are controlled across multiple parameters. In the past, treatments for type 2 diabetes have focused primarily on insulin-dependent mechanisms. An approach that acts independently of insulin may provide an option for adults with type 2 diabetes in helping manage their glucose levels.
About SGLT2 Inhibition
The renal SGLT system plays a major role in overall glucose balance in the body. Normally, the kidney filters ~180g of glucose each day, and virtually all is reabsorbed back into circulation. Glucose reabsorbtion occurs in the proximal tubule of the kidney via the SGLT system. Selective inhibition of SGLT2 by an insulin independent mechanism of action facilitates the excretion of glucose and associated calories in the urine, thereby lowering blood glucose levels.
AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb Collaboration
AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb entered into a collaboration in January 2007 to enable the companies to research, develop and commercialise select investigational drugs for type 2 diabetes. The AstraZeneca/Bristol-Myers Squibb Diabetes collaboration is dedicated to global patient care, improving patient outcomes and creating a new vision for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.
About Bristol-Myers Squibb
Bristol-Myers Squibb is a global biopharmaceutical company whose mission is to discover, develop and deliver innovative medicines that help patients prevail over serious diseases. For more information about Bristol-Myers Squibb, visit http://www.bms.com/ or follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/bmsnews.
About AstraZeneca
AstraZeneca is a global, innovation-driven biopharmaceutical business with a primary focus on the discovery, development and commercialisation of prescription medicines.  As a leader in gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, neuroscience, respiratory and inflammation, oncology and infectious disease medicines, AstraZeneca generated global revenues of US $32.8 billion in 2009.  For more information please visit: http://www.astrazeneca.com/
Contacts:
Media Enquiries:
Neil McCrae +44 20 7604 8236 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +44 20 7604 8236      end_of_the_skype_highlighting   (24 hours)
Chris Sampson +44 20 7604 8031 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +44 20 7604 8031      end_of_the_skype_highlighting   (24 hours)
Sarah Lindgreen +44 20 7604 8033 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +44 20 7604 8033      end_of_the_skype_highlighting   (24 hours)
Abigail Baron +44 20 7604 8034 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +44 20 7604 8034      end_of_the_skype_highlighting   (24 hours)
Investor Enquiries UK:
Jonathan Hunt +44 20 7604 8122 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +44 20 7604 8122      end_of_the_skype_highlighting mob: +44 7775 704032 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +44 7775 704032      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Karl Hård +44 20 7604 8123 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +44 20 7604 8123      end_of_the_skype_highlighting      mob: +44 7789 654364 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +44 7789 654364      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Clive Morris +44 20 7604 8124 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +44 20 7604 8124      end_of_the_skype_highlighting mob: +44 7710 031012 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              +44 7710 031012      end_of_the_skype_highlightingt

1 Congreso Argentino de Medicina Farmacéutica

1 Congreso Argentino de Medicina Farmacéutica

Sociedad Argentina de Medicina Farmacéutica.Consolidando una nueva especialidad.

- Investigación farmacológica en pediatria.
- ¿Que espera la industria de las CROs?
- Aseguramiento de calidad en investigación clínica.
- Comités de Ética: nuevas responsabilidades; capacitación.
- Biotecnología.
- Marketing médico: Ética de la comunicación.
- Regulación nacional y provincial en investigación clínica.
- Farmacovigilancia: nuevas dispocisiones, reportes.
- Medicina Farmacéutica: una nueva especialidad.
- Entre otros importantes temas abordados por los profesionales más destacados de la especialidad.


El 13 y 14 de Octubre de 2010
A realizarse en Circulo de Oficiales de Mar, Sarmiento 1867, CABA - Argentina
[Leer Más...]