When I read stories that appear throughout the book, the room becomes pin-drop silent. Not uncomfortable, but attentive. People lean forward. Some close their eyes. Others quietly wipe away tears. Even after reading these stories again and again, my own eyes still mist. These are not reactions to theory or argument. They are responses to a painful reality many recognize.

What becomes clear in those rooms is that the frustration is not isolated to one role or perspective. Patients speak about waiting and uncertainty. Clinicians describe exhaustion and moral strain. Innovators and policymakers wrestle with systems that move more slowly than the problems they are trying to solve. The details differ, but the throughline is the same: people want care that recognizes their presence and treats them as more than a process to be managed. When that recognition happens, the tone of the conversation changes.

Since its listing, the book has spent several consecutive weeks on Amazon’s Top New Releases list. That matters in a conventional sense. Still, rankings, whether in print or digital format, do not explain what happens when people hear their own experience reflected back to them with clarity and respect. Stories do that work. Many are weary of facts and figures deployed to justify positions rather than illuminate lived reality.

Human experience carries a different kind of truth. It does not compete with data, but it precedes it. When experience is named accurately, people do not feel persuaded. They feel recognized. That recognition opens space for reflection, dialogue, and ultimately for change.

A Question That Changes the Room

I finished a book talk and signing with The Marfan Foundation, and the impact lingers beyond the formal program. During the signing, people ask thoughtful, personal questions. I often ask permission to respond by reading a short passage from the book. Then I listen to stories of courage, love, and endurance that surface naturally and without prompting.

Parents speak about children. Siblings talk about one another. Families describe navigating medical uncertainty and emotional trauma over years, sometimes decades. Individuals share how they discover the strength they did not know they possessed, and how they learn to share that strength with others walking similar paths. These are not stories of abstraction. They are lived, detailed, and deeply human.

The Marfan Foundation is one of the patient and professional communities reflected in the book, and in the room, the reason is unmistakable. Physicians are spoken of by first name – Alan, Duke, Kim and Reed – not title. They are described not as distant experts, but as people who show up consistently and with care. These stories remind everyone present that even in the most complex conditions, care is sustained by relationships as much as by scientific excellence.

Between Two Meetings, on a Moving Train

As I board a Brightline train for the next meeting, the contrast stays with me in a quiet, persistent way. I am traveling from a gathering centered on shared human experience to SCOPE Summit 2026, a global convening focused on clinical trials and research infrastructure. The agenda centers on development planning, protocol optimization, patient-centric trial design, site engagement and recruitment, generative AI, and the technologies that move science from hypothesis to evidence.

One meeting is rooted in lived journeys, where science is received as hope amid uncertainty. The other is grounded in structure and precision, where science is designed, measured, and scaled. Both spaces matter deeply, and both are essential to progress. Clinical research is where rigor lives and where uncertainty is reduced in ways that allow care to advance responsibly.

Yet the transition between these two gatherings and two cities reveals something essential. People do not leave their humanity at the door of the operating room or the halls of science. They carry it with them into protocols, endpoints, enrollment decisions and trial participation. Patients do not experience trials as abstractions. They experience them as acts of trust layered onto already complex lives.

When Structure Forgets Experience

Too often, human experience is treated as something to be accounted for after systems are built, rather than as a foundation for their design. Trials are optimized for efficiency and compliance, yet struggle when recruitment falters, participation drops, or trust erodes. These outcomes are not solely technical failures. They are relational failures.

Patient-centric trial design is not a feature added late in development. It is a mindset that shapes questions, assumptions, and priorities from the start. Site engagement is not a procedural step, but a relationship built over time. Technology reduces burden only when shaped by empathy, context, and understanding.

Rare disease communities such as The Marfan Foundation understand this instinctively. When systems fall short, patients and families organize, advocate, and collaborate more intentionally. In doing so, they model what the broader system aspires to scale: trust, continuity, shared language, and partnership. People do not fragment their lives the way systems fragment care.

When Experience Finally Counts

At SCOPE, this question becomes practical rather than theoretical. I moderate a fireside chat with StuffThatWorks executives Yael Elish and newly appointed CEO Julie Ross, exploring what happens when patient experience is treated not as a marginal input but as the foundation of artificial intelligence itself. Billions of dollars are invested in pre-clinical discovery, yet clinical trials remain a costly bottleneck, often stretching beyond seven years before therapies reach patients.

One story from the book captures why this matters. A woman living with a chronic autoimmune condition follows treatment guidelines faithfully yet struggles with side effects that force her to stop therapy repeatedly. Her medical record reflects non-adherence, not struggle. It is only when she joins a patient-driven community where thousands share lived experience that patterns emerge her clinicians have never seen.

Within weeks, she learns how others adjust dosing, manage side effects, and balance treatment with daily life. When these experiences are aggregated and analyzed, they do not contradict clinical science. They complete it. What once looks like noise becomes a signal when the human story is allowed to remain intact.

This is why patient-derived models matter. Real-world evidence is not simply post-market surveillance. It is the accumulated story of how people actually live with disease, navigate treatment, and make trade-offs that controlled environments rarely capture. These data are not neutral artifacts. They are lives rendered into patterns with meaning.

Restoring What Was Lost

What I witness in quiet rooms, at signing tables, and in conversations that follow readings is not resistance to science. I see the same truth as a fireside chat moderator, alongside people dedicated to bridging patient voice, data, and science in ways that honor those it seeks to serve. What emerges, again and again, is a longing for connection.

People are not asking to be spared complexity, nor do they believe science belongs only in a sterile laboratory. They are asking not to be erased by it. They want science that recognizes them even as it advances, and systems that remember who they are designed to serve.

This is where Why People Matter ultimately resides. Healing does not begin when systems are optimized or when data moves faster. It starts when relationships are restored and when people feel recognized within the structures meant to help them. Science advances when trust is present, and trust grows when listening is treated not as an accessory but as a foundation.

If there is a path forward, it is not found by choosing between humanity and innovation. It is found by refusing to separate them. Data matters because people do. And when science remembers that progress becomes worthy of the lives it touches.

The post Why Healing Still Begins with Relationship appeared first on Medika Life.

The gravitational pull is unmistakable. The Westin St. Francis remains the symbolic center of power, where scale dominates the conversation and capital moves in large increments. However, innovation, from the concept of a molecule or engineering marvel, rarely begins at scale. It starts with a question, a patient-care frustration, a molecular insight and a small group of people willing to compress years of work into minutes of explanation.

That is why the Biotech Showcase matters. It’s why it continues to thrive just off the main stage. Like off-Broadway, this is where blockbusters are discovered.

Seven Minutes to Be Understood

I spent part of the day sitting in one room at the Biotech Showcase, listening to a succession of rapid-fire presentations, each lasting seven minutes per company. The room was only half full, but it was intensely attentive. This was not casual listening. This was evaluative listening.

Companies including OrisDx, IowaiBIO Inc., Endure Biotherapeutics, SIvEC Biotechnologies, Frezent, Sideral Therapeutics, Courative Inc., and others each delivered a tightly constructed narrative of carefully curated slides: the unmet clinical need, the scientific or molecular approach, progress to date and the precise inflection point ahead. Most importantly, resources needed for the next stage of development.

What made these presentations compelling was not polish, it was clarity. There was no time to hide behind jargon or aspiration. Seven minutes forces discipline. It reveals whether a team truly understands its own story. For investors or biopharma partners in the room, it quickly answers the most important question: Is this something I want to continue discussing?

That is the essence of a productive dating game. Not every conversation leads to a match, but the right ones unmistakably spark an attraction.

Why This Room Exists at All

The Biotech Showcase works because it understands timing and intent. Seed and early-stage companies do not come to San Francisco in January to compete with global pharmaceutical announcements. They come because the people who can change their trajectory are already in the city and already thinking about what comes next.

J.P. Morgan Healthcare Week is where the industry takes stock of itself. Large companies outline business plan priorities. Investors recalibrate portfolios. Strategies are stress-tested. In that context, the Biotech Showcase becomes a natural counterbalance: a place where emerging science is introduced not as speculation, but as possibility.

There is also quiet wisdom in the Showcase’s decision to record and share presentations after the event. In a week where schedules overlap and choices are constant, the ability to revisit a story matters. Conversations that begin in a room can continue weeks later, grounded in something concrete and lasting. That continuity is how relationships form—and how trust accumulates.

The City Becomes the Platform

What is easy to overlook from the outside is how completely San Francisco itself becomes part of the infrastructure during this week. Beyond the formal stages, firms across the ecosystem host companies in nearby venues, creating dozens of smaller hubs within walking distance of one another.

At places like the Marines’ Memorial Club, companies are hosted quietly and efficiently, often fifteen or so at a time, by firms such as FINN Partners, alongside others working behind the scenes to support emerging science during the week. During the course of J.P. Morgan Week, these companies may hold more than 200 conversations with analysts, investors, and media representatives. No banners. No spectacle. Just focused, purposeful, personalized dialogue.

This distributed model works because it mirrors how decisions are actually made, not in a single dramatic moment, but through repeated, informed exchanges that foster knowledge and confidence.

When the day winds down, the city shifts again. Evenings during J.P. Morgan Week are reserved for receptions hosted by banks, global companies, industry groups, and even trade commissions from countries such as the UK, including the UK Bioindustry Association. These gatherings are not afterthoughts. They are where formality loosens, where introductions give way to relationships, and where ideas heard earlier in the day are tested in conversation. Science meets context. Strategy meets personality.

When AI Enters the Dating Pool

One of the most notable developments this year is the growing presence of AI companies entering this ecosystem alongside emerging biotech companies—firms such as Briya.Health demonstrates how AI is no longer merely orbiting the life sciences; it is now deeply embedded within them.

Early-stage biotech is data-rich and time-poor. They generate complex, unstructured information long before scale or certainty arrives. AI platforms that can surface insight, reduce friction, and accelerate decision-making change the nature of early collaboration.

When AI innovators and biotech founders encounter one another during this week—often in the same rooms, at the same receptions, and in the same corridors—the conversation accelerates. What might have taken months of coordination elsewhere can happen organically here. That is not a coincidence. It is designed.

Why This Week Still Matters

Events like the Biotech Showcase, alongside complementary forums such as 1BusinessWorld’s Global BioInnovation Forum, emerge because they recognize how innovation actually drives progress. They realize that timing matters: place matters and proximity matters.

These gatherings do not compete with J.P. Morgan Healthcare Week; they complete it. Together, they create a comprehensive view of the health innovation lifecycle, from initial insight to global execution.

What I witnessed in that half-filled room was not hype. It was intent. Seven minutes at a time, company after company made a case—not just for funding, but for belief.

That is why the Biotech Showcase remains exactly what its name promises: a showcase of possibilities. And why, in the great dating game of health innovation, does it remain one of the most honest and productive places to begin?

The post The Best Dating Game in Health Innovation Happens Just Off the Main Stage appeared first on Medika Life.

Rare disease treatment is characterized by its numerous challenges, stemming from an overall lack of awareness across the healthcare landscape. This issue becomes a waterfall, trickling down and affecting crucial nodes of the healthcare value chain, such as regulations, existing healthcare infrastructure, and affordability, before it can even potentially reach patients. Hence, the cooperation of the public and private sectors with a firm basis in knowledge sharing and education is required to alleviate these multifaceted challenges brought from a lack of awareness.

The Root of Awareness  

Rare diseases are defined by their generally low population impact, with many markets agreeing to a ratioed figure, such as one patient per every 2,000 in a population. The rarity of such diseases results in a lack of awareness among both the general public and the healthcare practitioner community. This awareness gap translates into a significant challenge in patients receiving an accurate diagnosis. Combined with the relatively few specialized medical personnel for such diseases, this can lead to misdiagnosis or delayed referrals, resulting in an average time to receive a final diagnosis of up to 5 years. By this time, some rare diseases can cause significant distress, such as Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON), which can cause vision loss in a matter of months if left untreated.

Patients face a journey of medical uncertainty, fiscal difficulties, and personal challenges. These issues are often exacerbated by healthcare systems that struggle to accurately and promptly diagnose such rare conditions.

Point-to-Point Hurdles in Medication Access

Across markets, the rare disease medication issue also has to contend with more tangible and operational concerns stemming from the lack of awareness. From a regulatory standpoint, the lack of rare disease understanding can lead to regulations being under equipped to address medication access. This is doubly so for more challenging regulatory landscapes, such as across APAC’s complex and fragmented market environment, where general healthcare accessibility can already prove to be a hurdle due to a combination of socioeconomic and geopolitical factors. This can lead rare diseases and their medications to be an underserved area, while more widely common health concerns are prioritized.

A key driver of healthcare access is the underlying infrastructure powering the supply chain, ensuring the distribution of medication to patients. Similar to regulations, supply chain systems can vary vastly in complexity, particularly when across challenging geography and when specialised logistics, such as cold chain solutions, are needed to handle sensitive medication. These can culminate in much-needed investment into supply chain infrastructure. For example, in APAC markets, such as Thailand, DKSH has established a network of satellite distribution centers that can provide last-mile delivery of sensitive medications to underserved areas in a short period of time.

Regulatory complexities and supply chain infrastructure aside, the barrier to rare disease medication accessibility most often felt by patients is the affordability of treatments. The high cost of rare disease treatment options is critical, with some reaching over a million dollars for annual or one-time treatment. The issue of cost is more amplified in regions like APAC, where many markets have less robust public health insurance or social support systems, placing a financial strain on patients, even when access is just within reach.

This collection of barriers to accessing rare disease medications can be daunting from the outset. As a challenge of global concern, addressing it requires a unified approach that combines in-market and industry expertise, all in service of bringing medication to underserved patients.

The Power of Collaboration

The unique challenges of rare diseases are too great for any single entity to tackle alone. Bridging this gap through collaboration is paving the way forward, with public-private partnerships (PPPs) emerging as a core means for success. These partnerships bring together government agencies, pharmaceutical companies, academic institutions, and patient advocacy groups to share expertise, resources, and risk. For instance, in the APAC region, initiatives like the APEC Action Plan on Rare Diseases have provided a framework for member economies to accelerate efforts in this area, including the promotion of multisectoral collaborations. Regional alliances, such as the Asia Pacific Alliance for Rare Disease Organizations (APARDO), have done valuable work in collaborating with advocacy groups to raise awareness about these conditions. On an organizational level, there are also healthcare partners, such as DKSH, who work with firms, such as Kyowa Kirin, to bring rare disease medications to markets by utilizing in-market and regulatory expertise. Moreover, DKSH’s local teams have strong market knowledge, enabling them to offer clients and customers expert advice on local regulation.

This collaborative approach is crucial for streamlining the regulatory process for rare disease medications, also known as orphan drugs. Governments, including many in Asia, have introduced specific regulations and incentives to encourage the development of rare disease medication. These include Orphan Drug Designations (ODD) that provide much-needed support, such as tax credits for clinical research. Beyond these incentives, regulatory bodies are considering a greater reliance on evidence from expanded access programs. This allows for the use of data from a smaller patient pool, which is often the only available source of information for such rare conditions, thereby accelerating the review and approval process.

From a patient perspective, financial aid is of vital importance and an area where collaboration is key. The high cost of treatments for rare diseases necessitates innovative funding models beyond traditional public insurance. One effective model gaining traction in APAC is the establishment of dedicated funds, supported by a combination of public and private contributions. Singapore’s Rare Disease Fund (RDF) is a prime example, where community donations are matched by the government at a significant ratio. This model provides long-term financial support for patients, while encouraging a sense of shared responsibility across society. Similarly, patient access schemes and managed access programs are being implemented to ensure affordability and controlled access to therapies before full reimbursement is in place. These schemes can be tailored to individual patient needs and help bridge the gap between regulatory approval and widespread access.

Ultimately, the future of rare disease medication accessibility rests on a unified, multi-stakeholder ecosystem. By building on collaborative frameworks, optimizing regulatory pathways, and pioneering innovative funding mechanisms, the healthcare landscape can be transformed. Beyond raising awareness, there is an opportunity to create a robust, equitable, and sustainable system that ensures no patient is left behind, regardless of the rarity of their condition.

The post Treating Rare Diseases: The Challenge of Access appeared first on Medika Life.

From Communications Strategist to Purpose-Built Leader

Craig began his Boston journey after relocating from Washington, D.C., to join Feinstein Kean Healthcare — a leading consultancy in the life sciences space — as the chosen successor to a founding CEO. There, he furthered his gift for translating scientific and commercial complexity into clear, compelling strategy and narratives. More than a decade later, Feinstein Kean was folded into a holding company, and its name was retired. However, Craig’s Boston roots and passion for guiding life science companies only deepened from there.

Encouraged by his Boston innovation networks, he eventually struck out on his own, founding Rithm Health, a consultancy that advises biotech, digital health, and rare disease companies. It quickly became clear that this wasn’t a sideline gig; it was a mission: supporting companies seeking revenue and impact.

Advisory Leader in the Boston Biopharma Ecosystem

For some 25 years, Craig has advised early- and mid-stage teams—across health categories—on strategy, business development, communications, and patient engagement. His counsel regularly integrates a responsible business mindset and empathy-infused decision-making, often behind the scenes but profoundly influential.

It’s among the many reasons he was invited onto the board of Global Genes years ago and later extended into advisory roles across rare disease nonprofits and biotech initiatives (including the Fibrolamellar Cancer Foundation).

Craig’s long-standing volunteerism at Global Genes evolved into formal leadership: he chaired the Corporate Alliance and shaped the organization’s strategy for diagnostic and treatment equity, clinical trial access, and diversity.  In 2020, he accepted the role of interim CEO, stepping in at a time of transition purely to serve the rare-disease community. Through the next few years, he helped scale the organization globally while preserving its high-touch culture and mission-aligned focus.

Under Craig, the organization prioritized community capacity-building, integrated, personalized service through RARE Concierge, and connecting patients to diagnosis, trials and support —rather than duplicating work in policy or research. His leadership culminated in the seamless reintegration of RARE‑X, bolstering data sharing and patient-driven research approaches under the Global Genes umbrella.

Launching the Orphan Therapeutics Accelerator

Craig built on that experience by founding the Orphan Therapeutics Accelerator (OTXL) in June 2024. Recognizing that many Phase 1/2 rare disease therapies stall—not from scientific failure, but because of funding or infrastructure gaps—he designed OTXL as a nonprofit biotech that sources shelved ultra‑rare programs and drives them forward through development via Orphan ClinDevNet—a coalition of partners delivering low-cost, AI‑enabled services for clinical trials, manufacturing, regulatory readiness and commercialization.

In the traditional biopharma model, promising compounds are often shelved—not due to scientific failure, but because their potential market size is considered too small to justify the cost and complexity of development. This is especially true in the rare and ultra-rare disease space, where patient populations may number in the hundreds or low thousands.

Larger pharmaceutical companies, focused on ROI and portfolio prioritization, frequently set aside these “orphaned” therapies despite early efficacy signals. Craig recognized that these shelved molecules represented more than business decisions; they represented delayed or denied hope for real patient communities. His insight was to operationalize around these forgotten assets, championing their advancement through an entrepreneurial nonprofit model that combines development efficiency, community partnership, novel commercialization pathways, and mission-driven focus.

By aligning with rare disease advocates and building a collaborative ecosystem, Craig’s Orphan Therapeutics Accelerator brings new life to therapies that might never see the clinic.

Leading Founding Members include Chiesi and BIAL, with operations supported by Landmark Bio, Uncommon Cures®, Viralgen, DVLP Medicines, and Vibe Bio. OTXL aims to be financially self‑sustaining within 4–6 years, reinvesting revenue from commercialized programs to support growing rare disease pipelines.

Though now operating globally, Craig maintains an active advisory presence in Boston’s biotech and healthtech sectors. He contributes strategy, governance insight, and rare-disease expertise to companies and nonprofits—and mentors emerging leaders bridging science, patient advocacy, and enterprise.

He’s also appeared at conferences such as Advanced Therapies USA 2025, reflecting his growing profile in the global gene-therapy and pricing-access discussion space.

What We Can All Learn from Craig’s Journey

Craig’s story—spanning executive leadership, consulting firm founding, nonprofit board, interim CEO, and biotech founder—offers five powerful lessons:

1. A compelling narrative is a critical component of strategic leadership. Translating complexity into resonance is more than marketing—it shapes how people connect, invest, and act.

• Empathy drives innovation. Patient insight isn’t an add-on; it’s the organizing principle of strategy.
  
  
• New structures empower neglected science. OTXL’s nonprofit biotech model demonstrates how shelved assets can become viable through purpose-aligned stewardship.

• Community builds momentum. Boston’s collaborative ecosystem supported Craig’s leaps—from Feinstein Kean to independent consultancy—amplifying impact.

• Purpose provides continuity. Across roles, his north star has remained: bring science closer to patients in sustainable, human-focused ways.

Craig Martin reflects what I’ve learned about leadership in health innovation: that proximity—to patients, communities, and complexity—makes the difference. As he told me during our conversation: “The science is often there. The challenge is translation—moving from discovery to delivery.”

In every role, in Boston and beyond, Craig is focused on that translation—one program at a time, one community at a time—with purpose at the center.

The post Purpose at the Center: Craig Martin’s “Rare” Commitment to Biopharma and Patients appeared first on Medika Life.

The launch of Roferon-A, alpha interferon marked a watershed moment in medicine: the first biotherapeutic to treat cancer, targeting the rare disease hairy-cell leukemia. I remember the packed press conference at The Pierre Hotel in New York City. Thought leaders like Dr. Jerome Groopman inspired awe. Headlines followed. The world paid attention.

That was decades ago. Since then, the biotech sector has evolved from fragile start-up spirit into a multibillion-dollar force. In the eyes of many, what was once miraculous has become mundane. And yet, the science has only grown more awe-inspiring. So why don’t we talk about it that way anymore?

Have we become numb to the very progress that extends and saves lives?

Biotechnology is arguably one of humanity’s most transformative achievements. From precision cancer immunotherapies to gene editing tools like CRISPR, we’ve leapt across medical milestones that were once the stuff of science fiction. CAR-T cell therapy rewrites the body’s immune system; mRNA platforms taught us how to respond to pandemics in real time; and personalized medicine now tailors treatments to the uniqueness of our DNA.

Despite these triumphs, we now face a paradox: the more frequently we succeed, the less exceptional it seems. Biotech, in its reliability, risks becoming background noise.

The danger here isn’t just perception—political, economic, and moral. When we stop being amazed, we stop advocating. And advocacy is essential, because science doesn’t fund itself.

The Birth of a Movement: BIO’s Role in Advancing Innovation

In the early days of this field, the promise of biotech required more than scientific breakthroughs—it demanded an organized, united voice to advocate for science, policy, funding, and public trust. That’s when the Biotechnology (Industry) Innovation Organization (BIO) emerged, uniting a fledgling industry around a shared mission: to promote innovation and ensure that the fruits of biotech reach the people who need them most.

What began as a coalition of pioneers has evolved into one of the most influential global voices for biotechnology. BIO has helped shape legislation, fostered partnerships, supported startups, and advanced equity in access and clinical trials. It has been a tireless advocate for the idea that science serves people—and that innovation without access is innovation incomplete.

As we reflect on biotech’s journey—from niche science to essential public health engine—BIO’s efforts to engage policymakers, educate the public, and convene global stakeholders at events like the annual BIO International Convention, BIO2025 have played a defining role. It’s a reminder that scientific progress is never just about the petri dish. It’s about ecosystems—coalitions of scientists, communicators, investors, and institutions aligned toward a common good.

The Threat of Institutional Apathy

Innovation doesn’t flourish in a vacuum. It requires funding, partnerships, regulatory foresight, and yes, public interest. Today, with DOGE pinching national budgets and partisanship clouding consensus, Federal funding for research is under threat. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research, faces increasingly skeptical eyes and plummeting appropriations.

In parallel, biotech investors—once exuberant—have become cautious. Valuations are down. IPO windows are narrow. Even promising start-ups are forced to downsize or shutter. This isn’t just an economic cycle. It’s a societal test.

If we stop investing in innovation, diseases that could have been conquered will remain entrenched. Rare conditions will stay rare because they’re unprofitable. And the promise of personalized, preventive care will fade back into abstraction. Let’s take stock.

We’ve made incredible strides in HIV, hepatitis C, certain leukemias, and now we see glimpses of progress in previously unyielding diseases like ALS and pancreatic cancer. In some cases, such as HIV, biologics have helped turn some diseases into manageable conditions. Patients who once faced death sentences now live long, productive lives.

But so much work remains. Alzheimer’s disease continues to challenge us. Autoimmune conditions like lupus and Crohn’s demand better solutions. Pediatric rare diseases—often overlooked—leave families desperate for options. And mental health, despite its growing visibility, remains underfunded and underexplored from a biotherapeutic standpoint.

We can’t stop now. The urgency is not over.

Science Needs Storytellers

One of the most potent forces in advancing biotherapeutics isn’t just the lab bench—it’s the lens through which the public sees that bench. This is where communicators come in.

Media, public relations professionals, and advocacy leaders are not passive observers. We are active players in this ecosystem. When we frame scientific progress as human progress, we drive interest, funding, and talent into the field. When we tell stories that connect molecules to people, we give science a face—and a heartbeat.

In the early days of Roferon-A, calls from a young PR pro would turn out a full-room press conference, launching a wave of national interest. Today, the media landscape is fragmented. Clicks compete with credibility, and sensationalism wins over substance.

That only means our responsibility has grown. We must elevate the authentic voices of scientists, patients and advocates. We must cover biotech stories not just as business news, but as human stories, because they convey the struggle and potential.

Bench to Bedside is a Human Endeavor

Behind every molecular breakthrough is a researcher who missed birthdays to run experiments, a trial participant who volunteered without knowing the outcome, and a caregiver hoping that science can offer one more chance. We cannot allow their efforts to be invisible.

Let us remember that biotherapeutics are not just lab products—they are the embodiment of human hope and courage. Each FDA approval to market is a victory for a company and a patient.

And yet, even as we acknowledge this, we must grapple with another complexity: equity.

Not all communities have equal access to these innovations. Biologics are expensive. Insurance structures are slow to adapt, sometimes even resisting. Global disparities persist. If we believe in the power of biotech, we must also commit to making it accessible, advocating for affordability, inclusive clinical trials and compassionate pricing strategies.

Reclaiming the Wonder

So, where do we go from here?

We start by reawakening awe. As communicators, we must use our platforms to remind the world that biotech is not just another industry—it is a movement, a mission.

We must protect the budgets that sustain research, defend the credibility of science against misinformation, and inspire young minds to enter STEM fields not just for jobs but for the opportunity to change lives.

It starts with how we talk. Let’s use language that evokes possibility. Let’s tell stories that illuminate the patient journey. Let’s spotlight scientists with the same reverence we show to athletes or entertainers.

Biotech Without Borders

The original promise of biotechnology was to break boundaries between disciplines, possibilities, and life and death. That promise is still alive, but it needs guardians.

Now more than ever, biotech needs communicators, policymakers, and citizens who care.

I remember the days when biotech press conferences made front pages. Maybe we’ll never go back to that exact moment. But we can choose to go forward—together—into a future where science is again seen not just as data, but as destiny.

Let’s reclaim the wonder. Let’s continue to give scientists a voice, patients hope, start-up enterprises resources, and policymakers direction.

Because what’s at stake is not just the next miracle drug.  What’s at stake is our collective belief that we can still do miraculous things.

The post Biotech Without Borders: Reclaiming the Wonder of Science in a Distracted Age appeared first on Medika Life.

Doctors are evaluated on patient throughput, not the depth of their engagement. Pharmaceutical and medical device companies create and perfect new products for patients but often neglect their preferences, stated needs, and lived experiences in recruitment and development efforts.

Real-world evidence (RWE), a promising frontier in health settings from innovation to care decisions, is poised to change this dynamic. If we are open to acting upon it, it can become the basis for centering efforts directly on the patient experience.

As a father and caregiver, I’ve walked this journey firsthand. My child’s health challenges have brought me face-to-face with the limitations of a system that often measures success in drugs prescribed rather than resolutions achieved. I’ve seen the toll that rushed consultations and fragmented care take on families searching for answers. It is a stark reminder that even as the science of medicine advances, the art of listening lags.

Recently, we visited a doctor’s office to consult about our young adult’s rare disease. We hired a patient advocate to bridge the chasm between clinical expertise and lived experience. They translate medical jargon, connect patients with appropriate specialists, and, most importantly, validate the patient’s voice.

Listening to the advocate prompted me to ask a critical question about this complex clinical case: “What is the underlying cause of the symptoms?”When our non-medically trained patient advocate suggested surgery to address the root causes of our child’s GI problems, one doctor we consulted, who came from a noted teaching hospital, confronted us.

“Who are you going to believe,” he asked. A patient or me?”  Ultimately, the patient advocate, who consulted with other patients and their physicians, was spot-on. The operation took place; the outcome was outstanding. That is the power of RWE as a catalyst for objective conversation.

Real-World Evidence: A Catalyst for Change

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines RWE as “the clinical evidence about the usage and potential benefits or risks of a medical product derived from analysis of real-world data (RWD).” These data include electronic health records, insurance claims, and patient-generated information from mobile health apps and wearable devices. Unlike randomized controlled trials, which too often exclude diverse populations, RWE provides a more comprehensive view of how treatments perform in real-world settings.

Physicians face immense pressure to see more patients in less time. Emergency physicians, for example, are expected to see 2.4 to 3.3 patients per hour, while family doctors might handle 3.3 patients or more per hour in high-volume settings. These metrics may boost productivity, yet at the same time, often come at the expense of meaningful patient interactions. The result? Missed opportunities to understand the full scope of a patient’s experience and even the true nature of the problem.

Empowering Patients and Data

One possible example of how RWE can prioritize the patient’s voice is StuffThatWorks, a platform founded by Yael Elish, one of the founders and executives of the consumer navigational company WAZE. Like WAZE, StuffThatWorks uses AI-powered crowdsourcing to connect individuals with similar diagnoses, enabling them to share experiences and generate actionable insights into treatments and outcomes. It’s a patient-led approach that democratizes data collection, making it richer and more representative. For sponsors of medical trials, the platform offers the chance to harness a massive customer focus group, gaining access to the voices of millions of people struggling with health concerns ranging from treatment to anxiety around illness to the cost burden of sickness.

StuffThatWorks – collaborating with companies and patient organizations, recently began collaborating with The Marfan Foundation, highlighting the potential to engage non-profits in leveraging RWE to benefit global disease communities. Similarly,  The StuffThatWorks partnership with Advanced Clinical, a major research services and clinical resourcing organization, allows project teams to engage with patients directly through surveys and focus groups, enhancing patient participation in clinical research. These initiatives demonstrate the transformative power of intentionally centering patient experiences in healthcare innovation.

More and more, leading academic hospitals such as Weil Cornell Medical Center’s Genetics and Personalized Cancer Prevention Department in New York City are recognizing that care extends beyond cutting-edge medicine and outstanding physicians—it calls for experts who have been on frontlines—as patients and counselors.

“I feel fortunate to bring my real-world experience as a patient to my work as a provider,” says Emily Epstein, LMSW, Genetic Social Worker/Clinical Behavioral Health Care Specialist at Weill Cornell. “This deep understanding of the patient journey inspired me to create a role where I can offer the very support I once advocated for, rooted in true empathy and knowledge. Real-world patient experience is essential to transforming healthcare, infusing it with humanity, compassion, and meaningful change—ensuring we honor and serve both the science of medicine and humanity at its heart.”

Chief Patient Officers

Several pharmaceutical and clinical research companies have established Chief Patient Officer (CPO) roles, recognizing the importance of patient engagement. Parexel, for example, appointed Stacy Hurt as a CPO to lead patient advocacy efforts. Hurt says, “Parexel’s priority focus is on providing patient-centered solutions that enhance the clinical trial experience and make participation more accessible to everyone.”  A health professional who is both a cancer survivor and a caregiver for her son, Hurt brings a patient’s perspective to the work.  Companies like Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Astellas have also created similar roles, signaling a broader industry commitment toward integrating patient insights into drug development.

The National Health Council emphasizes that as RWE becomes a cornerstone of health decision-making, the experience and needs of patients must be prioritized, not addressed as an afterthought. Integrating RWE into the health system can enhance treatment efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction. However, this requires more than technological innovation; it demands a cultural shift within the healthcare ecosystem.

Now What?

Reflecting on my child’s medical journey and the rise of patient advocacy communities that began to take form during the HIV epidemic and that patient community’s vocal demand to be included in conversations about drug development and news flow, it’s clear that the journey toward patient-centered care is still at an awkward early stage.

Platforms like StuffThatWorks offer a glimpse into what’s possible when prioritizing patient voices. By fostering communities where individuals can share their experiences, these tools generate valuable data and empower patients to take an active role in their care.

Let us commit to creating a health system where every patient’s story is heard, valued, and acted upon. By doing so, we honor the science of medicine and humanity at its heart.

The post Real-World Evidence Unlocks Consumer Voice to Improve Care appeared first on Medika Life.

Years of pain – a dim look into a future that might have included a feeding tube or motorized scooter – and being dismissed frequently by the health system – underscore medicine’s shortcomings. The journey from worsening digestive function and painful neuropathy to post-surgical relief highlights an essential truth: The patient’s voice is a critical diagnostic tool, yet it is too often ignored or undervalued.

In two prior published pieces for Medika Life, I explored the challenges of diagnostic complexity and health-systemic fragmentation. In Looking for Zebras, I wrote about medical mysteries and how patients with rare or atypical conditions are often dismissed or misdiagnosed in a system designed to manage the average, not the exceptional. In We Know the Health Ecosystem is Fragmented, Resulting in Rising Costs and Poorer Patient Outcomes, But What Are We Doing About It, I called for centering health delivery around patient outcomes – Health System Kinetics – emphasizing treating patients as whole people rather than their isolated symptoms.

Now, I revisit these themes with renewed urgency and a personal lens, advocating for a health system that listens—to patients, advocates, and their potential to improve people’s lives and reduce care costs.

Listening to the Patient: A Missed Opportunity

For many years, my young adult experienced worsening neuropathy—moving from occasional discomfort to using a cane and eventually a walker. Despite multiple consultations and MRIs, no definitive diagnosis emerged. Physicians, each specialized in their narrow field, treated her symptoms piecemeal: one focused on her spine, another on her joints, and yet another on her nervous system. The resolution was to vary pain medications to address symptoms, adding medicines on top of medicines. The bigger picture was lost in translation, as no single practitioner took ownership of connecting the clinical dots.

This experience is symbolic of the “silo effect” in medicine. Specialization has undoubtedly advanced and, at the same time, compartmentalized the field, creating gaps where Zebra-like conditions like hEDS fall. Worse, when patients like my child describe their experiences—pain, immobility, or even emotional distress—physicians begin to roll their eyes – the worst clinical response. Doctors like patient problems that are easy to fix.

In our case, it took a patient advocate—someone who personally understood hEDS—to guide us toward the right questions and the right specialists. Her lived experience as both a patient and an expert in navigating the system became the linchpin for my child’s eventual on-point diagnosis and treatment. This advocate understood what the health system did not: The interdependence of symptoms and the importance of listening to the patient and looking at the non-obvious puzzle piece.

The Power of Patient Advocacy

Patient advocates bridge the chasm between clinical expertise and lived experience. They translate medical jargon, connect patients with appropriate specialists, and, most importantly, validate the patient’s voice.

In listening to the advocate, I heard the voice of my late father-in-law, Burton Giges, MD, a brilliant clinician who always asked a critical question when addressing complex clinical cases: “What is the underlying cause of the symptoms?” However, as a parent, I was skeptical of the non-medically trained patient advocate who suggested root causes for GI problems whose resolution required surgery. One doctor we consulted from a noted teaching hospital even confronted us, “Who are you going to believe a patient or me?”

Thankfully, we pursued the patient advocate’s counsel and eventually traveled to California to MALS Surgical Specialist Dr. Danny Shouhed. The outcome was a successful MALS surgery to relieve pressure on the celiac artery and restore normal GI blood flow, resulting in normal digestive function. But, like many rare conditions, the medical maze continued.

Our advocate’s role went beyond logistics; she gave us hope when the system offered none. Her guidance led us to a team of specialized neurosurgeons at Brown University Rhode Island Hospital and Patricia Leigh Zadnik Sullivan, MD, Director of the Center for Spine Tumor and Chordoma Research, who confirmed the tethered cord syndrome diagnosis and later performed this complex surgery. Post-operative improvement was almost immediate: reduced neuropathic pain, increased mobility, and a promising sense of physical autonomy not experienced in years.

This transformative outcome raises a critical question: Why did it take an outsider to achieve what the health system itself should have delivered? Advocacy shouldn’t be a workaround but a core component of care.

Reordering Priorities: Outcomes Over Office Visits

The fragmented state of health is not just a disservice to patients; it’s a detriment to the system itself. Rising costs and poor outcomes are direct consequences of this disjointed approach. Each specialist operates within their silo, often incentivized by metrics like the volume of patients seen or procedures performed rather than by long-term outcomes.

In Reordering the Health System’s Priorities, patient outcomes must become the central organizing principle of health access and delivery. This isn’t just a lofty ideal; it’s a practical necessity. A system focused on outcomes would:

1. Promote interdisciplinary collaboration. Specialists must be empowered and incentivized to collaborate, share insights, and co-develop treatment plans.
2. Integrate patient voices. Patients are not passive recipients of care; they are active participants. Their experiences, preferences, and insights must inform individual care plans and broader systemic improvements – not given lip service.
3. Leverage data intelligently. Electronic health records and diagnostic technologies generate vast amounts of data, but it is only valuable if synthesized into actionable insights. Medical teams must use technologies – AI, ChatGPT, and LLMs to connect dots and see patterns that might usually be overlooked.

Had these principles been in place, my child’s correct diagnosis might have come months, even years, earlier. Instead, it took an advocate outside the system to untangle the threads.

The Hidden Costs of Ignoring Patients

When the health ecosystem discounts patient experience, it fails individuals and incurs added costs. Delayed diagnoses lead to prolonged suffering, reduced quality of life, and higher medical expenses. For our family, years of neuropathy meant not only physical pain but also the emotional toll of feeling unheard and unseen.

Moreover, the economic implications are staggering. Treating symptoms in isolation often leads to more office visits, redundant tests, unnecessary procedures, and avoidable complications. A study published in Health Affairs estimated that diagnostic errors alone cost the US health system billions annually, to say nothing of the human cost.

Listening to patients isn’t just compassionate; it’s cost-effective. Their insights can streamline diagnostic processes, reduce unnecessary interventions, and improve adherence to treatment plans—all of which contribute to better outcomes and lower costs. But to make that possible, medical teams need to be trained differently and incentivized to listen – not just hear words.

Transforming the System – Three Tips to Make Healthcare More Caring

So, how do we create a health system that listens?

1. Train Physicians to See the Whole Person

Medical education must evolve to emphasize holistic, patient-centered care. This means training doctors to consider the interplay of physical, emotional, and social factors—and to listen deeply to their patients. Breaking down silos requires structural changes, such as multidisciplinary clinics where specialists work side by side, sharing insights and jointly managing complex cases.

2. Integrate Advocacy into the Care System

Patient advocacy should be institutionalized, not incidental. Hospitals and clinics should employ patient advocates as part of care teams, ensuring every patient can tap into a guide to navigate the system’s complexities.  Payers should consider employing patients who can objectively call upon their experiences to ask questions as ambassadors for better care.

3. Measure What Matters

Health organizations must redefine success metrics. Instead of focusing on patient volume or efficiency, they should prioritize metrics that reflect patient well-being, such as functional outcomes, quality of life, and patient satisfaction. My child can now feel surfaces with their feet – impossible before because of painful neuropathy. They feel they are “walking on the moon.”

Communication is Part of the Care

Like many others, our journey highlights the system’s failures and amazing potential. It is a sobering reminder that while medical science has made extraordinary strides, it is still fallibly human. We look to the magic of AI, ChatGPT, and LLMs to resolve problems, but in our rush to innovate and specialize, we have lost sight of the most fundamental aspect of care: listening.

Patients are not puzzles to be solved or cases to be closed; they are people with stories, insights, and wisdom to share—they hope for a healthier future. By listening, we can bridge the gaps in care, transforming outcomes and the experience of the care journey.  

As we look forward, remember that the most powerful diagnostic tool is not a test or a scan but the patient’s voice. Let us not dismiss it – but use it.

[My gratitude to the Marfan Foundation, Nieca Goldberg, MD, CNS Summit, Rachel Lee, Patient Advocacy Consulting, FINN Partners, Danny Shouhed, MD, Residence Inn by Marriott, and the many patient advocates I’ve met through the years who champion the voice of people in the care trenches]

The post Looking for Zebras: Listening to Patients, Healing the Health System appeared first on Medika Life.

In 2017, an International Classification aimed to provide clarity to health professionals, patients, and researchers emphasizing the distinction of vascular complications, particularly the extraordinarily elevated risk of aortic dissection – at least 250x that of the general population with most VEDS patients experiencing a life-threatening vascular event before age 40.

Unfortunately, the health community has not yet fully appreciated that each of the 13 subtypes are different and need to be treated as individual entities. For those subtypes that are life-threatening – like VEDS — that realization can be the difference between life and death. Delays in diagnosis and treatment continue, which significantly heighten patient danger.

Too few providers know enough about VEDS beyond distant memories of a line or two in a med school textbook. Fewer still understand that VEDS can kill within hours when misdiagnosed. In the case of aortic dissection, recognizing VEDS – particularly in the young whose presentation often confounds providers until it’s too late – is essential.  Ordering a stat CT scan and follow-up emergency surgery can literally mean the difference between life and death.

The multiple authors of the 2017 classification note: “Even for experienced clinicians, the clinical diagnosis of VEDS may be difficult. Because of implications for treatment, natural history, and recurrence risk, the diagnosis of VEDS rests on the identification of a causative mutation in the COL3A1.”

The classification, which now recognizes 13 subtypes of EDS, was a concerted effort by the medical community to bring order to a complex array of symptoms and genetic variations. Experts deliberated over whether to maintain a clinically oriented classification, focusing on how symptoms present in patients, versus a genetic classification, which groups conditions based on their genetic causes. Ultimately, the decision was made to preserve the clinical approach, and descriptive names—such as hypermobile EDS (hEDS), classical EDS (cEDS), and vascular EDS (VEDS)—were recommended for use in medical, scientific, and patient communities. 

Albeit symbolic, it is crucial to highlight the risks and urgency of Vascular Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome by capitalizing the “v” in vascular. This underscores the vital role of patient and physician advocates in raising awareness about a condition that can save lives if treated promptly and correctly.  Groups like The Marfan Foundation and its ties to the VEDS community serve as rallying points for much-needed conversation and awareness, empowering the audience to take action in the rare disease community.  Meanwhile, massive real-world evidence platforms that capture millions of patient voices, such as StuffThatWorks, are shifting to the “cap V” to underscore essential change.

Vascular EDS is not simply a subtype of a rare disease; it is a ticking time bomb. It is a condition that can lead to sudden death due to ruptured arteries, bowel perforations, and other catastrophic vascular events. Despite this, VEDS is grouped alongside other, less life-threatening – albeit life-altering and dangerous – forms of EDS, potentially diminishing the urgency required for diagnosis and treatment. Misinterpretation within the medical community that all EDS subtypes are the same leads to the underdiagnosis of VEDS, particularly in emergency room settings – an oversight that can cost lives.

The Challenge of Recognizing VEDS in a Subtype Framework

EDS is a genetic connective tissue disorder that affects the body’s ability to produce collagen in all its forms. However, the severity of symptoms across the 13 subtypes varies dramatically. Hypermobile EDS, a common form, causes joint hypermobility, chronic pain, gastrointestinal distress, and frequent dislocations. These symptoms are undoubtedly life-altering, but they are not immediately life-threatening. Vascular EDS, on the other hand, is a condition in which the walls of the arteries, intestines, and uterus can spontaneously rupture, often without warning, and the outcome – without correct and speedy intervention – can be fatal.

For patients with VEDS, life is precarious. A seemingly routine day can turn fatal with the rupture of a major blood vessel. The median life expectancy of those with VEDS is between 48 and 51 years, with many patients dying from catastrophic internal bleeding in their 20s and 30s or even younger. When VEDS patients arrive at the emergency room, their symptoms—such as abdominal pain or chest discomfort—are too often misdiagnosed. Without the immediate realization that these patients are experiencing vascular events, the consequences are usually fatal. 

Yet, the fact that VEDS is listed as a “subtype” of EDS may be one reason emergency room physicians are not diagnosing these cases correctly or not engaging with urgency. By classifying VEDS under the same scroll-down subtype as other EDS forms, its severity can be overlooked. Medical professionals might be familiar with the musculoskeletal manifestations of hEDS. Still, they may not be fully aware of the life-threatening risks that VEDS patients confront daily. This lack of awareness or confusion can lead to misdiagnosis, mistreatment, and (preventable) death.

Subtype Thinking and Physician Engagement: A Fatal Disconnect

While designed for clarity, there is a growing concern among people diagnosed with Vascular EDS that the subtype classification system contributes to a lack of urgency in diagnosing their illness. Medical schools and residency programs are still catching up with the intricacies of rare disease training, and the medical community is often overwhelmed by the complexities of EDS.

Presented with 13 subtypes, physicians might reasonably think that all forms of EDS are similar—chronic, difficult to manage, but not necessarily life-threatening. This perception creates a dangerous environment for VEDS patients, whose symptoms can escalate to fatal events without immediate, specialized care.

Moreover, the reclassification might minimize the visibility of VEDS within medical education and patient care discussions. When grouped with other EDS types, VEDS is often viewed through the same clinical lens, with less emphasis on its unique risks. This reduces awareness and limits the resources dedicated to VEDS-specific training for healthcare professionals. The consequences are real and devastating: emergency room doctors may not consider VEDS as a potential diagnosis until it’s too late, leading to fatal outcomes that could have been prevented with earlier recognition.

The Consequences in Emergency Care: A Case for Better Awareness

Emergency rooms are high-pressure environments where decisions must be made quickly. A VEDS patient might come in with symptoms such as a sudden, severe headache, chest pain, or abdominal discomfort. In the absence of a known diagnosis, these symptoms can be attributed to common ailments like migraines, heartburn, or indigestion. However, in a VEDS patient, these symptoms can be early indicators of a ruptured artery or bowel, requiring immediate, life-saving intervention.

For emergency physicians, recognizing these red flags is crucial. Yet, studies show that rare diseases are often underrepresented in medical education, and this lack of knowledge can have fatal consequences. In the case of VEDS, a patient’s life may depend on whether a physician is familiar with the condition. Sadly, many VEDS patients report being dismissed or misdiagnosed when they seek emergency care, only to experience catastrophic events shortly after leaving the hospital.

In the case of people with undiagnosed VEDS, the danger of lack of clinical knowledge among first responders amplifies the risks. In the case of 12-year old – undiagnosed Natalie Paquette – the results were tragic. “Because Natalie’s heart rate was mainly stable initially, first responders bypassed a hospital ten minutes away and instead took Natalie to a children’s hospital 45 minutes away, unknowingly delaying crucial emergency treatment. Aortic dissection is typically diagnosed via a stat CT scan and treated via immediate surgery. Because of Natalie’s age, the first responders did not use lights nor sirens, trying to make an ambulance ride less stressful for a child nobody dreamed was experiencing a life-threatening aortic emergency.” Natalie lost her life due to a series of unfortunate events – but at the center of her death lies a common cause – lack of clinical knowledge.

The nature of VEDS requires that healthcare providers treat these patients with extraordinary caution. Imaging scans and other diagnostic tools can help detect arterial ruptures or other vascular issues, but they must be used quickly and appropriately. Without a clear understanding of VEDS and its risks, physicians may not order the necessary tests or provide the proper treatment, leading to tragic and avoidable deaths.

Shift Subtype Thinking Toward Life-Saving Action

To elevate VEDS patient care, the medical community must take steps to ensure that this condition is no longer seen as just another subtype. EDS reclassifying in 2017 was a step forward in many ways, but it inadvertently created a blind spot regarding Vascular EDS. A stronger focus on education in medical school and continuing professional development is urgently needed. Emergency room doctors, vascular specialists, and primary care physicians must all be aware of the dangers posed by VEDS and be prepared to act swiftly when patients appear with symptoms that mimic other conditions – even flu or GI upset.

Vascular EDS patients are accessing tools to advocate for themselves in medical settings. Medical alert bracelets and cards, detailed medical records, and clear communication with health providers are all essential for ensuring that patients receive the care they need when needed.

But systemic change is urgent and essential. The medical community must reevaluate how rare diseases like VEDS are classified and treated—how that knowledge trickles down into the emergency services and room response. Rather than grouping VEDS with other EDS subtypes, medical guidelines, educational materials, and clinical protocols should place greater emphasis on its life-threatening nature and, not unexpectedly, listening to the patient. This will ensure that physicians understand the gravity of VEDS and treat it with urgency.

Lives Depend on an Updated Perspective

Groups such as the American Heart Association echo the concerns of The Marfan Foundation and the VEDS community and have suggested that “it is important to create guidelines for the management and surveillance of individuals with vEDS.”

The current classification system for Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome is well-intentioned. However, the risks underrepresenting the severity of VEDS are concerning. By continuing to treat VEDS as another subtype of a broader condition, it is likely that physicians unintentionally may diminish the seriousness of a life-threatening genetic disorder that can and does kill. When arriving in the ER, VEDS patients or family members often know the risks and communicate concerns. This condition must be better understood in medical education and clinical practice. Lives depend on it.

The post Reevaluating Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome: How Vascular EDS Patients Are Left Behind appeared first on Medika Life.

The FDA has approved an updated covid shot for everyone 6 months old and up, which renews a now-annual quandary for Americans: Get the shot now, with the latest covid outbreak sweeping the country, or hold it in reserve for the winter wave?

ABOut the partnership

Healthbeat is a newsroom partnership between KFF Health News and Civic News Company that produces reporting on public health and the systems of prevention that communities rely on to stay healthy. 

The new vaccine should provide some protection to everyone. But many healthy people who have already been vaccinated or have immunity because they’ve been exposed to covid enough times may want to wait a few months.

Covid has become commonplace. For some, it’s a minor illness with few symptoms. Others are laid up with fever, cough, and fatigue for days or weeks. A much smaller group — mostly older or chronically ill people — suffer hospitalization or death.

It’s important for those in high-risk groups to get vaccinated, but vaccine protection wanes after a few months. Those who run to get the new vaccine may be more likely to fall ill this winter when the next wave hits, said William Schaffner, an infectious disease professor at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and a spokesperson for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

On the other hand, by late fall the major variants may have changed, rendering the vaccine less effective, said Peter Marks, the FDA’s top vaccine official, at a briefing Aug. 23. He urged everyone eligible to get immunized, noting that the risk of long covid is greater in the un- and undervaccinated.

Of course, if last year’s covid vaccine rollout is any guide, few Americans will heed his advice, even though this summer’s surge has been unusually intense, with levels of the covid virus in wastewater suggesting infections are as widespread as they were in the winter.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now looks to wastewater as fewer people are reporting test results to health authorities. The wastewater data shows the epidemic is worst in Western and Southern states. In New York, for example, levels are considered “high” — compared with “very high” in Georgia.

Hospitalizations and deaths due to covid have trended up, too. But unlike infections, these rates are nowhere near those seen in winter surges, or in summers past. More than 2,000 people died of covid in July — a high number but a small fraction of the at least 25,700 covid deaths in July 2020.

Partial immunity built up through vaccines and prior infections deserves credit for this relief. A new study suggests that current variants may be less virulent — in the study, one of the recent variants did not kill mice exposed to it, unlike most earlier covid variants.

Public health officials note that even with more cases this summer, people seem to be managing their sickness at home. “We did see a little rise in the number of cases, but it didn’t have a significant impact in terms of hospitalizations and emergency room visits,” said Manisha Juthani, public health commissioner of Connecticut, at a news briefing Aug. 21.

Unlike influenza or traditional cold viruses, covid seems to thrive outside the cold months, when germy schoolkids, dry air, and indoor activities are thought to enable the spread of air- and saliva-borne viruses. No one is exactly sure why.

“Covid is still very transmissible, very new, and people congregate inside in air-conditioned rooms during the summer,” said John Moore, a virologist and professor at Cornell University’s Weill Cornell Medicine.

Or “maybe covid is more tolerant of humidity or other environmental conditions in the summer,” said Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University.

Because viruses evolve as they infect people, the CDC has recommended updated covid vaccines each year. Last fall’s booster was designed to target the omicron variant circulating in 2023. This year, mRNA vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer and the protein-based vaccine from Novavax — which has yet to be approved by the FDA — target a more recent omicron variant, JN.1.

The FDA determined that the mRNA vaccines strongly protected people from severe disease and death — and would do so even though earlier variants of JN.1 are now being overtaken by others.

Public interest in covid vaccines has waned, with only 1 in 5 adults getting vaccinated since last September, compared with about 80% who got the first dose. New Yorkers have been slightly above the national vaccination rate, while in Georgia only about 17% got the latest shot.

Vaccine uptake is lower in states where the majority voted for Donald Trump in 2020 and among those who have less money and education, less health care access, or less time off from work. These groups are also more likely to be hospitalized or die of the disease, according to a 2023 study in The Lancet.

While the newly formulated vaccines are better targeted at the circulating covid variants, uninsured and underinsured Americans may have to rush if they hope to get one for free. A CDC program that provided boosters to 1.5 million people over the last year ran out of money and is ending Aug. 31.

The agency drummed up $62 million in unspent funds to pay state and local health departments to provide the new shots to those not covered by insurance. But “that may not go very far” if the vaccine costs the agency around $86 a dose, as it did last year, said Kelly Moore, CEO of Immunize.org, which advocates for vaccination.

People who pay out-of-pocket at pharmacies face higher prices: CVS plans to sell the updated vaccine for $201.99, said Amy Thibault, a spokesperson for the company.

“Price can be a barrier, access can be a barrier” to vaccination, said David Scales, an assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine.

Without an access program that provides vaccines to uninsured adults, “we’ll see disparities in health outcomes and disproportionate outbreaks in the working poor, who can ill afford to take off work,” Kelly Moore said.

New York State has about $1 million to fill the gaps when the CDC’s program ends, said Danielle De Souza, a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Health. That will buy around 12,500 doses for uninsured and underinsured adults, she said. There are roughly one million uninsured people in the state.

CDC and FDA experts last year decided to promote annual fall vaccination against covid and influenza along with a one-time respiratory syncytial virus shot for some groups.

It would be impractical for the vaccine-makers to change the covid vaccine’s recipe twice every year, and offering the three vaccines during one or two health care visits appears to be the best way to increase uptake of all of them, said Schaffner, who consults for the CDC’s policy-setting Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

At its next meeting, in October, the committee is likely to urge vulnerable people to get a second dose of the same covid vaccine in the spring, for protection against the next summer wave, he said.

If you’re in a vulnerable population and waiting to get vaccinated until closer to the holiday season, Schaffner said, it makes sense to wear a mask and avoid big crowds, and to get a test if you think you have covid. If positive, people in these groups should seek medical attention since the antiviral pill Paxlovid might ameliorate their symptoms and keep them out of the hospital.

As for conscientious others who feel they may be sick and don’t want to spread the covid virus, the best advice is to get a single test and, if positive, try to isolate for a few days and then wear a mask for several days while avoiding crowded rooms. Repeat testing after a positive result is pointless, since viral particles in the nose may remain for days without signifying a risk of infecting others, Schaffner said.

The Health and Human Services Department is making four free covid tests available to anyone who requests them starting in late September through covidtest.gov, said Dawn O’Connell, assistant secretary for preparedness and response, at the Aug. 23 briefing.

The government is focusing its fall vaccine advocacy campaign — which it’s calling “Risk Less. Do More.” — on older people and nursing home residents, said HHS spokesperson Jeff Nesbit.

Not everyone may really need a fall covid booster, but “it’s not wrong to give people options,” John Moore said. “The 20-year-old athlete is less at risk than the 70-year-old overweight dude. It’s as simple as that.”

******

KFF Health News correspondent Amy Maxmen contributed to this report. Healthbeat is a nonprofit newsroom covering public health published by Civic News Company and KFF Health News. This article was updated at 2:40 p.m. ET on Sept. 5, 2024, to correct the name of the Department of Health and Human Services’ fall vaccine advocacy campaign.

The post The New Covid Vaccine Is Out. Why You Might Not Want To Rush To Get It appeared first on Medika Life.

This move benefits Indian patients and has the potential to reshape the global pharmaceutical landscape. With India’s new policy, many multinational biopharmaceutical companies will need to reflect on how India evolves into a priority market.  

Speaking on the decision, Dr. V.G. Somani, Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), Central Drugs Standard Control Organization, stated, “This policy shift is designed to bring the best of global medical innovation to India more swiftly. By relying on the robust data from international trials, we can ensure that Indian patients benefit from these advancements without unnecessary delays.”

This is more than just a regulatory update for multinational biopharmaceutical companies—it’s a strategic inflection point. India has long been considered a market of interest due to its significant population, favorable policy environment, and emerging middle class. Now, it has signaled its readiness to engage with the global pharmaceutical ecosystem on a new level.

The shift opens up a new market for these pharma companies. It presents an opportunity, but more importantly, a responsibility to extend their voice in India, increasing corporate brand reputation, science communication, and patient advocacy. It’s a turning point that could redefine the global pharmaceutical landscape, underscoring the weight of their role in shaping the future of healthcare.

S. Rajan, Chief Communications, Corporate Affairs and CSR officer at Roche, is among the industry leaders who applauded the GoI news: “This circular is a welcome and much-needed move. The calling out of specific drug categories will help drive a uniform and consistent understanding and avoid any delays. It is important that this is implemented well. We are hopeful that access to the latest innovations will be expedited, addressing unmet healthcare needs and benefitting Indian patients.”

Eliminating the cost barrier of conducting local clinical trials indicates that the GoI is seeking to address a public health need.  One obstacle has been removed, though others remain. Global biopharma companies still face significant challenges operating in India, primarily due to price controls impacting innovative therapies. At this time, India’s government enforces price caps that too often make it financially unviable for multinational companies to launch new, innovative drugs in this market. But it’s not impossible!

This is a favorable move to bring innovative cancer therapies and treatments for rare diseases to people in India. This remains a market of incredible potential, and biopharma companies will need to continue advancing innovative therapies and supporting them with economic solutions to make the best medicines available to more people worldwide. In the meantime, an expansion strategy to India is a medical and communication priority.

Investing in Corporate Brand Reputation

With India becoming a priority market, global pharmaceutical companies must assess how to build relationships with India’s medical and patient advocacy communities.  This is more than relying on marketing muscle. It’s about establishing a reputation as a trusted partner in health innovation and delivery in fast-emerging nations. This could involve initiatives such as collaborating with local healthcare providers, supporting patient education programs, and participating in policy discussions on health innovation and delivery in India.

Even before the GoI decision, the Indian pharmaceutical market was expected to grow to US$130 billion by 2030, up from US$42 billion in 2021, making it one of the fastest-growing health markets in the world.  The decision to embrace other nations’ regulatory moves will likely dramatically accelerate that growth.

Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, at FDA, has long tracked GoI decisions: “India’s decision to align its drug approval processes with global standards is a significant step that will foster greater collaboration. It also highlights the need for pharmaceutical companies to engage more deeply with Indian stakeholders, ensuring their corporate presence is synonymous with trust and transparency.”

Like audiences everywhere, the Indian public is increasingly discerning the corporate behaviors of those they entrust with their health.  People with urgent health concerns are excited about this decision, which will speed up access to therapies.  Companies must recognize that investing in world-class science may not be enough in the post-COVID era to secure physician support and consumer confidence.  To facilitate market entry in India requires establishing corporate identities people can trust.

The Imperative for Science-Based Communication

Effective science communication will be paramount as these companies introduce their health innovations into India. The complexities of advanced medical treatments, particularly newly approved ones, require careful explanation to health providers and the public.

Transparent, accessible communication will help demystify these innovations, fostering greater acceptance and understanding.  This also calls on major hospital provider systems that served as drug trial sites for these regulatory-approved medicines to step forward and share clinical backgrounds and best practices in patient care.

According to published studies, 87% of Indian physicians are highly engaged in continuing medical education (CMEs) and are keen to stay updated with the latest advancements in treatments and drug safety protocols, highlighting a receptive audience for apparent, data-driven communication efforts. Companies have an opportunity to lead by example, demonstrating that they are bringing innovative products to market by showing commitment to educating and empowering Indian patients and health professionals.

Dr. V.G. Somani, DCGI, emphasized the importance of clear communication in this new regulatory landscape: “Pharmaceutical companies must now rise to the challenge of effectively communicating the science behind these treatments to healthcare providers and patients. This will be crucial in ensuring that the benefits of these new therapies are fully realized.”

Patient Advocacy as a Pillar of Reputation

Most crucially, multinational pharmaceutical companies must prioritize patient advocacy in India. The recent regulatory change will undoubtedly bring some innovative treatments to the market. The policy change is a catalyst toward ensuring treatments are accessible, affordable, and aligned with patients’ needs.  However, it remains a complex challenge.  India has 1.4 billion people – as many as 400 million classified as middle class – and a diverse and complex healthcare insurance system that includes government, private, and, in some cases, a heavy reliance on consumer out-of-pocket payments.

Companies must engage with patient communities, understand their unique challenges, and advocate for solutions that address them. Organizations such as the Organization for Rare Diseases India (ORDI) and the Lysosomal Storage Disorders Support Society (LSDSS) are among the advocacy groups advocating for patients with rare diseases in India. ORDI ensures early diagnosis, treatment, and support for individuals with rare diseases, while LSDSS focuses on increasing awareness and providing access to therapies for lysosomal storage disorders.

Dr. Manjit Singh, LSDSS Executive Committee President, commented on the significance of this regulatory change: “This policy decision is a critical step forward for patients with rare diseases in India. It will help bring much-needed therapies to the market faster. Still, it also places the onus on pharmaceutical companies to ensure these treatments are accessible and affordable for all patients.”

By engaging with these patient advocacy groups, pharmaceutical companies can help amplify patients’ voices, ensuring their needs are central in developing and distributing new treatments. Over time, this will include ensuring peer-reviewed science is shared with India-based media covering health and science, prioritizing pricing strategies to ensure accessibility to patient support programs, and investing in awareness efforts so that people with these conditions understand the importance of medication adherence.

The Government of India’s decision to waive local clinical trial requirements for drugs approved by gold-standard regulatory bodies is forward-thinking and aligns with the country’s demonstrated efforts to improve health delivery for serious illnesses. Multinational biopharmaceutical companies should get the signal that India is a welcoming market ready to be at the forefront of their phyician education and patient advocacy efforts. By investing in corporate brand awareness, scientific communication, and patient advocacy, these companies can contribute meaningfully to the health and well-being of India and other emerging nations. 

One barrier to access has been lowered for innovative cancer and rare disease therapies.  In reality, others remain.  One of the biggest is that the Indian National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority sets ceiling prices – caps – that include certain patented and innovative drugs. The pricing formula often uses a cost-plus approach, a non-starter for significant biopharma companies championing breakthrough therapies in a price-referring policy environment.  But the door to possibilities has opened wider.

In responding to the GoI welcoming decision with action, the biopharmaceutical industry can reinforce its commitment to good business, science, and patient care—a true win-win-win for all involved and a global health impact. The message is clear: Pharma companies consider the possibilities and  “Go to India!”

The post India’s Pivotal Regulatory Shift: A Possible Game-Changer in Expediting Medicines to Millions in Dire Need appeared first on Medika Life.