|15th March 2016
I get very excited by science, specifically pharmacology, and when I was studying drug development I used to read case studies about the impact ground-breaking drugs had, and imagine what it must have been like to be part of that success. I used to harass an old mentor of mine who was involved in the Herceptin launch for stories about introducing such an innovative treatment, hoping one day I’d get a chance to be part of such a transformation in care.
I’m now part of a team at Blue Latitude Health working in multiple myeloma (MM), and with each publication that emerges, it’s clear that we are witnessing a transformation in the treatment of multiple myeloma. In this article, I will take you through how that transformation has happened, and where the treatment of multiple myeloma is heading.
was the opening of a recent editorial in the Lancet on multiple myeloma. To appreciate the context of this statement we need to consider what treatment options were like for myeloma patients in the past.
If we reflect on what the treatment options were 10 years ago, two drugs stand out – melphalan and thalidomide. Melphalan, a distant cousin of the mustard gas used to kill World War I soldiers, and thalidomide, the infamous chiral drug which caused birth defects in the 1960s. These drugs have been shown to be efficacious options for patients with MM, but with a low therapeutic index. This meant significant cost in terms of toxicity, and marginal impact on the overall survival of patients.
|27th March 2020
Senior Associate Consultant, Manos Mastorakis, takes a look at a number of COVID-19 drugs that are already registered in clinical trials, providing analysis aiming to simplify the current landscape.
|6th March 2020
BLH speaks to MM patient advocate, Peter McCleave, to find out how he has fought to remain positive throughout his treatment journey while simultaneously leading a successful campaign to get more people to sign up to be a blood stem cell donor.
|28th February 2020
Pharmaceutical and healthcare companies invest a great deal of time and money in commissioning research to address their insight gaps. The process often results in suboptimal return on investment (ROI) due to faulty communication and inefficient documentation of insights. Amit Sheinholtz, Senior Associate User Experience Consultant and Elisa del Galdo, Head of Customer Experience discuss common pitfalls of the negative insight lifecycle and how to avoid them.