Happy Monday, readers. I wish you loved your weekend.
While looking out your house or office window this afternoon, did you word that the darkness seemed to set in disturbingly early? Ok, so, par for the route as we inch in the direction of winter and the nights get longer and chillier. But part of that is very lot because of human design—and an unusual little aspect is known as Daylight Saving Time (DST). The clocks went back one hour in (almost all) U.S. Counties and state at 2 A.M. On Sunday, marking the “fall again” that alerts the cease of Daylight Saving. As a document from Kaiser Health News highlights, that brings with it many technical headaches for medical institution structures and their digital record preserving systems.
Modern medical improvements consist of the capability to transform human immune cells into cancer-destroying mercenaries. And yet, a one-hour shifting of clocks can pressure hospitals to quickly transfer from ostensibly newfangled (and high priced) electronic health records to old-fashioned office work. In reality, popularly used structures like Epic Systems’ software “can delete information or require cumbersome workarounds while clocks are set lower back for an hour,” in line with KHN.
(Epic, for its element, advised the ebook that, “Daylight Financial savings time is inherently nuanced for healthcare agencies, that’s why we work intently with customers to offer steerage on how to most efficaciously use their system to care for their patients in the course of this term.”) One hour might not appear to be an entire lot of time. But it can make a huge distinction in retaining tabs on sufferers’ vitals or whether or not they want scheduled medicinal drugs.
Read on for the day’s news.
- Sy Mukherjee
- [email protected]
- DIGITAL HEALTH
Parsing parasites’ genomes. Genome sequencing may additionally assist in a shed new light on how worms—the parasitic, frame-invading kinds—do their dastardly paintings. Researchers from Washington University’s McDonnell Genome Institute, Britain’s Wellcome Sanger Institute, and Edinburgh University performed the huge-ranging observation that tested the inner biology of parasites and how it could affect the manner worms engage with the immune system. And that, in flip, ought to lead to more state-of-the-art drug development for managing the invaders. (Reuters)
FDA defends controversial opioid approval. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Scott Gottlieb issued a lengthy declaration on Friday defending the business enterprise’s approval of a powerful new opioid drug that’s considerably more potent than the already effective fentanyl, Dsuvia from AcelRx. Of note, Gottlieb factors out the drug changed into advanced in conjunction with the Department of Defense and are targeted toward an exact phrase of the population:
“I agree with that the particular elements of Dsuvia, inclusive of those that make this drug excessive precedence for the Pentagon, differentiate this new component of sufentanil from different sufentanil products in a way this is steady with populace-primarily based issues for the way it fits into the overall drug armamentarium. The FDA has made it a high priority to make sure our infantrymen have access to remedies that meet the specific desires of the battlefield, along with when intravenous administration isn’t always feasible for the remedy of acute ache associated with battlefield wounds.” (Fortune)
Sage inches in the direction of submit-Partum drug approval. Sage Therapeutics’ inventory did a humorous component on Monday: It sank greater than 8% on news that the FDA will almost certainly approve its pioneering put up-partum despair drug, the primary of its kind. The motive? The small pattern size of clinical trials and the remedy’s threat/benefit profile could sharply restriction its marketplace capability. Factor case: The remedy’s expected approval may want to include a demand that sufferers need to receive large, monitored administration of the drug over a 72-hour length. (Fortune)
THE BIG PICTURE
The hassle with peer assessment. Aaron Carroll has a super piece inside the New York Times on the limits of peer-reviewed clinical studies (a device he nonetheless defends because of the exceptionally viable preference amid an entire bunch of imperfect alternatives). Here’s one critique/proposal for development that stood out to me: “For starters, greater formal education would possibly improve best and speed. Given how tough it’s far to recruit desirable reviewers, journal editors may want to recall better incentives, including paying reviewers for their time. The unpaid costs of peer overview were expected at 1.Nine billion pounds (nearly $three.5 billion) in 2008. Without the promise of popularity, journals could provide a quick turnaround for a reviewer’s destiny papers. Academia might provide a more formal reputation for overview work as well.” (New York Times)