"Fumarse un porro no es por sí mismo nada terapéutico"
"Se suelen utilizar aceites o inhalaciones, pero el hecho de fumar resulta ya de por sí directamente perjudicial para el aparato respiratorio"
(Más)
sábado, 20 de mayo de 2017
Citario/El dijo que...: "Fumarse porros no es nada terapéutico", Dr. José Antonio Ramos Catedrático UCM
"Fumarse un porro no es por sí mismo nada terapéutico"
"Se suelen utilizar aceites o inhalaciones, pero el hecho de fumar resulta ya de por sí directamente perjudicial para el aparato respiratorio"
(Más)
viernes, 19 de mayo de 2017
Ratón de biblioteca: 'Salubrismo o barbarie' / Vicky López y Javier Padilla
.Un mapa entre la salud
y sus determinantes sociales.
Un libro de autoría colectiva sobre la salud y sus determinantes sociales con objetivo de llegar a un público más amplio que el que habitualmente lee nuestras cosas, y con la compañía de muchas personas a las que consideramos compañerxs de activismos y espejos en los cuales reflejarnos.
En un momento en el que “la salud” y su papel en el día a días de las personas y las sociedades es más central que nunca, veíamos necesario construir mapas que ayudaran a conectar todos los factores que interaccionan para influir sobre las saludes, las individuales, las colectivas y las concepciones que cada uno/a tiene de ellas.
 |
| Vicky López&Javier Pasilla |
Ver también:
Salubrismo o barbarie' trailer de autores.../ Vicky López y Javier Padilla
Medical-marijuana laws lower prescription drug usage
.
People with Medicaid coverage who live in states with medical marijuana laws are less likely to take medications commonly prescribed to treat conditions like nausea, pain, and depression, according to a new study.
The research, published last week in Health Affairs, looked at nine conditions and found reductions in prescriptions of medications used to treat depression (13%), nausea (17%), psychosis (12%), seizure disorders (12%), and pain (11%). There was no statistically significant difference for drugs used to treat anxiety, glaucoma, sleep disorders, and spasticity.
The study examined all fee-for-service Medicaid prescriptions between 2007 and 2014 in the 28 states and the District of Columbia that now have medical marijuana laws, comparing usage rates with states where medical marijuana is illegal.
“We're only able to see what's happening to the FDA-approved prescription drugs when medical marijuana becomes an option,” said W. David Bradford, the George D. Busbee Chair in Public Policy. He co-authored of the study with his daughter Ashley Bradford, who is pursuing a master's degree at the University of Georgia.
Last year, they studied prescription-drug usage for the same conditions among Medicare beneficiaries in states where medical marijuana is legal. The findings were similar, with some small differences, Bradford said.
Medicaid beneficiaries tend to be younger and poorer than Medicare beneficiaries. In addition, younger people are more likely to use medical marijuana than individuals in their 60s or older although research from dispensaries has found that one-quarter of customers are older than 51, Bradford noted. Another difference is that people covered by Medicare are more likely to use medical marijuana to address anxiety and sleep disorders than the Medicaid population.
According to Express Scripts' most recent Drug Trend Report, spending among Medicaid beneficiaries on treatments for mental and neurological disorders fell 21.6% in 2016, while spending on drugs that treat pain and inflammation rose 3.9%. Spending on mental and neurological disorders among Medicare beneficiaries also fell in 2016, by 12.9%. The PBM attributed the decline in spending on drugs that treat mental and neurological disorders to new generic drugs. (Más)
People with Medicaid coverage who live in states with medical marijuana laws are less likely to take medications commonly prescribed to treat conditions like nausea, pain, and depression, according to a new study.
The study examined all fee-for-service Medicaid prescriptions between 2007 and 2014 in the 28 states and the District of Columbia that now have medical marijuana laws, comparing usage rates with states where medical marijuana is illegal.
Last year, they studied prescription-drug usage for the same conditions among Medicare beneficiaries in states where medical marijuana is legal. The findings were similar, with some small differences, Bradford said.
Medicaid beneficiaries tend to be younger and poorer than Medicare beneficiaries. In addition, younger people are more likely to use medical marijuana than individuals in their 60s or older although research from dispensaries has found that one-quarter of customers are older than 51, Bradford noted. Another difference is that people covered by Medicare are more likely to use medical marijuana to address anxiety and sleep disorders than the Medicaid population.
According to Express Scripts' most recent Drug Trend Report, spending among Medicaid beneficiaries on treatments for mental and neurological disorders fell 21.6% in 2016, while spending on drugs that treat pain and inflammation rose 3.9%. Spending on mental and neurological disorders among Medicare beneficiaries also fell in 2016, by 12.9%. The PBM attributed the decline in spending on drugs that treat mental and neurological disorders to new generic drugs. (Más)
jueves, 18 de mayo de 2017
Merck & Lilly: Aliados contra el cáncer.
.
The Food and Drug Administration approved Keytruda in combination with Eli Lilly's Alimta, the chemotherapy drug used in the study that led to the agency's decision.
Merck & Co said on Wednesday U.S. health regulators approved its Keytruda in combination with chemotherapy for previously untreated advanced lung cancer, solidifying the drugmaker's lead position in the field of medicines that help the immune system fight cancer.
Lung cancer is by far the largest oncology market and the approval significantly expands the number of patients available for Keytruda therapy.
Click sobre imagen para ampliar
Merck shares were up 3.2 percent at $65.99 in extended trading.
"This is the key game changer for Keytruda," said Leerink Partners analyst Seamus Fernandez, adding that he expects physician acceptance to be "pretty robust."
The accelerated approval was based on data from a study of 123 previously untreated patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
"It was a small trial but the results were really quite striking," said Roy Baynes, head of global clinical development for Merck Research Labs.(...)
Merck scored a coup last year, when Keytruda extended patient survival in a first-line lung cancer trial, supplanting Bristol-Myers Squibb as the perceived leader in the field. Bristol's rival drug Opdivo surprisingly failed to show a survival benefit compared with chemotherapy in a similar study.
Both drugs and one from Roche were already approved for lung cancer once a prior treatment fails or stops working.
The medicines belong to a new class of cancer drugs, called PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors, that block a mechanism tumors use to evade detection by the immune system. There are now five approved for a variety of cancers, but all companies involved are aiming for a slice of the lung cancer market.
Bristol-Myers is testing Opdivo with its other immunotherapy, Yervoy, as a first-line NSCLC treatment, but did not seek accelerated approval. AstraZeneca is also testing an all immuno-oncology combination with highly anticipated data expected mid-year.
The original Keytruda first-line approval allowed for treatment of about 30 percent of NSCLC cases. The combination could be used on all patients with non-squamous NSCLC, which accounts for about 75 percent of lung cancer cases. (Más)
The Food and Drug Administration approved Keytruda in combination with Eli Lilly's Alimta, the chemotherapy drug used in the study that led to the agency's decision.
Merck & Co said on Wednesday U.S. health regulators approved its Keytruda in combination with chemotherapy for previously untreated advanced lung cancer, solidifying the drugmaker's lead position in the field of medicines that help the immune system fight cancer.
Lung cancer is by far the largest oncology market and the approval significantly expands the number of patients available for Keytruda therapy.
Click sobre imagen para ampliar
Merck shares were up 3.2 percent at $65.99 in extended trading.
"This is the key game changer for Keytruda," said Leerink Partners analyst Seamus Fernandez, adding that he expects physician acceptance to be "pretty robust."
The accelerated approval was based on data from a study of 123 previously untreated patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
"It was a small trial but the results were really quite striking," said Roy Baynes, head of global clinical development for Merck Research Labs.(...)
Merck scored a coup last year, when Keytruda extended patient survival in a first-line lung cancer trial, supplanting Bristol-Myers Squibb as the perceived leader in the field. Bristol's rival drug Opdivo surprisingly failed to show a survival benefit compared with chemotherapy in a similar study.
Both drugs and one from Roche were already approved for lung cancer once a prior treatment fails or stops working.
The medicines belong to a new class of cancer drugs, called PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors, that block a mechanism tumors use to evade detection by the immune system. There are now five approved for a variety of cancers, but all companies involved are aiming for a slice of the lung cancer market.
Bristol-Myers is testing Opdivo with its other immunotherapy, Yervoy, as a first-line NSCLC treatment, but did not seek accelerated approval. AstraZeneca is also testing an all immuno-oncology combination with highly anticipated data expected mid-year.
The original Keytruda first-line approval allowed for treatment of about 30 percent of NSCLC cases. The combination could be used on all patients with non-squamous NSCLC, which accounts for about 75 percent of lung cancer cases. (Más)
Pro vacunas: Vytenis Andriukaitis (Comisión Europea)
El Comisario Europeo de Salud y Seguridad Alimentaria, Vytenis Andriukaitis, ha intervenido en el ‘Diálogo Ciudadano Europeo’, celebrado en el Palacio de San Telmo de Sevilla, donde se manifestó sobre las tendencias antivacunas.
miércoles, 17 de mayo de 2017
HIV, vivir hasta los 70´s...
.
The latest research to emerge from authors of the University of Bristol has revealed that those living with HIV can expect to live to an average age close to 70 years old.
This may be lower than the life expectancy of the UK’s general population, of 81 years, but this represents a 10-year improvement over statistics that emerged from those beginning treatment in 1996.
The boost in life expectancy was found to be mainly down to the development of new antiretroviral therapy (ART) treatments, which possess fewer damaging side-effects and are better able to limit the spread of the virus. However, improvements in check-ups and testing for HIV have also allowed people to quickly gain treatment for the virus.
The quicker the virus is identified within an individual and treated, the better the outcomes of treatment – with those beginning antiretroviral treatment immediately after diagnosis expected to live towards an upper-range of 78 years.
This means that those treated for HIV could expect to live to a life expectancy not too dissimilar to the general population. The significance of this being the continued removal of any stigma surrounding living with HIV, as some still face difficulties in terms of employment and insurance.
The research was based on data of 88,504 individuals who received treatment for HIV from 1996 through to 2010. The study held patient data from North America and Europe, with similar levels of improvement to life expectancy found in both regions over the period of time analysed – being boosted by 9 years in women and 10 years in men.(Más)
The latest research to emerge from authors of the University of Bristol has revealed that those living with HIV can expect to live to an average age close to 70 years old.
This may be lower than the life expectancy of the UK’s general population, of 81 years, but this represents a 10-year improvement over statistics that emerged from those beginning treatment in 1996.
The boost in life expectancy was found to be mainly down to the development of new antiretroviral therapy (ART) treatments, which possess fewer damaging side-effects and are better able to limit the spread of the virus. However, improvements in check-ups and testing for HIV have also allowed people to quickly gain treatment for the virus.
The quicker the virus is identified within an individual and treated, the better the outcomes of treatment – with those beginning antiretroviral treatment immediately after diagnosis expected to live towards an upper-range of 78 years.
The research was based on data of 88,504 individuals who received treatment for HIV from 1996 through to 2010. The study held patient data from North America and Europe, with similar levels of improvement to life expectancy found in both regions over the period of time analysed – being boosted by 9 years in women and 10 years in men.(Más)
Venezuela: No más muertes...!
El fin del embargo sobre el documento ha erosionado de inmediato uno de los emblemas que con más orgullo solía exhibir la revolución bolivariana: la calidad y amplitud de la asistencia social y sanitaria.
Ver también:
Maduro destituye a la ministra de Salud tras difundirse unos informes epidemiológicos
De acuerdo con el informe, en 2016:
- _mortalidad infantil repuntó un 30% con respecto a 2015;
- _la mortalidad materna, 65%.
- _Una enfermedad erradicada hace dos décadas, la difteria, reapareció el año pasado con 324 casos.
- _La malaria, cuyo control en los años cuarenta formaba parte de la épica nacional, se ha vuelto endémica. En un año se duplicó el número de casos, hasta llegar a algo más de 240.000.
- _El zika mostró un avance espectacular, de 72 casos en 2015 a 59.348 en 2016.
- _La hepatitis A y la tuberculosis también registraron un notable aumento.
Los indicadores sanitarios se desploman en Venezuela/Ocultar la crisis
El País 11 mayo 2017
martes, 16 de mayo de 2017
Precios "de referencia": Tratar un cáncer cuesta más que una casa / Paul Workman
El coste del tratamiento habitual de cáncer es superior al coste de una casa en Reino Unido, en EEUU y probablemente también en España. Un tratamiento que prolongue la vida tres meses puede costar 100.000 euros. Creo que esto es inaceptable e insostenible. Tenemos que encontrar la manera de reducir los precios, especialmente si queremos combinar tratamientos. Si un paciente necesita dos, tres o cuatro tratamientos, el coste puede alcanzar el medio millón de euros. Hay gente que ha tenido que vender su casa y se ha declarado en bancarrota porque su aseguradora no cubría el coste. Es terrible.
¿Cómo se podría reducir el precio?
No creo que sea un problema de solución simple. La idea no es criticar a la industria, son organizaciones comerciales que tienen que ser viables económicamente. Una de las soluciones que sugerimos es que las universidades y las organizaciones benéficas intervengan más en el desarrollo de medicamentos. (Más)
Ver anterior:
Precios "de referencia": El fármaco de la Hepatitis C cuesta lo que un tramo de autovia.
USA: La caida de los...Visitadores Médicos
...a report published by Cegedim Strategic Data found that many physicians like the convenience of non-personal digital detailing such as email communications, video streaming, automated detailing, and webinars which can be viewed on demand.
Consequently, the pharmaceutical industry is in the process of moving its sales force to a smaller structure that is more directly aligned with this new digital reality.
Physicians also have access to many other sources of information about the drugs they prescribe and feel that sales reps do not offer unbiased information, especially when their incentive is a commission based on scripts written.(Más)
lunes, 15 de mayo de 2017
Humor...es lunes: Profilaxia "oral" en Health2.0 Europe (Barcelona)
.
Escatológica expresión que se utiliza mucho en ambitos teatrales para desear suerte en la función.
Se ha extiende en otras actividades campos(conferencias, presentaciones, examenes,concursos...)
Escatológica expresión que se utiliza mucho en ambitos teatrales para desear suerte en la función.
Se ha extiende en otras actividades campos(conferencias, presentaciones, examenes,concursos...)
Creatividad: The triple "E"/Eugene Borukhovich* Health2.0 Europe
Digital Health is the human recognition of awareness that technology can actually prolong their valuable lives with their families and loved ones while moving from healthcare to just health [in a digital world]
Triple “E”
It was important to set the context and give some key highlights of a complex industry in re-making. Without a further adieu, what I think it will take to make #digitalhealth real and attainable for our society:
- Engagement
- We have been talking about patient engagement for years now. Many pilots, some success stories of course, but generally…. just more talk about patient engagement. The reality is that we are not patients, we are just human beings — that at different points in time will become ill and the disease becomes just part of our lives. It does not become THE life. Not every person thinks that way of course, and for sure every individual is different. Human behavior modification is still a mystery to us. So we, the health consumers, have to actually want to be engaged in our health & longevity. With the power of capturing our own data and the incoming insights, we are surely getting there but still have a long way to go…
Lets face it, the whole ecosystem is driven by short-term thinking. Governments are under financial pressure to sustain and curb the growth of healthcare costs. The private sector is also pressured by those same governments and Wall Street. The economic models are in complete disarray with broken incentive systems and lack of transparency across the value chain. As a society, we need to find an economic equilibrium and the fitting business models for this digital age. I wish I had the answer but I believe openness, transparency and co-creation hold the key! Vibrant ecosystems, cross-industry and private-public partnerships are emerging.. slowly..
It’s the old chicken and the egg story. While there are many early adopters and a powerful movement of citizen scientists and e-patients, the masses want evidence that this “digital health stuff” works and therefore they should use it AND pay for it (directly or indirectly). The healthcare professionals are bombarded with thousands of digitalhealth startups and their devices, apps and platforms. Healthcare but also health, wellness and nutrition all DO need clinical evidence to emerge.
(*) Eugene Borukhovich Global Head, #DigitalHealth Incubation & Innovation @Bayer ,Co-Founder @questiongram, Health 2.0 NYC & AMS & DUS,
domingo, 14 de mayo de 2017
En el centenario de Juán Rulfo...Ya murio?
.
“-¿Ya murió? ¿Y de qué?
-No supe de qué. Tal vez de tristeza. Suspiraba mucho.
-Eso es malo. Cada suspiro es como un sorbo de vida del que uno se deshace.”
RULFO, Juan. (1955) Pedro Páramo
Juán Rulfo nació en Sayula, Jalisco, un 16 de mayo de 1917 y falleció en Ciudad de México, 7 de enero de 1986.
Ver también:
Pedro Páramo: voces del más allá
“-¿Ya murió? ¿Y de qué?
-No supe de qué. Tal vez de tristeza. Suspiraba mucho.
-Eso es malo. Cada suspiro es como un sorbo de vida del que uno se deshace.”
RULFO, Juan. (1955) Pedro Páramo
Juán Rulfo nació en Sayula, Jalisco, un 16 de mayo de 1917 y falleció en Ciudad de México, 7 de enero de 1986.
Ver también:
Pedro Páramo: voces del más allá
sábado, 13 de mayo de 2017
Health2.0 Europe: S-There Smart toilet
S-There has a sensor which is placed into the toilet for measuring biomedical parameters in the urine and is connected to a display or your smartphone giving you recommendations to improve your health.
Right now S-There is able to measure hydration because drinking enough water is essential for physiological processes such as circulation, metabolism, temperature regulation, and waste removal.
Although excessive dehydration is associated with serious health problems, even mild dehydration can cause issues, including headaches, irritability, poorer physical performance, and reduced cognitive functioning. (Ver)
An MIT-Tied Startup Wants You to Pee on Its Tech
It's not everyday you come across a startup that wants people to pee on its technology. But S-There, a venture supported by MIT, MIT linQ and the mVision Foundation, literally does. It's been developing a smart toilet device that will track different things going on in your body based on your urine.
I chatted with two of the venture's team members, Amaia Garcia and Adrian Gomez, and they told me how the idea of throwing technology in the toilet came about - as well as where it's going.
Their initial focus was to make a device resembling a golf ball that people - namely, diabetics - could toss into their home toilets. It would connect to an app via Wi-Fi or bluetooth and give users feedback on their glucose levels based on their urine. Garcia told me, “It would be non-invasive, painless and affordable.” The S-There team.
In the last six months, the startup’s scope has broadened ever so slightly. “Right now, we’re looking into making different sensors to measure different biometrics: one for glucose analysis and another to measure hydration,” Gomez said.
According to the S-There team, most people struggle with staying hydrated.
“Everyone says people need to drink eight glasses of water a day. That’s not true,” Adrian said. He explained that the recommendation is outdated and that the amount of water an individual should consume depends on a number of factors, including height, weight and level of activity.
With a small, reusable sensor that would be inserted into your toilet bowl, S-There is looking to give you instant feedback on whether you need to drink more water and how much.
“When people receive a measurement in real time, it’s much more effective… You get more engagement,” Gomez said. (Más)
PHARMACOSERÍAS estuvo en la presentación en Barcelona (Health 2.0Europe) y da fe de ello...
viernes, 12 de mayo de 2017
Ratón de biblioteca: “A bitter pill: How the medical system is failing the elderly” / John Sloan
In A Bitter Pill, Dr. John Sloan investigates the reasons why the medical community is unable to provide lasting health to seniors, concluding that incorrect assumptions have led to the current health crisis among the elderly.
In a remarkable argument, Sloan contends that medical measures based in prevention actually do seniors more harm than good, diminishing their current quality of life in the hopes of preventing future disease. Sloan maintains that we must understand what those in poor health really need — a way to enjoy the final stages of their lives.
A valuable resource for caregivers, nurses, doctors, and children of the elderly, this book may just turn the tide of medical misconception that has plagued the senior community. (Ver)
Ver también:
De cómo la biomedicina está fallando a los ancianos. Por John Sloan
Terapia de humor / Les Luthiers, Premio Princesa de Asturias de Comunicación y Humanidades 2017
.
No, no tienen ninguna gracia, estos juglarcillos argentinos, estos titiriteros musicales de los que ustedes, españoles traidores, anuncian intenciones de darles premios, homenajes y hasta hacerles una estatua ecuestre (ecuestre lo que cuestre), no tienen la más pequeña de las gracias. Yo era un gran compositor, más famoso que nadie, más millonario que todos, Mastropiero que nunca, cuando estos buitres, armados con bidets convertidos en armas de hacer música y risas, estaban buscando una nueva víctima tras destrozar la vida de grandes personas como Esther Píscore. Al parecer en ese momento, una obra mía sonó de fondo y en su cabeza la gallina dijo «Eureka»…
Yo me acababa de separar de mi amada Condesa Shortshot y dirigía el Centro de Altos Estudios Musicales «Manuela» y trataba de olvidarme de las acusaciones de plagio por parte de mi rival Günther Frager escribiendo mi biografía mientras copiaba, párrafo a párrafo cuando estos desalmados comenzaron a utilizarme en sus espectáculos.
Al principio traté de tomármelo con calma, en mis tardes de oración elevaba mis brazos al cielo y gritaba «Señor, dame paciencia… ¡Pero dámela ya!»
Pensaba que se cansarían, que encontrarían a un Rodrigo El Adelantado que les despistara, pero vi que no había manera, traté de envenenarles con Nopol (un antipolillas que las mantiene a raya). Les envié a Jack el Forastero, un asesino misterioso, traté de exiliarme en la Universidad de Wildstone, refugiarme entre los generosos pechos de Miss Chichi Higggins.
Nada me ha consolado de la destrucción de mi buen nombre ejercida por este grupo de titiriteros que han dedicado su carrera a la exaltación de mi desprestigio. Por eso me atrevo a dirigirme a los miembros del jurado del premio Princesa de Asturias para rogarles que les sea retirado el mismo y me sea otorgado a mí. Todos ganamos: El buen gusto, su prestigio y la música. Sean valientes y háganme caso, al fin y al cabo, como dije alguna vez: –
Hay dos palabras que te abrirán muchas puertas: Tire y Empuje. (Una frase que me hizo célebre a pesar de ser de Günther Frager).
Atentamente: J. S. Mastropiero
CÓMO ELLOS HUNDIERON MI VIDA ABC 11 mayo 2017
Ver también:
Lutherapias: De la "Cantata Modatón" al "Bromato de Armonio" pasando por Lexatón
No, no tienen ninguna gracia, estos juglarcillos argentinos, estos titiriteros musicales de los que ustedes, españoles traidores, anuncian intenciones de darles premios, homenajes y hasta hacerles una estatua ecuestre (ecuestre lo que cuestre), no tienen la más pequeña de las gracias. Yo era un gran compositor, más famoso que nadie, más millonario que todos, Mastropiero que nunca, cuando estos buitres, armados con bidets convertidos en armas de hacer música y risas, estaban buscando una nueva víctima tras destrozar la vida de grandes personas como Esther Píscore. Al parecer en ese momento, una obra mía sonó de fondo y en su cabeza la gallina dijo «Eureka»…
Yo me acababa de separar de mi amada Condesa Shortshot y dirigía el Centro de Altos Estudios Musicales «Manuela» y trataba de olvidarme de las acusaciones de plagio por parte de mi rival Günther Frager escribiendo mi biografía mientras copiaba, párrafo a párrafo cuando estos desalmados comenzaron a utilizarme en sus espectáculos.
Pensaba que se cansarían, que encontrarían a un Rodrigo El Adelantado que les despistara, pero vi que no había manera, traté de envenenarles con Nopol (un antipolillas que las mantiene a raya). Les envié a Jack el Forastero, un asesino misterioso, traté de exiliarme en la Universidad de Wildstone, refugiarme entre los generosos pechos de Miss Chichi Higggins.
Nada me ha consolado de la destrucción de mi buen nombre ejercida por este grupo de titiriteros que han dedicado su carrera a la exaltación de mi desprestigio. Por eso me atrevo a dirigirme a los miembros del jurado del premio Princesa de Asturias para rogarles que les sea retirado el mismo y me sea otorgado a mí. Todos ganamos: El buen gusto, su prestigio y la música. Sean valientes y háganme caso, al fin y al cabo, como dije alguna vez: –
Hay dos palabras que te abrirán muchas puertas: Tire y Empuje. (Una frase que me hizo célebre a pesar de ser de Günther Frager).
Atentamente: J. S. Mastropiero
CÓMO ELLOS HUNDIERON MI VIDA ABC 11 mayo 2017
Ver también:
Lutherapias: De la "Cantata Modatón" al "Bromato de Armonio" pasando por Lexatón
jueves, 11 de mayo de 2017
España: Creer en vano.../ Homeopatía
.
El 53% confía en los productos homeopáticos aunque el 76% recela de los curanderos
"Indique si se identifica con esta afirmación: los productos homeopáticos funcionan". Ningún estudio científico ha demostrado que estos remedios tengan valor terapéutico contra ninguna dolencia, y el Ministerio de Sanidad ya determinó que no tiene capacidades curativas. Sin embargo, más de la mitad de los españoles cree que sí, que la homeopatía funciona. En concreto, el 52,7% dice que se identifica mucho, bastante o algo con la afirmación inicial y son las personas con mayor nivel de estudios las que más confían en estos productos, según un estudio realizado por la Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (Fecyt) con más de 6.300 españoles. Además, el 59,8% confía mucho, bastante o algo en la acupuntura.
Los grupos que más sobresalen de la media en la confianza hacia los preparados homeopáticos son las mujeres, personas que se identifican como de centro izquierda y que viven en ciudades. Los empresarios y los creyentes en "otras religiones" consideran en mayor medida que los productos homeopáticos son útiles. "La pseudociencia es un peligro", ha asegurado hoy el director general de Fecyt, José Ignacio Fernández Vera, durante la presentación del estudio, en Madrid. Fernández Vera se ha mostrado convencido de que los poderes públicos deberían hacer algo para tratar de sacar a los ciudadanos de este error. "Tenemos que ser mucho más estrictos con este tipo de cosas", defendió, "porque no son más que placebo". (Más)
El 53% confía en los productos homeopáticos aunque el 76% recela de los curanderos
"Indique si se identifica con esta afirmación: los productos homeopáticos funcionan". Ningún estudio científico ha demostrado que estos remedios tengan valor terapéutico contra ninguna dolencia, y el Ministerio de Sanidad ya determinó que no tiene capacidades curativas. Sin embargo, más de la mitad de los españoles cree que sí, que la homeopatía funciona. En concreto, el 52,7% dice que se identifica mucho, bastante o algo con la afirmación inicial y son las personas con mayor nivel de estudios las que más confían en estos productos, según un estudio realizado por la Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (Fecyt) con más de 6.300 españoles. Además, el 59,8% confía mucho, bastante o algo en la acupuntura.
Los grupos que más sobresalen de la media en la confianza hacia los preparados homeopáticos son las mujeres, personas que se identifican como de centro izquierda y que viven en ciudades. Los empresarios y los creyentes en "otras religiones" consideran en mayor medida que los productos homeopáticos son útiles. "La pseudociencia es un peligro", ha asegurado hoy el director general de Fecyt, José Ignacio Fernández Vera, durante la presentación del estudio, en Madrid. Fernández Vera se ha mostrado convencido de que los poderes públicos deberían hacer algo para tratar de sacar a los ciudadanos de este error. "Tenemos que ser mucho más estrictos con este tipo de cosas", defendió, "porque no son más que placebo". (Más)
miércoles, 10 de mayo de 2017
AZ: La rebelión de los inversionistas
.
AstraZeneca’s investors are repeating history with a revolt against executive pay. Almost 40% voted against CEO Pascal Soriot’s 2016 compensation package on Thursday, just about the same percentage that tossed tomatoes at the numbers back in 2014.
Ver:
Cuanto ganan los que más ganan en Pharma...
This time around, Soriot’s compensation total was much higher—£13.4 million, or about $17.3 million—compared with the £3.34 million ($5.6 million), plus potential performance awards of £4.35 million, that touched off the revolt three years ago.
This year’s vote also follows some restiveness over the last two years as leading shareholders called on AstraZeneca’s board to tie Soriot’s pay more directly to the $45-billion-by-2023 revenue goal he set when Pfizer was trying its takeover. That goal, which some analysts called laughably ambitious at the time, is no less aggressive now, and Soriot himself has since said the company would be "lucky" to hit it.
The 39% vote against AZ’s 2016 compensation report has no direct consequences. It’s advisory only. The binding vote on compensation, which applies to the coming year’s remuneration plans, was in favor, almost unanimously, with 96% backing the scheme.
“AstraZeneca engaged extensively with its major shareholders on remuneration matters during 2016,” the company said in a statement, adding that the proposals for the coming year were based on shareholder feedback. One change, the company said in its annual report, is the demise of the AstraZeneca Investment Plan (AZIP), previously used to deliver performance awards. (Más)
Ver:
Cuanto ganan los que más ganan en Pharma...
This time around, Soriot’s compensation total was much higher—£13.4 million, or about $17.3 million—compared with the £3.34 million ($5.6 million), plus potential performance awards of £4.35 million, that touched off the revolt three years ago.
This year’s vote also follows some restiveness over the last two years as leading shareholders called on AstraZeneca’s board to tie Soriot’s pay more directly to the $45-billion-by-2023 revenue goal he set when Pfizer was trying its takeover. That goal, which some analysts called laughably ambitious at the time, is no less aggressive now, and Soriot himself has since said the company would be "lucky" to hit it.
The 39% vote against AZ’s 2016 compensation report has no direct consequences. It’s advisory only. The binding vote on compensation, which applies to the coming year’s remuneration plans, was in favor, almost unanimously, with 96% backing the scheme.
“AstraZeneca engaged extensively with its major shareholders on remuneration matters during 2016,” the company said in a statement, adding that the proposals for the coming year were based on shareholder feedback. One change, the company said in its annual report, is the demise of the AstraZeneca Investment Plan (AZIP), previously used to deliver performance awards. (Más)
The top 10 pharma R&D budgets in 2016 (cont:)
Ver anterior:
The top 10 pharma R&D budgets in 2016
AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb shelled out the most on R&D in percentage terms, both spending just over 25% of their revenue.
Both of those companies have, however, sales at the lower end of the Big Pharma list: AZ brought in $23 billion last year, while BMS took in just $19.4 billion. Their respective R&D budgets of $5.89 billion and $4.94 billion, while topping the ranking percentage-wise, came in near the bottom in absolute numbers.
There is a bit more to the BMS story as well: In 2015, the company spent $5.9 billion on research, but last year, that dropped by $1 billion, or 16%. In percentage terms in 2015, BMS put 42% of its revenue toward R&D. This was by far the largest drop in an R&D budget for the top 10 last year.
Most of the others upped their spend slightly, a few significantly, although AZ also spent less in 2016, with a decline of 1.7% off its total 2015 budget.
Eli Lilly was a close third to AZ and BMS, with 24.7% of its total $21.2 billion in sales last year going into R&D. That spending represented a 9% increase on its 2015 figures.
The lowest in percentage terms was Johnson & Johnson, which laid out just 12.6% of its sales on research in 2016 (this was around 10% for its $7 billion pharmaceuticals research). J&J's spending was comparatively large at $9 billion (though that figure included research on medical devices and other areas outside pharmaceuticals), but so was its revenue at $71.9 billion, more than any of its top 10 peers.
Swiss oncology major Roche was tops in total terms, spending a massive CHF11.53 billion ($11.42 billion) last year, nearly 23% of its CHF50.57 billion in revenue. It also recorded a 20% jump in R&D spending compared with 2015, the biggest increase among the top 10, with most of this increase going into its pharmaceuticals divisions, the rest into diagnostics.
Generally, research budgets moved up with sales in percentage terms, although some may feel that an average 17% of its total revenue going into R&D seems a little small. And the $70 billion R&D figure for the top 10 together is, in fact, the same as it was back in 2012 and 2011, so total spend has remained stagnant for some time.
AstraZenecaR&D budget: $5.89 billion
Change from 2015: Down 1.7%
Total 2016 revenue: $23 billion
Percentage of revenue: 25.6%
R&D budget: €5.17 billion ($5.45 billion)
Change from 2015: Up 1.8%
Total revenue in 2016: €33.82 billion ($35.64 billion)
R&D budget as percentage of revenue: 15.2%
R&D budget: $5.24 billion
Change from 2015: Up 9.3%
Total 2016 revenue: $21.2 billion
R&D budget as percentage of revenue: 24.7%
R&D budget: $4.94 billion
Change from 2015: Down 16%
Total 2016 revenue: $19.42 billion
R&D budget as percentage of revenue: 25.4%
R&D budget: £3.62 billion ($4.49 billion)
Change from 2015: Up 1.7%
Total 2016 revenue: £27.88 billion ($34.6 billion)
R&D budget as percentage of revenue: 12.9%
martes, 9 de mayo de 2017
The top 10 pharma R&D budgets in 2016
.
Last year, biopharma won its share of new drug approvals, though not as many as we're used to in the U.S., as research spending came to fruition. But drugmakers also suffered a number of R&D setbacks, cut research staff, rejigged their operations and refocused their pipelines.
Drug R&D also found itself in the spotlight as one of the biggest political issues to arise last year—drug pricing—became inextricably linked to the cost of biomedical research and development. U.S. industry groups PhRMA and BIO, as well as Europe’s EFPIA and the U.K.’s ABPI, have all said, and will continue to say, that the inherent reason drug prices are what they are is because of the huge R&D investment most (though not all) companies funnel into their scientists and labs.
It’s a risky business: The majority of drugs that begin phase 1 won’t be approved, and over the years, failures in phase 3 have cost individual companies hundreds of millions of dollars each time. Sometimes failures stem from problems with the studies themselves, sometimes a company simply refuses to give up on a dead asset, but often, a failure in the lab is simply part and parcel of the trial-and-error approach inherent to pharmaceutical and biotech research.
Based on figures from their 2016 annual reports, the top 10 pharma R&D budgets (all using their GAAP figures) combined totted up to $70.5 billion, with full-year revenue coming in at $404.8 billion. (Más)
Roche
R&D budget (pharmaceuticals and diagnostics): CHF 11.53 billion ($11.42 billion)
Change from 2015: Up 20%
Total 2016 revenue: CHF 50.57 billion
R&D budget as percentage of revenue: 22.8%
J&J
R&D budget (also includes device and consumer healthcare work): $9.09 billion ($7 billion for pharmaceuticals)
Change from 2015: Up 0.5%
Total 2016 revenue: $71.9 billion
R&D budget as percentage of revenue: 12.6% (10% for pharmaceuticals)
Novartis
R&D budget: $9 billion
Change from 2015: Up 0.8%
Total 2016 revenue: $48.5 billion
R&D budget as percentage of revenue: 18.5%
Pfizer
R&D budget: $7.87 billion
Change from 2015: Up 3%
Total 2016 revenue: $52.82 billion
R&D budget as percentage of revenue: 14.8%
Merck
R&D budget: $7.19 billion
Change from 2015: Up 7.3%
Total 2016 revenue: $39.8 billion
R&D budget as percentage of revenue: 18%
Drug R&D also found itself in the spotlight as one of the biggest political issues to arise last year—drug pricing—became inextricably linked to the cost of biomedical research and development. U.S. industry groups PhRMA and BIO, as well as Europe’s EFPIA and the U.K.’s ABPI, have all said, and will continue to say, that the inherent reason drug prices are what they are is because of the huge R&D investment most (though not all) companies funnel into their scientists and labs.
It’s a risky business: The majority of drugs that begin phase 1 won’t be approved, and over the years, failures in phase 3 have cost individual companies hundreds of millions of dollars each time. Sometimes failures stem from problems with the studies themselves, sometimes a company simply refuses to give up on a dead asset, but often, a failure in the lab is simply part and parcel of the trial-and-error approach inherent to pharmaceutical and biotech research.
Based on figures from their 2016 annual reports, the top 10 pharma R&D budgets (all using their GAAP figures) combined totted up to $70.5 billion, with full-year revenue coming in at $404.8 billion. (Más)
R&D budget (pharmaceuticals and diagnostics): CHF 11.53 billion ($11.42 billion)
Change from 2015: Up 20%
Total 2016 revenue: CHF 50.57 billion
R&D budget as percentage of revenue: 22.8%
R&D budget (also includes device and consumer healthcare work): $9.09 billion ($7 billion for pharmaceuticals)
Change from 2015: Up 0.5%
Total 2016 revenue: $71.9 billion
R&D budget as percentage of revenue: 12.6% (10% for pharmaceuticals)
R&D budget: $9 billion
Change from 2015: Up 0.8%
Total 2016 revenue: $48.5 billion
R&D budget as percentage of revenue: 18.5%
R&D budget: $7.87 billion
Change from 2015: Up 3%
Total 2016 revenue: $52.82 billion
R&D budget as percentage of revenue: 14.8%
R&D budget: $7.19 billion
Change from 2015: Up 7.3%
Total 2016 revenue: $39.8 billion
R&D budget as percentage of revenue: 18%
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
Entradas
