On January 30th of this year President Obama announced a $215 million precision medicine initiative to improve health and disease. This initiative is part of a broad trend towards disease prevention and treatment that takes into account individual differences in people’s genes, environments, and lifestyles. Fulfilling the promise of precision medicine will depend on high quality evidence linking patient measurements and health. But what makes for high quality evidence?
One of the common challenges we see at Koneksa is the tendency of the research community to gravitate toward evaluating novel measures or endpoints for concurrence with older and very limited ‘gold standards.’ Previously I discussed the lack of an underlying conceptual framework for activity measures that rely on patient reported outcomes (PROs). However similar challenges also emerge with more objective performance measures.
I joined Koneksa to run technology in May 2014. I’ve spent many years building systems for financial services and, to some, extent consumer industries. I joined healthcare motivated to apply my skills after watching how technology was changing the conversation in my father’s last months of life. The journey has not disappointed.
In this post I share two themes I’ve noticed over the last year.
Recently we attended the Clinical Trials and Internet of Things forum, held in Boston’s Longwood medical area. It was an exciting two days of biopharma, technology companies and CROs coming together to discuss the potential of wearables, sensors, and mobile devices to transform clinical research. However one speaker, Jack Whelan, struck us as a unique voice in the conversation.