As house calls make a comeback, doctors need to learn new skills

first_img Related: When doing a house call, a doctor does not have the luxury of sending his or her patient to a specialist for immediate attention. The patient may be on a breathing machine or ventilator with a tracheostomy tube that needs to be changed. He or she may have a feeding tube that malfunctions, or arthritis so bad that an injection of steroid into a joint is needed.In the past, such procedures were familiar to most young physicians in all fields of medicine largely because there had been a generalist, competency-based approach to medical education. However, as the scope of medicine has widened, those in today’s training programs often forego mastery of these basic procedural skills in favor of procedure-oriented services, such as interventional radiology. Young doctors must then rely on simulation centers or shadow specialty doctors to gain the out-of-hospital skills they weren’t able to master during their training.If the house call is to truly make a comeback — and it should for both patient convenience and cost — training programs and the organizations that oversee them must revolutionize their curricula to help young physicians develop the skills necessary for home care medicine. First OpinionAs house calls make a comeback, doctors need to learn new skills When Donald Trump takes the oath of office in January, he will be the oldest president Americans have ever elected. That also makes him some doctor’s geriatric patient, joining 46 million Americans in the age 65 and older group. By 2060, that number will double, reaching a staggering 98 million people. Taking care of older patients can be a challenge. Some have multiple health conditions, and many are homebound, making a trip to see their primary care doctor almost impossible.House calls will almost certainly become a way to improve the care of our geriatric patients and will become an essential piece of the provision of care in the future. In fact, legislation being discussed in Congress would help make home-based medical care a financial reality.Making house calls sounds simple. But we worry that physicians-in-training aren’t learning the skills they need to care for their patients at home.advertisement [email protected] Related: [email protected] @DrJuneJD June M. McKoy Katherine T. O’Brien To keep seniors living independently, sensors track their home habits Tags agingeducationphysicians About the Authors Reprints Today’s — and undoubtedly tomorrow’s — medical technology makes it possible for patients with multiple medical conditions, such as diabetes and heart failure, to thrive in their own homes and be treated there. That means the scope of knowledge and technical skills required for a home care doctor has become increasingly complex.advertisement How one doctor turned to his patients — over pie — to simplify medical advice The American Board of Internal Medicine and the Council of Academic Family Medicine, two bodies that help certify doctors in fields likely to provide home care, have lists of procedures that they deem essential to the independent practice of their respective fields. The list for internal medicine graduates is surprisingly short, with knowledge of how to draw blood, insert a needle into a vein, and do a pap smear on a woman as the only essential skills required. The list for family medicine graduates is slightly longer, including some basic women’s health and obstetric skills. Glaringly missing are the procedural skills needed to provide quality, and arguably, crucial care to patients at home. These include management of urinary tubes, feeding tubes, breathing tubes, chest tubes, infected wounds and sores, and more. By Katherine T. O’Brien and June M. McKoy Dec. 7, 2016 Reprints Carsten Koall/Getty Images Training programs can easily do this. Many large academic medical centers already have simulation centers where residents could spend time working with experts to hone essential skills like removing fluid from a joint or draining it from the abdomen (abdominal paracentesis). Many physicians-in-training already spend time on rotations in which they learn to perform procedures, though these have traditionally been limited to ones needed for in-hospital practice. Simulation centers would give residents the ability to really practice with experts, without major disruptions to the current curriculum.It might even be necessary for interns and residents to do three to six months of extra training to really master the complexities of taking care of patients at home.Home visits can be an effective way of providing medical care to the burgeoning senior population in the US. But making home care a reality will require training programs to provide future doctors with the skills to provide proper home care. Once that happens, house calls may no longer be a part of your grandmother’s past but a viable solution for your new president’s health care, and yours.Katherine T. O’Brien, MD, is a geriatric medicine fellow at Northwestern University’s McGaw Medical Center. June M. McKoy, MD, is associate professor of medicine and preventive medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, where she directs the geriatric medicine fellowship program.last_img read more

Want a glimpse into the possible future of Medicaid? Head to Indiana

first_img By Andrew Joseph Dec. 14, 2016 Reprints Politics STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. Richard Ullrich started crying when he got coverage through the Affordable Care Act after being uninsured for a decade. But he has had problems signing up for Indiana’s Medicaid program. Dustin Franz for STAT [email protected] @DrewQJoseph GET STARTED What is it? Log In | Learn More Unlock this article — plus daily intelligence on Capitol Hill and the life sciences industry — by subscribing to STAT+. First 30 days free. GET STARTEDcenter_img Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. GARY, Ind. — To better understand what the future of Medicaid could look like, you might come to Indiana. Once you’re here, you might ask someone like Richard Ullrich Jr., who works in a bottling plant, what kind of plan he has through the state’s unique Medicaid expansion.“I wish I knew,” Ullrich would say. What’s included? Want a glimpse into the possible future of Medicaid? Head to Indiana General Assignment Reporter Andrew covers a range of topics, from addiction to public health to genetics. Tags CongressMedicaidpatientspolicy Andrew Joseph About the Author Reprintslast_img read more

Few people actually benefit from ‘breakthrough’ cancer immunotherapy

first_img Percent of cancer deaths in the US potentially treatable by immunotherapy drugsNon-Small Cell Lung Cancer Low/NegPD-L1Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer High PD-L1Urothelial CancerRenal Cell CarcinomaMelanomaHead and Neck SCCHodgkinsNo Immunotherapy Indication16.95.62.868.8CancerPercent of cancer deaths in the US treatable by immunotherapy drugsNon-Small Cell Lung Cancer Low/Neg PD-L116.9Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer High PD-L15.6Urothelial Cancer2.8Renal Cell Carcinoma2.4Melanoma1.7Head and Neck SCC1.6Hodgkins0.2No Immunotherapy Indication68.8No Immunotherapy Indication When immunotherapy works, the result is terrific, even life-changing. Today, though, only a tiny minority of patients expected to die from cancer will benefit from immunotherapy. As is often the case, hype sadly exceeds evidence, creating misunderstandings between patients and their doctors.advertisement Mike Reddy for STAT Although immunotherapies have been used for a hundred years, such as the deliberate injection of bacteria into the body to stimulate the immune system, 2011 marked the approval of the first immunotherapy for cancer, a so-called checkpoint inhibitor named ipilimumab (Yervoy). This class of drugs unleashes the body’s immune system against cancer, and is the subject of much enthusiasm.Using US national cancer statistics and FDA approvals, we estimated the percent of cancer patients who might actually benefit from immunotherapy. The result was surprising, given the way these drugs are described.To do this, we first calculated the percent of cancers for which immunotherapy has been approved as of February 2017. From that number we determined that two-thirds (68.8 percent) of Americans predicted to die of cancer will die of one that currently has no FDA-approved immunotherapy options. These include prostate cancer, colon cancer, and ovarian cancer, among others. Beware the hype: Top scientists cautious about fighting cancer with immunotherapy Related: @nathangay84 Cancer patients’ response to an immunotherapy drug (mouse overfor percentages)Any RespnoseNo Response020406080100FDA approved immunotherapy drugCheckpoint inhibitorsResponse rate (%)Any RespnoseNo ResponseFDA approved immunotherapy drug2674Checkpoint inhibitors892No Response People with cancer face many challenges, including the symptoms of the disease, the toxicity of the treatment, financial costs, and social expectations. Here’s a new threat: navigating their care in an ocean of hype.Cancer drugs are all too often hailed as miracles, breakthroughs, game-changers, or even cures, even when they are no such thing. We recently reported in JAMA Oncology that these words were used 50 percent of the time to describe drugs not approved by the FDA, and 14 percent of the time to describe drugs that had only worked in mice. The leap from helping a mouse to saving a human is uncertain, long, and overwhelmingly unsuccessful.Even when we do have drugs that work, hype may mislead us about how well they work and how many people they will benefit.advertisement Talia Bronshtein/STAT Source: Nathan Gay and Vinay Prasad What do these results mean? When immunotherapy works, there is no argument — the results are terrific. Patients with otherwise life-threatening cancers live far longer than expected and some may even be cured. But at least today, few patients can expect to be among the lucky ones.Some argue that these drugs will be approved for more cancers in the years to come, or that they may work better in combination with other drugs or one another. While we hope that comes true, it is not the reality today. And for several common cancers, like colon and breast cancer, we already know that these drugs work poorly — there is a reason why the first approvals were in cancers like melanoma — and we fear the percentage of people benefiting from cancer immunotherapy will not change greatly.Who is to blame for the disconnect between reality and hype? All of us. Doctors, researchers, the pharmaceutical industry, reporters, patient advocates — all use sensational language to describe these drugs. To make matters worse, the United States is one of the only countries to permit direct-to-consumer advertising, resulting in an astonishing 80 drug ads airing every hour — some of which are misleading.We owe it to people with cancer to do better. Navigating the waters of accurate information and reasonable hope is a big challenge for oncology. Deciding when and how to treat cancer is a sacred journey that patients and their doctors make together. Distorting the effectiveness of treatments in the public eye can tear the very fabric that unites patients and doctors. Misunderstanding ensues. Expectations become disappointments. A good death becomes a bad one. Please enter a valid email address. By Nathan Gay and Vinay Prasad March 8, 2017 Reprints Vinay Prasadcenter_img Newsletters Sign up for Cancer Briefing A weekly look at the latest in cancer research, treatment, and patient care. @vprasadmdmph Privacy Policy Tags cancerpharmaceuticals Nathan Gay Talia Bronshtein/STAT Source: Nathan Gay and Vinay Prasad We next determined the percentage of cancer patients that could expect to see their tumor shrink from immunotherapy. Tumor shrinkage is widely considered to be a prerequisite to benefitting from these drugs. Only 26 percent of patients had this happen.Finally, we combined those two calculations and asked, of all patients dying of cancer in America this year, how many might benefit from a checkpoint inhibitor drug? We assumed the best-case scenario: that every patient with one of these cancers could afford the drug and get access to it.The answer was just 8 percent. We also ran the numbers another way by setting a lower bar for success, and credited these drugs for any patient whose cancer did not grow substantially during follow-up. Even with that adjustment, the estimate was less than 10 percent. Leave this field empty if you’re human: The intrusive nature of hype — without context, without nuance, and without limit — can be a huge challenge faced by cancer patients in America. For that reason, it should come as no surprise that many cancer patients have an inflated understanding of their prognosis compared to what their doctors understand. Too many patients and their families are inevitably let down when they find themselves among the 90 percent who don’t benefit from immunotherapy.We are not pessimists in our quest to improve survival and quality of life for cancer patients. Instead, we are optimists that we can all do better in communicating the reality of cancer care to patients, to the public, and even to physicians. That way, we may all make more honest choices if and when we must cope with cancer.Nathan Gay, MD, is an oncology fellow at Oregon Health and Science University. Vinay Prasad, MD, is assistant professor in the Division of Hematology Oncology at Oregon Health and Science University and the author of “Ending Medical Reversal.” The views expressed in this article are the authors’ personal opinions and do not represent those of OHSU. First OpinionFew people actually benefit from ‘breakthrough’ cancer immunotherapy Consider immunotherapy. This new form of cancer therapy, which uses the body’s own immune system to fight cancer, has captivated the public imagination, is a topic of the nightly news, and has been featured in at least one Super Bowl ad. About the Authors Reprints [email protected] last_img read more

University of California appeals CRISPR patent setback

first_img Sharon Begley The University of California has filed an appeal to overturn a February decision by a US patent tribunal that dealt UC a setback in its efforts to win foundational patents on the revolutionary genome-editing technology CRISPR-Cas9.In that decision, the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled that CRISPR patents issued to the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in 2014 did not cover the same inventions for which UC had sought patents. The PTAB decision found that the claims can be patented separately. That left UC free to pursue its original patent applications, but was deemed a setback because the Broad was left with what many experts considered the more valuable intellectual property.The appeal seeks to have PTAB reverse its decision, and conclude that the Broad’s patents on the use of CRISPR-Cas9 in eukaryotic cells — those of advanced organisms, including all plants and animals — are so similar to UC’s patent application on the use of CRISPR in more primitive cells, like bacteria, that they should not have been granted.advertisement Two adversaries in the CRISPR patent battle meet — and look ahead By Sharon Begley April 13, 2017 Reprints UC was joined in its appeal, filed on Wednesday in the federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., by its partners in its CRISPR patent efforts, the University of Vienna and biologist Emmanuelle Charpentier, who collaborated with UC biochemist Jennifer Doudna on the pioneering CRISPR research. “Ultimately, we expect to establish definitively that the team led by Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier was the first to engineer CRISPR-Cas9 for use in all types of environments, including in non-cellular settings and within plant, animal, and even human cells,” said Edward Penhoet, a special adviser on CRISPR to the UC president and UC Berkeley chancellor. Penhoet is also the associate dean of biology at UC Berkeley and a professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology.advertisement UC also intends to continue its efforts to obtain patents elsewhere in the world on the CRISPR-Cas9 technology “in non-cellular and cellular settings, including eukaryotic cells,” the university said in a statement. Last month, UC was told by the European Patent Office that it would be awarded a patent on the basic CRISPR-Cas9 technology on May 10.In a statement, the Broad said that “given that the facts have not changed, we expect the outcome will once again be the same. We are confident the Federal Circuit will affirm the PTAB decision and recognize the contribution of the Broad, MIT, and Harvard in developing this transformative technology.”In a federal circuit case, the judges do not reexamine the facts determined by PTAB. Instead, UC will have to argue that the three PTAB judges committed an error of law, such as improperly barring evidence or ruling incorrectly on a motion. That, said Broad spokesman Lee McGuire, “seems unlikely.”“They’re appealing the kitchen sink,” said patent expert Jacob Sherkow of New York Law School. “They don’t want to waive anything that could help them.” Meet ‘CRISPR’Volume 90%Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcutsKeyboard ShortcutsEnabledDisabledPlay/PauseSPACEIncrease Volume↑Decrease Volume↓Seek Forward→Seek Backward←Captions On/OffcFullscreen/Exit FullscreenfMute/UnmutemSeek %0-9 facebook twitter Email Linkhttps://www.statnews.com/2017/04/13/crispr-patent-uc-appeal/?jwsource=clCopied EmbedCopiedLive00:0000:5700:57  CRISPR is a tool that acts as a microscopic pair of scissors with the ability to slice DNA. Dom Smith/STAT Related: About the Author Reprints BusinessUniversity of California appeals CRISPR patent setback Senior Writer, Science and Discovery (1956-2021) Sharon covered science and discovery. Biochemist Jennifer Doudna of the University of California is appealing the CRISPR patent decision. Tags CRISPRlegal @sxbegle [email protected] last_img read more

McKesson shareholders reject executive pay amid pressure on opioid distribution

first_img Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. GET STARTED What is it? STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. @Pharmalot Log In | Learn More Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free! GET STARTED By Ed Silverman July 26, 2017 Reprints Ed Silverman About the Author Reprintscenter_img What’s included? [email protected] APStock Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer Ed covers the pharmaceutical industry. Tags addictionpharmaceuticalsSTAT+ McKesson shareholders reject executive pay amid pressure on opioid distribution Pharmalot In a stunning rebuke to McKesson, investors rejected its executive compensation plan, following a campaign in which the International Brotherhood of Teamsters accused the pharmaceutical wholesaler of exacerbating the opioid epidemic.The union argued the pay package given chief executive officer John Hammergren is “excessive,” because McKesson has been “a central figure” in the epidemic and cited a $150 million fine the distributor paid this year for failing to report suspicious orders. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration described it as among the “most severe sanctions” ever to involve a drug distributor.last_img read more

‘13 Reasons Why’ might have triggered suicide searches online

first_imgThe study doesn’t prove a link and didn’t examine any connection with actual suicides or attempts. It was published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine.A journal editorial said it’s not clear if the searches “were made out of idle curiosity or by suicidal individuals contemplating an attempt.” But it argues that the producers could have done more to emphasize suicide prevention, including listing resources for where to find help before and after each episode.advertisement Health‘13 Reasons Why’ might have triggered suicide searches online CHICAGO — A popular TV series that showed a teen ending her life may have triggered a surge in online searches for suicide, including how to do it.That’s according to a new study about the show “13 Reasons Why.” Netflix released all 13 episodes on March 31.Researchers found that for almost three weeks afterward, there were at least 900,000 more than expected Google searches including the word “suicide.” That’s a 19-percent increase based on forecasts using Google Trends and historical search trends. Searches included suicide methods, suicide hotlines and suicide prevention.advertisement Suicide rates are rising steeply, especially among middle-aged whites Related: Some mental health advocates say the show glamorized suicide, and many U.S. schools sent parents warning letters about the show. “13 Reasons Why” may have prompted a surge in online searches for suicide, including how to do it, according to a new study. Beth Dubber/Netflix via AP By Associated Press July 31, 2017 Reprintscenter_img 5 lessons from my decades of struggle with depression and anxiety Madelyn Gould, a Columbia University suicide prevention researcher, noted the study design was less rigorous than some research methods, but said the results “should be taken seriously.”“My main concern was that suicide was portrayed sort of as the inevitable consequence of life’s adversities rather than depicting what would be an actually more appropriate message, which is that there’s help when you’re feeling suicidal rather than resorting to killing yourself,” Gould said.— Lindsey Tanner About the Author Reprints The series is about a high school girl who left behind 13 audiotapes where she revealed sexual assault, substance abuse and bullying that led to her decision to take her own life. The finale shows her suicide.Episodes with the most explicit material included warnings and a website Netflix created with crisis hotlines and other resources for the more than 30 countries where the series was available. It has been renewed for a second season.John Ayers, a San Diego State University researcher who led the research, said the series could trigger troubled teens and that the producers should remove and edit the episodes to focus on suicide prevention before reposting.“Far more people go to the brink and come back and have satisfaction with that decision,” he said.In a written statement, Netflix said, “We always believed this show would increase discussion around this tough subject matter. This is an interesting quasi experimental study that confirms this. We are looking forward to more research and taking everything we learn to heart as we prepare for season 2.” Related: Associated Presslast_img read more

What are you going to be for Halloween? Share your science selfie!

first_imgSubmissions are open until 3 p.m. on Oct. 31.Click here to submit your photo.By submitting this form you indicate that you own the copyright of the photos and you agree to allow STAT to use submitted images and text on its website and on social channels.  Tags halloween Jason Redmond/AFP/Getty Images STAT staff Your ThoughtsWhat are you going to be for Halloween? Share your science selfie! By STAT staff Oct. 27, 2017 Reprints About the Author Reprints [email protected] Is your Halloween costume inspired by science? Motivated by medicine?Let’s see!Fill out the form by clicking the link below, or share your photos on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram using the hashtag #SpookyScience and you could be featured in a Halloween story.advertisementlast_img read more

These companies want to transform our gut bugs into drugs. How close are they to market?

first_img Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free! GET STARTED STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. These companies want to transform our gut bugs into drugs. How close are they to market? Kaiyu Wu, a research associate at the University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine, helps prepare fecal microbiota transplants in capsule form. Cumming School of Medicine/University of Calgary @ericboodman If you had wanted to be a feces donor for a certain major hospital system before February 2016, you would have had to buy yourself a blender.On the morning of the transplant, you would have woken up, produced a bit of fresh dung, and blended it with salt water until it had what the hospital described as “a milk-shake-like consistency.” You would have put the slurry in a Ziploc, carried it to the hospital, and — after some futzing — it would have been deposited into the gastrointestinal tract of a family member or friend. General Assignment Reporter Eric focuses on narrative features, exploring the startling ways that science and medicine affect people’s lives. Log In | Learn More What’s included? Eric Boodmancenter_img About the Author Reprints Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. By Eric Boodman Dec. 6, 2017 Reprints GET STARTED In the Lab [email protected] What is it? Tags drug developmentresearchSTAT+last_img read more

A reversal of fortunes: Judge voids order Gilead must pay $2.5B to Merck over a patent dispute

first_imgPharmalot Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer Ed covers the pharmaceutical industry. Mel Evans/AP GET STARTED Log In | Learn More In a reversal of fortunes, a federal judge overturned a jury verdict ordering Gilead Sciences (GILD) to pay $2.54 billion to Merck (MRK) for infringing a patent in order to develop a pair of blockbuster hepatitis C treatments.In a 52-page opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Leonard Stark ruled late Friday that a Merck patent at issue was invalid, because the inventions did not meet a requirement for disclosing how to make and use the treatment it covered without undue experimentation. What’s included? About the Author Reprints What is it? Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free! GET STARTEDcenter_img [email protected] STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. A reversal of fortunes: Judge voids order Gilead must pay $2.5B to Merck over a patent dispute Ed Silverman Tags drug pricesLitigationpatentspharmaceuticals Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. @Pharmalot By Ed Silverman Feb. 17, 2018 Reprintslast_img read more

Pharmalittle: A ‘one-off opportunity’ to raise valsartan price by 469 percent; Takeda’s risky road for dengue vaccine

first_img Ed Silverman Top of the morning, and what a cold one it is. A bit of an arctic freeze has descended upon many of us on this side of the pond, but we are keeping warm thanks to — you guessed it — multiple cups of stimulation. This is why coffee kettles were invented, after all. So fire it up, pour a hot one, and please enjoy the tidbits below. Hope your day goes well and you remain toasty …When two generic drug makers scrambled last July to recall hundreds of lots of the valsartan blood pressure drug, a third company unaffected by the recall saw a “one-off opportunity” to significantly increase prices, USA Today writes. Teva Pharmaceutical (TEVA) and Prinston Pharmaceutical recalled the meds after testing revealed small amounts of a probable carcinogen, but the same drugs produced by Alembic Pharmaceuticals did not show contamination. And Alembic more than tripled the price of 17 of its own formulations of valsartan, from 329 percent to 469 percent. STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. What’s included? Log In | Learn More [email protected] Alex Hogan/STAT Unlock this article — plus daily coverage and analysis of the pharma industry — by subscribing to STAT+. First 30 days free. GET STARTED What is it?center_img @Pharmalot GET STARTED By Ed Silverman Jan. 31, 2019 Reprints Pharmalittle: A ‘one-off opportunity’ to raise valsartan price by 469 percent; Takeda’s risky road for dengue vaccine Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer Ed covers the pharmaceutical industry. About the Author Reprints Pharmalot Tags drug pricinggovernment agenciesopioidspharmaceuticalspharmalittleVaccineslast_img read more