Due to new responsibilities as a Board Member of the Catalent Applied Drug Delivery Institute, as well as activity via other social media including @stamoran on Twitter, I’m suspending posting new comments on this blog for now. But my attention to improving patient outcomes through better drug design is unchanged, and the need is greater than ever.
I’ve recently come to believe that the way we frame the discussion on adherence is ineffective. Any other industry that ends up with 8:10 users of the average product NOT receiving the intended (on label) benefit would view this as a design inadequacy. So framing the patient outcomes debate by putting the burden of compliance with unrealistic regimens, difficult side effects, etc., on the PATIENT rather than driving for better DESIGNED drugs in the first place is fundamentally the wrong approach, in my opinion.
It is CRITICAL that we understand how patients use drug in real world settings, especially since pre-approval clinicals inadequately probe the gap between clinical and real-world adherence. So I’m not dismissing all the great adherence research going on – I just think what we in the industry should do about it – and perhaps the way we frame the debate – needs to change.
I’ll post later this year, once I get my new “soapbox” blog, focusing on driving improved patient outcomes through better drug design, up and running. In the meantime, follow me on Twitter to say current with my views on adherence, pharmaceutical industry strategies and the future.