Popular Articles

QLT Announces 12-month Results From Novartis Sponsored MONT BLANC Study Evaluating Standard-fluence Visudyne(R) Combination Therapy
QLT Inc. (NASDAQ: QLTI; TSX: QLT) announced that twelve-month primary analysis results from the Novartis sponsored Phase II MONT BLANC study were presented on June 14, 2009 during the 17th Congress of the European Society of Ophthalmology in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. MONT BLANC is the European study of the Novartis sponsored SUMMIT clinical trial program which investigates the efficacy and safety of combining Visudyne(R) (Novartis Pharma AG) and Lucentis(R) (Novartis Pharma AG, Genentech Inc.). SUMMIT also includes the DENALI study in the US and Canada and the EVEREST study in Asia. MONT BLANC is a 24-month randomized, double-masked, multicenter trial in patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization secondary to age-related macular degeneration. The purpose of the study is to evaluate whether Visudyne combined with Lucentis is not inferior to Lucentis monotherapy with respect to the mean change from baseline in visual acuity (VA) and to evaluate the proportion of patients with a treatment-free interval of at least three months duration after Month 2. At the Month 12 examination, mean VA in the Visudyne combination therapy group improved 2.5 letters from baseline compared with a 4.4 letter improvement in the Lucentis monotherapy group. In the combination therapy group, 96% of patients had a three-month treatment-free interval, compared with 92% in the Lucentis monotherapy group. Buy arimidex to treat cancer.

Industry Leaders Offer Solutions For Health Care Reform
The Chicago Tribune published a series of articles on industry"s solutions for health care reform. The paper "turned to Chicago-area leaders in three key segments of the industry: insurers, medical providers and pharmacy," and presented their "thoughts on how best to expand medical-care coverage to all Americans."

generic viagra online


News of the day
EmblemHealth Provides New Medical Manual To Help Clinicians Address Religio-Cultural Issues That Influence Health Care Decisions
To meet the needs of its diverse clinician and patient constituency, EmblemHealth announced on Friday publication of what is believed to be the first comprehensive guide to help physicians and medical professionals address the needs of patients whose health care decisions are influenced by their religious and cultural beliefs. The Medical Manual for Religio-Cultural Competency is sponsored by EmblemHealth and created by the Tanenbaum Center For Interreligious Understanding, a global leader in training health care providers to offer religiously and culturally competent care for patients of all ages and backgrounds.
Endocrinology

Supreme Court Nominees Should Disclose Views On Constitutional Issues, USA Today Opinion Piece States

One thing that "has been conspicuously absent" from the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is "substance," Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, writes in a USA Today opinion piece. According to Turley, "The vast majority of questions and answers remained on a shallow and predictable level where Sotomayor did little more than describe current doctrines and case law -- avoiding disclosures of her own views." He continues, "What is most striking is how Sotomayor"s statements were virtually identical to both her conservative and liberal predecessors," including her comments that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are "the precedent of the court."Turley writes, "The content-light character in these hearings is largely the product of the "Ginsburg rule" -- named after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who refused to answer questions in her 1993 confirmation hearing about any case or matter upon which she might later vote." According to Turley, "Later nominees for both parties have relied on the Ginsburg rule to turn the hearings into prolonged photo-ops for senators, who largely ask wafer-thin questions to solicit largely scripted answers." The rule "allows nominees to get by with meaningless sound bites that promise to respect precedent, the Framers [of the Constitution] and collegiality in general," he adds. Furthermore, it "tells the public nothing about a nominee"s philosophy or purpose before giving her life tenure on the world"s most powerful court," Turley writes.According to Turley, there is a "simple solution to returning substance to the confirmation process: End the Ginsburg rule by insisting that nominees answer questions about their specific views on constitutional rights." Although "the current system works well for presidents, nominees and senators," it "does little for the public or the system of justice," he writes (Turley, USA Today, 7/16). Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women"s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women"s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company. © 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.


Add your comment:
Name:
Site address: http://
Your message:
Enter today\\\\'s date, 2 digits
(spam protection):