Statistical review compiled from our Strategic Transactions database including financings by type (IPO, private placement etc.); financings by sector (surgical equipment, implantable devices, etc.); alliances by therapeutic category (cardiovascular, orthopedic, etc.); alliances by industry segment (biomaterials, monitoring equipment, etc. ); for three separate industries: medical devices, in vitro diagnostics, and pharmaceuticals/biotechnology.
In this issue, we present another installment of our quarterly
review of dealmaking—for April-June 2004. Our data comes from
Windhover's Strategic Transactions Database, which covers
deal activity within the pharmaceutical/biotechnology, medical
device, and in vitro diagnostics industries.
Some notes about our coverage: we limit our review to human health care (thus no animal health or agricultural transactions)...
Editor’s note: This is your final call to participate in the survey to better understand our subscribers’ content and delivery needs. The deadline is 20 September.
Mary Jane Hinrichs, Ipsen’s head of early development, talks to In Vivo about getting ahead of the competition by securing deals for candidates before they enter Phase I trials.
Editor’s note: We are conducting a survey to better understand our subscribers’ content and delivery needs. If there are any changes you’d like to see in the coverage topics, content format or the method in which you receive and access In Vivo, or if you love it how it is, now is the time to have your voice heard.
The cell and gene therapy (CGT) clinical trial landscape in general and CAR-T cell clinical trials in particular are a special focus for the FDA, EMA, and other regulatory agencies. The whole industry is thus aware of the recent FDA safety investigation and requirements for labeling CAR therapy products.
A new AI-based platform is designed to condense months of clinical data analysis into minutes by translating plain language data queries into epidemiologically valid research requests.
Emerging research reveals that biological sex differences may significantly influence Alzheimer’s disease progression and treatment efficacy, underscoring the urgent need for sex-specific analysis in clinical trials and therapeutic development.