Pharma Notes

OncoGenex Pharma-

ceuticals, Inc. (Vancouver, BC) says that its Cedar™ clinical trial, an investigatorsponsored, randomized, open-label Phase 2 trial evaluating apatorsen in previously untreated patients with advanced squamous cell lung cancer is now open for enrollment. Apatorsen is a once-weekly intravenous (IV) experimental drug that is designed to inhibit production of heat shock protein 27 (Hsp27) to disable cancer cells’ defenses and overcome treatment resistance. Approximately 140 patients with previously untreated stage IV or recurrent squamous cell lung cancers or stage IIIB squamous cell cancers that are not amenable to radiochemotherapy will be randomized to receive either apatorsen plus gemcitabine and carboplatin therapy, or gemcitabine and carboplatin therapy alone. The primary objective of the study is progression-free survival (PFS), with secondary objectives to evaluate tumour response rates, overall survival, safety, tolerability and health-related quality of life. Additional analyses will be conducted to determine the effect of therapy on Hsp27 levels and to explore potential biomarkers that may help predict response to treatment.

Biosign Technologies

Inc. (Thornhill, ON) has completed its acquisition of 51 per cent of issued and outstanding shares of Meck Medical GmbH (MECK). In connection with the acquisition, the company has agreed to provide MECK a loan to fund its operations of up to 100,000 Euros per month to a maximum of 2.4 million Euros in the aggregate.

Specialty pharmaceutical company Medicure Inc. (Winnipeg, MB) through its newly formed subsidiary, Medicure U.S.A. Inc. has acquired a minority interest in pharmaceutical manufacturing business Apicore (Somerset, NJ). In all, Medicure and Medicure USA have acquired a 6.09 per cent equity interest (5.33 per cent on a fully-diluted basis) in two newly formed holding companies of which Apicore LLC and Apicore US LLC will be wholly owned operating subsidiaries. Medicure has also received an option to acquire all of the remaining issued shares of Apicore LLC and the holding company of Apicore US LLC, within the next three years.

Eventi Capital Part-

ners, a Toronto-based growth capital investment fi rm specializing in high growth technologies in the IT and healthcare sectors, has sold Visualase Inc. (Houston,TX) to Medtronic Inc. in a deal valuing the company at approximately US$105 million. Visualase develops and sells a laser system for minimally invasive neurosurgery. The Visualase technology has been used to treat more than 800 neurosurgical patients. Eventi Capital Partners made its initial investment in Visualase in February 2009 with a follow-on round of fi nancing made in May 2012. The all-cash transaction of up to US$105 million includes an initial payment of US$70 million to Visualase’s shareholders plus the potential for an additional US$35 million in incremental revenue-based earn out payments. Leerink Partners LLC served as fi nancial advisor and Miller, Egan, Molter & Nelson LLP served as legal advisor in the transaction.

Privately owned Canadian pharmaceutical services provider Dalton Pharma Services (Toronto, ON) has entered into a manufacturing services agreement with

GLyPharma Therapeutics

Inc., a Montréal-based company developing clinical therapies for chemotherapyinduced intestinal mucositis. Under the terms of the service agreement Dalton Pharma Services will provide aseptic fi ll/fi nish services and analytical support under cGMP for FE 203799, a long-acting GLP-2 receptor agonist under development by GLyPharma as a therapy for supportive care in oncology for patients receiving chemotherapy.

Laval-based KLOX Technologies has struck a license and joint venture agreement deal with dermatology company LEO Pharma to further develop and commercialize KLOX’s BioPhotonic technology platform in dermatology, which includes the LumiCleanse System. The worldwide license and joint venture agreement, excludes Canada where KLOX’s solution is commercialized by Sandoz Canada. Additionally, as part of the agreement LEO Pharma says it will also make an equity investment in KLOX.

Toronto, ON-based Lorus Therapeutics says the FDA has completed its review and cleared the company’s investigational-new-drug application of LOR-253 for the treatment of hematologic malignancies, including acute myeloid leukemia, high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, lymphomas and multiple myeloma. Clearance of the IND allows Lorus to initiate a Phase 1b, multicenter, open-label, clinical study of LOR-253 in patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies. The Phase 1b trial will evaluate safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamic responses and effi cacy of LOR-253 as a single agent. The trial is expected to enroll 45-to-60 patients as part of a dose-escalation program and two separate disease-specifi c single-agent expansion cohorts. Lorus believes that LOR-253 may represent a targeted therapeutic solution for a very diffi cult-to-treat cancer. It works by inducing the KLF4 gene, which has been reported as a key transforming event in AML and high-risk MDS.

Amorfi x Life Sciences

(Mississauga, ON) has been issued a broad patent covering antibodies that target misfolded SOD1 (mSOD1) for the treatment of ALS. The patent has issued as US 8,778,885. SOD1 is a protein which is highly expressed in the motor nerve cells which degenerate in ALS. While normally a protector of cells, under certain conditions it can “misfold” – its three-dimensional structure becomes distorted – and it then becomes toxic for cells, as well as triggering propagated misfolding of normal SOD1. This mechanism of disease onset and progression scould support mSOD1 as a target for the development of therapeutics for the treatment of ALS.

ProMetic Life Sciences

Inc. (Laval, QC) reports that it has successfully completed its PBI-4050 Phase 1 clinical trial in 40 healthy volunteers and that PBI-4050 was found to be safe and very well tolerated without any serious adverse events reported in any of the fi ve cohorts tested. The objectives of the oral, double blind, placebo controlled, single ascending dose study were to demonstrate the safety and tolerability of PBI-4050 and to establish the pharmacokinetic profi le of the drug candidate at different doses. The study design also included a component looking at food effect on drug absorption. The trial was conducted in fi ve cohorts of eight subjects. In each cohort, six subjects received PBI-4050 and two subjects received matching placebo. ProMetic added that PBI-4050 is now set to move into clinical development in diabetic patients with kidney diseases, as well as other orphan medical conditions where diabetes and/or fi brosis is affecting key organs such as liver, kidney, heart and lungs.

Your New Life Science Partners

&• Yeast and Bacteria Culture Media • Biological Buffers & Buffer Solutions Biological Buffers & Buffer Solutions • Amino Acids & Derivatives

feature

Every year, hundreds of Canadians with severe or lifethreatening disorders do not get access to the medicines they need. What do these patients have in common? They all have rare disorders. It’s almost unbelievable but true. With a public health system that is the envy of much of the world, Canada sadly lags behind almost all other developed nations, including the U.S., the EU, Japan and Australia, in our care and treatment for rare disorders. We’ve made progress over the past few years but it’s time for Canada to stop making excuses and bring in a comprehensive plan that will give Canadians with rare disorders the same treatment as those with common ones.

A rare disorder is defined as a disorder that affects less than one in 2,000 Canadians. Many are severe, progressive, and/or life threatening conditions, with high mortality rates and devastating impacts on patients, families and society. Although individually rare, collectively, they affect one in 12 persons or 2.8 million Canadians. There are no effective treatments for many of these disorders. However, for many others, if infants or children are diagnosed and treated early enough, they can avoid physical disability or cognitive delays and live nearly normal lives.

Rare disorders present unique public health challenges. Few physicians are familiar with diagnosing and treating these conditions, which means most patients are undiagnosed, misdiagnosed, or delayed in diagnosis, so they do not get timely access to treatments even when therapies exist.

There are relatively few therapeutic options - between 7,000 and 8,000 rare disorders have been identified, but there are only 400 effective drug treatments. This situation is expected to change dramatically with hundreds of new therapies in development and coming to market over the next decade. But without change in our rare disease environment, many of these therapies will not be accessible for Canadian patients. Currently, Canadians tend not to be included in clinical trials and companies are reluctant to bring their drugs to Canada. Approximately half of the rare disease drugs available to patients in the U.S. or Europe have been approved in Canada and only half of these are funded through public drug plans.

Currently, Canada’s regulatory and reimbursement systems present significant challenges to researchers and developers of drugs for rare diseases, also known as orphan drugs. On the federal regulatory side, the review process is about to change.

In October 2012, Health Canada announced their intention to implement an Orphan Drug Regulatory Framework, a review process for orphan drugs that is similar to those of the U.S. and the European Union. Health Canada has indicated that this framework will include tools to improve the quality of knowledge used by provincial and territorial decision-makers and healthcare professionals, provide the opportunity for patient input, encourage transparency and sharing information, and support international collaboration. By harmonizing Canada’s orphan drug regulatory process with those of the U.S. and the EU, companies will be able to set up clinical trials and to apply to Canada for market approval at about the same time as they do in these other jurisdictions, ultimately reducing delays and increasing the number of new drugs available to Canadians with rare diseases.

Unfortunately, a federal regulatory framework will not assure equal access across all provinces. Under Canada’s federated model, screening, diagnosis, care and treatment are the responsibility of individual provinces. With an aging population, there is an inevitable increase in both incidence and prevalence of chronic disease, which translates into greater demand for healthcare and greater use of medications. Provinces challenged by healthcare costs that are increasing, on average by seven percent each year, and drug costs that are proportionately rising even faster, have placed more controls on drug prices and restricted access to new drugs.

To those ends, all provinces (except Quebec) have agreed to collaborate on a Common Drug Review (CDR) to assess the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new drugs and the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) for oncology drugs. Both will soon by operated under one umbrella, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Their mandate is to make recommendations to the public drug plans on which drugs to reimburse, under what conditions and, often, at what price. Intended to reduce duplication and improve consistency across formulary listings, the common evaluation methods used by the processes have disadvantaged certain types of drugs resulting in more negative recommendations. These include drugs for small patient

Caring for Canada’s Most Vulnerable R populations, first-in-class drugs without comparators, early-market entry Citizens through a National Plan for are

Disorders drugs for severe or life-threatening conditions, or drugs that primarily impact quality of life, such as pain management or psychological conditions. What is needed is an orphan drug access framework designed speby: by durhane Wong-rieger cifically to provide access to drugs for and christine beyaert unmet needs as soon as they are approved by Health Canada. Known as managed access schemes, risk-sharing schemes, or evidence building schemes, they provide appropriate patients reimbursed access to drugs with a monitoring plan that accumulates evidence of safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness over time. Such schemes are already being used in Canada and most other countries, and are much more appropriate to rare disease drugs than the CDR or pCODR. A new step in the process is the pan-Canadian Pricing Alliance (PCPA), which negotiates a single price and listing conditions for a new drug, on behalf of all participating provinces. The final decision about reimbursement, however, is still made by each provincial or territorial government, ostensibly on the basis of budget impact and other factors. Because the latter two steps are not transparent – the basis for the negotiated price and the reimbursement decision are not publicly available – it is not clear how different jurisdictions arrive at their respective decisions. It remains to be seen whether the PCPA will reduce delays and improve consistency of access to rare disease drugs. Finally, many drugs for rare diseases fall outside of the established regulatory and reimbursement pathways, so patient access is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. These include

drugs that are not approved in Canada, are used off-label for a rare condition, or are not listed on the drug formulary. Access may be requested through Health Canada’s Special Access Programme only for the named patient and the patient may additionally need to apply to the provincial compassionate or exceptional access programme. These processes are ineffi cient, costly and time-consuming, for both the patient and the health care system. Designed for urgent, one-off situations, they are not viable mechanisms to ensure Canadians with rare disorders have sustainable access to appropriate therapy in a monitored and timely fashion.

As importantly, getting drug reimbursement and access right for rare diseases will have big payoffs as we move into the era of personalized medicine for more common conditions. Our knowledge about genetic bases for individual differences in large population disorders such as breast or prostate cancer, diabetes, circulatory conditions, and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia will result in identifi cation of subgroups defi ned by genotype. What we are learning and pioneering in drug development and access for rare diseases will someday benefi t all patients.

Over the past few years, Canada has made remarkable progress in the care and treatment of patients with rare diseases but, frankly, we still lag far behind most developed countries. The implementation of the Orphan Drug Regulatory Framework will have signifi cant impact, but it still lacks some of the provisions that will ensure pharmaceutical and biotech companies bring research and clinical trials to Canada, including a period of market exclusivity for innovative drugs and tax incentives. Moreover, in order to realize the benefi ts of a regulatory framework, we need to follow the lead of the 27 EU countries in bringing in a national plan for rare diseases.

The Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders (CORD) in collaboration with the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Genome Canada, BIOTECanada, and Rx&D are developing the framework for a Canadian Strategy for Rare Diseases that will address the defi nition of rare diseases, research, diagnosis, care and support, and access to treatment. This strategy allows us to consider rare disorders in the context of a broader public health approach and builds upon existing infrastructure, expertise, and programmes. Although Canada has come late to the game, there is an opportunity for us build on existing international experience and knowledge.

Canadians with rare diseases have a right to the same health care as those with more common conditions. A Canadian strategy for rare diseases will help ensure the most effective and cost-effective way to providing that care.

Durhane Wong-Rieger is President and CEO, Canadian Organization for Rare Disorders. Christine Beyaert is Manager, Corporate Communications, Ontario Genomics Institute.

feature

To see this story online visit

http://biotechnologyfocus.ca/ caring-for-canadasmost-vulnerablecitizens-through-anational-plan-for-raredisorders/

Quality Filters from Wyvern Scientific Syringe Filters

Valid until December 31, 2014

SAVE 15%

Cat. No. Pieces/Pack Description

WYV-SFNY013022NC WYV-SFNY013045NC WYV-SFNY025022NC 100 Nylon Syringe Filters, 0.22μm, 13mm 100 Nylon Syringe Filters, 0.45μm, 13mm 100 Nylon Syringe Filters, 0.22μm, 25mm

WYV-SFNY025045NC

100 Nylon Syringe Filters, 0.45μm, 25mm WYV-SFPTFE013022NBC 100 PTFE Syringe Filters, 0.22μm, 13mm, Hydrophobic WYV-SFPTFE013045NBC 100 PTFE Syringe Filters, 0.45μm, 13mm, Hydrophobic WYV-SFPTFE025022NBC 100 PTFE Syringe Filters, 0.22μm, 25mm, Hydrophobic WYV-SFPTFE025045NBC 100 PTFE Syringe Filters, 0.45μm, 25mm, Hydrophobic WYV-SFPVDF013022NC 100 PVDF Syringe Filters, 0.22μm, 13mm

WYV-SFPVDF013045NC WYV-SFPVDF025022NC 100 PVDF Syringe Filters, 0.45μm, 13mm 100 PVDF Syringe Filters, 0.22μm, 25mm

WYV-SFPVDF025045NC

100 PVDF Syringe Filters, 0.45μm, 25mm WYV-SFPTFE013022NLC 100 PTFE Syringe Filters, 0.22μm, 13mm, Hydrophilic WYV-SFPTFE013045NLC 100 PTFE Syringe Filters, 0.45μm, 13mm, Hydrophilic WYV-SFPTFE025022NLC 100 PTFE Syringe Filters, 0.22μm, 25mm, Hydrophilic WYV-SFPTFE025045NLC 100 PTFE Syringe Filters, 0.45μm, 25mm, Hydrophilic

High Quality - Competitive Price!

Mandel Price 15% OFF!

$53.00 $53.00 $79.00 $79.00 $79.00 $45.05 $45.05 $67.15 $67.15 $67.15

$79.00

$67.15 $106.00 $90.10 $106.00 $90.10 $79.00 $67.15

$79.00 $89.00 $89.00

$67.15 $75.65 $75.65 $110.00 $93.50 $110.00 $93.50 $139.00 $118.15 $139.00 $118.15

Best Sellers

Quality Products for Your Lab at Affordable Prices!

Our Filtration Products are Designed, Manufactured and Certified in Accordance with ISO 9001

www.mandel.ca

1-888-883-3636 info@mandel.ca

feature

Rethinking Liquid Chromatography

Liquid chromatography is one of the most competitive categories in the scientifi c instrument industry, with the major players continually increasing pressures, adjusting fl ow rates and generally waging a never-ending battle of specifi cations. How do you go beyond making incremental improvements to deliver a new kind of value for research laboratories?

Our existing UHPLC product family has a very loyal customer base, but another set of customers have indicated their desire to take chromatography to the next level. Here’s how we set out to meet their needs.

We asked our R&D, marketing, manufacturing and executive teams how we could create a new generation of UHPLC, but the answer didn’t come easily. Actually, the answer didn’t come from within the company at all, it came from the greater community of chromatography users. We asked a large number of customers, basically, what they would want to see in a new UHPLC system.

As you might imagine, there were plenty of differing responses, but there were also some recurring themes that boiled down to three main categories: • Performance (more resolution, sensitivity) • Productivity (more throughput, ruggedness, sample capacity) • Usability (easier and less method development, familiar software, simpler operation)

Following much debate, we realized that an upgrade to an existing platform would not deliver the additional value that customers were looking for, nor the competitive edge that we sought. We decided to take the big step of creating a completely new UHPLC platform from scratch, based on current and future customer needs rather than evolution.

This gave us the opportunity to actually begin by developing new column technology and then designing the rest of the platform around it. This way they complement each other with additional performance. It’s like beginning with a set of high performance tires and designing a sports car around them so they all work in harmony.

We knew that the new system would need to work at very high pressure to deliver the performance we sought, and we developed Thermo Scientifi c Accucore Vanquish UHPLC columns for 1500 bar (22,000 psi), the maximum pressure rating for the new Thermo Scientifi c Vanquish UHPLC system. The new columns feature 1.5 µm solid core particles utilizing Core Enhanced Technology to take full advantage of this pressure at a fl ow rate of 5mL/min. for ultrashort diffusion path lengths and high resolving power.

High pressures tend to be tough on hardware, but since we had the luxury of designing the system from scratch, we were able to mitigate wear and tear. The clean, monolithic design of the Vanquish system features very short, strong connections between the modules, contributing to the platform’s exceptional ruggedness. Because the modules easily slide in and out, the Vanquish system combines the fl exibility and ease of maintenance of a modular system with the ruggedness of an integrated one. Eliminating accidental void volumes and dispersion effects contribute to this performance and ruggedness, as do unique zero-dead-volume Viper fi ngertight fi ttings.

We were also able to include hard carbon-coated ceramic injection valve and pump pistons, designed for very consistent performance for 200,000 injections between the need for maintenance. After this interval, they can be easily swapped out, further enhancing productivity and uptime.

The column compartment can be positioned on either the right hand or left hand side of the Vanquish system, to keep the fl ow-path short regardless of how the benchtop workfl ow is set up. Because we were starting from with a clean slate and a clear focus on what we wanted this system to achieve, the list of features that enhance performance, productivity and ease-of-use is long.

“Form follows function” is a very basic but comprehensive principle in architecture and design. We kept this in mind from the beginning when we started to discuss our new generation UHPLC. The result is the completely new industrial design of the Vanquish system providing new levels of performance, productivity and usability without compromising fl exibility. One obvious example how design supports functionality are the doors: they open widely to allow excellent access for setting up fl uidic connections, but when closed there is a clean appearance. Rather than simple LED indicators, we use LED bars that effi ciently display the relevant information on instrument status. The lean design concept is also applied to details like a drawer for consumables and drawer-accessible Vanquish modules to make maintenance easy to perform.

Many people consider liquid chromatography a fairly mature technology. We believe that, with the right approach, substantial advances are not only possible, but achievable. We offer the new Vanquish system as proof.

by fraser mcleod

Fraser McLeod is Vice President and General Manager, HPLC, with Thermo Fisher Scientifi c

To see this story online visit

http://www. laboratoryfocus. ca/?p=2518

feature

by: gene marie shematek

Measuring Safety Performance in the Laboratory

Most laboratories expect that work will be performed safely and that all proper precautions are taken to ensure all aspects of the work – accuracy, effi ciency, safety – are considered and all standards are met. While many laboratories monitor and measure accuracy (errors) and effi ciency (tests conducted over time), not many laboratories monitor or measure safety. The old adage “what gets measured gets done” is often borne out in laboratories, where worker safety may take a backseat to productivity. So, how is worker safety measured in a laboratory?

There are two major categories of health and safety performance metrics. The most commonly used measures are “lagging indicators.” This means that they are “after-the-fact” and represent data related to adverse effects that have already occurred.

Examples of lagging indicators are: • Number of time loss accidents • Types of injuries that occur • Cost of time loss accidents • Number of days absent due to injury/illness • Number of incidents that required medical aid, but did not include time loss • Number of fi res, spills or other safety emergencies • Number of exposures to chemicals or biological hazards

While we can learn something about the types and frequency of injuries from this data, we do not often identify what needs to be done to prevent the incidents.

“Leading indicators” are measures of activities done to prevent incidents from occurring. Leading indicators are often considered “proactive” measures of safety performance. Examples of leading indicators are: • Per cent of laboratory inspections conducted as per schedule • Per cent of hazards identifi ed in in-

spections that have been corrected • Per cent of tasks on which a formal risk assessment has been conducted • Per cent of scheduled health and safety committee meetings that occurred • Per cent of incidents that were properly investigated to fi nd and correct root causes • Per cent of required emergency response drills conducted • Per cent of workers using proper personal protective equipment • Per cent of newly hired workers who received orientation within the fi rst week of work • Per cent of workers who attended refresher training

Laboratories often develop a false sense of security because they do not have many time loss incidents. Workers compensation costs are often low, and property damage from worker incidents is captured as “equipment breakdown” and not associated with the incident.

Does this mean laboratories are safe places to work? Not necessarily.

Many laboratory workers have had “close calls” or “near misses” or have witnessed them. Under slightly different circumstances, these close calls may result in serious injuries. Chemical or biological exposures may go unnoticed if there are no acute effects. Musculoskeletal injuries are often attributed to factors outside the work environment.

To ensure that the laboratory is on a continual improvement path, performance measures should focus on leading indicators (in addition to proving data related to lagging indicators). This helps promote the important safety activities that should be carried out in the laboratory and allows the lab to track trends and identify weak areas.

When we identify leading indicators as a percentage of activities that should occur (such as the per cent of required laboratory inspections conducted), we are comparing the actual occurrences with a desired or established standard. For example, if a laboratory requires monthly lab inspections, and they are conducted nine times in one year, that means that they have a 75 per cent compliance rate with the standard. If this improves each year, the trend can be tracked. On the other hand, if one of these activities starts to be neglected, that is picked up as a negative trend. One of the most effective ways to measure health and safety is to involve all lab workers in the process. While labs commonly post information related to quality control issues, lab errors, and workload statistics, most laboratories do not have posted laboratory safety metrics. Make laboratory workers more aware of safety standards and enlist their help in tracking performance. Consider placing progress charts of health and safety activity measures on the bulletin boards and having employees fi ll them in. Set and publicize goals related to health and safety performance.

The key to continual improvement in health and safety lies in awareness of prevention activities and documentation of their performance. Keep in mind that old adage “what gets measured gets done.”

About the Author: Gene Marie Shematek, MSc, CIH, ROH is a safety advisor to the Canadian Society for Medical Laboratory Science.

This article fi rst appeared in the Canadian Journal of Medical Laboratory Science and was reprinted with their permission.

To see this story online visit

http://www. laboratoryfocus. ca/?p=2522

Laboratory Equipment:

Making Decisions About What to Purchase and Why

The task of buying equipment for a modern laboratory requires innovative, original thinking on a number of fronts.

In today’s fast-changing working environment within the life sciences, it is vital that you, as the manager of the laboratory, establish answers to several important questions. These questions include: What kind of equipment can I afford? What specific equipment will be useful? And what should I look for in an equipment seller? Just as best practices in the lab are constantly evolving, so are the answers to these questions.

As the CEO of a life science supply company that is attuned to the 21st century marketplace, I have some insights to share that might help with these decisions.

To begin with, if your lab depends on funding from the National Institutes of Health, the National Research Council of Canada, The Canadian Institutes of Health Research or some other funding body, you are already aware that the question of what equipment you can afford can change as funding levels vary considerably from year to year. Although it is hard not to be pleased with the $1 billion increase that was built for example into the 2014 NIH budget, it is also not clear what lies ahead for biomedical research enterprises in the coming years. Of course I do not know your individual funding situation, but generally speaking, it is critical to keep abreast of funding bodies budget negotiations and study the final budget to evaluate your purchasing options.

On a related note, a recent study conducted by Frost & Sullivan on behalf of the Laboratory Products Association (LPA) asked researchers to identify the most important factors involved in choosing new lab instrumentation. Respondents uniformly chose four items: lower purchase costs, lower operating costs, increased accuracy and easier-to-operate capabilities. Such considerations are likely to grow in importance in the next few years; according to the LPA study, overall growth in the lab product market is expected to grow 2.1 per cent in 2014 to $39.4 billion and 2.7 per cent in 2015 to $40.5 billion. The U.S. lab product market is expected to grow 1.3 per cent in 2014 to $15.2 billion and 2.6 per cent in 2015 to $15.6 billion.

Turning to specific purchasing decisions, your individual needs will of course vary; but certain trends are clear today in 2014. Products particularly in demand in the modern lab these days include devices for protein electrophoresis and nucleic acid electroporation, and electroporation. Another area of in-demand equipment is spectrophotometers.

The rise of Big Data within the life sciences is influencing equipment purchases as well. Specifically, I am seeing a general uptick in interest in DNA/RNA separation equipment, as well as equipment designed to facilitate cell-based therapeutics. There is a growing sentiment that treating patients with cells might one day become as common as it is now to treat the sick with drugs made from engineered proteins, antibodies or smaller chemicals, and I believe that purchasing decisions will evolve in the coming years to mirror these endeavors.

Aside from questions of what equipment to buy, there is a separate trend influencing lab purchases in 2014: more than ever, lab buyers are learning that the particular companies with whom they do business matters a great deal. In the U.S., the vast majority of life science products that researchers receive come from a very small roster of manufacturers. As a result, these customers might not be getting the best value possible in terms of service, prices and information. In the future, I believe customers

feature

will not only be seeking to purchase products alone; they will be looking for greater value in terms of more personal customer service and guidance.

In turn, equipment manufacturers should aim to help each and every one of their customers to become more effi cient in their work and fulfi ll their specifi c objectives. Customers are not merely looking for a box to show up on their doorstep with the products they have ordered; they expect to receive a more personalized level of support.

The customer wants to see reasonable prices and good value; good suppliers have always provided these, but great suppliers go beyond this. The best companies don’t just offer good products at competitive prices but also offer support to their customers before, during and after the purchase.

Going forward, value and price will remain important in equipment purchasing decisions, but the ability to provide client-on-demand consultation, specifi c advice based on clients’ need to boost productivity, and personalized support, will reign supreme. The best suppliers will employ salespeople who have specifi c knowledge of the features and benefi ts of the products they sell, and who are willing to visit your lab to demonstrate its operation. It is defi nitely worth inquiring whether a supplier offers this level of service prior to making a purchasing decision.

Likewise, the skill levels of the clinical diagnosticians using the lab equipment should be given some serious thought before making a signifi cant purchase. Will the end-users require additional training on how to properly operate the equipment or how to optimize results, and is training provided online or offl ine and at what cost? Will the end-users have unlimited access to online usage, maintenance and vendor performance reports and will those reports be provided at no cost?

An additional consideration if one purchases new equipment is whether to buy a service contract. A service contract can include many services beyond a general warranty, such as software updates, calibration, certifi cation, preventative maintenance, priority service and/or additional discounts on upgrades. Service contracts can be costly, and one can either discuss options with colleagues or make one’s own informed decision.

In the end, your due diligence regarding the above criteria will help determine what considerations coincide with how to best serve a laboratory. It is important to choose wisely when making such a signifi cant purchase; do not rush things. The fi nal purchase will ultimately come down to the right piece of lab equipment that meets the majority of your wish list needs and is the most benefi cial to everyone involved. The perfect solution for purchasing lab equipment for a lab is out there; one just needs to do the necessary homework to fi nd it.

Jeffrey A. Duchemin is Chief Executive Offi cer of Harvard Bioscience, a global developer, manufacturer, and marketer of a broad range of equipment, instruments and solutions to advance life science.

To see this story online visit

http://www. laboratoryfocus. ca/?p=2524