Can Microsoft Fix What Ails QbD Efforts?

As QbD matures, so do IT offerings that bill themselves as the answer to drug manufacturers' drug development prayers. Manufacturers' challenge is clear: how do we take all our disparate, siloed R&D data from past and present and (cheaply and easily) use it to leverage our ongoing development efforts? As the ability of software to integrate and manipulate data from multiple formats improves, this massive challenge becomes more of a reality.

Of course, there is money to be made in bringing order to chaotic drug development data, as is evidenced by the companies getting into the market. Last week, I talked with Arvindh Balakrishnan about Oracle's efforts, and before that spoke with Blue Reference's Paul van Eikeren about his company's QbD IT consortium.

Microsoft looms large as well, and today we posted my interview with Jim Karkanias, Senior Director of Applied Research and Technology for Microsoft Health Solutions Group, about its Amalga Life Sciences solution.

Amalga is Microsoft’s attempt to make drug R&D data readily available, integrated, and robust, with the advantage that it leverages the Office format that is familiar to virtually everyone within a given organization. In the interview, Karkanias uses the example of a multidisciplinary team that is tasked with performing a gene expression study of a certain disease to illustrate how R&D will realize Amalga's potential. The fact that Amalga integrates relational and graphical data is what sets it apart, Karkanias says.

Merck is one of the companies helping Microsoft to develop Amalga LS. We'd love to hear more from anyone who's had experience with those solutions from the companies mentioned above, or other companies in the QbD IT space as well.

--Paul Thomas

Does Bing Have More Bang for the (Life Sciences) Buck?

If you're a researcher or pharma professional, should you prefer Bing to Google? Microsoft's Life Sciences IT expert Les Jordan (not surprisingly) thinks so. His latest blog entry details what Microsoft is up to in life sciences, but also takes a closer look at how Bing might have advantages over the "G" search engine for the industry's professionals:

Sponsored Targeted search by Therapeutics. Try this side by side with the “other” large search engine. Type “Diabetes” into Bing (http://www.bing.com) and into the “G”. I won’t give you the link ;-). Notice the difference:

“G” – gives you News on Diabetes as the first link. News! Who wants news on their disease? I need treatments, symptoms, diet, prevention, etc.

Bing – The first link is a definition (from content provided by Bing Health from Mayo Clinic), but notice on the left: Articles, Symptoms, Diet, Complications, Prevention, and Test – that’s what people are looking for! Also notice the related searches right under that - “pre-diabetes”, “Diabetes care”. Helps you sub-set your search instead of pouring through the “blue links”. Powerful.

Sponsored Targeted search by drug name. Again try this side by side between Bing and “G”. Let’s stay on the theme of diabetes. Type in Insulin into the search. Notice the differences:

“G” – A “Wikipedia” entry. Better than news, I’ll give you that…but still, it isn’t an authoritative source, and I’ll need to dig more to get the info I need, like “what are the side effects”, etc.

Bing – The first link is an authoritative article on insulin on “Bing Health” from Mayo Clinic. But notice the left side: Articles, Side Effects, Ingredients, Drug Interactions – that’s the kind of information people are usually looking for.

My first few experiences with Bing have been good ones. Would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

--Paul Thomas

Microsoft's Les Jordan on DIA 2009

Microsoft's IT Life Sciences specialist Les Jordan offers up a nice summary of his experience at DIA last week, including photos and (for romantics) a shot of the San Diego sunset.

--Paul Thomas