What are the potential areas of risk management?

 

What are the potential areas of risk management.jpgThe most critical aspect of risk management is the identification of potential areas of risk management. This helps the organization to stay focused on the areas in which it could possibly face risks, rather than taking an aimless view and shooting about in the dark.

In a very broad sense, the potential areas of risk management include all areas of a business, because simply no area of the business is exempt from a risk. Talk about finance, and it comes with a risk. What about manufacturing? And what about operations or marketing? How about human resources? In this very expansive sense, every area or activity of the business is among the potential areas of risk management.

Potential areas of risk management could lie simply anywhere

potential-areas-of-risk-managementOn top of these potential areas of risk management that each part of the business is prone to; there are also the other industry-related risks that inhere into any business. The risks of running, say, a firecracker business, are much higher than running a grocery store. So, potential areas of risk management should ideally include a very broad discussion on every aspect of risk management.

However, when one takes an overview of the potential areas of risk management instead of trying to break down the elements of each function in which there are potential areas of risk management; one can classify these among them:

Generic risks: As we have been discussing, any business, absolutely any business, comes with some degree of risk. And, each business comes with its own generic risk, such as falling short of funding at crunch times, core people leaving the organization at important times, logistics failures at critical times, and so on.

potential-areas-of-risk-managementProduct specific risks: As the title suggests, this kind of risk is specific to the product that the business deals with. Some products come with their unique risks, and hence, this kind of risk counts among the potential areas of risk management.

People-specific risks: These can happen in a business in which much depends on a few important people. The inefficiency or departure of such people could be among the potential areas of risk management for businesses or projects that are dependent on people.

potential-areas-of-risk-managementFinancial risks: Obviously among the top potential areas of risk management; financial risks come into play when the organization is not able to meet its bottom lines due to a variety of factors. Not getting funds on time, not getting payments from customers on time, not being able to service debts are some of the factors of financial risks.

Technology risks: Technology is a high area of risk, because it keeps changing at a breakneck speed. If organizations don’t keep up with the pace, technology risks could count among potential areas of risk management.

potential-areas-of-risk-managementMarket risks: Market risks are yet another of the potential areas of risk management because most businesses are run on the assumption or speculation that a market is going to grow at a certain rate or pace. If the estimate of this market goes wrong, it affects the business negatively.

Customer risks: The ultimate decider of the business is the customer. If a customer gets irate at a bad product or service and issues bad press, it could become one of the biggest of the potential areas of risk management.

potential-areas-of-risk-managementReal estate risks: For some businesses, especially retail, the location of the business is a major factor. In many instances, the choice of location could often decide the fate of the business. Imagine setting up a high end retail store in the vicinity of a slum. Does that make sense? Yet, even if a business chooses the right location, it could sometimes be forced to relocate due to factors such as legal issues of the property, making this among the potential areas of risk management.

Finally, what needs to be said is that the list above is by no means a comprehensive one. The potential areas of risk management, as we have discussed at the beginning, are simply too many and too fluid and subjective. They could vary from market to market, product to product and business to business. A business that is perceptive about the market has to make the right assessment of the potential areas of risk management before it starts one. It should also be ready to face the potential areas of risk management if it is up against any factor that lies beyond its reach or forecast.

 

click to continue reading

Statins ‘should be given to children with heart risks before the age of 10’

Statins 'should be given

Statins should be given to thousands of children by the age of 10 under radical new NHS guidance.

GPs are being urged to identify those who have an inherited risk of high cholesterol, amid warnings that the vast majority of cases are going undetected.

Estimates suggest up to 260,000 people – including 50,000 children – are suffering from genetic deficts which affect the body’s ability to break down cholesterol.

New guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) today says statins should be offered to such cases, to reduce their risk of heart or stroke in midlife.

Just 15 per cent of those with the condition are being treated for it, Nice said, including just 600 of 56,000 children with the genetic problem.

Family doctors are being asked to trawl records to idenitfy those with very high cholesterol levels.

Where levels of more than 9 mmol/l are found in those over 30, and those of 7.5 mmol/l are found in those under 30, high-dose statins should be offered, the NHS guidance states.

And it says gene tests should be used to find other family members – including those below the age of 10 – who are at such heightened risk that they should be put on medication.

Around 56,000 children are estimated to suffer from familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH), yet just 600 have been diagnosed, charities say.

The condition gives men a 50 per cent chance of suffering a heart attack or stroke before the age of 50, while women have a one in three chance by the age of 60.

To continue reading

Orkambi Reduces Main Biomarker of CF, Vertex Says in Updated Results on Four Therapies

Orkambi Reduces

Orkambi (lumacaftor/ivacaftor) reduced levels of the main biomarker of the lung disease cystic fibrosis and improved the nutritional status of children with the condition, according to a Phase 3 clinical trial.

The results were part of a recent update that Vertex Pharmaceuticals provided on Orkambi and three of its other CF therapies, Kalydeco (ivacaftor), tezacaftor (VX-661) and VX-371.

Vertex conducted the Phase 3 trial (NCT02797132) of Orkambi to evaluate its effectiveness and safety in preschoolers with two copies of the CFTR gene’s F508del mutation. The 60 children were aged 2 to 5. Mutations of the gene cause CF by producing faulty versions of the CFTR protein.

An indication of Orkambi’s effectiveness in the trial was that it reduced the production of the children’s sweat chloride and improved their nutritional status.

A sweat test is the gold standard for diagnosing CF because people with the disease have more chloride in their sweat than those who don’t. As for nutrition, the thick mucus that CF produces in the digestive system can prevent patients from absorbing nutrients and fat properly, leading to difficulty gaining weight and slower growth. CF also produces the mucus in lungs and other organs.

The Phase 3 trial also showed that Orkambi was safe and that the children tolerated it well. Researchers reported no adverse events besides those seen in studies of patients aged 6 to 11.

Based on the promising results of the trial, Vertex plans to submit a New Drug Application on Orkambi to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration during the first quarter of 2018. It will also ask the European Medicines Agency to extend the therapy’s availability to very young children.

Another Phase 3 trial (NCT02412111) that Vertex conducted evaluated a combination of tezacaftor and Kalydeco’s ability to reduce respiratory problems in patients more than 12 years old.

The study included 151 participants at 68 sites in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the European Union. The patients had one copy of the F508del mutation and one copy of another CFTR mutation.

Eight weeks of treatment with the combo led to a negligible improvement in a measure of patients’ lung function known as forced expiratory volume in one second, or FEV1. This is the amount of air that people can forcefully blow out of their lungs in one second.

The combo did lead to a reduction in sweat chloride that was larger than Kalydeco generated alone, however.

Given the results, Vertex has decided not to continue pursuing regulatory approval for the combo. One reason is that most patients older than 12 are eligible to receive Kalydeco by itself.

The FDA is expected to make a decision by February 2018 on a related New Drug Application that Vertex has filed. That application involves using the tezacaftor-Kalydeco combo to treat patients aged 12 or older who carry two copies of an F508del mutation or one copy of an F508del mutation plus another mutation. The FDA is giving the request priority review.

European regulators are expected to decide whether to approve the combo therapy in the second half of 2018.

Vertex has completed enrolling children 12 to 24 months for another Phase 3 trial (NCT03277196) of Kalydeco. It will evaluate the therapy’s safety in children less than 2 years old with a CFTR gating mutation and an R117H mutation.

To continue reading

8 Tough Questions Every CISO Should Be Ready to Answer

8 Tough Questions Every CISO Should Be Ready to Answer

When a major security incident, such as the recent massive Equifax data breach, grabs headlines, CEOs start asking more questions about data security.

See Also: Addressing the Identity Risk Factor in the Age of ‘Need It Now’

CISOs need to be thinking about their answers to critical questions the CEO is likely to pose.

Information Security Media Group asked seven security experts what questions they believe CEOs should be asking CISOs, and what information CISOs should arm themselves with to be prepared to provide answers. Following are eight questions and the experts’ suggested responses.

We have been investing in cybersecurity for a few years now. Would you say our organization is secure?

Israel Bryski, vice president, technology risk, Goldman Sachs: To pre-empt this question, the CISO should have a conversation early on with the CEO to determine the organization’s risk appetite. This will allow the CISO to align and prioritize security initiatives accordingly.

We are in the business of information and technology risk management, so the “Are we secure?” question is somewhat misguided. The question should be: “Are we managing risk according to our risk profile?” To answer this, the CISO should be able to easily demonstrate, based on a recent risk assessment, how the various cybersecurity initiatives and projects are in fact reducing risk, shrinking the attack surface of the organization and aligning the security program with the firm’s overall risk profile.

We have a board meeting next week. Can you talk about cybersecurity in a way they will understand?

Mischel Kwon, former director of US-CERT and deputy CISO for the Department of Justice; currently CEO of MKACyber: CISOs should be able to confidently say “absolutely” to this question. They should be able to speak with the board in a very businesslike way and articulate what they are doing with the company’s money and how they are protecting the company and its assets.

The key to being able to speak to the board is to base their program on a business-focused model. That business model shows their capability founded on their maturity, and that maturity is based on the probability of detecting specific types of attacks. These are the type of attacks that are most likely to happen to them, and this is the risk to the business, its goals and its reputation that these attacks bring.

Do you have enough money to do what you need to do?

Tim Youngblood, CISO, McDonald’s: Depending on where CISO sits, this can be a hairy topic. That can be a difficult conversation to say “I’m not getting enough.” It’s not easy if the CIO is in the room.

The best way to answer that is, “We may have current risks we are really well-funded to address, but there may be future risks we’ll need to fund and we still have some work to figure that piece out.”

A CEO is not going to write you a blank check. The CEO is going to look at the CFO and CIO and say, “The CISO needs money. You take it out of your budget and make it happen.” There is not an extra pot of money waiting for anyone, so making the clear case for why it is needed is key.

Is this really worth the investment?

Heath Renfrow, CISO at U.S. Army Medicine: The best thing a CISO can do when asked this question is have multiple options they can present to the CEO. Explain to them: Here’s the full issue. This is the total cost to fix this issue. This is what we believe the cost will be if this issue doesn’t go away and how much it will be should the vulnerability be exploited.

As an example, we didn’t know not know where our protected health Information and personal identifying information resided across all systems when I first got to Army Medicine. It would be a huge HIPAA concern if we got hit on that, or if there was a leak or a violation. It could have cost millions of dollars and many jobs. I tied in the overall cost and broke it down to how much it would be per end-user device to address it and it came out to be an about $3.43 per end-user device. Then I tied in all the results of HIPAA violations in the past few years and the fines associated with them. You get your senior leaders attention real quick with that approach.

Rick Howard, CSO, Palo Alto Networks, adds: Questions like this are sure to arise as corporate leadership attempts to understand the business risk associated with a cyberattack. As a result, CIO/CISOs should be prepared to explain the total cost of a potential breach. Everything from business disruption and loss of customers to consequential legal fees and remediation can rack up the bill more quickly than leadership may realize.

Read More: http://snip.ly/q0zie#https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/8-tough-questions-every-ciso-should-be-ready-to-answer-a-10357

Gottlieb Targets Drug Development Costs, Clinical Development Efficiencies

Posted 11 September 2017 By Zachary Brennan

placeholder+image

FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb on Monday explained to attendees of RAPS’ Regulatory Convergence conference some steps FDA is taking to make the clinical end of drug development more efficient and effective.

Opening with a discussion of the ways in which the gap of time between the discovery of the science behind new treatments and the adoption of such treatments has been shrinking, Gottlieb outlined a few of the ways in which the agency is modernizing its approach to collecting and evaluating clinical information.

And on a day when the discussion of how much it costs to develop a new oncology drug is being hotly debated with the release of a new study, Gottlieb also discussed how the costs of drug development “are also high, and growing.

“There’s been criticism of the various estimates of how much it costs to develop a new drug,” he said, according to the transcript of his speech. “Moreover, on a relative basis, in many cases the costs of early stage drug development has grown at a proportionally faster rate than the cost of late stage drug development. In other words, inflation in early stage drug trials is rising faster than inflation in late stage development.

“By front-loading the cost of drug discovery, the broader biomedical community is making it harder to advance new ideas. It’s economically harder to capitalize the cost of an early stage drug program, relative to funding a later stage project. So frontloading the costs are a recipe for reducing the amount of new ideas that can be advanced.”

 

Read More information: http://snip.ly/6ude0#http://www.raps.org/Regulatory-Focus/News/2017/09/11/28442/Gottlieb-Targets-Drug-Development-Costs-Clinical-Development-Efficiencies/

Which universities are pushing the boundaries in life sciences?

If you had to name the branch of university research that has the most tangible impact on mankind’s day-to-day activities, it is likely that the life sciences would be near the top of the list: not many days go by without the announcement of a new drug or gene discovery that has the potential to change lives or tackle disease.

Much of the best research in these fields takes place in the ultra-elite universities that excel in subjects across the board.

But analysis by Times Higher Education of the institutions that make up the World University Rankings reveals that there is a cluster of institutions just below this elite that are particularly strong in the life sciences and in driving forward innovation.

The 120 “life science challengers” tend to pitch much higher in the subject rankings related to clinical research and life sciences, as might be expected, with the bulk of them achieving overall scores in the middle to upper ranges (see below).

Which universities are pushing the boundaries in life sciencesHowever, they also perform very strongly in terms of the citation impact of their research, something that can be credited to their excelling in fields where journal article activity is key. Unlike the “technology challengers” (another cluster in the rankings), they also tend to be older universities, with few having been established less than 50 years ago.

Beyond these similarities though, the factors that drive the individual successes of the institutions are varied. In some cases excellent strategic decisions taken by the university are a factor; in others the local or regional ecosystem for research plays a part.

Sweden, which has five institutions in the list (headed by the medical research specialist Karolinska Institute), is one example where the ecosystem for life sciences appears to be a key factor.

Ulf Landegren, professor of molecular medicine at Uppsala University, another of the Swedish institutions in the list, said that the country had historically excelled in many life science fields, but that it was now taking its performance to another level with the help of collaborative programmes. The Science for Life Laboratory is one such programme – government-funded, it is based in Uppsala and also in Stockholm.

The SciLifeLab, as it is known, allows researchers from across Sweden to use cutting-edge and often expensive technology without paying for the privilege (apart from the costs of “disposables” used in lab work). Companies and scientists based outside Sweden can also use the facilities, but must face the full cost of doing so.

Professor Landegren, who was heavily involved in setting up Uppsala’s SciLifeLab site, said the effect of the scheme “has been that Swedish scientists now have ready access to advanced techniques that they may not themselves have the economy or the skills to set up”.

“Increasingly we see that life science is going the way of physics, in that technology is getting a little too expensive and complicated for individuals to have all the resources they need to answer their research questions so you might as well centralise it,” he explained.

He added that as well as making “generic” technology and techniques available to all Swedish scientists, SciLifeLab went a stage further by also identifying emerging “beyond state-of-the-art” approaches to research and capitalising on them before they spread to other countries and universities.

Access to expensive technology and the latest techniques is a theme carried across to other institutions that make the list.

Ross Coppel, director of research in the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences at Australia’s Monash University, puts its success down to past strategic decisions to invest properly in the best academic staff and equipment, but also to the skilled technicians who operate facilities.

He said universities’ research strategies “are often very similar and it [success] comes down to your capacity to implement and execute your vision. I think we were in the fortunate position of having the financial resource to do it [and] the determination to do it and it’s worked out for us very well”.

On the role of technicians, he said Monash had focused on their field being a career path in its own right, with good job security and benefits. In return, in terms of testing new techniques and advancing research technology, “we look to them also to be pushing the boundaries of what is achievable”, explained Professor Coppel.

Beyond smaller research nations like Sweden and Australia, the life science challengers cluster is dominated by institutions in the US and UK.

With 35 institutions of the 120 (the UK has 24), the US is out in front, with a number of private institutions excelling in research. Here, the unique position that some American universities occupy – having strong ties to hospitals and the general healthcare system – is an obvious explanation for their success.

Emory University in Atlanta, for instance, is behind the state of Georgia’s biggest healthcare system – not-for-profit Emory Healthcare – while the US’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has its headquarters adjacent to the university’s campus. This geographic proximity between researchers and the practical application of their findings has obvious collaborative benefits.

But the university is also keen to stress the importance of its global reach through its success in spinning out research into the healthcare market and its academic links overseas.

David Stephens, vice-president for research at Emory, said that the institution had “realised its greatest success in commercialising research discoveries in the field of infectious diseases. For example, nine out of 10 US HIV/Aids patients, and thousands more globally, are on life-saving drugs discovered at Emory”.

Meanwhile, an effect of its international collaborations can be seen in the recent joint set-up with the University of Queensland – another life science challenger institution – of a multimillion-dollar biotech company developing cancer treatments.

simon.baker@timeshighereducation.com

Seminar Calendar of Upcoming Courses – June to July – 2017

Upcoming-Courses-for-French-Circles-Club

GlobalCompliancePanel’s seminars are a wonderful opportunity for professionals in the regulatory compliance areas to understand the latest happenings and updates in the regulatory compliance areas and to implement them, something they need to climb in their professions. GlobalCompliancePanel brings together a few of the best recognized names in the field of regulatory compliance on its panel of experts. The result: Learning that is effective, valuable and helpful.

GlobalCompliancePanel’s experts help you unravel all the knowledge you need in all the areas of regulatory compliance. At these seminars which are held all over the globe, you get to interact with them in person, so that any doubt or clarification you have is sorted out by none other than the honcho. They help professionals like you implement the regulations and stay updated, so that regulatory compliance causes no stress for you.

GlobalCompliancePanel’s experts offer their insightful analysis into the issues that are of consequence to regulatory professionals in their daily work. Their thoughts help you implement the best practices of the industry into your work. They also offer updates on the latest regulatory requirements arising out of a host of the laws and issues related to regulatory compliance, including, but not limited to medical devices, food and beverages, pharmaceuticals, life sciences, biotechnology and pharmaceutical water systems.

Take a look at our upcoming webinars from GlobalCompliancePanel, which will put you on the road to learning about any area that is of importance to your profession. You can plan your learning from GlobalCompliancePanel by looking at our seminars in the next few weeks at locations of convenience to you. You can choose from a whole range of topics. See which among these trainings suit you: Design of Experiments (DOE) for Process Development and Validation, Writing and implementing effective SOP’s, new FSMA rules, risk management and device regulations, data integrity, combination products, and what have you!

Contact us today!
NetZealous LLC DBA GlobalCompliancePanel
john.robinson@globalcompliancepanel.com
Toll free: +1-800-447-9407
FAX : 302 288 6884
Website: http://bit.ly/Courses-June-to-July-2017