| | | |   | Good morning! Mario here with a new story from me about an interesting VC partnership with a health system, plus a critique of a study I wrote up earlier this year. | | | A controversial mental health app study revisited Back in January, I wrote about an analysis of mental health apps, whose authors provocatively concluded that they “failed to find convincing evidence in support of any mobile phone-based intervention on any outcome.” In a new commentary, authors publishing in the same journal, PLOS Digital Health, challenge the study's methods.
The original study examined 14 meta-analyses of randomized studies for mental health interventions, including 145 different trials. While that conclusion above sounds somewhat damning, it reflects the rigid analytical framework the authors chose, as well as the early stage of the research in the field. Their outlook was ultimately optimistic: “I would bet the farm that if you wait five years and people keep running these trials, there will be convincing evidence,” author Simon Goldberg told me. The new critique argues that Goldberg and his colleagues set a very high bar and “could have said in advance of their review that nothing would be ‘convincing.’” They argue that the meta-review’s authors assumed “that all apps are created equal” — thus requiring everything from video-game based treatments to interventions that included message-based care, to meet the same bar for efficacy. The authors also quibble with other elements of the methodology, such as “the requirement to demonstrate ‘no evidence of publication bias.’” The critique offers another interpretation of the findings: “Although more work is warranted, nearly all existing published data looks promising.” A more optimistic spin on the same data, to be sure. I’ll just note that after publishing my story on the meta-review, I heard from a few companies not mentioned in the research that wanted the opportunity to respond, with one firm candidly offering that the provocative claim about convincing evidence was at risk of hampering conversations with potential customers who “don’t always read the fine print” of studies. | Silicon Valley VC partners with rural health system Andreessen Horowitz announced a strategic partnership with Basset Health Network that will create a formal process for the health system to consider the VC firm’s portfolio companies. The deal offers positives for both parties. Bassett, a rural system with five hospitals, needs to modernize its processes and has been squeezed by overarching trends like provider shortages. As it looks to innovators to help it address problems, an a16z-vetted list helps narrow down the options — plus the partnership creates potential financial upsides for Bassett to partner with companies from a16z’s stable. A16z, meanwhile, wants to connect its companies to health systems where they can pilot their services with confidence that there’s buy-in to see projects through to the end. Read my whole story on the partnership here. | Whoop jumps into research Upstart wearable device-maker Whoop is following the lead of consumer-focused manufacturers like Fitbit, Oura, and others who’ve sought to boost their profile and revenue by leaping into health research. The company’s B2B sales arm, Whoop Unite, this week announced it is supporting Ashley Addiction Treatment and collaborators at Johns Hopkins on research into the causes of relapse in hopes of developing treatment methods that reduce triggers. Data about participants will be collected with Whoop devices and researchers will use a new technology called Whoop Gateway that gives providers continuous physiological readouts.
In an entirely different sphere, the company also announced a preprint of research in which it “analyzed the physiological data of 241 pregnancies and found that in singleton pregnancies, maternal heart rate variability trends invert seven weeks prior to delivery.” The company calls this the Whoop Inflection Point and suggests it could be used to screen for premature birth. The next phase of the research will aim to develop a model that can identify an individual’s inflection point and project a delivery date. | Why are patients waiting so long for their specialty medications? Four in five specialty prescribers and pharmacists say it should take no more than two weeks to start a new specialty therapy. In reality, most of their patients must wait three to four weeks. What challenges do they face, and what gaps can technology bridge to improve time to therapy and patient safety? Find out in the data brief. | Industry news -
Salesforce announced “Patient 360 for Health Innovations,” a suite of offerings for health care and life science companies. -
TytoCare, the virtual care company built around a home exam kit, announced the launch of a “Home Smart Clinic,” a remote primary care offering. -
Twill, the wellness app and digital therapeutics company formerly known as Happify, announced a partnership with e-Psychiatry to provide virtual access to behavioral health providers alongside its software. -
Well-funded musculoskeletal care company Sword Health announced Sword Move, a new wellness offering that “aims to bridge the gap between physical therapy and fitness.” - Hims & Hers announced a partnership that allows its providers to refer patients to physicians from Delaware-based ChristianaCare for a range of virtual and in-person health care needs.
| What we're reading -
Meet the female founder who just raised $7.2 million for her virtual care platform aiming to reverse the autoimmune epidemic, Forbes -
AHA: Wearables can help manage heart disease—but they’re underused by those who could benefit most, Fierce Biotech -
5 takeaways from the FDA’s list of AI-enabled medical devices, Healthcare Dive - The lawsuit that could rewrite the rules of AI copyright, The Verge
| | | Thanks for reading! More next week,  | |
No comments