NEWS
Quest Diagnostics to acquire PathAI Diagnostics
Quest Diagnostics, and PathAI have announced a multi-faceted collaboration designed to accelerate the adoption of digital and AI pathology innovations to improve quality, speed and efficiency in diagnosing cancer and other diseases. Under the terms of a definitive agreement, Quest will acquire select assets of PathAI Diagnostics, the business of PathAI that provides anatomic and digital pathology laboratory services.
The transaction is part of wide- ranging collaboration to combine Quest’s oncology expertise and scale with PathAI’s AI and digital pathology innovations to speed diagnosis, improve quality and reduce costs.
When the deal is completed PathAI Diagnostics’ laboratory in Memphis, Tennessee will become Quest’s AI and digital R&D solutions centre, supporting Quest’s specialty pathology businesses, AmeriPath and Dermpath Diagnostics. PathAI will continue to support its biopharmaceutical clients with end-to- end clinical trial services capabilities at its biopharma laboratory, which is separate and distinct from the diagnostic laboratory business. The transaction is expected to be completed in June 2024. Under separate agreements, Quest will license PathAI’s AISight digital pathology image management system to support its pathology laboratories and customer sites in the United States. The two entities may also pursue opportunities for Quest to aid PathAI’s algorithm product development, drawing on Quest’s deep pathology leadership.
“This transaction will enable Quest to dramatically ramp our capabilities in AI and digital pathology, building on our leadership in oncology and subspecialised pathology services,” said Kristie Dolan, Senior Vice President, Oncology, Quest Diagnostics. “AI and digital technologies have tremendous potential to improve cancer care, and Quest has the know- how to scale and deliver innovations that are high quality, efficient and broadly accessible.”
Over time, Quest expects the transaction with PathAI will enable it to deploy flexible digital slide preparation and consultation services to health systems and other providers, both in the United States and, through its Global Diagnostic Network, overseas.
EDITOR’S COMMENT Tackling AMR
The past few weeks have seen lots of attention on the issue of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), at both a national and international level. A meeting hosted during May by The Royal Society in London, attended by world leaders and experts, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the World Bank, convened to agree priority actions to tackle AMR and hear accounts from AMR survivors. To coincide the UK Government announced a hefty funding package – which you can read more about in our news section – supporting lower- and middle-income countries to meet the challenge of AMR. Some of this money will also be used at home, enabling the MHRA to form a dedicated team supporting the creation of novel antimicrobials and diagnostics.
Helping the issue to penetrate the public consciousness, the UK’s special envoy on AMR, Dame Sally Davies (also England’s former Chief Medical Officer), was in the press warning that the rise of drug-resistant superbugs could make the COVID-19 pandemic look ‘minor’. Dame Sally has lived experience of the issue, having tragically lost her goddaughter to an infection which couldn’t be treated.
Just days after attending the recent BSMT Annual Microbiology
Conference at UKHSA in Colindale (see page 23 for a report), which included a presentation on AMR, the UK Government published ‘Confronting antimicrobial resistance 2024 to 2029’ the second iteration of its national action plan. Taking 2019 as a starting point, this document takes the UK halfway to the 2040 target of seeing AMR “contained, controlled and mitigated”. To that end, BIVDA (among others) has noted this latest plan is light on action, with further talk of innovation, rather than defining targets and establishing diagnostics as a tool to help take action. Back in 2016, the O’Neill review suggested no antimicrobial prescription should take place without the support of a diagnostic test.
Make no mistake, these tools are available; but with the NHS under such pressure, more needs to be done to improve the focus on the problems 10 to 20 years down the line. However, even more recent events
are now taking up the headlines. With the UK in election mode, the NHS will be a major campaign issue over the next few weeks. Here’s hoping that our next government will be able to take the bold action, and empower the right groups and individuals to progress the recent talk into real action and progress on this significant issue.
andymyall@pathologyinpractice.com
BIVDA welcomes MHRA policy change
The British In Vitro Diagnostic Association (BIVDA) has welcomed a statement of policy intent published by MHRA for recognition by the UK of approvals of medical devices from international regulators. The MHRA intends to recognise medical devices that have been approved in Australia, Canada, the EU and the USA.
BIVDA has been heavily involved in
these proposals as a ‘trusted advisor’ to the MHRA, and has worked closely with its UKCA working group and UK approved bodies to ensure its members’ views are heard. BIVDA’s Head of Regulatory Strategy,
Professor Mike Messenger (pictured) said: “We welcome this new initiative from MHRA to adopt a ‘smart’ framework for reliance and recognition. This is in line with international
WWW.PATHOLOGYINPRACTICE.COM JUNE 2024
best practice principles to increase regulatory efficiency and to ensure continued patient access to safe and effective IVDs. “It is imperative this is complementary to a comprehensive and efficient UKCA framework with proportionate pre-market access requirements
and robust post-market surveillance. BIVDA believes this is essential to incentivise inward investment through a ‘UK-first’ pathway. This will position UKCA as a global mark of quality and enhance the attractiveness of the UK as a destination for IVD development, manufacturing, evaluation and launch.” BIVDA has worked closely with stakeholders, members, and the MHRA to ensure this policy proposal balances the interests of its members, patients, and the diagnostic industry.
7
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
