SBRI Healthcare Programme · 2017-08-11 · Agenda 26th July, 2017 10.20 –10.30 Welcome -Dr...

SBRI Healthcare ProgrammeAn NHS England funded initiative delivered with support from the

Academic Health Science Networks

2017 competition: Cancer

www.sbrihealthcare.co.uk

@sbrihealthcare

http://www.sbrihealthcare.co.uk/

Agenda26th July, 2017

10.20 – 10.30 Welcome - Dr Neville Young, Yorkshire and Humber AHSN

10.30 – 10.40 How SBRI works & what it has delivered

Joop Tanis, BD and SBRI Healthcare Director, Health Enterprise East

10.40 – 10.55 Cancer: Screening, Earlier && Faster Diagnosis

Prof Richard Neal, Leeds Institute of health Sciences

10.55 – 11.10 Regional Diagnostics Innovation Support Infrastructure

Dr Mike Messenger, NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative, Leeds

11.10 – 11.20 Philips – experience and learning from an SBRI supported co.

Malcolm Luker

11.20 – 11.30 How to make a successful SBRI application

Joop Tanis, BD and SBRI Healthcare Director, Health Enterprise East

11.30 – 12.00 Q&A – all speakers

12.00 – 13.00 Networking Lunch

Accelerating Innovation

Academic Health Science Networks 15 Academic Health Science

Networks across England

• Licensed and mainly funded by NHS England

• Promoting innovation in healthcare

• Disseminating innovation –from the UK and beyond

• Improving care across whole systems

• Providing access to the NHS for industry

• Creating wealth and health

Clinician

NHS service

Business

Academia

SBRI HealthcareCancer, Earlier and Better Diagnosis

and Screening


@sbrihealthcare


Joop TanisBD and SBRI Healthcare Director, HEE

How SBRI works & what it has delivered

[email protected]

✓ Helping the Public Sector address challenges

• Using innovation to achieve a step change

✓ Accelerating technology commercialisation

• Providing a route to market

✓ Support and the development of Innovative companies

• Providing a lead customer/R&D partner

• Providing funding and credibility for fund raising

SBRI is a pan-government, structured process enabling the Public Sector to engage with innovative suppliers:

SBRI Key features

✓ 100% funded R&D✓ Operate under procurement rules rather than state aid

rules✓ UK implementation of EU Pre-Commercial Procurement✓ Deliverable based rather than hours worked or costs

incurred• Contract with Prime Supplier

✓ Who may choose to sub contract but remains accountable• IP rests with Supplier

✓ Certain usage rights with Public Sector – Companies encouraged to exploit IP

• Light touch Reporting & payments quarterly & up front

Things to Note• Any size of business is eligible

• Other organisations are eligible as long as the route to market is demonstrated

• All contract values quoted INCLUDE VAT

• Applications assessed on Fair Market Value

• Contract terms are non-negotiable

• Single applicant (partners shown as sub contractors)

• Applicants must fully complete the application form

• Labour costs broken down by individual• Material Costs (inc consumables specific to the project)• Capital Equipment Costs• Sub-contract costs• Travel and subsistence• Other costs specifically attributed to the project• Indirect Costs:

o General office and basic laboratory consumableso Library services/learning resourceso Typing/secretarialo Finance, personnel, public relations and departmental serviceso Central and distributed computingo Cost of capital employedo Overheads

Eligible costs (all to include VAT)

www.innovateuk.org/sbri

website contains details of all SBRI competitions

http://www.innovateuk.org/sbri

SBRI Process

Problem Identification Open call to

IndustryFeasibility

Testing

Prototype

development

Pathway testing &

Proof of Value

AHSN led - typically undertaken by

clinicians – service driven

AHSN led -Workshops

with industry to support

understanding

PHASE 1: Typically 6 months – max of

£100k

PHASE 2: Typically 12 months – milestones agreed & monitored

Due diligence & contracts

PHASE 3: Typically 12 months –

milestones agreed & monitored

Asse

ss

men

t

New Competition July 2017

Competition launch: 25 July 2017

Closing Date: Noon 6th September

Briefing Events: 25th July - London

26th July – Nottingham

Leeds

27th July - Manchester

Technical Assessments: September 2017

Clinical Assessments: September 2017

Interview panels: October 2017

Contracts awarded: November 2017

160£57m total funds awarded

£45m additional funding

leveraged through grants

and venture capital

160 finalised

agreements with

UK and foreign

companies

40 patents, copyrights,

trademarks and

scientific publications

applied for or awarded

168168 contracts awarded to businesses across Phases 1, 2, 3

£57m

£45m420 £1bnEstimated cost saving value

of pipeline to the NHS: £1bn

Over 420 jobs

created or

safeguarded

– their value

to the UK

economy is

estimatedat

£33.6m

2020 products already on the market with many more ready to come to market in the next 12 months

114

Phase 1

46 8

Phase 2 Phase 3

OUR YEAR IN NUMBERS FOUR YEARS OF DELIVERY

25826 Phase 1 contracts awarded with a total value of£2.3m

18 Phase 2 contracts awarded with a total value of £15.2m

£17.5m26 18

6 new clinically-

led competitions

where NHS

needs have

been articulated

for business to

respond to

6

9 companies exporting their products to international markets

40

applications from industry assessed and supported or feedback given

SBRI Healthcare is an NHS England programme funding potential solutions to address unmet healthcare needs

Source: SBRI Healthcare Annual Review 2015/16

AHSN/SBRI companies

Yorks & HumberHalliday James Ltd

East MidlandsMonica Healthcare Ltd, Astrimmune Ltd

Eastern -Aseptika, Bespak, TwistDX

S.London, Imperial, UCLPABMS, Therakind, uMotif

WessexCreoMedical, Morgan Automation

North East & North CumbriaPolyphotonix Ltd

Kent, Surrey & SussexAnaxsys, InMezzo

Grter Manchester& NW Coast- Sky Med, Rapid Rhythm, Veraz

West MidlandsSensST Systems, Just Checking Ltd

West of EnglandSentiProfiling, My mHealth, HandAxeCIC

South WestFrazer Nash

Oxford -Fuel 3D, Oxford Biosignals, Message Dynamics

Scotland & N IrelandRadisens, Edixomed,


and Screening


@sbrihealthcare


School of MedicineFACULTY OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH

Cancer: screening, earlier diagnosis &

faster diagnosis – SBRI launch

Clinical Perspective

Richard D Neal MBChB FRCGP PhD

Professor of Primary Care Oncology

[email protected]

@richarddneal

www.cantest.org

@cantest2017

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cantest.org/

Overview

1. The diagnostic process

2. Introduce the CanTest Collaborative

The expanding role of primary care

in cancer control

‘For a long time, the role of primary care in

cancer was largely seen as peripheral, but

as prevention, diagnosis, survivorship and

end-of-life care assume greater

importance in cancer policy, the defining

characteristics of primary care can

become more important’

Rubin et al. Lancet Oncology 2015;16; 1231-72

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO













OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO








How do people get to a diagnosis?

▪ Screening

▪ GP referral

o 2ww

o Non-2ww

▪ Emergency

▪ Hospital (in/outpatient)

And impact on stage?


Does timelier diagnosis lead to better outcomes?

‘..we believe it is reasonable to assume that efforts to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer are likely to have benefits for patients in terms of improved survival, earlier stage diagnosis and improved quality of life, although this varies between cancers’


▪ Currently ~90% cancer patients initially present with symptoms in

primary care, and the selection of patients for onward referral, or for

diagnostic investigation is mostly predicated on the predictive values of

symptoms

▪ Many cancers are diagnosed in a timely and efficient manner

▪ Some diagnoses are easy for GPs, some are hard, some are near

impossible

▪ ‘This will require a shift towards faster and

less restrictive investigative testing, quickly

responding to patients who present with

symptoms, by ruling out cancer or other

serious disease.

▪ We recommend setting an ambition that by

2020, 95% of patients referred for testing

by a GP are definitively diagnosed with

cancer, or cancer is excluded, and the

result communicated with the patient,

within four weeks.’

▪ Delivering this will require a significant

increase in diagnostic capacity, giving

GPs direct access to key investigations’

National ambition to achieve

earlier diagnosis

▪ NICE guidance (2015) - about 30

systematic reviews, little evidence

▪ Using secondary care data risks

spectrum bias, with different

populations and the disease earlier

in its evolution

▪ In primary care we don’t know

▪ false-positive/negative rates

▪ psychological sequelae

▪ health-economics

▪ potential over-diagnosis

Little evidence for cancer tests

in primary care

How can we change the health system?

▪ Develop and evaluate new targeted screening modalities

▪ Patients’ awareness of cancer symptoms, and ability to seek help

when symptoms are experienced THIS IS MODIFIABLE

▪ GPs’ consulting style (readiness to investigate and refer, dealing with

uncertainty, safety netting practice, use of guidelines, use of decision

support tools) THIS IS MODIFIABLE

▪ GPs’ access to investigations, specialist opinion, other health services,

and the speed of this THIS IS MODIFIABLE

▪ Give GPs better tests THIS IS MODIFIABLE

▪ Secondary care diagnostics THIS IS MODIFIABLE


The ‘CanTest’ Collaborative

‘Detecting cancer in primary care: a

paradigm shift in cancer diagnosis’

Cancer Research UK Catalyst Award 2017-22

▪ Increase capacity and sustainability of cancer detection research

▪ International School for Cancer Detection Research in Primary

Care

▪ Identify existing and emerging tests, and alternative international

models of care delivery related to cancer diagnosis, and assess

potential for UK

▪ Evaluate the availability, acceptability (to patients and PCPs),

accuracy, and cost-effectiveness of cancer tests, including

optimising the use of new tests, existing tests, tests used in

specialty care

▪ Quantify any possible harms arising from increased testing for

cancer in primary care, & create strategies to balance harms &

benefits

CanTest - Aims

Benefits and harms from increased

‘cancer testing’

Possible benefits Possible harms

Expedites the diagnosis and may

improve survival

Over-diagnosis

Improved patient experience (less travel,

inconvenience)

Will the patient have less confidence in

the result?

Reduced time to test, with less anxiety More patients being tested may increase

anxiety

Less opportunity for system harm, like

lost results

Potential difficulty in result interpretation

Probable reduced costs per test What will GPs do less of instead?

Saves specialist time

So, what tests – and when?

▪ Spectrum of tests (examples)▪ Blood (platelets, FBC, Ca125, Ca19.9, novel biomarkers, SNP panels)

▪ Imaging (CT, MRI, ultrasound, robotic ‘oscopies, teledermoscopy),

▪ Volatile organic compounds

▪ Other bodily fluids (saliva, urine, semen)

▪ Other technologies (e-decision support, machine learning, AI)

▪ Point of care tests

▪ Spectrum of cancers (examples)▪ ‘Harder to diagnose’ (lung, pancreas, renal, myeloma)

▪ Poor prognosis

▪ Commoner and rarer cancers

▪ Spectrum of place in the diagnostic pathway ▪ ‘At-risk’ patients & ‘Rule-out’ tests

▪ 2WW referrals

▪ Specific symptoms and symptoms complexes, as a gateway to further

investigation – or preventing further investigation / referral)

Institutions and capacity

Leeds, UK

Neal

UCL, UK

Lyratzopoulos

Exeter

UK

Hamilton

Abel, Spencer

Cambridge

UK

Walter

Sutton


Leeds, UK

Neal

UCL, UK

Lyratzopoulos

Exeter

UK

Hamilton

Abel, Spencer

Cambridge

UK

Walter

Sutton

Aarhus, DK

Vedsted

Melbourne, Au

Emery

Houston,

Texas, US

Singh

Washington,

Seattle, US

Thompson

Post-doc posts x4

Clinical Posts x4

PhDs x4

Managers x2

International posts


Leeds, UK

Neal

UCL, UK

Lyratzopoulos

Exeter

UK

Hamilton

Abel, Spencer

Cambridge

UK

Walter

Sutton

Aarhus, DK

Vedsted

Melbourne, Au

Emery

Houston,

Texas, US

Singh

Washington,

Seattle, US

Thompson

Post-doc posts

Clinical Posts

PhDs

Managers

International posts

The ‘CanTest’ Collaborative

NIHR

▪ Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)

▪ Clinical Research Network (CRN)

facilitating practice-based cohort/s

▪ BioResource

International

▪ UW Primary Care Innovations Lab

▪ Houston VA Quality Informatics Program

▪ Australia- VicRen network

▪ Denmark- CaP network

Local

▪ Leeds Care Record

▪ PPM SystmOne

▪ Labs

‘Laboratories’ for primary care studies

Contacts

Cambridge – Fiona Walter [email protected]

Exeter – Willie Hamilton [email protected]

UCL – Yoryos Lyratzopoulos [email protected]

Leeds – Richard Neal [email protected]

www.cantest.org

@cantest2017


and Screening


@sbrihealthcare


Joop Tanis

SBRI Healthcare

[email protected]

01223 928040


@sbrihealthcare

The application process

Application Processwww.sbrihealthcare.co.uk

Application Process

Assessment Phase Timelines

• Close competition, noon on 4th September• Review compliance (Early September)• Assessment packs assigned and issued to Technical Assessors

(Early September)• Each application reviewed & scored by Technical (early

September)• Assessment of long-list applications at panel meeting involving

clinical leads (mid September)• Production of rank ordered list for interview (late September)• Interview panels to select final winners (October)• Draft and issue contracts (November)• Publish contracts awarded (November)• Feedback to unsuccessful applicants (throughout, but latest

November)

1. What will be the effect of this proposal on the challenge addressed?

2. What is the degree of technical challenge? How innovative is the project?

3. Will the technology have a competitive advantage over existing/alternate technologies that can meet the market needs?

4. Are the milestones and project plan appropriate?

5. Is the proposed development plan a sound approach?

6. Does the proposed project have an appropriate commercialisation plan and does the size of the market justify the investment?

7. Does the company appear to have the right skills and experience to deliver the intended benefits?

8. Does the proposal look sensible financially? Is the overall budget realistic and justified in terms of the aims and methods proposed?

Assessment Criteria

Key Points to Remember

• Research and define the market/patient need • Review the direct competitor landscape and make sure you define your

USP• Consider your route to market, what is the commercialisation plan? Do you

know who your customer will be, how will you distribute, how much will you charge for the product/service?

• How will the project be managed (what tools will you use, how will the team communicate etc)

• Provide a clear cost breakdown• Make sure you answer all of the questions in sufficient detail• Try not to use too much technical jargon, sell the project in terms the NHS

will understand (outcomes, benefits to patients etc)

Karen Livingstone Eastern AHSN - SBRI Healthcare National [email protected] 257271

Joop Tanis/Chris WarwickHealth Enterprise East - SBRI Healthcare Programme [email protected] 928040

www.sbrihealthcare.co.uk@sbrihealthcare

Contact Us

https://plus.google.com/108598966227345858611/posts

https://www.linkedin.com/company/sbri-healthcare


and Screening

Q & Awww.sbrihealthcare.co.uk

@sbrihealthcare


SBRI Healthcare Programme · 2017-08-11 · Agenda 26th July, 2017 10.20 –10.30 Welcome -Dr...

Documents

Transcript of SBRI Healthcare Programme · 2017-08-11 · Agenda 26th July, 2017 10.20 –10.30 Welcome -Dr...