Reducing 365 injections per year to 52 represents a substantial reduction in treatment burden.
In London, Ontario, researchers at Western University's Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry are doing the slow, necessary work of turning laboratory promise into clinical reality — testing a once-weekly insulin, a targeted cancer therapy, and a next-generation surgical robot in trials that serve patients who have the most to gain. These are not grand announcements but deliberate steps along the only path that converts discovery into care. The effort reflects something older than any single innovation: the understanding that knowledge unused is knowledge incomplete.
- Millions of diabetes patients inject insulin daily — a trial now underway in London is testing whether 52 injections a year can replace 365, without sacrificing blood sugar control.
- Some kidney cancer patients cannot survive surgery, leaving them with few options — a technique that fires radioactive particles through a tumour's own blood supply is being evaluated as a lifeline for exactly these patients.
- A robotic surgical system unlike anything currently in operating rooms — more mobile, more humanoid, designed to exceed what human hands can do — has moved from the laboratory into its first human studies.
- Insurance coverage for the once-weekly insulin remains thin, and the trial is deliberately enrolling patients historically shut out of research, making equity as much a goal as efficacy.
- Early signals across all three trials are encouraging, but the evidence must hold as patient numbers grow and follow-up extends — the infrastructure is ready, and the next move belongs to the data.
Across a network of hospitals and research institutes in London, Ontario, clinician-scientists at Western University's Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry are running three clinical trials that could meaningfully change how patients live with chronic disease and recover from surgery. The strategy is deliberate: move discoveries out of the lab, test them against the complexity of real patients, and if the evidence holds, bring them into standard care.
Dr. Sonja Reichert is leading a trial of insulin icodec, a once-weekly injectable that could reduce the annual injection burden for type 2 diabetes patients from 365 doses to 52. The drug is already approved in Canada but remains largely inaccessible due to limited insurance coverage. Reichert's trial is designed to generate the kind of real-world evidence that could persuade provincial drug programs to expand access — and it is doing so by deliberately enrolling patients who are often left out of research, including those facing language barriers or social obstacles. She also notes that primary care physicians rarely lead diabetes research, even though primary care is where most diabetes is managed.
For kidney cancer patients who cannot safely undergo surgery, Dr. Derek Cool is evaluating Y90 radioembolization — a technique that delivers radioactive particles directly into a tumour through its blood supply. The approach has been used successfully in liver cancer for over two decades. Six patients in London have received the treatment so far, with encouraging early results. Because kidney cancers grow slowly, tumour response will be assessed at one year.
Dr. Victor Yang's robotic surgical system takes a different path from most operating-room robots. Designed with greater mobility and a more humanoid range of motion, it aims not just to replicate a surgeon's hands but to surpass them in steadiness and precision. The first human studies launched in 2024, with the potential to reduce hospital stays, post-operative pain, and revision surgeries — particularly for patients with osteoporosis.
What connects these three efforts is their pragmatism. None are testing abstract ideas; all are measuring whether promising innovations can hold up in the complicated reality of everyday clinical practice. The partnerships between the university, local hospitals, and research institutions have built the infrastructure to make this translation possible. Whether the evidence continues to support each approach depends on what happens as more patients are enrolled and followed over time.
In a cluster of hospitals and research institutes across London, Ontario, a group of clinician-scientists at Western University's Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry are testing three separate innovations that could reshape how patients manage chronic disease and recover from surgery. The work reflects a deliberate strategy: take discoveries from the laboratory, test them rigorously in real clinical settings with actual patients, and if the evidence holds, move them into standard practice. It is unglamorous work, but it is the only path that matters.
Dr. Amit Garg, who oversees clinical research at Schulich and works as a nephrologist at London Health Sciences Centre, frames the effort as a collective investment. The university, the hospitals, the research institute—they have built the infrastructure and assembled the expertise to make this translation possible. Without that partnership, the discoveries stay on paper. With it, they become treatments.
The first trial addresses a daily burden that shapes the lives of millions. Type 2 diabetes patients on insulin typically inject themselves 365 times a year. Dr. Sonja Reichert, a family medicine researcher, is testing whether a once-weekly injection of insulin icodec can replace that routine while maintaining blood sugar control and improving quality of life. The math is simple: 365 injections down to 52 is a substantial reduction in treatment burden. The drug has already been approved in Canada, but insurance coverage remains sparse—mostly limited to private plans. Reichert sees the trial as a chance to generate the kind of pragmatic evidence that could persuade provincial drug programs to expand access. She also notes something else: most diabetes research in Canada is not led by primary care physicians, even though primary care is where most diabetes is actually managed. Her trial aims to correct that gap, deliberately enrolling diverse patient populations, including those historically excluded from research due to language barriers, social circumstances, or systemic obstacles.
The second trial targets patients for whom surgery is not an option. Kidney cancer is typically treated with an operation, but some patients cannot safely undergo major surgery, and others have tumours that resist conventional approaches. Dr. Derek Cool, an interventional radiologist, is evaluating a technique called Y90 radioembolization—a method that delivers tiny radioactive particles directly into a tumour through its blood supply, destroying cancer cells while sparing healthy tissue. The approach has worked for liver cancer for more than two decades. Researchers in Australia began exploring it for kidney cancer. In London, six patients have received the treatment so far, and the early results are encouraging. Cool expects to assess tumour response at one year, since kidney cancers grow slowly. If the evidence continues to support the approach, patients will have another option alongside surgery, ablation, and traditional radiation.
The third trial ventures into surgical robotics. Dr. Victor Yang has designed a next-generation robotic system that differs from most surgical robots in use today. Rather than a single arm built for specific tasks, his system is more humanoid in design, with greater mobility and range of motion around the operating room. The goal is not merely to replicate what a surgeon's hands can do, but to exceed human limitations—steadier, more precise, better able to visualize anatomy. In 2024, the team launched the first human studies using this newly designed system at the research institute, marking the transition from laboratory development to clinical testing. If the system proves effective, it could reduce hospital stays, decrease post-operative pain, shorten recovery, and lower the rate of revision surgeries, particularly for patients with osteoporosis.
What unites these three efforts is their pragmatism. They are not testing theoretical concepts. They are testing whether innovations that show promise in controlled settings can actually work in the messy reality of everyday clinical practice, across diverse patient populations, with all the complications that real patients bring. The diabetes trial deliberately includes people who might struggle with daily injections. The kidney cancer trial serves patients who have run out of conventional options. The robotic surgery trial will measure whether precision translates into better outcomes for vulnerable populations like those with bone disease.
Each trial is also small enough to be manageable but ambitious enough to matter. Six kidney cancer patients is not a large number, but it is enough to generate early signals. The diabetes trial is comparing two insulin regimens in real-world settings. The robotic surgery trial is moving from bench to bedside. None of these are guaranteed to succeed. But the infrastructure is in place, the partnerships are solid, and the early results are pointing in the right direction. What happens next depends on whether the evidence holds as more patients are enrolled and followed over time.
Citas Notables
If we can show that this approach is both safe and effective in everyday practice, it strengthens the case for broader public coverage.— Dr. Sonja Reichert, on the potential impact of the diabetes trial
The goal is not just to mimic human movement, but to improve on human limitations by creating a system that is steadier, more precise and better able to visualize surgical anatomy.— Dr. Victor Yang, on the robotic surgery system design
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does it matter that these trials are happening in London specifically, rather than at a major academic medical centre in Toronto or another larger city?
Because the whole point is to test whether these innovations work in real practice, not in ideal conditions. London has the partnerships and infrastructure, but it's also a regional healthcare system serving a diverse population. That's exactly where you need to test whether something actually works for the patients who will eventually use it.
The diabetes trial seems almost straightforward—one injection a week instead of one a day. Why hasn't that already become standard practice if the drug is already approved?
Approval and adoption are different things. The drug is approved, but it's only covered by private insurance right now. Doctors and patients don't know yet whether it's truly safe and effective in everyday practice across different populations. That's what Reichert's trial will show. If she can prove it works in diverse, real-world settings, that strengthens the case for public coverage.
The kidney cancer treatment—Y90 radioembolization—has been used for liver cancer for over 20 years. Why is it only now being tested for kidney cancer?
Because kidney cancer is different. The anatomy is different, the blood supply is different, the way tumours behave is different. Just because something works for one cancer doesn't mean it will work for another. You have to test it. Six patients have been treated so far, and the early results are encouraging, but that's still a small number. The real question is whether it holds up as more patients are treated.
What's the risk if these trials don't show what the researchers hope?
Then the treatments don't move forward into broader use. That's the whole point of clinical trials—to find out what actually works and what doesn't. But there's also a human dimension. These patients are volunteering to try something new because they have limited options. If the treatment doesn't work, they've invested time and hope in something that didn't pan out. That's why the early results matter—they tell you whether you're on the right track.
The robotic surgery system sounds like it could be transformative, but how do you measure whether it's actually better than what surgeons can do with their hands?
You measure outcomes. Hospital stay length, pain levels, recovery time, whether patients need revision surgeries. You also measure precision—how accurately the robot places implants compared to traditional surgery. For patients with osteoporosis, precision matters because their bones are fragile. A robot that's steadier and more accurate could make a real difference.
What happens if all three trials succeed?
Then you have three new treatment options that can be offered to patients who currently have fewer choices. But success also means generating the evidence needed to convince insurance companies and provincial drug programs to cover them. That's the next battle—not just proving something works, but making sure patients can actually access it.