Podcasts about AstraZeneca

The leaders of China and India met on Sunday amid trade tensions with the US, and Guyanese voters head to the polls today to chart a future for the world's newest petrostate. Plus, the UK secures its largest ever warship deal with Norway, and AstraZeneca's China division has recovered from a major scandal by pledging billions in new investment. Mentioned in this podcast:Xi and Modi say they are ‘partners not rivals' in bid to repair tiesWorld's newest petrostate heads for ‘mother of all elections'UK secures largest ever warship deal from NorwayAstraZeneca bounces back from scandal in ChinaToday's FT News Briefing was produced by Ethan Plotkin, Persis Love, and Marc Filippino. Additional help from Jean-Marc Eck and Peter Barber. The FT's acting co-head of audio is Topher Forhecz. The show's theme music is by Metaphor Music. Read a transcript of this episode on FT.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The I Love CVille Show headlines: Some Locals Angry W/ AstraZeneca HQ News Was AlbCo Wrong Not To Announce AstraZeneca? Albemarle Co Housing Data That May Surprise You Gracie Jiu-Jistu Moving To Seminole Square Seminole Sq Now Has 3 Omni-Experiential Businesses Jason Miyares Says Joe Platania Soft On Crime New Show W/ Jeff Gaffney & Dr. Wayne Frye, 9/1, 1015am Exec Offices For Rent ($350 – $2000), Contact Jerry Read Viewer & Listener Comments Live On-Air The I Love CVille Show airs live Monday – Friday from 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm on The I Love CVille Network. Watch and listen to The I Love CVille Show on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, iTunes, Apple Podcast, YouTube, Spotify, Fountain, Amazon Music, Audible, Rumble and iLoveCVille.com.

>FASTA: weekly short reads of the global biotech ecosystem | Papers and patents, acquisitions and bankruptcies, biotech philosophy | Read in under 5 min | Follow on LinkedIn, X, YouTube, and Instagram! | Versión en Español1. Astra Zeneca's at-home flue vaccine2. Holmes' return3. Influencer marketing for MRI scans4. Novo x Replicate to target obesity with RNA5. Believer meats update6. Debut raises $20M for AI-designed beauty products7. Glowing succulents8. How China will win in BCIs9. Brain stimulation bands for ADHDDrop me a line on Twitter, LinkedIn or Substack @SofiasBio if you're interested in sponsoring more Biopunk content. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.biopunk.life/subscribe

“You have to love what you do, especially in healthcare, and the earlier you find that, the better. So that's why I love to see HOSA helping young people find what it is that they want to do,” says Dr. David Kelly, a fellow in oculofacial surgery at University of California San Francisco and HOSA's board chair. You can still hear the excitement in Dr. Kelly's voice describing his earliest experiences with HOSA -- a student led organization with 300,000 plus members that prepares future health professionals to become leaders in international health – even though they happened sixteen years ago when he was a sophomore in highschool. Through hundreds of competitive events and hands-on projects, HOSA creates a framework for developing skills in communication, professionalism and leadership starting in middle school. Programs are offered throughout highschool and college as well, which Dr. Kelly took advantage of before becoming an active alumnus and joining the HOSA board as a way of giving back to an organization that has given so much to him. Since taking the reins as board chair last year, one key focus has been preparing to mark HOSA's 50th anniversary in 2026. Dr. Kelly sees the occasion as not only an opportunity to celebrate what HOSA has accomplished, but to ensure it is positioned to continue helping the healthcare industry tackle important challenges in the future. Examples include chronic workforce shortages and improving how clinicians communicate with patients and team members.  Join host Lindsey Smith on this uplifting Raise the Line episode for an optimistic look at the next generation of healthcare leaders.Mentioned in this episode:HOSAHOSA Alumni Registration If you like this podcast, please share it on your social channels. You can also subscribe to the series and check out all of our episodes at www.osmosis.org/raisethelinepodcast

The I Love CVille Show headlines: AstraZeneca Building Multi-Billion Dollar HQ In AlbCo Eli Lilly Building Multi-Billion Dollar HQ In Goochland 2 Publicly Traded Co's Spending Billions In CVille Area Home Depot Opens Today In Albemarle County How Can Area Small Business Appeal To GenZ Labor? Coastal Carolina At UVA (-11.5), 6PM, Sat, ACCN New Show W/ Jeff Gaffney & Dr. Wayne Frye, 9/1, 1015am Exec Offices For Rent ($350 – $2000), Contact Jerry Read Viewer & Listener Comments Live On-Air The I Love CVille Show airs live Monday – Friday from 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm on The I Love CVille Network. Watch and listen to The I Love CVille Show on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, iTunes, Apple Podcast, YouTube, Spotify, Fountain, Amazon Music, Audible, Rumble and iLoveCVille.com.

TriloTalk episode 37 focuses on a specific type of medical device, the drug-delivery system. Writing for drug-delivery systems is all about being fluent in two languages – drugs and devices. Julia Forjanic Klapproth, Senior Partner at Trilogy, Laura Collada, Senior Medical Writing Manager at Trilogy, and Raquel Billiones, Director of Medical Writing at AstraZeneca, talk about this and what medical writers need to understand when crafting these regulatory documents.  

We're taking a breather this August as we work on bringing you more great episodes of the ATS Breathe Easy podcast. But we're not going off the air - instead, we're bringing back some of our best episodes of the last season. See you in September for season two! Amy Attaway, MD, hosts the latest ATS Breathe Easy episode with former ATS President Monica Kraft, MD, and Asthma and Allergy Network's Chief Research Officer, De De Gardner, DrPH, discuss the benefits and challenges of biologics for asthma. What factors guide selection of a specific biologic for asthma? When should a patient transition from one biologic to another? This episode of the ATS Breathe Easy podcast is supported in part by AstraZeneca.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/AZW865. CME/MOC/AAPA/IPCE credit will be available until August 18, 2026.Immune to the Impossible in Hepatobiliary Malignancies: Expert Insights on Breakthrough Innovations for Immunotherapy Platforms in Advanced-Stage Disease In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by an independent educational grant from AstraZeneca.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

John is joined by Andrew Berdon, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York Office, and Joe Paunovich, partner in Quinn Emanuel's Salt Lake City office.  They discuss the $300 million victory Andrew and Joe's team recently won in Delaware Chancery Court in an earnout dispute arising from a pharmaceutical merger.  The dispute involved the acquisition of Syntimmune, a biotech company founded around a promising antibody drug—Alexion 1830—designed to treat rare autoimmune diseases by reducing levels of IgG.  The drug was initially developed from academic research at Harvard and advanced by a venture-backed startup that invested over $75 million before selling the company to Alexion, now a division of AstraZeneca.The acquisition included an upfront payment of $400 million, plus up to $800 million in earnout payments tied to eight developmental milestones, most of which were based on progress during pre-approval clinical trials.  The dispute arose when Alexion, shortly after the acquisition, deprioritized and ultimately terminated the drug's development, citing safety concerns and a perceived loss of first-mover advantage.  No earnout payments were made.The court found that Alexion breached its obligation to use "commercially reasonable efforts"—defined in the agreement as those a similarly situated biotech company would use—to develop the drug.  Evidence at trial showed Alexion made no attempt to benchmark its efforts against peer companies developing similar drugs.  Instead, internal shifts in corporate priorities and the subsequent acquisition by AstraZeneca led to the program's quiet abandonment, despite a highly promising therapeutic profile and a still viable market opportunity.The episode concludes with reflections on the broader pharmaceutical industry, the strategic use (and misuse) of earnout structures, and the importance of precisely drafted effort clauses to protect sellers when control shifts post-acquisition.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

“We've been able to show that even by 30 days of age, we can predict with some accuracy if a child is going to have a diagnosis of autism,” says Dr. Geraldine Dawson, sharing one of the recent advancements in early diagnosis being aided by artificial intelligence.  Dr. Dawson -- a leading scholar in the field and founding director of the Duke Center for Autism and Brain Development – explains that an AI examination of a child's pattern of visits to medical specialists in its very early life is an objective diagnostic tool that can supplement the current subjective reports from parents which vary in reliability. Another objective diagnostic tool in development uses a smartphone app developed at Duke that takes video of babies watching images and applies AI-aided Computer Vision Analysis to measure for signs of autism. This enlightening Raise the Line conversation with host Lindsey Smith is loaded with the latest understandings about Autism Spectrum Disorder including advancements in early therapeutic interventions, the interplay of genetic and environmental factors, and the role of the mother's health and exposures during pregnancy. You'll learn as well about what Dawson sees as necessary societal shifts in how autism is perceived, the numerous factors contributing to a near tripling of diagnoses over the past two decades, and how early intervention and informed advocacy can make a meaningful difference in the lives of countless families.Mentioned in this episode:Duke Center for Autism and Brain Development If you like this podcast, please share it on your social channels. You can also subscribe to the series and check out all of our episodes at www.osmosis.org/raisethelinepodcast

As September approaches, many families notice asthma symptoms getting worse. Ragweed pollen, viral infections, cooler nights, and the stress of back-to-school routines all combine to create Asthma Peak Week, a time when asthma attacks and ER visits spike across the country. Asthma mom, Sherrina Gibson, joins us to share how her family prepares her 11-year-old daughter for fall asthma challenges. She talks about cleaning routines, school planning, and teaching her daughter self-awareness and empowerment. Dr. Payel Gupta adds medical guidance on asthma action plans and seasonal medication adjustments. You'll learn how to spot asthma triggers, prepare your home and school, and teach children to recognize symptoms early so they can act before a flare gets worse. What we cover in our episode about preparing for asthma peak week: Parenting with asthma: Sherrina Gibson shares her family's journey and how they prepare their home and routines each fall. Asthma management strategies: Cleaning, decluttering, updating medications, and coordinating with schools and coaches. Asthma Peak Week explained: Why symptoms spike in September and how to get ahead of it. Asthma action plans: Why every family needs one and how to keep copies at home, school, and on the go. Empowering kids with asthma: Teaching children to recognize symptoms, use their inhaler properly, and advocate for themselves at school and in sports. More episodes about asthma Ep. 81: Why asthma attacks rise in September peak week Ep. 58: What is controlled Asthma? - Everything you need to know! Ep. 117: As-Needed Albuterol–Budesonide in Mild Asthma (BATURA Trial) Ep. 124: Asthma peak week and understanding triggers Made in partnership with The Allergy & Asthma Network. Thanks to AstraZeneca and Amgen for sponsoring today's episode.  This podcast is for informational purposes only and does not substitute professional medical advice. Always consult with your healthcare provider for any medical concerns.

Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal and Dr. Arielle Elkrief discuss the clinical relevance of the gut microbiome in cancer immunotherapy and the importance of antibiotic stewardship, as well as interventions currently being explored to treat gut dysbiosis and optimize immunotherapy response. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Hi everyone, I'm Dr. Monty Pal, welcoming you to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm a medical oncologist. I'm a professor and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles.  Today we're here to discuss one of my favorite topics, which is the gut microbiome. It's almost hard to avoid the gut microbiome nowadays if you look at medical literature within oncology. It's an emerging phenomenon, but there are a couple of individuals that I would really define as pioneers in the field. And one of them is actually with me today, Dr. Arielle Elkrief, to discuss the clinical relevance of the gut microbiome, particularly amongst patients receiving immunotherapy, although I imagine our conversation today will take many twists and turns. Arielle is an assistant professor and clinician scientist in the Department of Oncology at the University of Montreal, and she is co-director of the CHUM Microbiome Center there.  FYI for the listeners, we have our full disclosures in the transcript of this episode.  Arielle, thank you so much for joining us today. Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Thanks so much, Monty. This is going to be amazing. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: Well, I have to tell you what sort of inspired me to bring you on as a guest. It was one of many things, but it was this really terrific ASCO Educational [Book] article that you wrote. Now, I have to tell you, I've read all the articles sort of cover to cover in the book, and they're always a wonderful primer, so if our audience is studying for board research or something of that sort, it's a terrific resource to go through. I have to tell you, this piece on the gut microbiome that you wrote is nothing short of a masterpiece. If you read this cover to cover, it's actually going to give you, I think, a sense of the current state and future state of the field. I wanted to start by just sort of beginning with sort of the origin story for a lot of this, which is this association between the gut microbiome and immunotherapy response. This takes us back several years to this pivotal series of papers in Science. Maybe you could walk our audience through that. Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Absolutely. Well, thank you so much for your kind words about the ASCO [Educational] Book. It was a team effort with a lot of key opinion leaders in the field, so I'm really glad to learn that you've liked it.  Moving backwards in terms of how we came to understand that the gut microbiome is essential to priming a response to cancer immunotherapy actually goes back to 2015 and seminal papers that looked at what happens when we take mice that are germ-free mice that have never been exposed to a microbiome. These are mice that are born by cesarean section and essentially live in a bubble. And when we give those mice tumors and treat them, in the first papers with anti-CTLA-4 treatment, we realized that these antibodies don't work at all. And that was the first observation that the presence of a gut microbiome was essential to mounting an anti-cancer immune response. When we supplemented those same mice with beneficial bacteria or feces from responder patients, we were able to restore the response to immunotherapy. And so those were really the first preclinical observations that made us understand the critical role of the microbiome in immunotherapy response. Moving a little bit in the future, we examined the fecal microbiome composition using shotgun metagenomic sequencing in different cohorts of patients with solid tumors, namely lung cancers, kidney cancers, and also skin tumors like melanoma, and found that patients who responded to immunotherapy had a distinct microbiome that was characterized by beneficial bacteria compared to patients who experienced resistance to immunotherapy that had a dysbiotic or diseased microbiome. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: So, you know, it's interesting, these techniques that we're using to sequence the gut, they're a little bit different. So I wonder if you can give the audience a quick primer on these techniques that you're so well versed in, shotgun metagenomic sequencing, 16S rRNA sequencing. If you had to describe this in 30 seconds, which is a tall task, how would you do that? Dr. Arielle Elkrief: That's a tall task. Much of what we know about the microbiome initially came from a technique called 16S rRNA sequencing. This is a technique that amplifies the 16S region and basically tells you at the genus level what's going on at the level of bacterial composition. This technique is fast, relatively cheap, and can be performed on a laptop computer, which is excellent. The problem is that it's prone to a lot of technical variations. Different primers might give you different results, and you're really limited at the genus resolution. You can't get a good resolution in terms of species, and we're learning that different species from the same genus might have different physiological properties, and the same thing goes at the strain level. So when we really zone in and look at inter-species changes, we're seeing that these actually have specific functions in the host. So that brings us to metagenomic sequencing, which is a whole genome sequencing, next-generation sequencing based method that looks at the whole composition and gives you information not only on bacteria, but you might also get fungal and viral properties. You can zoom in on the strain level. You can also get functional output, so we can examine what the metabolic properties of specific species or strains might look like. The negative aspects of shotgun metagenomic sequencing is that it takes a lot of computational power in order to analyze the results and it might take a little bit longer. And certainly, within the clinical setting, not something that's feasible yet.  And that brings us to more novel point-of-care biomarker tools that we've collaborated in developing along with Dr. Laurence Zitvogel and Dr. Lisa Derosa at Gustave Roussy, that learning from the shotgun metagenomics results designed a probe using quantitative PCR which looks for this specific bacteria we know to be important and developed a ratio of harmful bacteria to beneficial bacteria. This is called the TOPOSCORE, and it actually is able to predict quite nicely the response to immunotherapy using a stool sample and a really good turnaround time of almost 72 hours. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: That was a perfect overview and a lot of information in a short amount of time. It also makes you take out your high school biology textbooks, doesn't it, to understand that the bacterial ribosome, right, is a different size and shape, and that's what we're sequencing here. But these techniques I think are incredibly important, and I'm glad you actually discussed this, this RT-PCR based strategy of calculating the TOPOSCORE. It lends itself to this phenomenon of dysbiosis, and I think for our audience, that's going to be an important term to understand as time goes on. There's the normal healthy gut and then there's this phenomenon of dysbiosis, which is, I guess, simply put, an unhealthy gut. But tell us about, you know, how often you see dysbiosis in a cancer patient, maybe versus a normal healthy adult. Dr. Arielle Elkrief: So, I think we can split up your question into two parts. One is we know from cohort studies and population level-based studies that the microbiome of patients with cancer is distinct from healthy patients or healthy people. And we know that because of the global composition. We also think that there are diversity metrics that lend themselves to being described as dysbiotic. But we do know that the microbiome of people with cancer is distinct from healthy volunteers. That's the first point.  In terms of how frequently dysbiosis occurs in patients with cancer, it's not very well defined. We know that even among healthy people, there is a certain level of dysbiosis. Laurence in her talk mentioned that to be about 10% to 20%. And the other fascinating component is that when we're thinking about dysbiosis and the cancer associated microbiome, in terms of the species that are enriched, it's quite striking that a lot of these dysbiotic or negative bacteria are also found to be enriched in patients with metabolic disease, like cardiovascular disease, for example. And so it's unclear if dysbiosis is the cause or consequence, but there definitely seems to be a general pattern of disease when looking at the microbiome compared to healthy people. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: That's interesting. So, I'll tell you, my second favorite portion of your article, and I'll tell you my favorite portion as well in the context of this podcast, but my second favorite part was the section around antibiotic stewardship. You know, the utilization of antibiotics in a very pragmatic fashion amongst our patients. Can you describe why that's so critical in the context of the microbiome? Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Antibiotics can disrupt the gut microbiome composition. We know this from mouse studies, but also cohort studies of patients that are exposed to antibiotics. And most importantly, we know that patients who are exposed to antibiotics, either before or during the immunotherapy period, have significantly worse progression-free survival and overall survival to immunotherapy. And this is true for immunotherapy in the monotherapy setting, but also when combined with chemotherapy. What's striking is that when we look at patients who are just treated with chemotherapy, we don't see the negative outcome of antibiotics on outcome and progression-free survival and overall survival, suggesting that the negative impact of antibiotics on outcomes is really specific to immunotherapy backbones. The other important point is that this negative signal is maintained even after adjusting for standard prognostic variables in the specific malignancies that we're looking at. And then most importantly, at the mechanistic level, we were able to actually pinpoint the mechanism behind this antibiotic related dysbiosis. And we see this with a bloom of negative bacteria which induces a loss of MAd-CAM, which is an endothelial gut checkpoint immune marker, and that causes an efflux of immunosuppressive T cells, which are usually in the gut, to go straight into the tumor where they make the tumor unamenable to an immunotherapy response. And so now we finally have the mechanism as to why antibiotics are harmful and why we need to practice antibiotic stewardship. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: And just to be clear for the audience, I mean, if a patient needs antibiotics, they need antibiotics. But perhaps it just suggests that, and we have, I suppose, this predilection as oncologists, just for the minor cold or cough or what have you, we maybe should be a little bit more cognizant of whether or not antibiotics are truly necessary. Is that fair? Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Absolutely. So what we're advocating for is antibiotic stewardship, and this is the clear recommendation that we can make. So that means confirming a bacterial infection. If it's there and antibiotics are indicated, to choose the most narrow spectrum for the shortest course and constantly re-evaluate the indication of antibiotics. And of course, we need to work with our colleagues in infectious diseases who've done incredible work in antibiotic stewardship. And all along this process we also need to be mindful of other medications and polypharmacy, such as proton pump inhibitors or narcotics, for example, we think that these other medications which are frequently prescribed in our cancer population can also potentially have negative impacts on the microbiome and immunotherapy response. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: I think that's a terrific summary and big guidance for the audience.  I promised you I'd tell you my favorite part of your article, and this is this huge table. I think the table is two and a half pages long, if I remember correctly, but it's an awesome table, and I highly recommend our audience to check this out. It lists literally every therapeutic trial for the microbiome under the sun. And so it begins with the approach of fecal microbiota transplant, which I'm going to ask you to tell us about in a second, but it also hinges on a lot of really cool sort of novel therapies, live bacterial products, mixes of different microbial products. Maybe take us through this whole approach of FMT (fecal microbiota transplantation). I actually wasn't aware of the dozens of trials that you listed there in this space. It seems like it's a very active area of research. Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Definitely. So, as you alluded to, FMT or fecal microbiota transplantation is the most well studied and direct way to modify the patient's microbiome. This technique aims to replace the patient's dysbiotic microbiome with that of a healthy microbiome, either from a healthy donor volunteer that's been heavily screened, or from a patient who experienced response to immunotherapy. And, as three landmark studies so far that have been published demonstrated the potential of FMT to reduce primary resistance or secondary resistance to immunotherapy, and this has been in melanoma.  We also recently reported on the results of our FMT-LUMINate trial, which looked at patients with lung cancer and melanoma. Once again, FMT, when combined with immunotherapy was safe and led to a higher proportion of responses than we would normally expect.  We're now also looking at randomized trials that have come out. So the first being the TACITO trial in kidney cancer, which compared FMT plus pembrolizumab and axitinib to placebo in patients with RCC, and again, FMT was safe and feasible and also led to an increased progression-free survival at one year, meeting the study's primary endpoint.  And so, so far, there's a wealth of data really showing the promise of FMT when combined with immunotherapy, and we're now in the process of conducting larger randomized trials, including in melanoma with the CCTG (Canada Cancer Trials Group) in our ME17 or Canbiome2 trial, where we're going to be enrolling 128 patients with metastatic melanoma to receive FMT and standard of care immunotherapy compared to standard of care immunotherapy alone. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: You're very humble, so I've got to highlight for our audience. This was a mega grant that Arielle received to fund really the largest prospective exploration of FMT that will exist to date. So I'm really excited about that. I wish this was something we could participate in stateside.  Before we jump into the other approach, which is live bacterial products and mixes thereof, where do you see FMT going? I think that one of the perceived challenges with FMT is that it's hard to implement, right? You need to have a really robust framework when it comes to gastroenterology, the preparation's challenging. Is there a way to envision FMT use being more generalized? Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Those are great questions. So we're lucky in Canada to work with pioneers in FMT, Michael Silverman, Saman Maleki, and John Lenehan in London, Ontario, who had this really robust FMT healthy donor screening program, which literally screens for every pathogen under the sun, and we haven't had any problems with feasibility or implementing FMT in Canada. But I think that once we're going to hopefully start doing larger scale, randomized phase three studies, that we might run into problems with scalability. And I think also with regards to reproducibility, and that's the feedback that we're getting from some regulatory authorities, especially at the level of the FDA, where there are some concerns around inter- and intra-donor variability because, of course, we can't guarantee that every fecal sample is going to be the same. So that has really pushed the field to think about other strategies, such as live biotherapeutic products which take modified FMT or bacteria from stools from either healthy donors or from responder patients and basically turn them into drugs that are regulated as drugs and can then be studied in the context of investigational new drugs or products. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: I like this and, you know, I do think that there's a future for it. We just have to kind of put our heads together and figure out how to get over all of these logistical hurdles, but, you know, I agree, I think your group and others have demonstrated, especially with this trial that you're fanning out all throughout Canada, that it can potentially be done.  This is a topic that could probably go on for another couple of hours, right, especially based on the size of the table that you put together in this brilliant article, but tell us about live bacterial products or LBPs, as we call them these days. What's the current status, what's the future there? And maybe I'll give you less than two minutes here, although again, I realize it's a two-hour topic. Dr. Arielle Elkrief: You're probably better suited to speak about that because you've been one of the pioneers in terms of this. So we can think about LBPs in terms of single strain organisms, like CBM588 for an example, which your group did some amazing work in showing that, in a randomized setting, that this led to better responses than we would expect compared to just work with controls. We also know that LBPs can have multiple strains, up to 30. We're collaborating with a company called Cannabis Bioscience that is actually working on much larger communities of consortia. And so we're really excited about the direction that that's taking in terms of taking these LBPs and developing them from the drug perspective. In addition to LBPs, we know that there are other ways that we can change the microbiome, notably prebiotics, which are compounds which can have a beneficial impact on the microbiome. And one of these is camu camu, which I know your group is leading a clinical trial looking at camu camu and kidney cancer, and we're excited to see how that compares to FMT or LBPs, because that might be a potentially scalable alternative. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: That's awesome. What a terrific overview, and that was less than two minutes. I don't know how you did it. That's terrific.  Arielle, this has been such an insightful conversation. I just want to thank you for, again, a terrific article in the ASCO Educational Book. I highly recommend all of our listeners to go there and check it out, and also for sharing all these terrific insights on the podcast today. Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Thank you so much, Monty. Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal: And thanks to our listeners, too. If you value the insights that you heard today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks, everyone. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers:    Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal  @montypal Dr. Arielle Elkrief Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on Twitter    ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures:    Dr. Sumanta (Monty) Pal:   Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview  Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical  Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis  Dr. Arielle Elkrief: Honoraria: AstraZenica, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono Consulting or Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb Research Funding (Inst.): Kanvas Bioscience, AstraZeneca, Merck Other Relationship: Royal College of Surgeons and Physicians of Canada, Cedar's Cancer Center (Henry R. Shibata Fellowship), Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)

Variant anglais, Brexit, guerre entre la couronne et le couple Meghan-Harry, vaccin AstraZeneca, "l'Angleterre" fait beaucoup parler d'elle. Mes petits élèves français sont souvent en pleine confusion car dans le langage courant nous utilisons le mot Angleterre pour Royaume-Uni, mais n'oublions pas que ce sont deux entités bien distinctes. Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Medicare is at risk of automatic cuts totaling hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years. Texas officials have declared the recent measles outbreak officially over. And, AstraZeneca introduces a new at-home nasal flu vaccine, aiming to expand access and improve vaccination rates. Hear more on these stories in the latest episode of the Gist Healthcare podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In der heutigen Folge sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Lea Oetjen und Holger Zschäpitz über Börsen-Non-Event Alaska, eine hoffnungsvolle Softwarestudie mit 6 Top Picks und einen neuen Chart of Doom. Außerdem geht es um CoreWeave, Salesforce, Siemens Energy, Cisco Systems, Palo Alto Networks, ProSiebenSat.1, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Siemens Healthineers, Sonova, Medtronic, Haleon, iShares Aging Population ETF (WKN: A2ANH1), Boston Scientific, Glaukos, Exelixis, Sarepta, Swisscanto Healthy Longevity Fund (WKN: A40L0T), Eli Lilly, Abbott, UnitedHealth, Microsoft, Amazon, Nvidia, Meta, Netflix, Coreweave, Oracle, Carvana, TSMC, Roblox, Crowdstrike, Opendoor Technologies, Alibaba, PDD, Petroleo Brasileiro, Teva Pharmaceutical, Robinhood, Northrop Grumman, RTX, Lululemon, Mercadolibre, Talen Energy, GE Vernova, Broadcom, Vistra, Micron, Alphabet, Somnigroup International, Flutter Entertainment. Und hier gibt es die Tickets zum Finance Summit am 17. September! https://veranstaltung.businessinsider.de/FinanceSummit Wir freuen uns an Feedback über aaa@welt.de. Noch mehr "Alles auf Aktien" findet Ihr bei WELTplus und Apple Podcasts – inklusive aller Artikel der Hosts und AAA-Newsletter. Hier bei WELT: https://www.welt.de/podcasts/alles-auf-aktien/plus247399208/Boersen-Podcast-AAA-Bonus-Folgen-Jede-Woche-noch-mehr-Antworten-auf-Eure-Boersen-Fragen.html. Der Börsen-Podcast Disclaimer: Die im Podcast besprochenen Aktien und Fonds stellen keine spezifischen Kauf- oder Anlage-Empfehlungen dar. Die Moderatoren und der Verlag haften nicht für etwaige Verluste, die aufgrund der Umsetzung der Gedanken oder Ideen entstehen. Hörtipps: Für alle, die noch mehr wissen wollen: Holger Zschäpitz können Sie jede Woche im Finanz- und Wirtschaftspodcast "Deffner&Zschäpitz" hören. +++ Werbung +++ Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte! https://linktr.ee/alles_auf_aktien Impressum: https://www.welt.de/services/article7893735/Impressum.html Datenschutz: https://www.welt.de/services/article157550705/Datenschutzerklaerung-WELT-DIGITAL.html

"Burnout and trauma are not mental illnesses. They live in your physiology. They live in your biology. They live very specifically in your nervous system,” Dr. Rola Hallam says with a conviction rooted in her own successful journey to overcome the effects of chronic stress she accumulated during many years on the frontlines of humanitarian crises in Syria and other conflict zones. Out of concern for the multitudes of health professionals who, like herself, spend years carrying the weight of their traumatic experiences without seeking help, or who pursue ineffective remedies for relieving it, Dr. Rola -- as she's known – has shifted her focus to being a trauma and burnout coach. Among her offerings is Beyond Burnout, a twelve-week program that includes multimedia content as well as live coaching and teaching about developing nervous system awareness and regulation. “Most wellness initiatives fail because they're not rewiring the nervous system to come out of survival mode and back into what is called the ventral-vagal state, which is our state of social connection and of healing and repair.” She also stresses that healing is not an individual pursuit, especially for providers who work in a relational field, and teaches about the benefits of borrowing from a colleagues' state of calm and offering them the same. Don't miss this insightful and giving conversation with host Lindsey Smith that covers Dr. Rola's wrenching experiences providing care in desperate conditions, the critically important distinction between empathy and compassion, and how empowering frontline workers to heal their trauma can uplift individuals and empower entire communities. Mentioned in this episode:Dr. Rola CoachingBeyond Burnout AssessmentCanDo - Humanitarian Aid If you like this podcast, please share it on your social channels. You can also subscribe to the series and check out all of our episodes at www.osmosis.org/raisethelinepodcast

Host: Emer Joyce Guest: Tim Chico Want to watch that extended interview on smartwatch, heart rate and ECG? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1811?resource=interview Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1811   Disclaimer  ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors.  This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English-language always prevails.   Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Emer Joyce and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Tim Chico has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: research funding from Google. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Oral anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation: answers to frequent questions Smartwatch, heart rate and ECG Milestones: Lyon Diet Heart study Host: Emer Joyce Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Tim Chico, Paulus Kirchhof Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1811 Want to watch that extended interview on smartwatch, heart rate and ECG? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1811?resource=interview   Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors.  This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English-language always prevails.   Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Emer Joyce and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Tim Chico has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: research funding from Google. Paulus Kirchhof has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: partially supported by European Union MAESTRIA (grant agreement 965286), British Heart Foundation (AA/18/2/34218), German Center for Cardiovascular Research supported by the German Ministry of Education and Research (DZHK, grant numbers DZHK FKZ 81X2800182, 81Z0710116, and 81Z0710110), German Research Foundation (Ki 509167694), Dutch Heart Foundation (DHF), the Accelerating Clinical Trials funding stream in Canada, and the Else-Kröner-Fresenius Foundation. Research support for basic, translational, and clinical research projects from German Research Foundation (DFG), European Union, British Heart Foundation, Leducq Foundation, Else-Kröner-Fresenius Foundation, Dutch Heart Foundation (DHF), the Accelerating Clinical Trials funding stream in Canada, Medical Research Council (UK), and German Center for Cardiovascular Research, from several drug and device companies active in atrial fibrillation, and has received honoraria from several such companies in the past, but not in the last five years. Listed as inventor on two issued patents held by University of Hamburg (Atrial Fibrillation Therapy WO 2015140571, Markers for Atrial Fibrillation WO 2016012783). Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Alexion recently launched the second film in its Rare Connections series, Rare Connections in gMG.Managing editor Jack O'Brien talks with Christophe Hotermans, Alexion's head of global medical affairs, about the multimedia effort to raise the profile of gMG.For this week's MM+M Fast Break, Hotermans discusses the drugmaker's latest rare disease-focused film. Step into the future of health media at the MM+M Media Summit on October 30th, 2025 live in NYC! Join top voices in pharma marketing for a full day of forward-thinking discussions on AI, streaming, retail media, and more. Explore the latest in omnichannel strategy, personalization, media trust, and data privacy—all under one roof. Don't wait—use promo code PODCAST for $100 off your individual ticket. Click here to register! AI Deciphered is back—live in New York City this November 13th.Join leaders from brands, agencies, and platforms for a future-focused conversation on how AI is transforming media, marketing, and the retail experience. Ready to future-proof your strategy? Secure your spot now at aidecipheredsummit.com. Use code POD at check out for $100 your ticket! Check us out at: mmm-online.com Follow us: YouTube: @MMM-onlineTikTok: @MMMnewsInstagram: @MMMnewsonlineTwitter/X: @MMMnewsLinkedIn: MM+M To read more of the most timely, balanced and original reporting in medical marketing, subscribe here.Music: “Deep Reflection” by DP and Triple Scoop Music.

Send us a textMeet Oscar Trimboli, the award-winning author of ‘How to Listen' which has been touted as the ‘most comprehensive book about listening in the workplace' and which has won four awards from the International Book Awards, Australian Business Book Awards, Axiom Business Book Awards, and Living Now Book Awards. On a quest to create 100 million deep listeners in the workplace, Oscar is also host of the Apple award-winning podcast ‘Deep Listening' and a sought-after keynote speaker.A marketing and technology industry veteran, Oscar through his work with chairs, boards of directors, and executive teams, has experienced first-hand the transformational impact leaders can have when they listen beyond words. He believes that when leadership teams focus their attention and listening, they will build organizations that create powerful legacies for the people they serve – today and more importantly, for future generations. He consults with organizations including American Express, AstraZeneca, Cisco, Google, HSBC, IAG, Montblanc, PwC, Salesforce, Sanofi, SAP, and Siemens.Hit play to find out about Oscar's take on how to really listen! [2:20s] Oscar's journey before ‘How to Listen'[08:42s] Are we listening better and more today?   [16:12s] Listening to understand versus listening to respond[25:55s] Top reasons that can deter you from becoming a good listener [41:06s] Genesis of ‘How to Listen'[49:16s] RWL: Read Oscar's books: ‘How to Listen'; Listen to his podcast ‘Deep Listening: Impact Beyond Words'Find out more about Oscar's work: https://www.oscartrimboli.com/information/Connect with Oscar on LinkedInConnect with Vinay on X (formerly Twitter) and LinkedIn What did you think about this episode? What would you like to hear more about? Or simply, write in and say hello! podcast@c2cod.comSubscribe to us on your favorite platforms – Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Overcast, Tune In Alexa, and more.  This podcast is sponsored by C2C-OD, your Organizational Development consulting partner ‘Bringing People and Strategy Together'. Follow @c2cod on Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook 

In this compelling episode, host Melissa Berry continues the series "Decoding Destiny: Navigating Breast Cancer with Genetic Insight" with a heartfelt conversation with Krista Brown, also known on Instagram as the Cancer Prevention Coach. Krista, an oncology nurse navigator and breast cancer survivor, shares her journey of living with an ATM gene mutation and the empowering role of genetic testing in her life. Together, they explore the importance of education, nutrition, and self-advocacy in managing hereditary cancer risks. Tune in to discover how Krista's personal experiences have shaped her mission to fill gaps in patient education and support others on their cancer prevention journeys. Special thanks to AstraZeneca for making this episode possible.

Dr. Hope Rugo and Dr. Kamaria Lee discuss the prevalence of financial toxicity in cancer care in the United States and globally, focusing on breast cancer, and highlight key interventions to mitigate financial hardship. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a podcast series from ASCO that features engaging conversations between editors and authors of the ASCO Educational Book. I'm your host, Dr. Hope Rugo. I'm the director of the Women's Cancer Program and division chief of breast medical oncology at the City of Hope Cancer Center, and I'm also the editor-in-chief of the Educational Book. Rising healthcare costs are causing financial distress for patients and their families across the globe. Patients with cancer report financial toxicity as a major impediment to their quality of life, and its association with worse outcomes is well documented. Today, we'll be discussing how patients with breast cancer are uniquely at risk for financial toxicity. Joining me for this discussion is Dr. Kamaria Lee, a fourth-year radiation oncology resident and health equity researcher at MD Anderson Cancer Center and a co-author of the recently published article titled, "Financial Toxicity in Breast Cancer: Why Does It Matter, Who Is at Risk, and How Do We Intervene?" Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr. Lee, it's great to have you on this podcast. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Hey, Dr. Rugo. Thank you so much for having me. I'm excited to be here today. I also would like to recognize my co-authors, Dr. Alexandru Eniu, Dr. Christopher Booth, Molly MacDonald, and Dr. Fumiko Chino, who worked on this book chapter with me and did a fantastic presentation on the topic at ASCO this past year. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thanks very much. We'll now just jump into the questions. We know that rising medical costs contribute to a growing financial burden on patients, which has [GC1]  [JG2]  been documented to contribute to lower quality-of-life, compromised clinical care, and worse health outcomes. How are patients with breast cancer uniquely at risk for financial toxicity? How does the problem vary within the breast cancer population in terms of age, racial and ethnic groups, and those who have metastatic disease? Dr. Kamaria Lee: Breast cancer patients are uniquely at risk of financial toxicity for several reasons. Three key reasons are that breast cancer often requires multimodal treatment. So this means patients are receiving surgery, many receive systemic therapies, including hormonal therapies, as well as radiation. And so this requires care coordination and multiple visits that can increase costs. Secondly, another key reason that patients with breast cancer are uniquely at risk for financial toxicity is that there's often a long survivorship period that includes long-term care for toxicities and continued follow-ups, and patients might also be involved in activities regarding advocacy, but also physical therapy and mental health appointments during their prolonged survivorship, which can also add costs. And a third key reason that patients with breast cancer are uniquely at risk for financial toxicity is that the patient population is primarily women. And we know that women are more likely to have increased caregiver responsibilities while also potentially working and managing their treatments, and so this is another contributor. Within the breast cancer population, those who are younger and those who are from marginalized racial/ethnic groups and those with metastatic disease have been shown to be at an increased risk. Those who are younger may be more likely to need childcare during treatment if they have kids, or they're more likely to be employed and not yet retired, which can be disrupted while receiving treatment. And those who are racial/ethnic minorities may have increased financial toxicity due to reasons that exist even after controlling for socioeconomic factors. And some of these reasons have been shown to be increased risk of job or income loss or transportation barriers during treatment. And lastly, for those with metastatic breast cancer, there can be ongoing financial distress due to the long-term care that is needed for treatment, and this can include parking, transportation, and medications while managing their metastatic disease. Dr. Hope Rugo: I think it is really important to understand these issues as you just outlined. There has been a lot of focus on financial toxicity research in recent years, and that has led to novel approaches in screening for financial hardship. Can you tell us about the new screening tools and interventions and how you can easily apply that to clinical practice, keeping in mind that people aren't at MD Anderson with a bunch of support and information on this but are in clinical practice and seeing many, many patients a day with lots of different cancers? Dr. Kamaria Lee: You're exactly right that there is incredible nuance needed in understanding how to best screen for financial hardship in different types of practices. There are multiple financial toxicity tools. The most commonly used tool is the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity, also known as the COST tool. In its full form, it's an 11-item survey. There's also a summary question as well. And these questions look at objective and subjective financial burden, and it uses a five-point Likert scale. For example, one question on the full form is, "I know that I have enough money in savings, retirement, or assets to cover the cost of my treatment," and then patients are able to respond "not at all" to "very much" with a threshold score for financial toxicity risk. Of course, as you noted, one critique of having an 11-item survey is that there's limited time in patient encounters with their providers. And so recently, Thom et al validated an abbreviated two-question version of the COST tool. This validation was done in an urban comprehensive cancer center, and it was found to have a high predictive value to the full measure. We note which two questions are specifically pulled from the full measure within the book chapter. And this is one way that it can be easier for clinicians who are in a busier setting to still screen for financial toxicity with fewer questions. I also do recommend that clinicians who know their clinic's workflow the best, work with their team of nurses, financial navigators, and others to best integrate the tool into their workflow. For some, this may mean sending the two-item survey as a portal message so that patients can answer it before consults. Other times, it could mean having it on the tablet that can be done in the clinic waiting room. And so there are different ways that screening can be done, even in a busy setting, and acknowledging that different practices have different amounts of resources and time. Dr. Hope Rugo: And where would people access that easily? I recognize that that information is in your chapter, or your article that's on PubMed that will be linked to this podcast, but it is nice to just know where people could easily access that online. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yes, and so you should be able to Google ‘the COST measure', and then there is a website that also has the forms as well. So it's also beyond the book chapter, Googling ‘the COST measure', and then online they would be able to find access to the form. Dr. Hope Rugo: And how often would you do that screening? Dr. Kamaria Lee: So, I think it's definitely important that we are as proactive as possible. And so initially, I recommend that the screening happens at the time of diagnosis, and so if it's done through the portal, it can be sent before the initial consult, or again, however, is best in the workflow. So at the time of diagnosis and then at regular intervals, so throughout the treatment process, but then also into the follow-up period as well to best understand if there's still a financial burden even after the treatments have been completed. Dr. Hope Rugo: I wonder if in the metastatic setting, you could do it at the change of treatment, you know, a month after somebody's changed treatment, because people may not be as aware of the financial constraints when they first get prescribed a drug. It's more when you hear back from how much it's going to cost. And leading into that, I think it's, what do you do with this? So, you know, this cost conversation is really important. You're going to be talking to the patient about the cost considerations when you, for example, see that there are financial issues, you're prescribing treatments. How do we implement impactful structured cost conversations with our breast cancer patients, help identify financial issues, and intervene? How do we intervene? I mean, as physicians often we aren't really all that aware, or providers, of how to address the cost. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yes, I agree fully that another key time when to screen for financial toxicity is at that transition between treatments to best understand where they're at based off of what they've received previously for care, and then to anticipate needs when changing regimens, such as like you said in the metastatic setting. As we're collecting this information, you're right, we screen, we get this information, and what do we do? I do agree that there is a lack of knowledge among us clinicians of how do we manage this information. What is insurance? How do we manage insurance and help patients with insurance concerns? How do we help them navigate out-of-pocket costs or even the indirect costs of transportation? Those are a lot of things that are not covered in-depth in traditional medical training. And so it can be overwhelming for a lot of clinicians, not only due to time limitations in clinic, but also just having those conversations within their visit. And so what I would say, a key thing to note, is that this is another area for multidisciplinary care. So just as we're treating patients in a multidisciplinary way within oncology as we work with our medical oncology, surgical colleagues across the board, it's knowing that this is another area for multidisciplinary care. So the team members include all of the different oncologists, but it also includes team members such as financial counselors and navigators and social workers and even understanding nonprofit partners who we have who have money that can be set aside to help reduce costs for certain different aspects of treatment. Another thing I will note is that most patients with breast cancer often say they do want to have these conversations still with their clinicians. So they do still see a clinician as someone that can weigh in on the costs of their treatment or can weigh in on this other aspect of their care, even if it's not the actual medication or the radiation. And so patients do desire to hear from their clinicians about this topic, and so I think another way to make it feel less overwhelming for clinicians like ourselves is to know that even small conversations are helpful and then being knowledgeable about within your institution or, like I said, outside of it with nonprofits, being aware of who can I refer this patient to for continued follow-up and for more detailed information and resources. Dr. Hope Rugo: Are those the successful interventions? It's really referring to financial navigators? How do people identify? You know, in an academic center, we often will sort of punt this to social workers or our nurse navigators. What about in the community? What's a successful intervention example of mitigating financial toxicity? Dr. Kamaria Lee: I agree completely that the context at which people are practicing is important to note. So as you alluded to, in some bigger systems, we do have financial navigators and this has been seen to be successful in providing applications and assisting with applications for things such as pharmaceutical assistance, insurance applications, discount opportunities.  Another successful intervention are financial toxicity tumor boards, which I acknowledge might not be able to exist everywhere. But where this is possible, multidisciplinary tumor boards that include both doctors and nurses and social workers and any other members of the care team have been able to effectively decrease patients' personal spending on care costs and decrease co-pays through having a dedicated time to discuss concerns as they arise or even proactively. Otherwise, I think in the community, there are other interventions in regards to understanding different aspects of government programs that might be available for patients that are not, you know, limited to an institution, but that are more nationally available, and then again, also having the nonprofit, you know, partnerships to see other resources that patients can have access to.  And then I would also say that the indirect costs are a significant burden for many patients. So by that, I mean even parking costs, transportation, childcare. And so even though those aren't interventions necessarily with someone who is a financial navigator, I would recommend that even if it's a community practice, they discuss ways that they can help offset those indirect costs with patients with parking or if there are ways to help offset transportation costs or at least educate patients on other centers that may be closer to them or they can still receive wonderful care, and then also making sure that patients are able to even have appointments scheduled in ways that are easier for them financially.  So even if someone's receiving care out in the community where there's not a financial navigator, as clinicians or our scheduling teams, sometimes there are options to make sure if a patient wants, visits are more so on one day than throughout the week or many hours apart that can really cause loss of income due to missed work. And so there are also kind of more nuanced interventions that can happen even without a financial navigation system in place. Dr. Hope Rugo: I think that those are really good points and it is interesting when you think about financial toxicity. I mean, we worry a lot when patients can't take the drugs because they can't afford them, but there are obviously many other non-treatment, direct treatment-related issues that come up like the parking, childcare, tolls, you know, having a working car, all those kinds of things, and the unexpected things like school is out or something like that that really play a big role where they don't have alternatives. And I think that if we think about just drug costs, I think those are a big issue in the global setting. And your article did address financial toxicity in the global setting. International financial toxicity rates range from 25% of patients with breast cancer in high-income countries to nearly 80% in low- and middle-income countries or LMICs. You had cited a recent meta-analysis of the global burnout from cancer, and that article found that over half of patients faced catastrophic health expenditures. And of course, I travel internationally and have a lot of colleagues who are working in oncology in many countries, and it is really often kind of shocking from our perspective to see what people can get coverage for and how much they have to pay out-of-pocket and how much that changes, that causes a lot of disparity in access to healthcare options, even those that improve survival. Can you comment on the global impact of this problem? Dr. Kamaria Lee: I am glad that you brought this up for discussion as well. Financial toxicity is something that is a significant global issue. As you mentioned, as high as 80% of patients with breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries have had significant financial toxicity. And it's particularly notable that even when looking at breast cancer compared to other malignancies around the world, the burden appears to be worse. This has been seen even in countries with free universal healthcare. One example is Sri Lanka, where they saw high financial toxicity for their patients with breast cancer, even with this free universal healthcare. But there were also those travel costs and just additional out-of-hospital tests that were not covered. Also, literature in low- and middle-income countries shows that patients might also be borrowing money from their social networks, so from their family and their friends, to help cover their treatment costs, and in some cases, people are making daily food compromises to help offset the cost of their care. So there is a really large burden of financial toxicity generally for cancer globally, but also specifically in breast cancer, it warrants specific discussion. In the meta-analysis that you mentioned, they identified key risk factors of financial toxicity globally that included people who had a larger family size, a lower income, a lack of insurance, longer disease duration, so again, the accumulation of visits and costs and co-pay over time, and those who had multiple treatments. And so in the global setting, there is this significant burden, but then I will also note that there is a lack of literature in low-income countries on financial toxicity. So where we suspect that there is a higher burden and where we need to better understand how it's distributed and what interventions can be applied, especially culturally specific interventions for each country and community, there's less research on this topic. So there is definitely an increased need for research in financial toxicity, particularly in the global setting. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yes, and I think that goes on to how we hope that financial toxicity researchers will have approaches to large-scale multi-institutional interventions to improve financial toxicity. I think this is an enormous challenge, but one of the SWOG organizations has done some great work in this area, and a randomized trial addressing cancer-related financial hardship through the delivery of a proactive financial navigation intervention is one area that SWOG has focused on, which I think is really interesting. Of course, that's going to be US-based, which is how we might find our best paths starting. Do you think that's a good path forward, maybe that being able to provide something like that across institutions that are independent of being a cancer only academic center, or more general academic center, or a community practice? You know, is finding ways to help patients with breast cancer and their families understand and better manage financial aspects of cancer care on a national basis the next approach? Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yes, I agree that that is a good approach, and I think the proactive component is also key. We know that patients that are coming to us with any cancer, but including breast cancer, some of them have already experienced a financial burden or have recently had a job loss before even coming to us and having the added distress of our direct costs and our indirect costs. So I think being proactive when they come to us in regards to the additional burden that their cancer treatments may cause is key to try to get ahead of things as much as we can, knowing that even before they've seen us, there might be many financial concerns that they've been navigating.  I think at the national level, that allows us to try to understand things at what might be a higher level of evidence and make sure that we're able to address this for a diverse cohort of patients. I know that sometimes the enrollment can be challenging at the national level when looking at financial toxicity, as then we're involving many different types of financial navigation partners and programs, and so that can maybe make it more complex to understand the best approaches, but I think that it can be done and can really bring our understanding of important financial toxicity interventions to the next level. And then the benefit to families with the proactive component is just allowing them to feel more informed, which can help decrease anticipation, anxiety related to anticipation, and allow them to help plan things moving forward for themselves and for the whole family. Dr. Hope Rugo: Those are really good points and I wonder, I was just thinking as you were talking, that having some kind of a process where you could attach to the electronic health record, you could click on the financial toxicity survey questions that somebody filled out, and then there would be a drop-down menu for interventions or connecting you to people within your clinic or even more broadly that would be potential approaches to manage that toxicity issue so that it doesn't impact care, you know, that people aren't going to decide not to take their medication or not to come in or not to get their labs because of the cost or the transportation or the home care issues that often are a big problem, even parking, as you pointed out, at the cancer center. And actually, we had a philanthropic donor when I was at UCSF who donated a large sum of money for patient assistance, and it was interesting to then have these sequential meetings with all the stakeholders to try and decide how you would use that money. You need a big program, you need to have a way of assessing the things you can intervene with, which is really tough. In that general vein, you know, what are the governmental, institutional, and provider-level actions that are required to help clinicians do our best to do no financial harm, given the fact that we're prescribing really expensive drugs that require a lot of visits when caring for our patients with breast cancer in the curative and in the metastatic setting? Dr. Kamaria Lee: At the governmental level, there are patient assistant programs that do exist, and I think that those can continue and can become more robust. But I also think one element of those is oftentimes the programs that we have at the government level or even institutional levels might have a lot of paperwork or be harder for people with lower literacy levels to complete. And so I think the government can really try to make sure that the paperwork that is given, within reason, with all the information they need, but that the paperwork can be minimized and that there can be clear instructions, as well as increased health insurance options and, you know, medical debt forgiveness as more broad just overall interventions that are needed. I think additionally, institutions that have clinical trials can help ensure that enrollment can be at geographically diverse locations. Some trials do reimburse for travel costs, of course, but sometimes then patients need the reimbursement sooner than it comes. And so I think there's also those considerations of more so upfront funds for patients involved in clinical trials if they're going to have to travel far to be enrolled in that type of care or trying to, again, make clinical trials more available at diverse locations.  I would also say that it's important that those who design clinical trials use what is known as the “Common Sense Oncology” approach of making sure that they're designed in minimizing the use of outcomes that might have a smaller clinical benefit but may have a high financial toxicity. And that also goes to what providers can do, of understanding what's most important to a particular patient in front of them, what outcomes and what benefit, or you know, how many additional months of progression-free survival or things like that might be important to a particular patient and then also educating them and discussing what the associated financial burden is just so that they have the full picture as they make an informed decision. Dr. Hope Rugo: As much as we know. I mean, I think that that's one of the big challenges is that as we prescribe these expensive drugs and often require multiple visits, even, you know, really outside of the clinical trial setting, trying to balance the benefit versus the financial toxicity can be a huge challenge. And that's a big area, I think, that we still need help with, you know. As we have more drugs approved in the early-stage setting and treatments that could be expensive, oral medications, for example, in our Medicare population where the share of cost may be substantial upfront, you know, with an upfront cost, how do we balance the benefits versus the risk? And I think you make an important point that discussing this individually with patients after we found out what the cost is. I think warning patients about the potential for large out-of-pocket cost and asking them to contact us when they know is one way around this. You know, patients feeling like they're sort of out there with a prescription, a recommendation from their doctor, they're scared of their cancer, and they have this huge share of cost that we didn't know about. That's one challenge, and I don't know if there's any suggestions you have about how one should approach that communication with the patient. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yes, I think part of it is truly looking at each patient as an individual and asking how much they want to know, right? So we all know that patients, some who want more information, some want less, and so I think one way to approach that is asking them about how much information do they want to know, what is most helpful to them. And then also, knowing that if you're in a well-resourced setting that does have the social workers and financial navigators, also making sure it's integrated in the multidisciplinary setting and so that they know who they can go to for what, but also know that as a clinician, you're always happy for them to bring up their concerns and that if it's something that you're not aware of, that you will connect them to the correct multidisciplinary team members who can accurately provide that additional information. Dr. Hope Rugo: Do you have any other additional comments that you'd like to mention that we haven't covered? I think the idea of a financial toxicity screen with two questions that could be implemented at change of therapy or just periodically throughout the course of treatment would be a really great thing, but I think we do need as much information on potential interventions as possible because that's really what challenges people. It's like finding out information that you can't handle. Your article provides a lot of strategies there, which I think are great and can be discussed on a practice and institutional level and applied. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Yeah, I would just like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss such an important topic within oncology and specifically for our patients with breast cancer. I agree that it can feel overwhelming, both for clinicians and patients, to navigate this topic that many of us are not as familiar with, but I would just say that the area of financial toxicity is continuing to evolve as we gather more information on most successful interventions and that our patients can often inform us on, you know, what interventions are most needed as we see them. And so you can have your thinking about it as you see individual patients of, "This person mentioned this could be more useful to them." And so I think also learning from our patients in this space that can seem overwhelming and that maybe we weren't all trained on in medical school to best understand how to approach it and how to give our patients the best care, not just medically, but also financially. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you, Dr. Lee, for sharing your insights with us today. Our listeners will find a link, as I mentioned earlier, to the Ed Book article we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. I think it's very useful, a useful resource, and not just for providers, but for clinic staff overall. I think this can be of great value and help open the discussion as well. Dr. Kamaria Lee: Thank you so much, Dr. Rugo. Dr. Hope Rugo: And thanks to our listeners for joining us today. Please join us again next month on By the Book for more insightful views on topics you'll be hearing at Education Sessions from ASCO meetings and our deep dives into new approaches that are shaping modern oncology. Thank you. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:       Dr. Hope Rugo  @hope.rugo  Dr. Kamaria Lee @ lee_kamaria Follow ASCO on social media:       @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)       ASCO on Bluesky      ASCO on Facebook       ASCO on LinkedIn       Disclosures:      Dr. Hope Rugo:   Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma  Consulting/Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Bristol Myer  Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman La-Roche AG/Genentech, In., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx    Dr. Kamaria Lee: No relationships to disclose  

On this week's episode, Eric Schmidt, Paul Matteis, Sam Fazeli, and Brian Skorney begin with a recap of the week's Sarepta news, covering their initial refusal then agreement to pause Elevidys shipments, if it can return to the market, the broader lessons for the biotech industry, and the communication breakdown between Sarepta and the FDA. Continuing with regulatory news, the group discusses the appointment of George Tidmarsh as the new CDER director and his role within FDA leadership. The conversation then turns to Replimune's CRL for RP1 melanoma, Prasad's likely influence in the rejection, and the impact on the investment community. In data news, the group overviews Alkermes' positive Phase 1 data for its orexin 2 receptor agonist for type 1 narcolepsy, along with the safety controversy, and Abivax's Phase 3 ulcerative colitis data and stock spike. Prime Medicine's decision to reprice shares and strategies for better talent retention is also highlighted. The episode concludes with a brief overview of first-half 2025 licensing data, Roche earnings, and AstraZeneca's $50 billion U.S. investment. *This episode aired on July 25, 2025.

“Seeing that you can get through the most difficult times in life, succeed, and then also return to your community and work in service to your community was a lesson that has stuck with me,” says Dr. Uche Blackstock, the Founder and CEO of Advancing Health Equity and our guest on this inspiring episode of Raise the Line with Osmosis from Elsevier. It was a lesson the Harvard-trained physician learned from her own mother – also a Harvard trained physician – who overcame poverty, sexism and racial bias to forge an inspiring path.  In her bestselling book, Legacy: A Black Physician Reckons with Racism in Medicine, Dr. Blackstock weaves her mother's remarkable story with her own and argues for systemic change in a healthcare system riddled with racially-biased practices and policies that impact patient outcomes. As she explains to host Lindsey Smith, Advancing Health Equity's work to drive measurable and sustainable change is focused on embedding equity as a core value in the leadership, strategy, and organizational practice of health systems. “We exist to challenge inequities, empower underrepresented communities, and help build a healthcare system where everyone can thrive.” Don't miss a thought-provoking conversation with a nationally respected voice that also addresses race correction factors that impact the care of Black patients, and the work required of health institutions to build trust in effected communities.Mentioned in this episode:Advancing Health EquityLegacy: A Black Physician Reckons with Racism in Medicine If you like this podcast, please share it on your social channels. You can also subscribe to the series and check out all of our episodes at www.osmosis.org/raisethelinepodcast

This Day in Legal History: Gulf of Tonkin ResolutionOn August 7, 1964, the U.S. Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, dramatically reshaping the legal landscape of American military engagement. Prompted by reports—later disputed—of North Vietnamese attacks on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin, the resolution granted President Lyndon B. Johnson broad authority to use military force in Southeast Asia without a formal declaration of war. It passed nearly unanimously, with only two dissenting votes in the Senate, reflecting the tense Cold War atmosphere and congressional trust in the executive branch.Legally, the resolution functioned as an open-ended authorization for the president to escalate military operations in Vietnam. Within months, it led to the deployment of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Critics would later argue that it allowed the executive to bypass Congress's constitutional war-making powers, effectively green-lighting a years-long conflict based on contested facts.As the war dragged on and public opinion turned, the resolution became a focal point for debates over separation of powers, congressional oversight, and executive overreach. In 1971, amid growing backlash, Congress repealed the resolution, but its legacy endured. It served as a legal and historical precedent for future authorizations of force, including those passed after 9/11.A federal appeals court has upheld the SEC's long-standing “gag rule,” which prevents defendants who settle civil enforcement cases from publicly denying the agency's allegations. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that the rule is not unconstitutional on its face but left room for future challenges depending on how it's applied. The policy, in place since 1972, requires settling parties to at least refrain from admitting or denying wrongdoing. The court emphasized that defendants remain free to reject settlements if they wish to speak out.Twelve petitioners, including former Xerox CFO Barry Romeril and the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), challenged the SEC's January 2024 decision not to revise the rule. Romeril had previously brought a similar challenge to the Supreme Court with support from Elon Musk, but the Court declined to hear it. Writing for the panel, Judge Daniel Bress noted that removing the gag could reduce the SEC's ability to settle cases efficiently and that speech restrictions are voluntary components of settlement agreements.The NCLA criticized the decision, arguing it effectively sanctions government-imposed silence and announced plans to pursue further appeals. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce also dissented from the agency's refusal to revisit the rule, arguing that it hinders public accountability by suppressing potential criticism. The SEC declined to comment on the ruling, which came in the case Powell et al v. SEC.US appeals court upholds SEC 'gag rule' over free speech objections | ReutersThe Stanford Daily, Stanford University's student newspaper, has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing it of violating the free speech rights of foreign students. The suit, filed in federal court in California, alleges that threats of arrest, detention, or deportation have created a climate of fear among international students, discouraging them from writing about sensitive political issues—particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Two unnamed students joined the paper in the lawsuit, which names Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem as defendants.According to the plaintiffs, the administration has labeled pro-Palestinian viewpoints as antisemitic or extremist and attempted to deport students expressing such views, framing them as threats to U.S. foreign policy. In some instances, students have been detained without charges, though judges have later ordered their release. The lawsuit contends that these actions have led to widespread self-censorship among international students, chilling constitutionally protected speech in areas such as protests, slogans, and commentary on U.S. and Israeli policy.The Stanford Daily is seeking a court ruling affirming that the First Amendment protects non-citizens from government retaliation based on their speech. The university clarified it is not involved in the suit, as the newspaper operates independently. Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick, representing the paper, called the government's actions antithetical to American values of free expression.Stanford student newspaper sues Trump administration for alleged free speech violations | ReutersA U.S. appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit accusing major drugmakers Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca of conspiring to limit drug discounts provided under the federal 340B program. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's dismissal, allowing two health clinics—Mosaic Health and Central Virginia Health Services—to proceed with their proposed class action. These clinics claim the companies colluded in 2020 to restrict discounts on diabetes medications, harming safety-net providers and the low-income patients they serve.The court found that because the four companies control much of the diabetes drug market, coordination to limit discounts could be feasible. Judge Myrna Pérez, writing for the panel, noted the allegations were plausible enough to move forward. The drugmakers have denied wrongdoing and argue their policies were developed independently to address alleged fraud in the 340B program. Sanofi and Novo Nordisk said they are reviewing the decision, while Lilly criticized the ruling and defended its practices as legal.The clinics say the drugmakers earned billions in extra profits through these policies, which allegedly undercut essential savings for providers. The case underscores the broader tension between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers over the administration of the 340B program, which requires drugmakers to offer discounts in exchange for access to federal healthcare funds.US appeals court reinstates drug-price conspiracy lawsuit against Sanofi, rival pharma companies | ReutersPepsiCo is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it engaged in illegal price discrimination by giving more favorable pricing and discount terms to large retailers like Walmart while denying the same deals to smaller businesses. Filed in federal court in Manhattan by an Italian restaurant operator, the lawsuit claims this practice violates the Robinson-Patman Act, a rarely enforced 1936 antitrust law meant to prevent discriminatory pricing that harms competition.The suit accuses Pepsi of providing payments and allowances to Walmart that were not extended to other retailers, placing smaller businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Although Walmart is named in the allegations, it is not a defendant in the case. The plaintiff argues that Pepsi's pricing tactics unfairly burden other merchants who must pay more for the same products.This legal action echoes a previous Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawsuit filed against Pepsi in January under the Biden administration. However, the second Trump administration dropped the case in May, with Trump-appointed FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson criticizing it as a politically motivated effort launched too late in the prior administration's term. The FTC has not commented on the new private lawsuit.The class action seeks unspecified damages on behalf of thousands of Pepsi purchasers nationwide. Neither Pepsi nor Walmart has publicly responded to the allegations.Pepsi accused of price discrimination in new merchant class action | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This week on Careers in Discovery, we're joined by Martin Brenner, CEO and CSO of iBio and one of Biotech's most experienced R&D leaders. Martin shares his journey from pharmacologist to global R&D executive, with leadership roles at Pfenex, Recursion, AstraZeneca, and Stoke Therapeutics. Now at iBio, he leads a company developing gene therapies for rare diseases - while applying lessons from decades of drug development to a new generation of science. We talk about the power of simplicity in communication, why leaders need to create space for science to breathe, and how to build R&D teams that are lean, smart, and focused on what matters most.

Sue Norfolk, manager of the Schroder Income Growth Trust, shares how UK companies are adapting their capital distribution strategies with a shift towards share buybacks and stable dividend growth. We also cover the evolving landscape of domestic versus international opportunities, sector-specific insights into financials, consumer discretionary, and industrials, and how geopolitical tensions are factored into portfolio decisions. Finally, we examine the fund's bottom-up stock selection approach, recent adjustments in holdings like AstraZeneca, GSK, and Burberry, and the current valuation-driven opportunities in the market.What's covered in this episode:Schroder Income Growth's dividend hero statusDividends, share buybacks or social dividends?How volatility is factored into the portfolioStaying focused on bottom-up stock pickingThe impact of US politics on the trustRight and wrong tariff callsThe attractive nature of UK mid-capsA closer look at financials and customer discretionaryMaking calls on defence and industrialsWhy this manager favours AstraZeneca over GSKDoubling down on BurberryWhy UK equity is still attractive todayMore about the trust: Launched in 1995, the Schroder Income Growth Trust's principal aim is to provide real growth of income in excess of the rate of inflation. It invests mainly in the shares of UK larger and medium-sized companies, although it can also invest some of the portfolio in the shares of firms listed abroad.Learn more on fundcalibre.comPlease remember, we've been discussing individual companies to bring investing to life for you. It's not a recommendation to buy or sell. The fund may or may not still hold these companies at the time of listening. Elite Ratings are based on FundCalibre's research methodology and are the opinion of FundCalibre's research team only.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/NCPD information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/DCA865. CME/NCPD credit will be available until July 30, 2026.Off-the-Shelf and on the Mark in NHL: Strategic Approaches With Bispecific Antibodies and ADCs In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/NCPD information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/DCA865. CME/NCPD credit will be available until July 30, 2026.Off-the-Shelf and on the Mark in NHL: Strategic Approaches With Bispecific Antibodies and ADCs In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/NCPD information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/DCA865. CME/NCPD credit will be available until July 30, 2026.Off-the-Shelf and on the Mark in NHL: Strategic Approaches With Bispecific Antibodies and ADCs In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/NCPD information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/DCA865. CME/NCPD credit will be available until July 30, 2026.Off-the-Shelf and on the Mark in NHL: Strategic Approaches With Bispecific Antibodies and ADCs In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This content has been developed for healthcare professionals only. Patients who seek health information should consult with their physician or relevant patient advocacy groups.For the full presentation, downloadable Practice Aids, slides, and complete CME/NCPD information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/DCA865. CME/NCPD credit will be available until July 30, 2026.Off-the-Shelf and on the Mark in NHL: Strategic Approaches With Bispecific Antibodies and ADCs In support of improving patient care, PVI, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.SupportThis activity is supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca and Genentech, a member of the Roche Group.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

“Pandemics are a political choice. We will not be able to prevent every disease outbreak or epidemic but we can prevent an epidemic from becoming a pandemic,” says Dr. Joanne Liu, the former International President of Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders and a professor in the School of Population and Global Health at McGill University. You are in for a lot of that sort of frank and clear-eyed analysis in this episode of Raise the Line from Dr. Liu, whose perspective is rooted in decades of experience providing medical care on the frontlines of major humanitarian and health crises across the globe, as well as wrangling with world leaders to produce more effective responses to those crises and to stop attacks on medical facilities and aid workers in conflict zones. Firsthand accounts from the bedside to the halls of power are captured in her new book Ebola, Bombs and Migrants, which focuses on the most significant issues during her tenure leading MSF from 2013-2019.  The book also contains insights about the geopolitical realities that hamper this work, including lax enforcement of international humanitarian law, and a focus on national security that erodes global solidarity. Join host Lindsey Smith as she interviews this leading voice on our preparedness to meet the needs of those impacted by violent conflict, forced migration, natural disasters, disease outbreaks and other grave challenges. If you like this podcast, please share it on your social channels. You can also subscribe to the series and check out all of our episodes at www.osmosis.org/raisethelinepodcast

Host: Emer Joyce Guest: Christian Hassager Want to watch that extended interview? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1812?resource=interview  Want to watch the full episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1812   Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English-language always prevails.   Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Emer Joyce, Christian Hassager, Nicolle Kraenkel and Theresa McDonagh have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

This episode covers:  Cardiology this Week: A concise summary of recent studies Atrial fibrillation in heart failure Temperature management following cardiac arrest Statistics Made Easy: Collider bias Host: Emer Joyce Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Christian Hassager, Theresa McDonagh Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1812 Want to watch that extended interview on temperature management following cardiac arrest? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1812?resource=interview   Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English-language always prevails.   Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Emer Joyce, Christian Hassager, Nicolle Kraenkel and Theresa McDonagh have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma e Biotech world. Novo Nordisk has announced Maziar Mike Doustdar as its new CEO, along with a 5% reduction in its 2025 sales guidance. This decision comes as a response to the slowed growth of its semaglutide franchise in the U.S. Senate Democrats are currently looking into HHS Secretary RFK Jr.'s controversial move to dismiss all 17 members of the CDC's vaccine advisory committee. Astrazeneca CEO Pascal Soriot emphasized the importance of global collaboration in pharmaceutical research and development. Merck has allocated $3 billion to support upcoming product launches. In a surprising turn of events, the FDA has reversed its decision on Sarepta, now permitting DMD gene therapy for ambulatory patients.

A huge morning of earnings and deal news: Carl Quintanilla, Sara Eisen, and David Faber kicked off the hour with better-than-expected consumer data – along with a First On CNBC interview with the CEOs of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern as they sign a new deal for the largest buyout EVER in the industry – and become the first coast-to-coast freight operator in the US…  On the earnings front: hear from one analyst who calls Boeing a buy on new numbers there, more on how to navigate consumer-facing stocks after a slew of mixed reports out of travel and retail, and what's ahead for pharma on the tariffs front according to the CEO of AstraZeneca, as shares gain following strong results… Plus: what's driving Novo Nordisk shares to their worst day since 1987. Squawk on the Street Disclaimer

AstraZeneca may sell some of its medicines directly to patients in the US, according to Chief Executive Officer Pascal Soriot. AstraZeneca is looking to the US for growth, with Soriot saying the company will be self-sufficient in the US in a couple of months. He speaks with Bloomberg's Carol Massar, Tim Stenovec, and Madison MullerSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Der er fuld drøn på nyhedsstrømmen fra finanssektoren, hvor tirsdag bl.a. byder på friske regnskabstal fra den svensk-britiske medicinalgigant, AstraZeneca. Millionærklubben ser på tallene sammen med adm. direktør i investeringsfonden Global Health Invest, Claus Johansen. Nyt er der også på energifronten med den netop indgåede rammeaftale for handel og investeringer mellem Europa og USA. Hvad det får af betydning for råvaremarkederne, spørger vi chefanalytiker hos Global Risk Management, Arne Lohmann Rasmussen, om. Med i studiet er chefanalytiker Lau Svenssen fra Svenssen & Tudborg, der tjekker ind på dagens aktuelle marked og samler op på gårsdagens relativt upopulære udmelding fra Bavarian Nordic.Vært: Bodil Johanne Gantzel. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

APAC stocks traded with a mostly negative bias after a similar performance among global peers.European equity futures indicate a positive cash market open with Euro Stoxx 50 future up 0.2% after the cash market closed with gains of 0.3%.FX markets are contained, EUR/USD sits on a 1.15 handle, USD/JPY maintains its footing above the 148 mark.Bund futures lacked direction overnight. Crude futures were little changed but held on to most of the prior day's spoils.Looking ahead, highlights include Spanish GDP Estimate, US Advance Goods Trade Balance, Wholesale Inventories Advance, Consumer Confidence, Dallas Fed Services Revenues, Atlanta Fed GDPNow, ECB SCE, Supply from UK, Germany & US.Earnings from AstraZeneca, Barclays, Unite, L'Oreal, Air Liquide, Orange, Kering, Banca Generali, Terna, Endesa, Grifols, Visa, Marathon Digital, Starbucks, Booking, UnitedHealth, Sofi, Paypal, UPS, Spotify, Merck, Nucor, JetBlue, Procter & Gamble.Read the full report covering Equities, Forex, Fixed Income, Commodites and more on Newsquawk

We love to hear from our listeners. Send us a message. On this week's episode, Ebrahim Delpassand, M.D., founder, CEO, and chairman of the board at RadioMedix talks about his personal journey standing up and growing  a radiopharmaceutical company focused on oncology. Dr. Delpassand discusses the current trends in radiopharmaceutical drug development, the differences between alpha- and beta-emitting isotopes, overcoming manufacturing and supply chain challenges and restraints, and building strategic partnerships with companies like Curium, Fusion (now part of AstraZeneca), and Sanofi. He also offers specific advice to physician-entrepreneurs interested in building their own drug development companies. Access this and hundreds of episodes of the Business of Biotech videocast under the Business of Biotech tab at lifescienceleader.com. Subscribe to our monthly Business of Biotech newsletter. Get in touch with guest and topic suggestions: ben.comer@lifescienceleader.comFind Ben Comer on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bencomer/

In episode 128 of Nonprofit Mission: Impact, Michael Randel joins Carol to explore how psychological safety—often dismissed as a “soft” concept—plays a critical role in nonprofit team performance, learning, and innovation.  They discuss:  The connection between organizational readiness and the deeper human dynamics that shape effective leadership and collaboration.  What psychological safety looks like in action,  Why it's vital in today's polarized climate, How nonprofit leaders can foster inclusive, high-trust environments where people feel safe to speak up, take risks, and learn from mistakes.   Episode highlights: [00:08:55] 

“Next-generation sequencing, or NGS, can be used to help us determine if the patient has specific biomarkers we can identify and use to target for treatment. Certain findings can tell us if a particular treatment might work for that patient, and we can see if there are any genetic variants we might have a biomarker targeted agent to use to treat them with,” ONS member Jackie Peterson, MSN, RN, OCN®, NE-BC, MBA, ambulatory nurse manager at the University of Chicago Medical Center in Illinois, told Lenise Taylor, MN, RN, AOCNS®, BMTCN®, oncology clinical specialist at ONS, during a conversation about prostate cancer and biomarker testing.  This podcast is sponsored by AstraZeneca and is not eligible for NCPD contact hours. ONS is solely responsible for the criteria, objectives, content, quality, and scientific integrity of its programs and publications.   Music Credit: “Fireflies and Stardust” by Kevin MacLeod    Licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 3.0   Episode Notes This episode is not eligible for NCPD. ONS Podcast™ episodes: Episode 324: Pharmacology 101: LHRH Antagonists and Agonists Episode 321: Pharmacology 101: CYP17 Inhibitors Episode 180: Learn How Nurse Practitioners Use Biomarker Testing in Cancer Care ONS Voice articles: An Oncology Nurse's Guide to Cascade Testing Genetic Disorder Reference Sheet: BRCA1 and BRCA2 Hereditary Disorders Genetic Disorder Reference Sheet: Lynch Syndrome (Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer) Germline and Somatic Variants: What Is the Difference? Help Patients Understand Genomic Variants of Unknown Significance Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Don't Reflect Racial Diversity—And It's Getting Worse Over Time Prostate Cancer Disparities Disappear With Equal Access to Care Prostate Cancer Prevention, Screening, Treatment, and Survivorship Recommendations The Case of the Genomics-Guided Care for Prostate Cancer ONS book: Understanding Genomic and Hereditary Cancer Risk: A Handbook for Oncology Nurses ONS course: Genomic Foundations for Precision Oncology Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing articles: Metastatic Prostate Cancer: An Update on Treatments and a Review of Patient Symptom Management Prostate Cancer: How Nurse Practicioners Can Aid in Disease Diagnosis and Management Oncology Nursing Forum article: Identification of Symptom Profiles in Prostate Cancer Survivors Other ONS Resources: Biomarker Database (refine by prostate cancer or specific biomarkers) Clinical tool/case study: Biomarker Testing in Prostate Cancer: The Role of the Oncology Nurse Genomics and Precision Oncology Learning Library Huddle Card: Genomic Biomarkers Infographic: Talking to Your Patient About a Germline Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS) American Cancer Society - Genetic Testing and Counseling for Prostate Cancer Risk American Cancer Society - Prostate Cancer Clinicaltrials.gov National Cancer Institute - Prostate Cancer National Comprehensive Cancer Network ZERO Prostate Cancer To discuss the information in this episode with other oncology nurses, visit the ONS Communities.   To find resources for creating an ONS Podcast club in your chapter or nursing community, visit the ONS Podcast Library.  To provide feedback or otherwise reach ONS about the podcast, email pubONSVoice@ons.org.  Highlights From This Episode “Some of the risk factors for developing prostate cancer include age, race, family history, and certain genetic changes or variants. Prostate cancer has some hereditary components, but most prostate cancer occurs in men without any significant family history of it.” TS 1:31 “Key biomarkers include PSA and prostate cancer gene 3, which is PCA3, and prostate-specific membrane antigen, or PSMA. Other biomarkers that are important for us to test include BRCA1, BRCA2, and Lynch syndrome–associated genes, which are MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, and EPCAM. Biomarkers can be collected via your blood, urine, saliva, or tissue samples, so these are different ways that we can test and look for biomarkers in our patients.” TS 3:24 “It does matter how advanced the disease is. Usually, for our castrate-sensitive patients, they respond better to androgen deprivation therapy because that really is slowing down the growth of the cancer by reducing the available testosterone that the cancer needs to grow. Whereas our patients that are more advanced and have castrate-resistant prostate cancer, that cancer will continue to grow despite having the lowered testosterone levels, so they might need additional layers of treatment to really get their cancer under control.” TS 7:50 “When I talk to [patients] about biomarker testing, I tell them it's another tool in our toolbox that we can use to help us determine if they might benefit from other therapy options now or in the future. I tell them that sometimes we'll get a report back with a variant of unknown significance, and basically that means that we don't really know whether or not this has an impact on their health or risk factors for the disease. That can sometimes be a little bit of a concern for these patients, so we just have to reassure them that we're continually doing research around biomarker testing. The science is always advancing, so if there's something that [researchers] find in the future, we'll make them aware of that.” TS 9:08 “One of the biggest topics I think about is the inequity that exists in biomarker testing and research, especially surrounding the African American population. When these tests were developed, that population really wasn't studied as much, so there's not a lot of good data yet to make a decision or impact on those patients and that population.” TS: 12:30

“As parents dedicated to getting a treatment for our children in their lifetimes, we have turned the rare disease drug development landscape upside down and created a new model,” says Nicole Johnson, co-founder and executive director of the FOXG1 Research Foundation.  That's not an exaggeration, as the foundation is on track to make history as it begins patient clinical trials on a gene replacement therapy next year. The former TV news producer and media executive unexpectedly entered the world of patient advocacy and drug research after her daughter, Josie, was born with FOXG1, a genetic disorder which causes severe seizures and impedes normal movement, speech, and sleep among other problems. Johnson is also making an impact in another important dimension of the rare disease space in her efforts to educate parents, teachers, and students about disability inclusion through her Joyfully Josie book series and “Live Joyfully” education programs. Tune-in to this fascinating Year of the Zebra conversation with host Lindsey Smith to find out how the foundation is aiming to bring a drug to market in less than half the time and at a fraction of the cost than the industry standard, and how this model might impact research on other rare disorders. Mentioned in this episode:FOXG1 Research FoundationJoyfully Josie Book If you like this podcast, please share it on your social channels. You can also subscribe to the series and check out all of our episodes at www.osmosis.org/raisethelinepodcast

Virginia sees "alarming" rise in child drownings; Maymont celebrates 100 years; AstraZeneca announces new facility.  

From the BBC World Service: Drugmaker AstraZeneca says it'll invest $50 billion in the United States by 2030, its biggest-ever manufacturing investment in the country. The AngloSwedish firm plans to build a major new site in Virginia, the latest in a string of big pharma bets on the U.S. as President Donald Trump threatens steep tariffs on drug imports. Plus, a bike shop boss reflects on business during the Tour de France.

From the BBC World Service: Drugmaker AstraZeneca says it'll invest $50 billion in the United States by 2030, its biggest-ever manufacturing investment in the country. The AngloSwedish firm plans to build a major new site in Virginia, the latest in a string of big pharma bets on the U.S. as President Donald Trump threatens steep tariffs on drug imports. Plus, a bike shop boss reflects on business during the Tour de France.

Plus: China confirms it will hold a top-level summit with the European Union in Beijing this week. And, AstraZeneca plans to invest $50 billion in the U.S. by 2030. Kate Bullivant hosts.  Sign up for WSJ's free What's News newsletter.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The pharmaceutical giant Astra Zeneca has announced it's to invest $50bn in the US by 2030 as President Trump threatens the sector with tariffs.At a collapsed gold mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo people are using their hands and basic tools to try to reach victims who are trapped underground. And Andrew Peach looks at the rise of ride hailing apps in Thailand and the impact it's having on taxis and Tuk-Tuks.You can contact us on WhatsApp or send us a voicenote: +44 330 678 3033.

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks about Bill Nye's attempt to convince CNN's Dana Bash of his simplistic solution to extreme weather events like the catastrophic flooding of the Guadalupe River that affected Kerrville, Texas; Sean Gunn and James Gunn's pathetic attempt to inject woke politics into the new Superman movie, by labeling Superman an immigrant; Fox News' Jesse Watters sharing mindblowing clips of Joe Biden's doctor, Kevin O'Connor, pleading the fifth repeatedly when asked about his knowledge of Joe Biden's cognitive decline; host of “SubwayTakes”, Kareem Rahma, admitting that his Kamala Harris interview had to be scrapped because her performance was so terrible he thought it might cost her the election; CNN's Wolf Blitzer confronting Hakeem Jeffries with rumors that supporters of Zohran Mamdani are plotting to primary him; Scott Jennings's perfect common sense response to the New York Times' Lulu Garcia-Navarro's freak out over work requirements for Medicaid; Elon Musk's massive claims about the brilliance of Grok 4 as controversy erupts over Grok's recent antisemitic outburst praising Hitler and CEO Linda Yaccarino stepping down; “The View's” Whoopi Goldberg freaking out over AI and technological progress; and much more. Dave also does a special “ask me anything” question-and-answer session on a wide-ranging host of topics, answering questions from the Rubin Report Locals community. WATCH the MEMBER-EXCLUSIVE segment of the show here: https://rubinreport.locals.com/ Check out the NEW RUBIN REPORT MERCH here: https://daverubin.store/ ----------  Today's Sponsors: Ultimate Base Spike Detox Trio - Fight the negative effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine with Dr. McCullough's protocol. Save 15% and get free shipping. Go to: https://TWC.health/RUBIN and use CODE: RUBIN Rumble Premium - Corporate America is fighting to remove speech, Rumble is fighting to keep it. If you really believe in this fight Rumble is offering $10 off with the promo code RUBIN when you purchase an annual subscription. Go to: https://Rumble.com/premium/RUBIN and use promo code RUBIN 1775 Coffee - 1775's Peaberry Coffee will give you more mental clarity, better energy and zero crash. Rubin Report viewers get 15% off their order. Go to: https://1775coffee.com/RUBIN and use code RUBIN