Podcasts about AstraZeneca

Today's guest is Robert Wenier, Global Head of Cloud and Infrastructure at AstraZeneca. Robert leads enterprise cloud, infrastructure, and platform strategy across a highly regulated, data-intensive global organization. Robert joins Emerj CEO and Head of Research Daniel Faggella to discuss how enterprise data and AI architectures are shifting from service-oriented and microservice models toward emerging agentic architectures that prioritize end-to-end business outcomes over stepwise technical execution. The conversation explores why AI is moving from a supporting role to a direct driver of competitive advantage, and how this changes expectations for infrastructure, data strategy, and leadership ownership. Want to share your AI adoption story with executive peers? Click emerj.com/expert2 for more information and to be a potential future guest on the 'AI in Business' podcast! If you've enjoyed or benefited from some of the insights of this episode, consider leaving us a five-star review on Apple Podcasts, and let us know what you learned, found helpful, or liked most about this show! Watch Daniel and Robert's conversation on our new YouTube Channel: youtube.com/@EmerjAIResearch.

“People are not looking for a perfect, polished answer. They're looking for a human to speak to them like a human,” says Jessica Malaty Rivera, an infectious disease epidemiologist and one of the most trusted science communicators in the U.S. to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic. That philosophy explains her relatable, judgement-free approach to communications which aims to make science more human, more accessible and less institutional. In this wide-ranging Raise the Line discussion, host Lindsey Smith taps Rivera's expertise on how to elevate science understanding, build public trust, and equip people to recognize disinformation. She is also keen to help people understand the nuances of misinformation -- which she is careful to define – and the emotional drivers behind it in order to contain the “infodemics” that complicate battling epidemics and other public health threats. It's a thoughtful call to educate the general public about the science of information as well as the science behind medicine. Tune in for Rivera's take on the promise and peril of AI-generated content, why clinicians should see communication as part of their professional responsibility, and how to prepare children to navigate an increasingly complex information ecosystem.Mentioned in this episode:de Beaumont Foundation 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/podcast

“Delivering a baby one day and holding a patient's hand at the end of life literally the next day...that continuity is very powerful,” says Dr. Jen Brull, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). And as she points out, that continuity also builds trust with patients, an increasingly valuable commodity when faith in medicine and science is declining. As you might expect given her role, Dr. Brull believes strengthening family medicine is the key to improving health and healthcare. Exactly how to do that is at the heart of her conversation with host Lindsey Smith on this episode of Raise the Line, which covers ideas for payment reform, reducing administrative burdens, and stronger support for physician well-being. And with a projected shortage of nearly forty thousand primary care physicians, Dr. Brull also shares details on AAFP's “Be There First” initiative which is designed to attract service-minded medical students – whom she describes as family physicians at heart -- early in their educational journey. “I have great hope that increasing the number of these service-first medical students will fill part of this gap.”Tune-in for an informative look at a cornerstone of the healthcare system and what it means to communities of all sizes throughout the nation.  Mentioned in this episode:AAFP 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/podcast

Send us a textWhat if the biggest transformation in digital pathology this year had nothing to do with new hardware—and everything to do with how we think about value, workflow, and readiness?In this year-end recap livestream from the 11th Digital Pathology & AI Congress in London, I break down what truly mattered in 2025. Instead of focusing on buzzwords or hype cycles, this episode highlights the practical advances shaping diagnostics, patient care, and drug development—and the mindset shift our field must embrace to move forward.Digital pathology is no longer “early adoption.” It's becoming essential infrastructure. And yet the biggest barrier isn't scanners or algorithms—it's the knowledge and confidence needed to use them well.Key Highlights & Timestamps0:00 — Setting the Stage from LondonAn overview of the forces that shaped digital pathology in 2025: workflow integration, clinical readiness, and the move from theory to operational reality.1:45 — Leica's Expanded Portfolio & FDA-Cleared CollaborationsA look at Leica's updated scanner lineup and co-developed, FDA-cleared solutions with Indicollabs. These launches reflect a broader industry trend toward highly specialized, clinically validated digital tools designed for end-to-end workflows.4:12 — The Acceleration of Companion DiagnosticsFrom Artera's de novo–approved prostate prognostic test to AstraZeneca's TROP2 scoring efforts, 2025 pushed computational pathology directly into therapeutic decision-making.6:20 — Why Workflow Integration Became the Theme of 2025Partnerships like BioCare + Hamamatsu + Visgen and Zeiss + MindPeak show where the field is heading: full-stack solutions, not isolated tools. Labs want interoperability, reliability, and simplified digital workflows.9:10 — Adoption Challenges: ROI, Education & AI UncertaintyWe explore the realities slowing digital transformation: – ROI is real, but requires workflow change – AI anxiety persists among clinicians and patients – Education is still the strongest driver of adoption12:00 — 2025's Innovation HighlightsBreakthroughs shaping the next phase of digital pathology include: – emerging agentic AI platforms – voice-enabled image management systems – improved multiplexing technologies like Hamamatsu's Moxiplex15:40 — The Growing Intersection of Pathology & GenomicsAI models predicting genomic alterations from H&E images gained traction, especially for cases with minimal tissue. Tempus acquiring Paige signals the deepening connection between digital workflows and molecular data.18:30 — What 2026 Will RequirePriorities for the coming year include: – building agentic AI solutions capable of real workflow orchestration – strengthening validation and QC – sharing real-world deployment case studies – expanding training and hands-on learningRESOURCES:1. The Lucerne Toolbox 3: digital health and artificial intelligence to optimise the patient journey in early breast cancer-a multidisciplinary consensus2. Artificial intelligence (AI) molecular analysis tool assists in rapid treatment decision in lung cancer: a case reportSupport the showGet the "Digital Pathology 101" FREE E-book and join us!

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we dive into a series of transformative events shaping the future of drug development, patient care, and global healthcare strategies.**Johnson & Johnson's Multiple Myeloma Advances** Johnson & Johnson has made significant strides in the treatment of multiple myeloma with their bispecific antibody, Tecvayli. In recent trials, Tecvayli has shown remarkable promise when used in combination therapies as a second-line treatment. This development is noteworthy as it could potentially challenge the dominance of CAR-T cell therapies like J&J's Carvykti by offering a more accessible and less complex alternative. For patients, this means potentially fewer logistical hurdles and a more straightforward therapeutic option, which could drastically improve patient care standards.**Regulatory Scrutiny on RSV Vaccines** Turning to regulatory news, the U.S. FDA has intensified its scrutiny of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines developed by pharmaceutical giants such as Merck, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi for infants. This increased oversight follows reports linking some COVID-19 vaccines to adverse effects in children. The FDA's actions highlight the ongoing necessity for vigilant safety monitoring in vaccine development, especially for vulnerable populations like infants. This is a crucial step in ensuring that vaccines designed for our youngest population are both safe and effective.**Eli Lilly's Strategic Moves in Oncology and Beyond** Eli Lilly is making waves in oncology with its BTK inhibitor, Jaypirca. Despite strong phase 3 results that support its use as a first-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), Lilly is focusing on its application as a second-line therapy. This strategic choice reflects an astute understanding of market dynamics and therapeutic niches where Jaypirca can provide substantial benefits despite competition from established first-line treatments. Additionally, Eli Lilly continues to leverage its financial success from its weight loss drug Tirzepatide to position itself as a central player in global pharmaceutical innovation. The company's strategic investments are likely to catalyze advancements across various therapeutic areas, reinforcing its role as a key contributor to medical breakthroughs.**Legislative Impact on Biopharma** In legislative news, the Biosecure Act's incorporation into the U.S. National Defense Authorization Act marks a strategic shift towards tightening regulations on Chinese biopharma entities regarding federal contracts by 2026. This move could have profound implications for international collaborations and competition within biotechnology innovation and drug development sectors. It signals a broader trend of increased scrutiny on foreign entities in sensitive industries like biopharmaceuticals.**China's Healthcare Transformation** China's healthcare landscape is undergoing significant transformation with the inclusion of drugs from companies like Pfizer, Lilly, and J&J into its first private insurance formulary. This development could enhance access to innovative medications within China, potentially improving health outcomes and influencing global pricing strategies in the pharmaceutical industry.**Gamida Cell's Milestone in Cell Therapies** In a major milestone for cell therapies, Gamida Cell has secured a second FDA approval for its stem cell therapy Omisirge. Initially approved to reduce infection risk during hematopoietic stem cell transplantations in blood cancer patients, Omisirge's expanded indication to treat severe aplastic anemia underscores the potential of cell therapies in addressing diverse hematologic conditions.**CSL Seqirus' New Facility in Australia** In Australia, CSL Seqirus has opened a $1 billion facility dedicated to producing cell-baSupport the show

Send us a textHave you ever thought, “Digital pathology sounds amazing, but without a scanner, what's the point of learning it now?” If so, this episode will change how you see your role in the future of pathology.In this talk, I challenge one of the most persistent myths in our field: the belief that you need expensive hardware before you can begin your digital pathology journey. Through personal experience and the remarkable story of another pathologist who started with even less, I show why knowledge—not infrastructure—is what truly opens doors.Highlights and Key Themes0:00 – The Limiting BeliefI open with the core misconception I hear from pathologists worldwide: “I need a scanner before I can start.” I explain why hesitation, not lack of equipment, is the real barrier—and why waiting for perfect conditions keeps many people stuck.2:24 – My Early Digital Pathology StoryI describe my residency in 2013, when a single scanner was “off limits” to trainees. Faced with a research project requiring consistent cell counting, I improvised using a microscope camera and Microsoft Paint. It wasn't sophisticated, but it was digital, consistent, and reproducible. This experience taught me a foundational lesson: if you can measure something, measure it; don't rely on visual estimation.7:01 – How This Led to My First Digital Pathology JobThat basic Paint-and-dots project became my gateway to working at Definiens (now part of AstraZeneca). I wasn't hired for computational expertise; I was hired because I understood tissue, biology, and the value of quantifying what we see. Working alongside image analysis scientists showed me the exponential power of combining tissue knowledge with computational tools.10:03 – Dr. Talat Zehra's StoryI share the inspiring journey of Dr. Talat Zehra from Karachi, Pakistan, who began with no access to scanners and only a microscope camera. During COVID shutdowns, she taught herself the foundations of digital pathology, joined global organizations, conducted a nationwide survey, and contacted AI vendors for access to platforms. After many rejections, one vendor offered a trial account. In just six weeks, she completed three AI projects using microscope camera images—each one published in a peer-reviewed journal. Her story highlights a universal truth: starting with curiosity and persistence matters far more than having perfect tools.14:14 – Two Paths After a ConferenceI explain the difference between the “forgetting loop” and the “learning path.” Many attendees leave inspired but slip back into routine. Others commit to one consistent learning habit—journal clubs, vendor webinars, DigiPath Digest sessions—and return a year later with clarity, confidence, and momentum. These individuals become the people others seek out for guidance in digital pathology.18:04 – Where to BeginYou don't need a scanner or an institutional budget to start. What you need is structured knowledge. I introduce my book, Digital Pathology One on One, and encourage listeners to choose one learning habit to build on after the episode. The only wrong choice is choosing nothing.19:06 – Final MessageKnowledge drives adoption, not infrastructure.Scanners, AI tools, and computational platforms already exist. What's missing are people who understand how to interpret tissue digitally, collaborate with computational teams, and bridge biology with technology. You haveSupport the showGet the "Digital Pathology 101" FREE E-book and join us!

JCO Editor-in-Chief Dr. Jonathan Friedberg is joined by colleagues Dr. Jennifer Woyach, Dr. Wojciech Jurczak, and Dr. Matthew Davids to discuss simultaneous publications presented at ASH 2025 on pertibrutinib, a new upfront treatment option for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. TRANSCRIPT The disclosures for guests on this podcast can be found in the show notes. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: I'm Jonathan Friedberg, editor of Journal of Clinical Oncology, and welcome to JCO After Hours, where we are covering two manuscripts that were presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting 2025 in Orlando, Florida. I am delighted to be joined by colleagues on this call to discuss these pivotal manuscripts which cover the topic of pirtobrutinib, a new upfront treatment option for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. I will first just introduce our guests, Dr. Woyach. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Hi, my name is Jennifer Woyach. I am from the Ohio State University. Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Hello, I am Wojciech Jurczak, working at the National Research Institute of Oncology in Krakow, Poland. Dr. Matthew Davids: Hi, I am Matthew Davids from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: We are going to start by just learning a little bit about these two trials that were both large, randomized phase 3 studies that I think answered some definitive questions. We will start with your study, Jennifer. If you could just describe the design of your study and the patient population. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Absolutely. So this is the BRUIN CLL-314 study, and this is a phase 3 randomized trial of pirtobrutinib versus ibrutinib in patients with CLL or SLL who had not previously been treated with a covalent BTK inhibitor. The patients were both treatment-naive and relapsed/refractory, about one-third of the patients treatment-naive, the rest relapsed/refractory, and they were stratified based upon 17p deletion and the number of prior lines of therapy. The primary objective was looking at non-inferiority of overall response rate over the entire treated population as well as the relapsed/refractory patient population. Key secondary objectives included progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat and the smaller relapsed/refractory and treatment-naive populations. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And just comment a little bit on the risk of the patients. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: This study was fairly typical of this cohort of patients. Within the relapsed/refractory patient population, there was a median of one prior line of therapy in each of the groups, up to nine prior lines of therapy in the patients included on the study. For the overall cohort, about two-thirds of the patients were IGHV unmutated, about 15% had 17p deletion, 30% had TP53 mutations, and about 35% to 40% had a complex karyotype, which is three or more abnormalities. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And what were your findings? Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Regarding the primary outcome, which is the focus of the publication, we did find that pirtobrutinib was indeed non-inferior and actually superior to ibrutinib for overall response rate throughout the entire patient population and in both the relapsed/refractory and treatment-naive cohorts. PFS is a little bit immature at this time but is trending towards also being significantly better in pirtobrutinib-treated patients compared with ibrutinib-treated patients. Probably most significantly, we found this to be the case in the treatment-naive cohort where there was a striking trend to an advantage of pirtobrutinib versus ibrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And the follow-up that you have on that progression-free survival? Dr. Jennifer Woyach: So we have about 18 months follow-up on progression-free survival. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: The second study, Wojciech, can you just go through the design and patient population that you treated? Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Thank you, Dr. Friedberg, for this question. So the BRUIN CLL-313 study was, in fact, the first phase 3 study with pirtobrutinib in exclusively untreated CLL patients. It was a randomized study where we challenged pirtobrutinib versus bendamustine-rituximab. At the time we designed the protocol, bendamustine-rituximab was an option as a standard of care, and Bruton tyrosine kinase monotherapy was used far more commonly than nowadays. The primary target of the study was progression-free survival. We took all untreated patients except for those with 17p deletions. Therefore, it is a good representation for intermediate risk. We had about 60% of the population, 56 to be precise, which was unmutated, evenly distributed into two treatment arms. 17p deleted cases were excluded, but we had about 7% and 8% of TP53 mutated patients as well as about 11% and 7%, respectively, in the pirtobrutinib and bendamustine-rituximab arm of patients with complex karyotype. The progression-free survival was in favor of pirtobrutinib and was assessed by an independent review committee. What is important is that the progression-free survival of the bendamustine-rituximab arm was actually similar to the other studies addressing the same questions, like the comparison with ibrutinib in the ALLIANCE study or zanubrutinib in the SEQUOIA study. What was different was the hazard ratio. In our study, it was 0.20. It was one of the longest effect sizes noted in the frontline BTK study. It represented an 80% reduction in progression-free survival or death. If we compare it to ibrutinib or zanubrutinib, it was 0.39 and 0.42 respectively. Presumably, this great effect contributed towards a trend of overall survival difference. Although survival data are not mature enough, there is a clear trend represented by three patients we lost in the pirtobrutinib arm versus 10 patients lost in the bendamustine-rituximab arm. This trend in overall survival is becoming statistically significant despite the fact that there was a possibility of crossover, and effectively 52.9 patients, which means 18 out of 34 patients relapsing in the bendamustine-rituximab arm, were treated by pirtobrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: I am going to turn it over to Matt. The question is: why study pirtobrutinib in this patient population? And then with these two studies, how do you find the patients that were treated, are they representative of people who you see? And do you see this maybe being approved and more widely available? Dr. Matthew Davids: I think in terms of the first question, why study this in a frontline population, we have seen very impressive data with pirtobrutinib in a very difficult-to-treat population of CLL patients. This was from the original BRUIN phase 1/2 study where most of the patients had at least two or three lines of therapy, often both a covalent BTK inhibitor and the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax, and yet they were still responding to pirtobrutinib. The drug was also very well tolerated in that early phase experience. And actually, we have seen phase 3 data from the BRUIN 321 study comparing pirtobrutinib to bendamustine and rituximab in a relapse population as well. So I think that really motivated these studies to look at pirtobrutinib as a first therapy. You know, often in other cancers of course, we want to use our best therapy first, and I think these studies are an initial step at looking at that. In terms of the second question around the patient population, these are pretty representative patient populations, I would say, for most frontline CLL studies. We see patients who are a bit younger and fitter than sort of the general population of CLL patients who are treated in clinical practice, and I think that is true here as well. Median age in the sort of mid-60s here is a bit younger than the typical patients we are treating in practice. But that is not different from other CLL frontline studies that we have seen recently, so I think it makes it a little bit easier as we kind of think across studies to feel comfortable that these are relatively similar populations. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: How do you see this either getting regulatory approval or potentially being used compared to current standard of care options? Dr. Matthew Davids: So my understanding is that both of these trials were designed with registrational intent in the frontline setting, and they are both positive studies. That is certainly very encouraging in terms of the potential for an approval here. We have seen in terms of the FDA recently some concerns around the proportion of patients who are coming from North America, and my understanding is that is relatively low on these two studies. But nonetheless, the datasets are very impressive, and so I think it is certainly supportive of regulatory approval for frontline pirtobrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: I will ask Jennifer a question. The control arm in your study was ibrutinib, and I think many in the audience may recognize that newer, second-generation BTK inhibitors like acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib are more frequently used now if monotherapy is decided. How do you respond to that, and how would you put your results in your pirtobrutinib arm in context with what has been observed with those agents? Dr. Jennifer Woyach: Yeah, that is a great question. Even though in the United States we are predominantly using acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib when choosing a monotherapy BTK inhibitor, this is actually not the case throughout the entire world where ibrutinib is still used very frequently. The head-to-head studies of both acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib compared to ibrutinib have shown us pretty well what the safety profile and efficacy profile of the second-generation BTK inhibitors is. So even though we do not have a head-to-head study of acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib versus pirtobrutinib, I think, given the entirety of data that we have with all of the covalent BTK inhibitors, I think we can safely look at the pirtobrutinib arm here, how the ibrutinib arm compares or performs in context with those other clinical trials. And though we really can not say anything about pirtobrutinib versus acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib, I think we can still get a good idea of what might be the clinical scenarios in which you might want to choose pirtobrutinib. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And Wojciech, do you agree with that? Obviously, I think you have acknowledged that chemoimmunotherapy is rarely used anymore as part of upfront treatment for CLL. So, I guess a similar question. If you were to put the pirtobrutinib result in your study in context with, I guess, more contemporary type controls, would you agree that it is competitive? Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Well, I think that that was the last study ever where bendamustine-rituximab was used as a comparator arm. So we should notice that smashing difference. Because if we look at the progression-free survival at two years, we have 93.4% in pirtobrutinib arm versus 70.7% in bendamustine-rituximab arm. Bendamustine-rituximab arm did the same as in the other trials, like ALLIANCE or SEQUOIA. Pirtobrutinib did exceptionally well, as pirto is not just the very best BTK inhibitor overcoming the resistance, but perhaps even more important for the first line, it is very well tolerated and is a very selective drug. Now, if we look at treatment-related adverse events, the discontinuation rate, they were hardly ever seen. If we compared the adverse events in exposure-adjusted incidence, literally all adverse events were two or three times higher in bendamustine-rituximab arm except for the bleeding tendency, which however was predominantly in CTCAE grade 1 and 2 with just 0.7% of grade 3 hemorrhage. Therefore, I think that we should actually put the best and the safest drugs upfront if we may, and pirtobrutinib is, or should be, the first choice if we choose monotherapy. Now, I understand that we are not presenting you the data of pirtobrutinib in combination with anti-CD20 or with BCL2 inhibitors, but that is to come. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: Matt, how would you envision, were regulatory approval granted and this were an option, using this in the upfront patient population? Is there anybody who you would preferentially use this or start on this treatment? Or would this be something that you would tend to reserve for second line? Dr. Matthew Davids: So I would say that in general for most of my patients who would want to start with a continuous BTK inhibitor, I would still use a covalent BTK inhibitor, and I say that for a couple of reasons despite the very promising data from these studies. The first is that the follow-up for both of these phase 3 trials is still quite short, in the range of a median 18 to 24 months. And we know that CLL is a marathon, not a sprint, and these patients are going to probably be living for a very long time. And we do have much longer follow-up from the covalent BTK inhibitors, median of 10-year follow-up with ibrutinib and five to six years with zanubrutinib and acalabrutinib respectively. And you know, I do not think that the pirtobrutinib is going to fall off a cliff after two years, but on the other hand, I think there is a lot of value to long-term data in this disease, and that is why I think for most of my patients I would stick with covalent BTK inhibitors. But the other important factor that we need to consider is patients who are younger and may have many different CLL treatments over the years. We have to be very careful, I think, about how we sequence these drugs. We know right now that we can start with covalent BTK inhibitors and then subsequently patients will respond well to the non-covalent inhibitor pirtobrutinib in later lines of therapy. But right now we do not have prospective data the other way around. So how will the patients on these studies who progress on pirtobrutinib respond to covalent BTK inhibitors? We do not know yet. There have not been a lot of progression events, which is great, but we would like to see some data in that respect to feel more comfortable with that sequence. Now, I do think that particularly for older patients and those who have significant cardiovascular comorbidities, if they wanted to go on a continuous BTK inhibitor, I do think these data really strongly support using pirtobrutinib as the BTK inhibitor of choice in that population. In particular, the cardiovascular risks with pirtobrutinib seem to be quite low. I was very struck in the comparison with BR that the rate of AFib was equivalent between the two arms of the study. And that is really the first time we have seen that with any of these BTK inhibitors, no elevated risk of AFib in a randomized study. I think that is the population where it will get the most traction first, is the upfront, sort of older patient with significant cardiovascular comorbidities. And as the data from these studies mature, I think that we will start to see more widespread use of pirtobrutinib in the frontline setting. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: Jennifer, I am just curious if you have any personal experience or heard anecdotally about after progression on pirtobrutinib the use of other BTK inhibitors and whether there is a growing experience there. Dr. Jennifer Woyach: I do not think that there is much clinical experience, you know, as Matt alluded to, it certainly has not been tested yet. There has been some data in relapsed CLL suggesting that in people who have resistance mutations to covalent BTK inhibitors after treatment with pirtobrutinib, sometimes those mutations go away. I think most of us are concerned that they are probably not actually gone but maybe in compartments that we just have not sampled, suggesting that sort of approach where you might sequence a covalent inhibitor after a non-covalent in somebody who had already been resistant probably would not work that well. But, you know, in this setting where people had never been exposed to a covalent BTK inhibitor before, we really have no idea what the resistance patterns are going to be like. We assume they will be the same as what we have seen in relapsed CLL, but I think we just need some longer follow-up to know for sure. Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: If I may confront Dr. Davids about the use of covalent BTK inhibitors upfront, well, I think that we should abandon the idea of using the first and the second and the third generation, at least if we don't have medical lines. If we endlessly block the same pathway, it is not going to be effective. So if pirtobrutinib gets approval in first, second line, we do not necessarily have to use it in the first line. I am not here in a position to defend that we should treat patients with pirtobrutinib upfront and not BCL2 time-limited regimen. However, the way I look at CLL patients when choosing therapy is not just how should I treat them now, but what would be the best regimen in 5, 10 years if I have to re-treat them. And in some instances, the idea may be that in this setting we would like to have a BTK inhibitor upfront to have a BCL2 inhibitor later to make it time-limited. Although I understand and I agree with Matthew that if we have an elderly, fragile population, then the charm of having a drug taken once a day in a tablet with literally few cardiovascular adverse events might be an option. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: And I will give Matt the last word whether he wants to respond to that, and also just as a forward-looking issue, I know both investigators have implied that there will be future studies looking at combinations with pirtobrutinib, and if you have any sense as to what you would be looking for there. Dr. Matthew Davids: The field really is heading toward time-limited therapy for most patients, I would say. There is a bit of a discrepancy right now in the field between sort of what we are doing in academic practice and what is done sort of more widely in community practice. And so right now we are going to see evolving datasets comparing these approaches. We are already seeing data now from the CLL17 study with ibrutinib comparing continuous to time-limited venetoclax-based therapy, and we are seeing similar efficacy benefits from these time-limited therapies without the need for continuous treatment. And so that is where I think some of the future studies with pirtobrutinib combining it with venetoclax and other partners are so important. Fortunately, several of these studies are already ongoing, including a phase 3 trial called CLL18, which is looking at pirtobrutinib with venetoclax, comparing that to venetoclax and obinutuzumab. So I am optimistic that we are going to be developing these very robust datasets where we can actually use pirtobrutinib in the frontline setting as a time-limited therapy as a component of a multi-drug regimen. So far, those early data are very promising. Dr. Wojciech Jurczak: Perhaps last but not least, in a single center we have treated over 300 patients with pirtobrutinib. So eventually some of them relapsed. And I must say that our experience on BCL2 inhibitors, not just venetoclax but including sonrotoclax, are appealingly good. Therefore, by using pirtobrutinib even earlier, we do not block the efficacy of other compounds. Dr. Jonathan Friedberg: All right. Well, I want to thank all of our speakers. I also want to congratulate our two guests who presented these very influential papers at the ASH Annual Meeting, and chose to publish them in JCO, so we thank you for that, and Dr. Davids for your commentary - really appreciated. That is this episode of JCO After Hours. Thank you for your attention. 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.   Disclosures Dr. Wojciech Jurczak Consulting or Advisory Role: BeiGene, Lilly, Abbvie/Genentech, Takeda, Roche, AstraZeneca Research Funding: Roche, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Abbvie/Genentech Dr. Jennifer Woyach Consulting or Advisory Role: Pharmacyclics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Loxo, Newave Pharmaceutical, Genentech, Abbvie, Merck Research Funding: Company name: Janssen, Schrodinger, beone, Abbvie, Merck, Loxo/Lilly Dr. Matthew Davids Honoraria: Curio Science, Aptitude Health, Bio Ascend, PlatformQ Health, Plexus Consulting or Advisory Role: Genentech, Janssen, Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Ascentage Pharma, BeiGene, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Merck, MEI Pharma, Nuvalent, Inc., Galapagos NV, Schroedinger Research Funding: Ascentage Pharma, Novartis, MEI Pharma, AstraZeneca  

Dr. Pedro Barata and Dr. Ravin Garg discuss strategies to increase trial representation, including leveraging trial navigators and prioritizing pragmatic trial models, as featured in the ASCO Educational Book article, "Practical Guide to Clinical Trial Accessibility: Making Trial Participation a Standard of Care." TRANSCRIPT Dr. Pedro Barata: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a podcast from ASCO featuring compelling perspectives from authors and editors of the ASCO Educational Book. I'm Dr. Pedro Barata. I am a medical oncologist at University Hospital Seidman Cancer Center and an associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. I am also the associate editor of the ASCO Educational Book. We know that in recent years, the oncology community has increasingly prioritized the need to modernize clinical trial eligibility, reduce patient burden, and enhance diversity in trial participation. On that note, today we will be speaking about ways to enhance access to clinical trials with Dr. Ravin Garg. He is a hematologist oncologist at Maryland Oncology Hematology and also an assistant professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. Dr. Garg is also the co-author of a fantastic paper in the ASCO Educational Book titled, "Practical Guide to Clinical Trial Accessibility: Making Trial Participation a Standard of Care."  Dr. Garg, welcome. Thanks for being here, and congrats on your paper. Dr. Ravin Garg: Thank you for having me, Pedro. I am excited to be here. Dr. Pedro Barata: [KI1]  Your paper is a wonderful, multidisciplinary piece that actually features perspectives from the different stakeholders, right? The patient advocacy, industry, community practice, and academia about these challenges in making trials more available. This podcast is a wonderful platform. It reaches out to a lot of folks within our community. So, I will start by asking you the obvious. Why do you think it is a must read for our community, for our listeners? Dr. Ravin Garg: So Pedro, thanks again for inviting me. You do a great job with these podcasts.  So, I think first and foremost, oncologists right now are under a lot of stress, just in terms of clinical volume. There is concern for research money, and how we get the best care for our patients. So I think this article is very important because it helps bring together, as you had mentioned, the stakeholders throughout academic to community practice and everywhere in between, and try to find how, as a team with different oncologists who partake in different aspects of oncology, can come together to streamline the process to try to get our patients on trials, or certainly have them have availability of trials, just if they are interested in going on them. Being in practice, we have had several challenges that we can talk about throughout this podcast, but I think it is a very important paper because it recognizes that at the end of the day, it takes a team effort for all of us in academics, community, industry, and pharmaceuticals to really come together as a team to really help put forth the trials for our patients. Dr. Pedro Barata: So, from the perspective of a community oncologist, how do you put together, or maybe you can describe some of the challenges that you see to increase trial participation in the community? Dr. Ravin Garg: Yes, Pedro, that is a great question, and it is something that I keep on thinking about and trying to find ways to be better at it myself. But I will say some of the challenges as a community doctor that I have seen for myself and talking to other colleagues. Number one, I do think there is a lot of stress on doctors in the community in general, Pedro. Oftentimes we are tasked to see a wide smorgasbord of patients, so we may not have the luxury of being a specialist in any particular tumor subtype. Like oftentimes, we will have to see lung cancer, the next one will be breast cancer, the next one could be CML, the next one could be thrombocytopenia. And as you know better than I do, Pedro, the field in each one of these disciplines is changing so rapidly: molecular genomics, radioligand treatments, different imaging tests, MRD testing for some of our hematologic malignancies. And I think one challenge we have in community is just keeping up with the basics of Oncology 101. In the process of doing that, it can be very difficult to sometimes remember that we have very exciting trials available for our patients. So, I think a lot of it is the day in and day out of being an oncologist is so taxing at times that oftentimes a research trial is not the first thing in our head space when we see a patient. I think number two, Pedro, at least in the community, and perhaps this is with academics too, is that we are bombarded, I would say, by a lot of messaging these days. We have in-baskets to go through, labs to go through, things of that nature. And in the process of a patient visit, seeing them, doing an exam, taking a history, trying to go over the NCCN guidelines on best practice for how to manage their care, at least for me at times, it is very hard to remember, "Hey, there might be a great trial available, whether within our network or maybe partnering with an academic center." So getting through a day can be fraught with a lot of peril and just difficulties, I would say. And I would say number three, Pedro, at least as, you know, I am in a private practice where I do see a wide range of benign and malignant hematology and solid tumors, so I would not call myself a specialist. And I think the challenge with that, at least for trials, Pedro, is that when you are a specialist or perhaps you are focusing on a couple of disease subtypes, you become more of an authoritative voice in those types of tumors, and you might be more aware of the trials within your network or perhaps in proxy with an academic center that you can offer your patient. So I think when sometimes we spread ourselves too thin, it can be very hard to be a thought leader, if you will, in a particular subtype of a malignancy, let's say, and maybe not be aware of a trial that could be really well-suited for your patient. In terms of ideas that myself and colleagues have had in terms of helping mitigate against some of these, I would say, setbacks or issues in the practice for trial enrollment, some of the things we have talked about, Pedro, is, number one, is we do partner with academic centers. So we live here in Maryland. We have several really fantastic academic centers. So, you know, oftentimes, not just within our practice of Maryland Oncology Hematology, we have a lot of great trials available here too, for certain, but in addition to that, we will often times work with doctors at Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, and Maryland if they have a compelling trial that we do not have within our network. It is really of the patient's interest, Pedro, to reach out to them in a collaborative manner to see if they have a trial that might be really compelling for your patient. So I do find myself collaborating a lot with colleagues in, like talented like yourself in academics. You know, I think you do a lot of GU malignancies. So as an example, like partnering with colleagues who are GU experts and say, "Hey, we have a patient with stage IV renal cell. These are the standard options I know, but are there any trials that you might have available?" I think the other thing that has been very helpful for us is having navigators within research, Pedro. Like as an example, what has really helped the uptake of trial enrollment for our center in Annapolis is having a research navigator because often times what they can do is, a priori, Pedro, before you see the patient and you are kind of formulating a standard of care treatment plan perhaps, they might tug you on the shirt and say, "Hey, we have a great trial here through Sarah Cannon, or there might be something else out there." And being aware of that when you go into a patient's room really provides a nice arena, if you will, to go and say, "The standard of care is here, but hey, we have a trial option that might be well suited for you, maybe perhaps even better, that we can talk about, too." So having research support in the community is really a huge boon, I think, Pedro, for us to really increase our enrollment for patients onto trials. Dr. Pedro Barata: Yes, I really love that, Ravin. So, let me switch gears a bit. I would love for you to talk a little bit about patient advocacy because they do play a huge role in cancer, and they address many barriers. How do you think we should leverage the patient advocacy groups to reduce patient burden and maybe have them really leverage patient advocacies to improve representation in clinical trials? What do we think we can do more? Dr. Ravin Garg: Oh, Pedro, I think they are very critically important. As a clinical oncologist now, and I would say this is for anyone in the field of medicine, you are exactly right. I think patients are bombarded by information. There are a lot of things online, whether it be TikTok, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and people really just have a lot of information given to them. And some of it is fact driven, and some of it is not, Pedro. And oftentimes, I do think there can be at times a mistrust with some medical personnel. I think we are in an era where we are seeing that to some degree with some attributes of medicine. And I think of it as an opportunity for education for the patient and for myself as a physician. And I think patient advocates, to your point, which was well taken, serve as a bridge to both. And what I mean is that, you know, patient advocates are wonderful. They are, I think, outstanding communicators. They almost are a neutral party, Pedro, where many patients feel that they are an independent source of information that is free of bias, if you will. They are there to provide support, emotional support, scientific support for patients so they can make an informed decision. So, in terms of our practice right now, patient advocates is something that we are evolving in that capacity, I would say, Pedro. I think now more than ever, having more people as bridges of communication with care providers along with patients is of critical importance. And I would venture a guess, and I think this has been published, where patient advocates really can help tremendously in familiarizing patients with trials and what they are all about and maybe clear up some misconceptions of what trials, what the mission of trials are. Because I do think some patients, at least I have had a few over the years, where when they hear the term trial, they almost think they are being experimented upon, when, in point of fact, they could really help advance their care. That messaging along the way for some can may be mixed up a little bit. And so I think patient advocates is a really great way to offer more information for patients with a source they find very independent and trustworthy, if you will. And it can really help expedite, and I think make a more fruitful conversation for care providers, whether academic or community, and they might be more open-minded in terms of enrolling onto a trial. Dr. Pedro Barata: Wonderful. Yes, I agree. I agree with you completely.  So let's focus a little bit now on the folks designing the studies. We usually call them the sponsors. It might be an academic sponsorship, if you will, but we can also have pharma being the sponsor of a study. The angle from an academic design, it is not necessarily the same as what happens when we have pharma. And from that angle, how do you think a more inclusive research can be promoted? Dr. Ravin Garg: Oftentimes with trials, I think keeping them simple, as simple as we can. And what I mean by that is, often times for trials, Pedro, even for care providers who are enrolling, it can be daunting when there are a lot of different things involved, particularly, let's say, for investigator sponsored, which are incredibly brilliant science, incredible, but it can be a little bit daunting for patients and even the referring physician to talk about getting translational specimens, imaging, traveling to certain centers to get scans and biopsies and even different diagnostic testing like PSMA testing for, you know, prostate cancer. And it can, I think, be very intimidating for patients in terms of what might be required of him or her to enter onto a trial. Like, "This is not what I signed up for. This is laborious. This is a full time job for me. Do I have to pay for parking to go to a city? Do I have to pay for these imaging tests? And do I have to stay in a place for my family to enroll onto a trial?" So I think keeping trials as simple as possible, but yet cull the data we need as investigators where we can really advance the care, hopefully get approval for a drug, but also learn more about the medication and how it works for our patients. So I think simplifying language for trial is very important. I know when I have gone over studies for patients, Pedro, if it is a voluminous amount of information, they can right away get very intimidated. "Like, oh my goodness, this is like a term paper for college again," you know? I am joking, but you know, keeping language simplified is very important, I think, number one. And I feel that sometimes when they are asked to do a lot of different diagnostic testing, which is very important for translational work, I 100% understand, but I do think sometimes patients can get a little bit off put, if you will, and frustrated with the whole process of doing it. The second thing for our patients, Pedro, that they have mentioned to us when we put them on trials, not just within our own site but elsewhere, is that it takes a lot of time in terms of collecting information, perhaps a washout period from their last standard of treatment prior to enrollment onto a study. Many patients, Pedro, as you know better than I do, are in maybe crisis in terms of their health and their cancer might be growing, promulgating out of control, and they worry about not being able to expeditiously start onto a treatment, onto a trial. So that can lead to a lot of frustration. And one thing that you brought up, which was outstanding for me, is the enrollment criterion for some of our patients is felt to be somewhat strict. We have had some patients who may have had a remote history of a stage I malignancy that was by all accounts in remission, you know, let's say 4 or 5 years in the past, and the risk of recurrence at this point would be incredibly low, but they may not be able to enter onto a study because of some stringent criterion put forth. And that can be a little bit frustrating. In fact, I have had one or two patients who, as an example, with kidney issues, but the GFR was about 60, like right near a cutoff that oftentimes, as you know, we use where you can get into trial or not. And you know, if they are at 58, as an example, and otherwise they are a picture of health, a great candidate for a trial that will likely advance their care, and if the entry criterion is too stringent, that might be a lost opportunity for all parties involved, all stakeholders, if you will. I do appreciate the criterion for entry onto studies cannot be too liberalized. You have to have a certain baseline, but there is a little bit of a gray area and tension, of sorts, if you will, where the patient has a comorbid illness that is a disqualifying offense, but in practicality, perhaps it shouldn't be, especially if they are motivated and there is an opportunity to really advance their care. We have run into, not often, but sometimes in the past, I should say, where patients have been very off put because we try to get them onto a study and there may have been a particular feature or attribute in their underlying care that they couldn't get onto it. So I think having a little bit more thoughtfulness, perhaps, in terms of entry criterion and practicality, if you will, I think would really help enrollment onto studies. Dr. Pedro Barata: Really well said. Is there anything else that you would like to tell our listeners before we wrap up the podcast today? Dr. Ravin Garg: I would say just macroscopically speaking, it is really an honor to be an oncologist. I think I speak for both of us. Anyone listening who is thinking about the field, it is tremendous. Just the research, the bravery of our patients, and the thoughtfulness of our scientists like Pedro and translationalists and clinical trialists is really awe inspiring. So I have really loved this field. I will say from a trial perspective, we really need to enter as many patients as we can onto trials because the science is so brilliant now, the genomic underpinnings of the tumor, we are making great strides as a team of clinicians and scientists, translationalists. So the more that we can get people onto trials and get approved drugs, it is going to help them out in the end. So I think it is such an important time for all of us to come together as a community, find the best way to help our patients out. And clinical trials have to be at the forefront of how we can continue to advance care for our patients. Dr. Pedro Barata: Yeah, no Ravin, I really agree with you. We really need to increase access to clinical studies, and actually your paper is a great step in that direction by raising awareness, bringing up solutions, and again, collaboration, collaboration, collaboration is really a multidisciplinary effort to accomplish that.  Thank you so much for sharing your fantastic thoughts and insights with us. Dr. Ravin Garg: Thank you, Pedro. I am- you do a wonderful job with these podcasts. I am really honored to meet you and to be part of this. Dr. Pedro Barata: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. I encourage you to check out Dr. Garg's article in the 2025 ASCO Educational Book. We will post a link to the paper in our show notes. And please join us again next month on By the Book for more insights on key advances and innovations that are shaping modern oncology. Thank you for your attention. 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. Pedro Barata   @PBarataMD    Dr. Ravin Garg Follow ASCO on social media:          @ASCO on X      ASCO on Bluesky     ASCO on Facebook       ASCO on LinkedIn       Disclosures:       Dr. Pedro Barata:   Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Luminate Medical   Honoraria: UroToday   Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Caris Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, AVEO, Merck, Ipson, Astellas Medivation, Novartis, Dendreon   Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Merck, Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Pfizer/Astellas   Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Blue Earth, AVEO, Pfizer, Merck    Dr. Ravin Garg: Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Creator, editor, and writer of hemeoncquestions.com  

On Wednesday November 19 2025, the European Commission unveiled its Digital Omnibus Package, which was basically split in two proposals: a proposed Regulation on simplification for AI rules; and a proposed Regulation on simplification of the digital legislation. We will tackle the first one today.Today we are reviewing that AI-related block with Oliver Patel, who is AI Governance Lead at the global pharma and biotech company AstraZeneca, where he helps implement and scale AI governance worldwide. He also advises governments and international policymakers as a Member of the OECD's Expert Group on AI Risk and Accountability.References:* Oliver Patel, “Fundamentals of AI Governance” (now available for pre-order)* Enterprise AI Governance, a newsletter by Oliver Patel* Oliver Patel on LinkedIn* Oliver Patel: How could the EU AI Act change?* EU proposal for a Regulation on simplification for AI rules (EU Commission, covered today)* EU proposal for a Regulation on simplification of the digital legislation (EU Commission, not covered today)* Europe's digital sovereignty: from doctrine to delivery (Politico). This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.mastersofprivacy.com/subscribe

  In Part 3, Carol Pitcher-Towner, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, explores how the pharmaceutical industry can become part of the solution. She highlights why leadership diversity matters, how trial design still excludes too many women and why embedding sex- and gender-aware science from day one could accelerate fairer, more effective care for everyone. Speaker bio Carol Pitcher-Towner is Senior Vice President and Head of Development Programs at Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. Since joining the company in 2014 as one of its first European regulatory leaders, she has gone on to oversee patient safety, risk management and Alnylam's global development portfolio. With more than 20 years of experience, including roles at AstraZeneca, Carol brings deep expertise across regulatory affairs and clinical development. She holds a PhD in Biological Sciences from the University of Warwick and was named an HBA Luminary in 2022 for her commitment to inclusive, patient-focused innovation. This content was reviewed by Alnylam UK Ltd for compliance with regulations applicable to the pharmaceutical industry only.

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, the landscape of the pharmaceutical and biotech industries is marked by groundbreaking scientific advancements, regulatory shifts, and strategic collaborations that promise to reshape patient care and drug development significantly.A controversy has emerged in the wake of proposed changes to U.S. vaccine regulations by Dr. Vinay Prasad, a senior FDA official. This proposal has sparked considerable opposition from 12 former FDA commissioners who argue that these regulatory overhauls could potentially undermine public trust in vaccines. Former leaders from both the CDC and FDA have expressed concerns over these proposed vaccine policy changes during an ACIP meeting, discussions that could influence future public health strategies and vaccine trust. At a time when vaccine confidence is crucial, maintaining the integrity of regulatory processes is vital to public health efforts.Leadership changes are also afoot within the FDA, as Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg steps into the role of acting director for the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Her appointment signals a shift towards leaders with direct experience in public health crises. This comes amidst further internal restructuring at the FDA, including the transfer of Theresa Michele, long-standing director of the Office of Nonprescription Drugs, indicating dynamic changes within the agency.In the realm of oncology, Eli Lilly's progress with its Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor, Jaypirca, is noteworthy. The drug's expanded label now includes earlier treatment stages for chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma. This expansion underscores the therapeutic potential of non-covalent BTK inhibitors and may significantly improve patient outcomes by offering earlier intervention options.Geopolitical challenges are impacting the industry as WuXi AppTec, a major China-based biopharmaceutical contractor, faces scrutiny from the Pentagon amid concerns about its potential ties with the Chinese military. This development highlights the complex interplay between global security concerns and international biotech collaborations. The intersection of global security concerns continues to impact biopharmaceutical supply chains as WuXi AppTec faces increased scrutiny from U.S. authorities.On the manufacturing front, Quvara Medical's emergence as a new contract development and manufacturing organization following Buckland Group's acquisition of a Becton Dickinson facility in the UK reflects industry trends toward consolidating manufacturing capabilities to meet growing biopharmaceutical demand efficiently.AstraZeneca is enhancing its pipeline through a renewed partnership with Neurimmune for an amyloidosis asset. This collaboration, potentially worth up to $780 million, highlights AstraZeneca's strategic focus on rare diseases and underscores their commitment to expanding their therapeutic portfolio through successful alliances.Regulatory updates from the FDA propose reductions in user fees for early-stage clinical trials conducted domestically while considering additional fees for overseas developments. This initiative aims to incentivize research activities within the U.S., potentially accelerating drug discovery timelines and fostering domestic innovation.In surgical technology advancements, Medtronic's Hugo surgical robot has secured FDA clearance for procedures involving prostate, kidney, and bladder removal. This marks a significant advancement in robotic-assisted surgeries and could enhance patient outcomes across approximately 230,000 surgeries annually in the U.S.As we explore more about financial maneuvers within this sector, Royalty Pharma's $275 million financing deal for Denali Therapeutics' Hunter syndrome drug reflects confidence in Denali's pipeline pendinSupport the show

On this episode of the AJ Bell Money & Markets podcast, Dan Coatsworth and Danni Hewson discuss the ongoing fallout from last week's Budget including the resignation of the head of the OBR. [2:00] They discuss the OECD's judgement of the impact tax and spending will have on the UK economy over the next few years. The pair also chat about a new warning about AI and how a bubble bursting could have a significant impact on global growth. [10:55] The Bank of England has proposed the biggest rule change for UK banks since the financial crash. [17:15] A zero-tariff deal has been struck between the UK and US on pharmaceuticals but what's in the small print and what might it mean for companies like GSK and AstraZeneca? [19:30] Luxury goods maker Prada has bagged itself a Black Friday bargain, picking up Versace at a fraction of what its previous owner paid for it. [25:00] Plus, the latest on Netflix bid speculation for Warner Bros Discovery [26:45] and not one but two guest interviews: John Lamb from Capital Group with interesting thoughts on where interest rates might go in Europe [31:53] and friend of the pod, Ben Rogoff from Polar Capital Technology Trust on Google's AI breakthrough. [36:30]

“This is a time to reimagine public health and public health/healthcare system integration,” says Dr. Deb Houry, the former chief medical officer for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In this thoughtful Raise the Line conversation, Dr. Houry reflects on unprecedented federal action in vaccine guidance and other issues since her noteworthy resignation from the CDC in August, and sees a more decentralized landscape emerging where states and localities play a larger role in providing public health recommendations. And while she acknowledges upsides to this shift, she's also concerned what the absence of a national consensus on health standards could mean. “Diseases don't recognize borders, and it's also important that people have equitable access to preventative services, vaccines, and other things,” she tells host Lindsey Smith. Tune in for Dr. Houry's seasoned perspective on this consequential moment in public health, and her encouraging message for learners and early career providers considering a career in the sector.Mentioned in this episode:DH Leadership & Strategy Solutions 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/podcast

Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Jason Westin discuss the federal funding climate for cancer research and the persistent problem of drug shortages, two of the major concerns facing the oncology community in 2026. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I am a medical oncologist and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. There are always multiple challenges facing oncologists, and today, we discuss two of them that really stand out for 2026: threats to federal funding for cancer research and the persistent problem of drug shortages. I am thrilled to welcome Dr. Jason Westin, who believes that one way to meet these challenges is to get oncologists more involved in advocacy, and he will share some strategies to help us meet this moment in oncology. Dr. Westin is a professor in the Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, but he actually wears a lot of hats within ASCO. He is a member of the Board of Directors and has also previously served as chair of ASCO's Government Relations Committee. And he is also one of the inaugural members of ASCO's Political Action Committee, or PAC. He has testified before Congress about drug shortages and many other issues. Dr. Westin, I am really excited to have you on the podcast today and dive into some of these elements that will really impact our community in 2026. Thanks so much for joining us today. Dr. Jason Westin: Thank you for having me. Dr. Monty Pal: You've had such a range of experience. I already alluded to you testifying before Congress. You've actually run for office before. You wear so many different hats. I'm used to checking my PubMed every other day and seeing a new paper out from you and your group, and you publish in the New England Journal [of Medicine] on practice-setting standards and the diseases that you treat. But you've also done all this work in the domain of advocacy. I can't imagine that balancing that is easy. What has sort of motivated you on the advocacy front? Dr. Jason Westin: Advocacy to me is another way to apply our skills and help more people than just those that you're sitting across from at the time. Clinical research, of course, is a tool to try and take what we know and apply it more broadly to people that you'll never meet. And advocacy, I think, can do the same thing, where you can have a conversation with a lawmaker, you can advocate for a position, and that hopefully will help thousands or maybe even more people down the road who you'd never get to directly interact with. And so, I think it's a force multiplier in the same way that research can be. And so, I think advocacy is a wonderful part of how doctors care for our patients. And it's something that is often difficult to know where to start, but once people get into advocacy, they can see that the power, the rewarding nature of it is attractive, and most people, once they get going, continue with that through the rest of their career. Dr. Monty Pal: So, I'll ask you to expand on that a little bit. We have a lot of our younger ASCO members listening to this podcast, folks that are just starting out their careers in clinical practice or academia. Where does that journey begin? How do you get to the point that you're testifying in front of Congress and taking on these bigger sort of stances for the oncology community? Dr. Jason Westin: Yeah, with anything in medicine and in our careers, you have to start somewhere. And often you start with baby steps before you get in front of a panel of senators or other high-profile engagement opportunities. But often the first setting for junior colleagues to be engaged is doing things – we call them "Hill Days" – but basically being involved in kind of low-stakes meetings where you're with a group of peers, some of whom have done this multiple times before, and can get engaged talking to members of representatives' offices, and doing so in a way where it's a natural conversation that you're telling a story about a patient in your clinic, or that you're telling a personal experience from a policy that impacted your ability to deliver optimal care. It sounds stressful, but once you're doing it, it's not stressful. It's actually kind of fun. And it's a way that you can get comfort and skill with a group of peers who are there and able to help you. And ASCO has a number of ways to do that, both at the federal level, there's the Hill Day where we each April have several hundred ASCO members travel to Capitol Hill. There's also state engagement that can be done, so-called visiting at home, when representatives from the U.S. Congress or from state legislators are back in district. You can meet with your own representatives on behalf of yourself, on behalf of your organization, and advocate for policies in a way that can be beneficial to your patients. But those initial meetings that are in the office often they're low stakes because you could be meeting not with the representative but with their staff. And that staff sometimes is as young or even younger than our junior colleagues. These sometimes can be people in their 20s, but they're often extremely knowledgeable, extremely approachable, and are used to dealing with people who are new to advocacy. But they actually help make decisions within the office. So it's not a waste of time. It's actually a super useful way to engage. So, it's that first step of anything in life. The activation energy is always high to do something new. But I'd encourage people who are listening to this podcast already having some level of interest about it to explore ways that they could engage more. Dr. Monty Pal: You know, I have to tell you, I'm going to riff on what you just said for a second. ASCO couldn't make it any easier, I think, for folks to participate and get involved. So, if you're listening to this and scratching your head and thinking, "Well, where do I begin? How do I actually sign on for that meeting with a local representative?" Go to the ASCO ACT Network website. And I'll actually talk to our producer, Geraldine, to make sure we've got a link to that somewhere associated with this podcast after it's published, Jason, but I actually keep that on my browser and it's super easy. I check in there every now and then and see if there's any new policy or legislation that ASCO, you know, is sort of taking a stance on, and it gives me some fodder for conversation with my local representatives too. I mean, it's just an awesome, awesome vehicle. I'm going to segue right from there right to the issues. So, you and I are both at academic centers. You know, I think this is something that really pervades academia and enters into implications for general clinical practice. There's been this, you know, massive sort of proposal for decreased funding to the NCI and to the NIH and so forth. Tell us what ASCO is doing in that regard, and tell us perhaps how our community can help. Dr. Jason Westin: We live in interesting times, and I think that may be an understatement x 100. But obviously investments in research are things that when you're at an academic center, you see and feel that as part of your daily life. Members of Congress need to be reminded of that because there's a lot of other competing interests out there besides investing in the future through research. And being an elected representative is a hard job. That is something where you have to make difficult choices to support this, and that may mean not supporting that. And there's lots of good things where our tax dollars could be spent. And so, I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's not unlimited resources. However, ASCO has done an excellent job, and ASCO members have led the charge on this, of stating what research does, what is the benefit of research, and therefore why should this matter to elected representatives, to their staff, and to those people that they're elected to serve. And ASCO has led with a targeted campaign to basically have that message be conveyed at every opportunity to elected representatives. And each year on Hill Day, one of the asks that we have is to continue to support research: the NCI, NIH, ARPA-H, these are things that are always in the asks to make sure that there's appropriate funding. But effectively playing offense by saying, "It's not just a number on a sheet of paper, this is what it means to patients. This is what it means to potentially your loved ones in the future if you are in the opposite situation where you're not on the legislative side, but you're in the office receiving a diagnosis or receiving a difficult piece of news." We only have the tools we have now because of research, and each breakthrough has been years in the making and countless hours spent funded through the engine of innovation: clinical research and translational research. And so ASCO continues to beat that drum. You mentioned earlier the ACT Network. Just to bring that back again is a very useful, very easy tool to communicate to your elected representatives. When you sign up on the ASCO ACT website, you get emails periodically, not too much, but periodically get emails of, "This is a way you can engage with your lawmakers to speak up for this." And as you said, Monty, they make it as easy as possible. You click the button, you type in your address so that it figures out who your elected representatives are, and then it will send a letter on your behalf after like five clicks to say, "I want you to support research. I want you to vote for this particular thing which is of interest to ASCO and by definition to members of ASCO." And so the ACT Network is a way that people listening can engage without having to spend hours and significant time, but just a few clicks can send that letter to a representative in Congress. And the question could be: does that matter? Does contacting your senator or your elected representative do anything? If all they're hearing is somebody else making a different argument and they're hearing over and over again from people that want investments in AI or investments in something else besides cancer research, whatever it is, they may think that there's a ground shift that people want dollars to be spent over here as opposed to at the NIH or NCI or in federally funded research. It is important to continue to express the need for federal funding for our research. And so, it really is important for folks to engage. Dr. Monty Pal: 100%. One of the things that I think is not often obvious to a lot of our listeners is where the support for clinical trials comes from. You know, you've obviously run the whole gamut of studies as have I. You know, we have our pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies, which are in a particular bucket. But I would say that there's a very important and critical subset of studies that are actually government funded, right? NCI-funded clinical trials. If you don't mind, just explain to our audience the critical nature of the work that's being done in those types of studies and if you can, maybe compare and contrast the studies that are done in that bucket versus perhaps the pharmaceutical bucket. Dr. Jason Westin: Both are critical, and we're privileged that we have pharma studies that are sponsored and federally funded clinical research. And I think that part of a healthy ecosystem for us to develop new breakthroughs has a need for both. The pharma sponsored studies are done through the lens of trying to get an approval for an agent that's of interest so that the pharma company can then turn around and use that outside of a clinical trial after an FDA approval. And so those studies are often done through the lens of getting over the finish line by showing some superiority over an existing treatment or in a new patient population. But they're done through that lens of kind of the broadest population and sometimes relatively narrow endpoints, but to get the approval so that then the drug can be widely utilized. Clinical trials done through cooperative groups are sometimes done to try and optimize that or to try and look at comparative things that may not be as attractive to pharma studies, not necessarily going for that initial approval, but the fine tuning or the looking at health outcomes or looking at ensuring that we do studies in representative populations that may not be as well identified on the pharma sponsored trials, but basically filling out the gaps in the knowledge that we didn't gain from the initial phase 3 trial that led to the approval. And so both are critical. But if we only do pharma sponsored trials, if we don't fund federally supported research and that dries up, the fear I have, and many others have, is that we're going to be lacking a lot of knowledge about the best ways to use these great new therapies, these new immune therapies, or in my team, we do a lot of clinical trials on CAR T-cell therapies. If we don't have federally funded research to do the important clinical studies, we'll be in the dark about the best ways to use these drugs, and that's going to be a terrible shame. And so we really do need to continue to support federal research. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, there are no softball questions on this podcast, but I think everybody would be hard pressed to think that you and I would come on here and say, "Well, no, we don't need as much money for clinical trials and NCI funding" and so forth. But I think a really challenging issue to tackle, and this is something we thought to ask you ahead of the podcast, is what to do about the general climate of, you know, whether it's academic research or clinical practice here that seems to be getting some of our colleagues thinking about moving elsewhere. I've actually talked to a couple of folks who are picking up and moving to Europe for a variety of considerations, other continents, frankly. The U.S. has always been a leader when it comes to oncology research and, one might argue, research in general. Some have the mindset these days that we're losing that footing a little bit. What's your perspective? Are you concerned about some of the trends that you're seeing? What does your crystal ball tell you? Dr. Jason Westin: I am highly concerned about this. I think as you said, the U.S. has been a leader for a long time, but it wasn't always. This is not something that's preordained that the world-leading clinical research and translational research will always be done in the United States. That is something that has been developed as an ecosystem, as an engine for innovation and for job development, new technology development, since World War II. That's something that through intentional investments in research was developed that the best and brightest around the world, if they could choose to go anywhere, you wanted them to come to work at universities and academic places within the United States. And I think, as you said, that's at risk if you begin to dry up the investment in research or if you begin to have less focus on being engaged in research in a way that is forward thinking, not just kind of maintaining what we do now or only looking at having private, for profit sponsored research. But if you don't have the investment in the basic science research and the translational research and the forward-thinking part of it, the fear is that we lose the advantage and that other countries will say, "Thank you very much," and be happy to invest in ways to their advantage. And I think as you mentioned, there are people that are beginning to look elsewhere. I don't think that it's likely that a significant population of researchers in the U.S. who are established and have careers and families – I don't think that we're going to see a mass exodus of folks. I think the real risk to me is that the younger, up-and-coming people in undergraduate or in graduate school or in medical school and are the future superstars, that they could either choose to go into a different field, so they decide not to go into what could be the latest breakthroughs for cancer patients but could be doing something in AI or something in a different field that could be attractive to them because of less uncertainty about funding streams, or they could take that job offer if it's in a different country. And I think that's the concern is it may not be a 2026 problem, but it could be a 2036 or a 2046 problem that we reap what we sow if we don't invest in the future. Dr. Monty Pal: Indeed, indeed. You know, I've had the pleasure of reviewing abstracts for some of our big international meetings, as I'm sure you've done in the past too. I see this trend where, as before, we would see the preponderance of large phase 3 clinical trials and practice setting studies being done here in the U.S., I'm seeing this emergence of China, of other countries outside of the U.S. really taking lead on these things. And it certainly concerns me. If I had to sort of gauge this particular issue, it's at the top of my list in terms of what I'm concerned about. But I also wanted to ask you, Jason, in terms of the issues that are looming over oncology from an advocacy perspective, what else really sort of keeps you up at night? Dr. Jason Westin: I'm quite concerned about the drug shortages. I think that's something that is a surprisingly evergreen problem. This is something that is on its face illogical that we're talking about the greatest engine for research in the world being the United States and the investment that we've made in drug development and the breakthroughs that have happened for patients all around the world, many of them happen in the United States, and yet we don't necessarily have access to drugs from the 1970s or 1980s that are cheap, generic, sterile, injectable drugs. This is the cisplatins and the vincristines and the fludarabine type medications which are not the sexy ones that you see the ads in the magazine or on TV at night. These are the backbone drugs for many of our curative intent regimens for pediatrics and for heme malignancies and many solid tumors. And the fact that that's continuing to be an issue is, in my opinion, a failure to address the root causes, and those are going to require legislative solutions. The root causes here are basically a race to the bottom where the economics to invest in quality manufacturing really haven't been prioritized. And so it's a race to the cheapest price, which often means you undercut your competitor, and when you don't have the money to invest in good manufacturing processes, the factory breaks down, there's no alternative, you go into shortage. And this has been going on for a couple of decades, and I don't think there's an end in sight until we get a serious solution proposed by our elected officials. That is something that bothers me in the ways where we know what we should be doing for our patients, but if we don't have the drugs, we're left to be creative in ways we shouldn't have to do to figure out a plan B when we've got curative intent therapies. And I think that's a real shame.  There's obviously a lot of other things that are concerning related to oncology, but something that I have personally had experience with when I wanted to give a patient a CAR T-cell, and we don't have a supply of fludarabine, which is a trivial drug from decades ago in terms of the technology investments in genetically modified T-cells, to not then have access to a drug that should be pennies on the dollar and available at any time you want it is almost like the Air Force investing in building the latest stealth bomber, but then forgetting to get the jet fuel in a way that they can't use it because they don't have the tools that they need. And so I think that's something that we do need to have comprehensive solutions from our elected officials. Dr. Monty Pal: Brilliantly stated. I like that analogy a lot. Let's get into the weeds for a second. What would that proposal to Congress look like? What are we trying to put in front of them to help alleviate the drug shortages? Dr. Jason Westin: We could spend a couple hours, and I know podcasts usually are not set up to do that. And so I won't go through every part. I will direct you that there have been a couple of recent publications from ASCO specifically detailing solutions, and there was a recent white paper from the Senate Finance Committee that went through some legislative solutions being explored. So Dr. Gralow, ASCO CMO, and I recently had a publication in JCO OP detailing some solutions, more in that white paper from the Senate Finance. And then there's a working group actually going through ASCO's Health Policy Committee putting together a more detailed proposal that will be published probably around the end of 2026. Very briefly, what needs to happen is for government contracts for purchasing these drugs, there needs to be an outlay for quality, meaning that if you have a manufacturing facility that is able to deliver product on time, reliably, you get a bonus in terms of your contract. And that changes the model to prioritize the quality component of manufacturing. Without that, there's no reason to invest in maintaining your machine or upgrading the technology you have in your manufacturing plant. And so you have bottlenecks emerge because these drugs are cheap, and there's not a profit margin. So you get one factory that makes this key drug, and if that factory hasn't had an upgrade in their machines in 20 years, and that machine conks out and it takes 6 months to repair or replacement, that is an opportunity for that drug to go into shortage and causes a mad dash for big hospitals to purchase the drug that's available, leaving disparities to get amplified. It's a nightmare when those things happen, and they happen all the time. There are usually dozens, if not hundreds, of drugs in shortage at any given time. And this has been going on for decades. This is something that we do need large, system-wide fixes and that investment in quality, I think, will be a key part. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, brilliantly said. And I'll make sure that we actually include those articles on the tagline for this podcast as well. I'll talk to our producer about that as well.  I'm really glad you mentioned the time in your last comment there because I felt like we just started, but in fact, I think we're right at our close here, Jason, unfortunately. So, I could have gone on for a couple more hours with you. I really want to thank you for these absolutely terrific insights and thank you for all your advocacy on behalf of ASCO and oncologists at large. Dr. Jason Westin: Thank you so much for having me. I have enjoyed it. Dr. Monty Pal: Thanks a lot. And many thanks to our listeners too. You can find more information about ASCO's advocacy agenda and activities at asco.org. Finally, 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 so much. ASCO Advocacy Resources: Get involved in ASCO's Advocacy efforts: ASCO Advocacy Toolkit Crisis of Cancer Drug Shortages: Understanding the Causes and Proposing Sustainable Solutions, JCO Oncology Practice 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. Monty Pal   @montypal   Dr. Jason Westin @DrJasonWestin   Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on X     ASCO on Bluesky    ASCO on Facebook      ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:     Dr. 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. Jason Westin: Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Kite/Gilead, Janssen Scientific Affairs, ADC Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene/Juno, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Abbvie, MorphoSys/Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Abbvie, Chugai Pharma, Regeneron, Nurix, Genmab, Allogene Therapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma Research Funding: Janssen, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, MorphoSys/Incyte, Genentech/Roche, Allogene Therapeutics

In der heutigen Folge sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Anja Ettel und Holger Zschäpitz über das Microsoft-Barometer und seine Folgen, das Inditex-Luxusproblem und gute Stimmung bei Salesforce. Außerdem geht es um Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Abbott Laboratories, UnitedHealth Group, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dexcom, Align Technology, ResMed, Hims & Hers, JD Health International, iRhythm Technologies, Pro Medicus, Oscar Health, Xtrackers MSCI World Health Care (WKN: A113FD), Amundi S&P World Health Care Screened (WKN: A3DSTC), Franklin Future of Health and Wellness (WKN A3EFKW), Global X Telemedicine & Digital Health (WKN A2QKQ1), Xtrackers MSCI Genomic Healthcare Innovation (WKN: DBX0R2), Agilent, Roche, Vertex, Microsoft, Meta, Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, Salesforce, SAP, Snowflake, Inditex, H&M, Next, LVMH, Hermès, Aumovio, TKMS, Hellofresh, Gerresheimer, Ottobock, Tonies, PSI Software, Verbio, LPKF, Stratec, Thyssenkrupp Nucera, Procredit, Amadeus Fire, Bayer, BASF, Corteva, Syngenta, Formycon und PNE. Die aktuelle "Alles auf Aktien"-Umfrage findet Ihr unter: https://www.umfrageonline.com/c/mh9uebwm 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.) [Hier] (https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6zxjyJpTMunyYCY6F7vHK1?si=8f6cTnkEQnmSrlMU8Vo6uQ) findest Du die Samstagsfolgen Klassiker-Playlist auf Spotify! 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

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies DAPT: how short is too short Obesity and atrial fibrillation Milestones: COURAGE  Host: Emer Joyce Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Steffen Massberg, Prash Sanders Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2178 Want to watch that extended interview on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and shortening its optimal duration, go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2178?resource=interview   Disclaimer  ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis through an independent funding. The programme has not been influenced in any way by its funding partners. 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, Yasmina Bououdina, Emer Joyce, Nicolle Kraenkel and Steffen Massberg 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. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder MyCardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Prashanthan Sanders has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: advisory board representative University of Adelaide, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, CathRx, Abbott and Pacemate as well as research grants for University of Adelaide: Medtronic, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Becton Dickson. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

In Part 2, Carol Pitcher-Towner, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, breaks down the systemic forces driving inequity, from diagnostic bias to the lack of women in key specialties like cardiology, and explains how historical clinical trial exclusion continues to skew the science. Discover why representation isn't just a workforce issue: it's a scientific necessity, and the first barrier we must dismantle to ensure better care for everyone. Speaker bio Carol Pitcher-Towner is Senior Vice President and Head of Development Programs at Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. Since joining the company in 2014 as one of its first European regulatory leaders, she has gone on to oversee patient safety, risk management and Alnylam's global development portfolio. With more than 20 years of experience, including roles at AstraZeneca, Carol brings deep expertise across regulatory affairs and clinical development. She holds a PhD in Biological Sciences from the University of Warwick and was named an HBA Luminary in 2022 for her commitment to inclusive, patient-focused innovation. This content was reviewed by Alnylam UK Ltd for compliance with regulations applicable to the pharmaceutical industry only.

Show Notes In this episode of Develop This!, host Dennis Fraise sits down with Jason El Koubi, President and CEO of the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP), to explore how Virginia has earned — and maintained — its reputation as one of the best states for business. Jason shares how Virginia's nonpartisan approach to economic development ensures continuity, focus, and accountability. He dives deep into the Virginia Talent Accelerator Program, a national model for workforce training that has helped attract global leaders like AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly. From site readiness to speed-to-market, Virginia's economic playbook emphasizes agility, collaboration, and long-term talent development. Jason also discusses how the state is positioning itself for the industries of the future — including pharmaceutical manufacturing and artificial intelligence — all while doubling down on its goal to be America's Top State for Talent. If you're passionate about strategic, results-driven economic development, this episode offers a rare look inside a state model that works — and what other regions can learn from it.

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 information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/UAD865. CME/MOC/AAPA credit will be available until November 20, 2026.Harnessing the Power of ADCs in Gynecologic Cancers: Expert Insights for Practice Integration 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, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., and Gilead Sciences, Inc.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/MOC/AAPA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/UAD865. CME/MOC/AAPA credit will be available until November 20, 2026.Harnessing the Power of ADCs in Gynecologic Cancers: Expert Insights for Practice Integration 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, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., and Gilead Sciences, Inc.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/MOC/AAPA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/UAD865. CME/MOC/AAPA credit will be available until November 20, 2026.Harnessing the Power of ADCs in Gynecologic Cancers: Expert Insights for Practice Integration 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, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., and Gilead Sciences, Inc.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

This week, Isabel sits down with Carol Pitcher-Towner, Senior Vice President and Head of Development Programmes, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, to unpack the gender inequities that continue to tarnish modern healthcare. Together, they explore the realities behind unequal outcomes and the steps needed to build a more inclusive future for patients. In Part 1, Carol eveals the personal experiences that made gender inequity impossible to ignore and uncovers where today's biggest gaps still exist. From disease areas where women are routinely misdiagnosed to the persistent blind spots shaping clinical practice, this episode exposes the uncomfortable truths that are still costing lives, and why fixing them can no longer be optional. Speaker bio Carol Pitcher-Towner is Senior Vice President and Head of Development Programs at Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. Since joining the company in 2014 as one of its first European regulatory leaders, she has gone on to oversee patient safety, risk management and Alnylam's global development portfolio. With more than 20 years of experience, including roles at AstraZeneca, Carol brings deep expertise across regulatory affairs and clinical development. She holds a PhD in Biological Sciences from the University of Warwick and was named an HBA Luminary in 2022 for her commitment to inclusive, patient-focused innovation. This content was reviewed by Alnylam UK Ltd for compliance with regulations applicable to the pharmaceutical industry 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/MOC/AAPA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/UAD865. CME/MOC/AAPA credit will be available until November 20, 2026.Harnessing the Power of ADCs in Gynecologic Cancers: Expert Insights for Practice Integration 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, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., and Gilead Sciences, Inc.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/MOC/AAPA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/UAD865. CME/MOC/AAPA credit will be available until November 20, 2026.Harnessing the Power of ADCs in Gynecologic Cancers: Expert Insights for Practice Integration 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, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., and Gilead Sciences, Inc.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/MOC/AAPA information, and to apply for credit, please visit us at PeerView.com/UAD865. CME/MOC/AAPA credit will be available until November 20, 2026.Harnessing the Power of ADCs in Gynecologic Cancers: Expert Insights for Practice Integration 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, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., and Gilead Sciences, Inc.Disclosure information is available at the beginning of the video presentation.

In this episode of AUANews Inside Tract, we celebrate 50 years of research support in urology. Since 1975, the AUA and the Urology Care Foundation have awarded nearly $40 million to over 1,000 researchers, driving innovation and improving care for millions of patients. Host Dr. Damara Kaplan sits down with Dr. Glenn Preminger, a distinguished AUA Research Scholar alumnus and pioneer in kidney stone management and minimally invasive surgery, to reflect on the legacy of AUA research, explore his groundbreaking career, and look ahead to the future of urologic innovation. Independent support for this podcast provided by AstraZeneca.  

What if the secret to transformation success isn't more budget but strong, built-in accountability?In this week's episode of the Only Constant, our guest Zee Amin discusses with Nellie Wartoft how flipping the traditional funding model transforms the transformation office into a high-impact internal consultancy. They explore co-investment strategies, building trust through realistic business cases, and why being brave enough to challenge the status quo matters more than having a mandate.Connect with:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Nellie Wartoft⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠CEO of ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Tigerhall⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Chair of the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Executive Council for Leading Change (ECLC)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠nellie@tigerhall.com

Secretary Juan Pablo Segura joins BioTalk for a conversation about Virginia's growing position in the biohealth economy and the statewide strategy behind it. He outlines the significance of the new partnership with AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck, including up to $120 million in private investment to create a workforce development center and expand the Commonwealth's life sciences capacity. Segura talks through how Virginia approaches company recruitment, what investors are responding to, and why the state is seeing increased interest from biomanufacturing and advanced R&D companies. He also discusses Virginia's use of public-private partnerships to accelerate industry growth, strengthen the talent pipeline, and support emerging hubs across the Commonwealth. The conversation closes with a look at Virginia's role in the BioHealth Capital Region and how the regional identity helps amplify the state's message as it continues building a competitive biohealth ecosystem.   Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant (https://thepodcastconsultant.com). Juan Pablo Segura is the Secretary of Commerce and Trade for the Commonwealth of Virginia. He leads 13 agencies focused on economic growth, business development, and industry expansion across the state. Before entering public service, Segura spent his career building companies in the digital health sector, most notably as a founder of Babyscripts, a widely adopted maternity care platform. His work has been recognized by Startup Health, CTIA, EY, and the White House. He is a CPA and a graduate of the University of Notre Dame, and he lives in Henrico, Virginia with his family.

From pandemic-speed vaccine deployment to AI-powered process control, what separates hype from real manufacturing transformation?The biotech industry faces a fundamental challenge: how do you maintain rigorous quality standards while accelerating development timelines, personalizing therapies, and adopting transformative technologies? The answer isn't found in chasing every innovation trend, it's in understanding which changes create genuine value and when to implement them across the product lifecycle.Irina Ramos brings a perspective earned through high-stakes execution. After leading the global technology transfer of AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine, a project that compressed typical timelines while maintaining uncompromising quality standards, she's applying those lessons to the industry's next wave of challenges: phase-appropriate CMC strategy, the practical realities of AI integration, and building teams that bridge generational experience gaps in an era of rapid technological change.This conversation cuts through the noise. Irina discusses when continuous processing actually makes strategic sense (hint: it's not always the right answer), why AI in bioprocessing requires more human expertise rather than less, and the collaborative frameworks that enabled one of the fastest vaccine rollouts in history—lessons directly applicable to your current CMC challenges.Episode highlights:How the biotech community is constantly changing, and the importance of adaptability for future scientists (00:00)Navigating phase-appropriate CMC strategy: What to focus on in early clinical phases and which decisions set the foundation for compliance (02:36)Scenarios for switching from batch to continuous processing, including barriers and benefits for early-stage vs. established products (02:58)Lessons from leading AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine technology transfer: Collaboration, rapid regulatory communication, and mission-driven teams (05:20)Adapting lessons from the pandemic for ongoing drug development—balancing speed and risk while maintaining quality (08:24)Realistic perspectives on integrating AI in bioprocessing: demystifying its applications, emphasizing human-critical oversight, and practical use cases in manufacturing (10:40)Key skills for scientists in a biotech world shaped by AI—why foundational understanding and strong mentorship matter (13:51)Bridging experience gaps: How to foster collaboration and creativity between new and established professionals in regulated environments (15:45)Final takeaway: Start small, remain mission-driven, and remember that one size does not fit all in continuous manufacturing (17:15)Whether you're evaluating process platform decisions for Phase I programs, building cross-functional teams for tech transfer, or determining which digital tools deserve investment beyond the buzzword, this episode provides decision frameworks grounded in real-world execution at global scale.Connect with Irina Ramos:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/irinaramosNext step:Need fast CMC guidance? New on-demand CMC advisory: Get 20 expert answers/month in 1 day + monthly strategy call. → Learn more: https://stan.store/SmartBiotech/p/ondemand-cmc-expertise-for-biotech-foundersBook a 20-minute call to help you get s

Send us a textGood morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we delve deep into a series of transformative events that underscore the dynamic nature of our industry, where scientific innovation meets regulatory evolution and market adaptation.We begin with significant regulatory news from Medicare, which recently announced price reductions for 15 prescription drugs, including Novo Nordisk's semaglutide products, Ozempic and Wegovy. This initiative is part of the Inflation Reduction Act aimed at making essential medications more affordable. By potentially increasing accessibility to these treatments, this move highlights a growing trend towards cost containment in drug pricing within the U.S. healthcare system. It reflects a broader effort to ensure that life-saving treatments remain within reach for more patients, emphasizing the need for balance between innovation and affordability.Turning to approvals, Otsuka has secured FDA clearance for Voyxact, a first-in-class treatment targeting IgA nephropathy (IgAN). This positions Otsuka in an increasingly competitive market space populated by major players like Novartis and Vertex. The entry of Voyxact could pave the way for innovative therapeutics in kidney diseases, offering new hope to patients who have had limited treatment options until now.On the other side of the Atlantic, French authorities have conducted a raid on Sanofi's headquarters as part of a tax fraud investigation. This development sheds light on ongoing scrutiny in the pharmaceutical sector regarding financial practices and regulatory compliance. Such investigations can have far-reaching implications on corporate governance and transparency, reminding us of the importance of ethical practices in maintaining industry trust.Novo Nordisk has strategically used its FDA national priority voucher to expedite the review process for a high-dose formulation of Wegovy. This move underscores the importance of regulatory incentives in accelerating drug development timelines, allowing for quicker patient access to potentially life-changing therapies. It's a testament to how strategic navigation through regulatory pathways can significantly impact drug availability.In clinical trials, Sarepta Therapeutics received FDA clearance to conduct a study combining its gene therapy Elevidys with sirolimus in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The study aims to address liver safety issues associated with Elevidys, which had led to previous label restrictions. This reflects the industry's commitment to enhancing therapeutic safety profiles while expanding treatment indications.In oncology advancements, AstraZeneca's Imfinzi received FDA approval for use in early-stage stomach cancer, marking its third perioperative indication. This approval underscores the expanding role of immunotherapy across various cancer types and stages, offering new treatment paradigms that could improve surgical outcomes and long-term patient survival.Despite these advances, there is skepticism regarding artificial intelligence's role in regulatory compliance submissions among pharmaceutical professionals. A survey reveals that 65% express distrust towards AI-generated outputs, highlighting challenges that AI technologies face in gaining acceptance within highly regulated environments such as pharmaceuticals. However, federal recommendations to revamp U.S. biotechnology research emphasize incorporating AI into scientific processes to maintain global competitiveness. This call reflects concerns over potential declines in innovation leadership and underscores the need for strategic investment in research infrastructure.In antitrust news, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) outlined its case agaiSupport the show

The biotech industry operates under constant tension: we work with products that directly impact human lives, demanding rigorous controls and validation at every step. Yet standing still means falling behind. The question isn't whether to innovate, it's how to do it without compromising the quality and safety standards that define our industry.Irina Ramos has lived this paradox throughout her career. As a downstream processing leader who's guided CMC programs from early development through global regulatory filings, she helped orchestrate the worldwide transfer of AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine—a masterclass in balancing speed, scale, and uncompromising quality standards. Now, she's championing a vision that sounds almost radical: lights-out biomanufacturing facilities where continuous processes run at steady state with minimal human intervention.In this conversation, Irina shares the unfiltered reality of building innovation cultures in conservative environments, the surprising drivers behind continuous processing adoption, and why the industry's careful nature isn't a barrier to transformation. It's the foundation for sustainable innovation.Discussion highlights:Why conservatism is vital in biotech—and how to balance it with innovation (00:00)The vision for "lights-out" manufacturing and if bioprocess facilities could run with minimal human intervention (02:50)Irina Ramos's career story and the lessons her "happy accidents" teach junior scientists (03:53)Mindset shifts: Transitioning from scientist to innovation leader in CMC development (06:29)Building an innovation culture in a conservative, highly regulated industry (08:07)Essential mindsets for scientists to thrive and innovate in biotech environments (11:22)Coordination strategies for effective communication across stakeholders, departments, and geographies (13:52)The misconceptions of continuous manufacturing and what actually drives its adoption (17:09)What's hot in continuous biomanufacturing: trends, global perspectives, and how real-time analytics can change process control (21:12)Guiding principles for choosing between hybrid or end-to-end continuous processes (23:46)Practical tips on implementing control strategies and real-time monitoring in manufacturing (25:01)If you're navigating the shift from batch to continuous processing, leading cross-functional innovation initiatives, or wondering how to advocate for new technologies without disrupting validated processes, this episode offers practical frameworks you can apply immediately.Connect with Irina Ramos:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/irinaramosNext step:Need fast CMC guidance? New on-demand CMC advisory: Get 20 expert answers/month in 1 day + monthly strategy call. → Learn more: https://stan.store/SmartBiotech/p/ondemand-cmc-expertise-for-biotech-foundersBook a 20-minute call to help you get started on any questions you may have about bioprocessing analytics: https://bruehlmann-consulting.com/call

Send us a textGood morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we're diving into a series of impactful events and breakthroughs that are shaping patient care and drug development.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently granted early approval for a combination therapy using Padcev and Keytruda for the perioperative treatment of bladder cancer, a decision made months ahead of schedule. This approval represents a significant advancement in the therapeutic landscape for this type of cancer, offering new hope to patients who have had limited treatment options. The combination of these two therapies underscores the growing trend of integrating multiple mechanisms of action to tackle complex diseases like cancer more effectively. It also highlights the potential of combination therapies to provide enhanced clinical benefits by leveraging different therapeutic targets.In another notable development, Merck's partner Kelun announced successful Phase 3 trial results for an antibody-drug conjugate combined with Keytruda in treating PD-L1-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The trial results demonstrated statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival compared to Keytruda alone. This finding reinforces the expanding role of antibody-drug conjugates in oncology and emphasizes the importance of biomarker-driven therapies in personalizing cancer treatment. These advancements reflect a broader industry shift towards precision medicine, which aims to improve patient outcomes by tailoring treatments based on individual patient profiles.Meanwhile, Novo Nordisk experienced setbacks as its shares fell nearly 9% following two unsuccessful Phase 3 trials of semaglutide for Alzheimer's disease. Despite these disappointing results, this outcome highlights the persistent challenges and complexities inherent in developing therapies for neurodegenerative diseases—areas where unmet needs remain substantial. The market's reaction reflects investor sensitivity to clinical trial outcomes, particularly in high-stakes areas like Alzheimer's where breakthroughs are eagerly anticipated.Switching gears to AstraZeneca, the company is making a strategic move by expanding its manufacturing capabilities with a $2 billion investment in Maryland. This expansion reflects an ongoing trend among pharmaceutical companies to enhance their production infrastructure, driven by increasing demand for biologics and complex therapeutics. Such investments are crucial for supporting large-scale production needs and ensuring robust supply chains that are essential for meeting global health demands.In regulatory news, a collective letter from biotech CEOs addressed to FDA director Marty Makary has raised concerns about regulatory stability in the U.S., with 82% of biopharma respondents expressing apprehension over the FDA's ability to function predictably. This plea underscores how regulatory volatility can hinder innovation and emphasizes the importance of consistent policies that support long-term research and development efforts.In clinical trial updates, Bayer's oral FXIa inhibitor asundexian has shown promise in reducing stroke risk during Phase 3 trials. These findings revive interest in FXIa inhibitors as potentially blockbuster drugs after previous setbacks in this class. This development illustrates ongoing efforts to identify novel anticoagulant therapies that balance efficacy and safety, offering new hope for improved therapeutic options.Now turning our attention to Johnson & Johnson's recent setback with their anti-tau antibody posdinemab in a phase 2 trial targeting Alzheimer's disease. The trial was unable to demonstrate a significant slowing of clinical decline, leading JSupport the show

AMJ Podcast | Episode 4 Capivasertib in the Clinic: Strategies to Manage Adverse Events This content was funded by AstraZeneca, and is intended for US Healthcare Professionals. Expert opinions are shared in this program and may differ from the approved capivasertib (TRUQAP®) labeling. Please see full Prescribing Information, including Patient Information when making treatment decisions.     Indication and Usage  Capivasertib (TRUQAP®) in combination with fulvestrant is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer with one or more PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alteration as detected by an FDA-approved test following progression on at least one endocrine-based regimen in the metastatic setting or recurrence on or within 12 months of completing adjuvant therapy.     Description In this practical, case-based discussion, a breast oncology pharmacist and nurse practitioner walk through how they anticipate and manage the most common adverse events seen with capivasertib in HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Drawing on real-world clinic workflows, they share stepwise approaches to counseling, prophylaxis, and early intervention for diarrhea, rash, and hyperglycemia, including when to escalate monitoring or treatment and how to coordinate roles across the care team.  You'll hear communication scripts, tips for using tools such as stool diaries and home glucometers, and strategies to keep patients on therapy safely and confidently.   Chapters 00:00 – 03:24 | Introduction 03:24 – 05:18 | When to consider capivasertib 05:18 – 08:51 | Introducing adverse events 08:51 – 16:18 | Diarrhea management 16:18 – 20:35 | Rash management 20:35 – 25:07 | Hyperglycemia management 25:07 – 27:31 | Care team best practices 27:31 – 31:18 | Top Tips & Takeaways   Speakers: Heather Moore –  Breast Oncology Pharmacist, Duke University Medical Center Sarah Donohue – Breast Oncology Nurse Practitioner, UCSF Health Breast Care Center     Select Safety Information About capivasertib (TRUQAP®) tablets TRUQAP is contraindicated in patients with severe hypersensitivity to TRUQAP or any of its components. Serious adverse reactions include hyperglycemia, including diabetic ketoacidosis and fatal outcomes; diarrhea; and cutaneous adverse reactions. Monitor fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1C levels regularly. May cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Among the 355 patients who received TRUQAP in CAPItello-291, the most common (≥20%) adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities, were diarrhea (72%), cutaneous adverse reactions (58%), increased random glucose (57%), decreased lymphocytes (47%), decreased hemoglobin (45%), increased fasting glucose (37%), nausea and fatigue (35% each), decreased leukocytes (32%), increased triglycerides (27%), decreased neutrophils (23%), increased creatinine (22%), vomiting (21%), and stomatitis (20%). Please see full Prescribing Information, including Patient Information for TRUQAP.

In this episode of JCO Article Insights, host Dr. Ece Cali Daylan interviews author Dr. Jeffrey Bradley about the article, "Simultaneous Durvalumab and Chemoradiotherapy in Unresectable Stage III Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer" by Bradley, et al published October 13, 2025. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Ece Cali: Welcome to this episode of JCO Article Insights. This is Dr. Ece Cali, JCO Editorial Fellow. Today I'm joined by Dr. Jeffrey Bradley, Professor of Radiation Oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, to discuss the manuscript, "Simultaneous Durvalumab and Platinum-Based Chemoradiotherapy in Unresectable Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Phase III PACIFIC-2 Study." The PACIFIC-2 study was a phase III, double-blind, randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of simultaneous durvalumab with concurrent chemoradiation followed by consolidation durvalumab to the concurrent chemoradiation followed by placebo in patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded independent central review. The secondary endpoints were overall response rate, overall survival, and safety. Three hundred twenty-eight patients were randomized 2:1 to durvalumab and placebo, respectively. Unfortunately, this trial did not meet its primary endpoint. There were no statistically significant differences in PFS or OS. The frequency of adverse events was similar between the two arms. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 53% of the patients in the durvalumab arm compared to 59% of the patients in the placebo arm. Of note, the frequency of pneumonitis was similar in the two arms. Approximately 28% of patients in each arm developed pneumonitis, and about 5% of the pneumonitis observed in each arm was grade 3 or higher in severity. Treatment discontinuation rates secondary to the adverse events were higher in the durvalumab arm, 25% compared to 12%. Adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation and death were more frequently seen in the durvalumab arm during the first four months of the treatment, which corresponds to the simultaneous administration of chemoradiation and durvalumab. Dr. Bradley, before we delve into the results, can you please explain the rationale for this study design and how this concept fits into the current treatment landscape? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Yeah, this trial came on the heels of PACIFIC after there was a progression-free survival benefit showed in PACIFIC that in the locally advanced unresectable population that consolidation immunotherapy, in this case durvalumab, had a progression-free survival benefit. A number of us in the clinical trial space thought to add concurrent immunotherapy in addition to consolidation immunotherapy that that would also improve outcomes for patients. So a number of trials were launched to follow up of PACIFIC. In this case, this is a phase III trial where the control arm was placebo. There was no overall survival results yet from PACIFIC, just a PFS benefit, and a number of countries across the world had not approved maintenance durvalumab in this space. So this trial looked at the experimental arm, which was concurrent immunotherapy, durvalumab, and chemoradiation followed by consolidation durvalumab versus placebo. Dr. Ece Cali: And if we were to focus on the safety profile first, an increased pneumonitis risk was a theoretical concern when immunotherapy is given concurrently with radiation. Do we see any major differences in the safety profile between the two arms in this trial? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: No, and we were concerned about the addition of concurrent immunotherapy and chemoradiation, like you said, towards concern about increased pneumonitis rate, but we did not see increased pneumonitis in the experimental arm over placebo. And the grade 3 or higher, as you said, it was roughly 5%, more or less, in both arms, so we didn't see increase in pneumonitis toxicity with concurrent IO and chemoradiation. Dr. Ece Cali: But interestingly though, despite the lack of significantly increased toxicity with durvalumab, unfortunately, administering immunotherapy simultaneously with chemoradiation therapy did not improve survival. Lack of superiority of this treatment regimen, as you mentioned, is further confirmed across multiple similar negative trial readouts such as ECOG-ACRIN 5181 and CheckMate 73L. Dr. Bradley, in your view, what are some potential explanations for why this strategy did not pan out in clinical trials? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Regarding toxicity, let me go back and point out that we did see an increased number of immune-mediated adverse events. It was 34.7% in the concurrent immunotherapy arm versus 15.7% in the placebo arm. So that led to a higher number of discontinuations of immunotherapy which I think probably had an effect. So we didn't... there was an increased pneumonitis toxicity, but there were expected immune-mediated toxicities that caused people to stop giving immunotherapy. You can see that in the PFS curves. They were, you know, they crossed over after like a month, but initially there was lower PFS for the experimental arm, and then the experimental arm got better after we divided into four months, before four months and after four months. Dr. Ece Cali: For one reason or another, it looks like the simultaneous administration did not really improve outcomes. We now know that simultaneously giving them another concurrent radiation should really no longer be pursued in clinical trials for this patient population. Can you share with our audience what strategies are being studied in this setting and what trials to watch out for in the future? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Sure, I think when you add concurrent radiation to immunotherapy, there were more central tumors in this trial, I think you're killing lymphocytes and negating the effect of immunotherapy. So I think that's the smoking gun for this trial, for the ECOG trial, for the small cell trial that NRG reported, LU005, and other trials. So correct, I don't think there's any need to continue to pursue concurrent immunotherapy in this space of lung cancer. But that's not to say there aren't many other trials that are either ongoing, have accrued and awaiting results, or being planned for the next phase of clinical trials. We have a trial within NRG Oncology called NRG-LU008. It's a randomized phase III trial that is using an SBRT boost to a peripheral primary and chemoradiation to the nodes, because the primary tumor is the one that fails more often than the lymph nodes, and that's compared to PACIFIC in the control arm. PACIFIC-9 is another trial in the same line as the other PACIFIC trials. That one is using dual checkpoint inhibition versus the control arm being PACIFIC. So there are three arms in that trial, durva and oleclumab, durva and monalizumab versus the PACIFIC arm. And that trial is completed accrual, but we have no results from that study yet. Johnson & Johnson has a trial open looking at a nanoparticle. That's a radiosensitizer where bronchoscopy is used to inject the primary tumor and the lymph nodes with a radiosensitizer. That's a randomized phase ll trial that's ongoing. It's got three arms, two different doses of this radiosensitizing drug and then a control arm without injection at all. The control arm is again the PACIFIC arm. And then those of us within the NCI-based clinical trials evaluation program, CTEP, are proposing an intergroup trial that would compare induction chemo-immunotherapy followed by chemoradiation followed by maintenance immunotherapy versus PACIFIC in a phase III study. So I think there's other trials that are either completed, ongoing completed, or on the horizon to assess in this patient population. Dr. Ece Cali: Yeah, we definitely have an unmet need to improve survival outcomes for stage III patients, and it's great to hear that there are so many efforts looking at different strategies to improve outcomes for these patients.  Thank you so much, Dr. Bradley, for this informative discussion and for sharing your insights. Any last thoughts? Dr. Jeffrey Bradley: Yeah, we need something, you know. PACIFIC was first reported in 2017, and we really haven't made progress in terms of changing that standard of care control for the last eight years. So we need progress in this area. Dr. Ece Cali: Yep, definitely. Thank you so much for joining, Dr. Bradley.  And thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. Please come back for more interviews and article summaries and be sure to leave us a rating and review so others can find our show. For more podcasts and episodes from ASCO, please visit asco.org/podcasts. 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. DISCLOSURES Dr. Bradley Honoria: Mevion Medical Systems, Inc. Consulting or Advisory Role: Varian, Inc, Genentech, Inc. Research Funding: Varian Medical Systems Dr. Cali Research Funding Company: BeiGene, Nuvalent, Inc., Astra Zeneca 

Welcome back to Ozempic Weight Loss Unlocked, the show where we break down the latest developments in weight loss medications and what they mean for your health. I'm your host, and today we're diving into some exciting new data and industry shifts that you need to hear about.Let's start with what's happening right now in the weight loss medication world. A recent systematic review of over forty thousand adults found that semaglutide and tirzepatide significantly outperform older medications in achieving meaningful weight loss. In clinical trials, semaglutide resulted in a fourteen point nine percent reduction in body weight over sixty eight weeks, while tirzepatide led to a twenty point nine percent reduction. That's substantial progress compared to earlier options like liraglutide, which delivered only four to five percent weight loss.But here's something important our listeners need to understand: clinical trial results don't always match real world outcomes. When researchers looked at actual users after one year, those taking semaglutide lost seven point seven percent of their body weight, and those on tirzepatide lost twelve point four percent. Why the difference? About fifty percent of patients discontinued treatment during that first year, and eighty percent took lower dosages than prescribed.Speaking of usage, the numbers are staggering. Approximately one in eight American adults, or around twelve percent, have used a glucagon like peptide one medication at some point. Among people diagnosed with diabetes, that number jumps to forty three percent. The average age of users in the United Kingdom is forty four years old, with people aged forty to fifty nine making up more than half of all users.Now let's talk money, because cost remains a major barrier. The monthly out of pocket cost for Ozempic in the United States can reach as high as twelve hundred dollars for uninsured individuals. This pricing has created a competitive marketplace. In November twenty twenty five, Pfizer won a bidding war with Novo Nordisk to acquire obesity drug developer Metsera, giving them injectable and oral glucagon like peptide one candidates expected to enter clinical trials soon.But there's even more competition coming. Research indicates that several pharmaceutical companies including AstraZeneca, Zealand Pharma, Roche, and Amgen are expected to enter the glucagon like peptide one market with multiple drug launches planned between twenty twenty seven and twenty thirty two.Interestingly, a new alternative is emerging. A medication called eloralintide, which targets a different hormone called amylin instead of glucagon like peptide one, showed promising results. In a phase two clinical trial with two hundred sixty three participants, those receiving eloralintide experienced average weight loss between nine and twenty percent after forty eight weeks, compared to only zero point four percent in the placebo group. Up to ninety percent of participants on eloralintide improved by at least one body mass index category, and the study showed improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors including waist circumference, blood pressure, and blood sugar management.Our listeners should know that not everyone responds equally to these medications. Past studies show that as much as seventeen percent of glucagon like peptide one users may be non responders to the medication. This is why having multiple treatment options with different mechanisms of action matters so much.One final note worth mentioning: the rise in glucagon like peptide one use has sparked increased demand for cosmetic surgeries to remove loose skin following significant weight loss. Procedures like arm lifts, thigh lifts, and tummy tucks have all seen increased demand.Thank you so much for tuning in to Ozempic Weight Loss Unlocked. Please make sure to subscribe so you don't miss our next episode covering even more developments in this rapidly evolving space. This has been a Quiet Please production, for more check out quiet please dot ai. Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Written editions of Charlottesville Community Engagement often begin with a historical anecdote to mark the day and tie stories to a greater sense of the world. But what about this newsletter's history?* The first November 22 edition came out in 2021 as you can see and hear here.* The November 22 version from 2023 was the only one made that week. Go look!* Last year? November 22 rounded out a full week of newsletters!This edition is a podcast version where 92.3 percent of the material has already gone out in print form but now the stories can be heard as if you were listening to public radio.What's in this edition?* Albemarle's Economic Development Authority gets an update on AstraZeneca's investment at Rivanna Futures (learn more)* Officials celebrate one transportation project while another gets underway* Jaunt CEO Mike Murphy briefs Charlottesville City Council (learn more)* With one quarter down, Charlottesville currently projected for $921K surplus for FY2026 (learn more)* Albemarle Supervisors take a look at the five-year financial plan as budget planning accelerates for fiscal year 2027 (learn more)Sponsorship demonstration: Westwind FlowersFall is in full bloom at Westwind Flowers! With the crisp autumn air settling in, they're celebrating the season with fresh, local blooms perfect for every occasion.And as the holidays approach, let Westwind Flowers bring local beauty to your celebrations. Dress up your Thanksgiving table with seasonal blooms, gift your host or hostess with a gorgeous indoor plant, or join us for one of our Holiday Wreath Workshops on November 29th or December 6th. Create your own festive wreath, from the base to the finishing touch, with expert guidance and fresh, locally grown greenery.Westwind Flowers offers sustainably grown, thoughtfully curated cut flowers, perfectly suited to the season and the special moments in your life. They believe the blooms in your vase should be just as fresh, and just as local, as the food on your table. Visit their website to learn more!Thoughts at the end of #960-AThis is the first podcast edition in two weeks. The reason there was none last week? Last Saturday I published a text edition instead based on differing accounts of the forced resignation of University of Virginia President Jim Ryan.For a while I was posting these on Mondays, but the gravity of my workflow means they come out best on Saturday mornings. I've been an audio producer for most of my journalism career dating back to 1995 and an internship at WVTF Public Radio. Recording audio is how I've always conducted interviews, though I've not done that for a while.I would like to do so, though. Since beginning this newsletter in the summer of 2020, I've mostly relied on harvesting government meetings and information releases. For me that is efficient approach because it can be much more time consuming to process those interviews and turn them into finished pieces. The nature of my business plan is to be as prolific as possible.I'm a journalist first. Being a business person ranks lower, though I've added a lot of over the past five and a half years. I'm excited to look ahead to 2026 and trying out some new things as I can. Maybe I'll finally finish that media kit! Let me know if you want to see a preview. For now it is time to finish this up and move on with the day. Below is an image from one of the stories this week. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit communityengagement.substack.com/subscribe

“My most powerful content is when I lead with my voice as a mom because I have the same concerns about keeping my kids safe as my audience does. It's a powerful and effective way to find common ground with people,” says Dr. Jess Steier, a popular public health scientist and science communicator seeking to bridge divides and foster trust through empathetic, evidence-based communication. Dr. Steier has several platforms from which to do this work, including  Unbiased Science --  a communication hub that uses multiple social media platforms and other communications channels to share validated health and science information -- and as executive director of the Science Literacy Lab, a nonprofit organization dedicated to reaching a diverse audience seeking clarity and reliable information on scientific topics. “The science is less than half the battle,” she explains. “It's about how to communicate with empathy.”Join Raise the Line host Lindsey Smith for a valuable conversation that explores:What sources Dr. Steier relies on to validate informationHow she uses “escape room” exercises to train clinicians on empathetic communicationWhy tailored, story-driven messages reach audiences more effectively than facts.Mentioned in this episode:Unbiased Science 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/podcast

Dr. Linda Duska and Dr. Kathleen Moore discuss key studies in the evolving controversy over radical upfront surgery versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Linda Duska: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am your guest host, Dr. Linda Duska. I am a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine.  On today's episode, we will explore the management of advanced ovarian cancer, specifically with respect to a question that has really stirred some controversy over time, going all the way back more than 20 years: Should we be doing radical upfront surgery in advanced ovarian cancer, or should we be doing neoadjuvant chemotherapy? So, there was a lot of hype about the TRUST study, also called ENGOT ov33/AGO-OVAR OP7, a Phase 3 randomized study that compares upfront surgery with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval surgery. So, I want to talk about that study today. And joining me for the discussion is Dr. Kathleen Moore, a professor also of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Oklahoma and the deputy director of the Stephenson Cancer Center, also at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences.  Dr. Moore, it is so great to be speaking with you today. Thanks for doing this. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, it's fun to be here. This is going to be fun. Dr. Linda Duska: FYI for our listeners, both of our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  So let's just jump right in. We already alluded to the fact that the TRUST study addresses a question we have been grappling with in our field. Here's the thing, we have four prior randomized trials on this exact same topic. So, share with me why we needed another one and what maybe was different about this one? Dr. Kathleen Moore: That is, I think, the key question. So we have to level-set kind of our history. Let's start with, why is this even a question? Like, why are we even talking about this today? When we are taking care of a patient with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, the aim of surgery in advanced ovarian cancer ideally is to prolong a patient's likelihood of disease-free survival, or if you want to use the term "remission," you can use the term "remission." And I think we can all agree that our objective is to improve overall survival in a way that also does not compromise her quality of life through surgical complications, which can have a big effect. The standard for many decades, certainly my entire career, which is now over 20 years, has been to pursue what we call primary cytoreductive surgery, meaning you get a diagnosis and we go right to the operating room with a goal of achieving what we call "no gross residual." That is very different – in the olden days, you would say "optimal" and get down to some predefined small amount of tumor. Now, the goal is you remove everything you can see.  The alternative strategy to that is neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval cytoreductive surgery, and that has been the, quote-unquote, "safer" route because you chemically cytoreduce the cancer, and so, the resulting surgery, I will tell you, is not necessarily easy at all. It can still be very radical surgeries, but they tend to be less radical, less need for bowel resections, splenectomy, radical procedures, and in a short-term look, would be considered safer from a postoperative consideration. Dr. Linda Duska: Well, and also maybe more likely to be successful, right? Because there's less disease, maybe, theoretically. Dr. Kathleen Moore: More likely to be successful in getting to no gross residual. Dr. Linda Duska: Right. Yeah, exactly. Dr. Kathleen Moore: I agree with that. And so, so if the end game, regardless of timing, is you get to no gross residual and you help a patient and there's no difference in overall survival, then it's a no-brainer. We would not be having this conversation. But there remains a question around, while it may be more likely to get to no gross residual, it may be, and I think we can all agree, a less radical, safer surgery, do you lose survival in the long term by this approach? This has become an increasing concern because of the increase in rates of use of neoadjuvant, not only in this country, but abroad. And so, you mentioned the four prior studies. We will not be able to go through them completely. Dr. Linda Duska: Let's talk about the two modern ones, the two from 2020 because neither one of them showed a difference in overall survival, which I think we can agree is, at the end of the day, yes, PFS would be great, but OS is what we're looking for. Dr. Kathleen Moore: OS is definitely what we're looking for. I do think a marked improvement in PFS, like a real prolongation in disease-free survival, for me would be also enough. A modest improvement does not really cut it, but if you are really, really prolonging PFS, you should see that-  Dr. Linda Duska: -manifest in OS. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, yeah. Okay. So let's talk about the two modern ones. The older ones are EORTC and CHORUS, which I think we've talked about. The two more modern ones are SCORPION and JCOG0602. So, SCORPION was interesting. SCORPION was a very small study, though. So one could say it's underpowered. 170 patients. And they looked at only patients that were incredibly high risk. So, they had to have a Fagotti score, I believe, of over 9, but they were not looking at just low volume disease. Like, those patients were not enrolled in SCORPION. It was patients where you really were questioning, "Should I go to the OR or should I do neoadjuvant? Like, what's the better thing?" It is easy when it's low volume. You're like, "We're going." These were the patients who were like, "Hm, you know, what should I do?" High volume. Patients were young, about 55. The criticism of the older studies, there are many criticisms, but one of them is that, the criticism that is lobbied is that they did not really try. Whatever surgery you got, they did not really try with median operative times of 180 minutes for primary cytoreduction, 120 for neoadjuvant. Like, you and I both know, if you're in a big primary debulking, you're there all day. It's 6 hours. Dr. Linda Duska: Right, and there was no quality control for those studies, either. Dr. Kathleen Moore: No quality control. So, SCORPION, they went 451-minute median for surgery. Like, they really went for it versus four hours and then 253 for the interval, 4 hours. They really went for it on both arms. Complete gross resection was achieved in 50% of the primary cytoreduced. So even though they went for it with these very long surgeries, they only got to the goal half the time. It was almost 80% in the interval group. So they were more successful there. And there was absolutely no difference in PFS or OS. They were right about 15 months PFS, right about 40 months OS.  JCOG0602, of course, done in Japan, a big study, 300 patients, a little bit older population. Surprisingly more stage IV disease in this study than were in SCORPION. SCORPION did not have a lot of stage IV, despite being very bulky tumors. So a third of patients were stage IV. They also had relatively shorter operative times, I would say, 240 minutes for primary, 302 for interval. So still kind of short. Complete gross resection was not achieved very often. 30% of primary cytoreduction. That is not acceptable. Dr. Linda Duska: Well, so let's talk about TRUST. What was different about TRUST? Why was this an important study for us to see? Dr. Kathleen Moore: So the criticism of all of these, and I am not trying to throw shade at anyone, but the criticism of all of these is if you are putting surgery to the test, you are putting the surgeon to the test. And you are assuming that all surgeons are trained equally and are willing to do what it takes to get someone to no gross residual. Dr. Linda Duska: And are in a center that can support the post-op care for those patients. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Which can be ICU care, prolonged time. Absolutely. So when you just open these broadly, you're assuming everyone has the surgical skills and is comfortable doing that and has backup. Everybody has an ICU. Everyone has a blood bank, and you are willing to do that. And that assumption could be wrong. And so what TRUST said is, "Okay, we are only going to open this at centers that have shown they can achieve a certain level of primary cytoreduction to no gross residual disease." And so there was quality criteria. It was based on – it was mostly a European study – so ESGO criteria were used to only allow certified centers to participate. They had to have a surgical volume of over 36 cytoreductive surgeries per year. So you could not be a low volume surgeon. Your complete resection rates that were reported had to be greater than 50% in the upfront setting. I told you on the JCOG, it was 30%. Dr. Linda Duska: Right. So these were the best of the best. This was the best possible surgical situation you could put these patients in, right? Dr. Kathleen Moore: Absolutely. And you support all the things so you could mitigate postoperative complications as well. Dr. Linda Duska: So we are asking the question now again in the ideal situation, right? Dr. Kathleen Moore: Right. Dr. Linda Duska: Which, we can talk about, may or may not be generalizable to real life, but that's a separate issue because we certainly don't have those conditions everywhere where people get cared for with ovarian cancer. But how would you interpret the results of this study? Did it show us anything different? Dr. Kathleen Moore: I am going to say how we should interpret it and then what I am thinking about. It is a negative study. It was designed to show improvement in overall survival in these ideal settings in patients with FIGO stage IIIB and C, they excluded A, these low volume tumors that should absolutely be getting surgery. So FIGO stage IIIB and C and IVA and B that were fit enough to undergo radical surgery randomized to primary cytoreduction or neoadjuvant with interval, and were all given the correct chemo. Dr. Linda Duska: And they were allowed bevacizumab and PARP, also. They could have bevacizumab and PARP. Dr. Kathleen Moore: They were allowed bevacizumab and PARP. Not many of them got PARP, but it was distributed equally, so that would not be a confounder. And so that was important. Overall survival is the endpoint. It was a big study. You know, it was almost 600 patients. So appropriately powered. So let's look at what they reported. When they looked at the patients who were enrolled, this is a large study, almost 600 patients, 345 in the primary cytoreductive arm and 343 in the neoadjuvant arm. Complete resection in these patients was 70% in the primary cytoreductive arm and 85% in the neoadjuvant arm. So in both arms, it was very high. So your selection of site and surgeon worked. You got people to their optimal outcome. So that is very different than any other study that has been reported to date. But what we saw when we looked at overall survival was no statistical difference. The median was, and I know we do not like to talk about medians, but the median in the primary cytoreductive arm was 54 months versus 48 months in the neoadjuvant arm with a hazard ratio of 0.89 and, of course, the confidence interval crossed one. So this is not statistically significant. And that was the primary endpoint. Dr. Linda Duska: I know you are getting to this. They did look at PFS, and that was statistically significant, but to your point about what are we looking for for a reasonable PFS difference? It was about two months difference. When I think about this study, and I know you are coming to this, what I thought was most interesting about this trial, besides the fact that the OS, the primary endpoint was negative, was the subgroup analyses that they did. And, of course, these are hypothesis-generating only. But if you look at, for example, specifically only the stage III group, that group did seem to potentially, again, hypothesis generating, but they did seem to benefit from upfront surgery.  And then one other thing that I want to touch on before we run out of time is, do we think it matters if the patient is BRCA germline positive? Do we think it matters if there is something in particular about that patient from a biomarker standpoint that is different? I am hopeful that more data will be coming out of this study that will help inform this. Of course, unpowered, hypothesis-generating only, but it's just really interesting. What do you think of their subset analysis? Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, I think the subsets are what we are going to be talking about, but we have to emphasize that this was a negative trial as designed. Dr. Linda Duska: Absolutely. Yes. Dr. Kathleen Moore: So we cannot be apologists and be like, "But this or that." It was a negative trial as designed. Now, I am a human and a clinician, and I want what is best for my patients. So I am going to, like, go down the path of subset analyses. So if you look at the stage III tumors that got complete cytoreduction, which was 70% of the cases, your PFS was almost 28 months versus 21.8 months. Dr. Linda Duska: Yes, it becomes more significant. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Yeah, that hazard ratio is 0.69. Again, it is a subset. So even though the P value here is statistically significant, it actually should not have a P value because it is an exploratory analysis. So we have to be very careful. But the hazard ratio is 0.69. So the hypothesis is in this setting, if you're stage III and you go for it and you get someone to no gross residual versus an interval cytoreduction, you could potentially have a 31% reduction in the rate of progression for that patient who got primary cytoreduction. And you see a similar trend in the stage III patients, if you look at overall survival, although the post-progression survival is so long, it's a little bit narrow of a margin.  But I do think there are some nuggets here that, one of our colleagues who is really one of the experts in surgical studies, Dr. Mario Leitao, posted this on X, and I think it really resonated after this because we were all saying, "But what about the subsets?" He is like, "It's a negative study." But at the end of the day, you are going to sit with your patient. The patient should be seen by a GYN oncologist or surgical oncologist with specialty in cytoreduction and a medical oncologist, you know, if that person does not give chemo, and the decision should be made about what to do for that individual patient in that setting. Dr. Linda Duska: Agreed. And along those lines, if you look carefully at their data, the patients who had an upfront cytoreduction had almost twice the risk of having a stoma than the patients who had an interval cytoreduction. And they also had a higher risk of needing to have a bowel resection. The numbers were small, but still, when you look at the surgical complications, as you've already said, they're higher in the upfront group than they are in the interval group. That needs to be taken into account as well when counseling a patient, right? When you have a patient in front of you who says to you, "Dr. Moore, you can take out whatever you want, but whatever you do, don't make me a bag." As long as the patient understands what that means and what they're asking us to do, I think that we need to think about that. Dr. Kathleen Moore: I think that is a great point. And I have definitely seen in our practice, patients who say, "I absolutely would not want an ostomy. It's a nonstarter for me." And we do make different decisions. And you have to just say, "That's the decision we've made," and you kind of move on, and you can't look back and say, "Well, I wish I would have, could have, should have done something else." That is what the patient wants. Ultimately, that patient, her family, autonomous beings, they need to be fully counseled, and you need to counsel that patient as to the site that you are in, her volume of disease, and what you think you can achieve. In my opinion, a patient with stage III cancer who you have the site and the capabilities to get to no gross residual should go to the OR first. That is what I believe. I do not anymore think that for stage IV. I think that this is pretty convincing to me that that is probably a harmful thing. However, I want you to react to this. I think I am going to be a little unpopular in saying this, but for me, one of the biggest take-homes from TRUST was that whether or not, and we can talk about the subsets and the stage III looked better, and I think it did, but both groups did really well. Like, really well. And these were patients with large volume disease. This was not cherry-picked small volume stage IIIs that you could have done an optimal just by doing a hysterectomy. You know, these were patients that needed radical surgery. And both did well. And so what it speaks to me is that anytime you are going to operate on someone with ovary, whether it be frontline, whether it be a primary or interval, you need a high-volume surgeon. That is what I think this means to me. Like, I would want high volume surgeon at a center that could do these surgeries, getting that patient, my family member, me, to no gross residual. That is important. And you and I are both in training centers. I think we ought to take a really strong look at, are we preparing people to do the surgeries that are necessary to get someone to no gross residual 70% and 85% of the time? Dr. Linda Duska: We are going to run out of time, but I want to address that and ask you a provocative question. So, I completely agree with what you said, that surgery is important. But I also think one of the reasons these patients in this study did so well is because all of the incredible new therapies that we have for patients. Because OS is not just about surgery. It is about surgery, but it is also about all of the amazing new therapies we have that you and others have helped us to get through clinical research. And so, how much of that do you think, like, for example, if you look at the PFS and OS rates from CHORUS and EORTC, I get it that they're, that they're not the same. It's different patients, different populations, can't do cross-trial comparisons. But the OS, as you said, in this study was 54 months and 48 months, which is, compared to 2010, we're doing much, much better. It is not just the surgery, it is also all the amazing treatment options we have for these patients, including PARP, including MIRV, including lots of other new therapies. How do you fit that into thinking about all of this? Dr. Kathleen Moore: I do think we are seeing, and we know this just from epidemiologic data that the prevalence of ovarian cancer in many of the countries where the study was done is increasing, despite a decrease in incidence. And why is that? Because people are living longer. Dr. Linda Duska: People are living longer, yeah. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Which is phenomenal. That is what we want. And we do have, I think, better supportive care now. PARP inhibitors in the frontline, which not many of these patients had. Now some of them, this is mainly in Europe, will have gotten them in the first maintenance setting, and I do think that impacts outcome. We do not have that data yet, you know, to kind of see what, I would be really interested to see. We do not do this well because in ovarian cancer, post-progression survival can be so long, we do not do well of tracking what people get when they come off a clinical trial to see how that could impact – you know, how many of them got another surgery? How many of them got a PARP? I think this group probably missed the ADC wave for the most part, because this, mirvetuximab is just very recently available in Europe. Dr. Linda Duska: Unless they were on trial. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Unless they were on trial. But I mean, I think we will have to see. 600 patients, I would bet a lot of them missed the ADC wave. So, I do not know that we can say we know what drove these phenomenal – these are some of the best curves we've seen outside of BRCA. And then coming back to your point about the BRCA population here, that is a really critical question that I do not know that we're ever going to answer. There have been hypotheses around a tumor that is driven by BRCA, if you surgically cytoreduced it, and then chemically cytoreduced it with chemo, and so you're starting PARP with nothing visible and likely still homogeneous clones. Is that the group we cured? And then if you give chemo first before surgery, it allows more rapid development of heterogeneity and more clonal evolution that those are patients who are less likely to be cured, even if they do get cytoreduced to nothing at interval with use of PARP inhibitor in the front line. That is a question that many have brought up as something we would like to understand better. Like, if you are BRCA, should you always just go for it or not? I do not know that we're ever going to really get to that. We are trying to look at some of the other studies and just see if you got neoadjuvant and you had BRCA, was anyone cured? I think that is a question on SOLO1 I would like to know the answer to, and I don't yet, that may help us get to that. But that's sort of something we do think about. You should have a fair number of them in TRUST. It wasn't a stratification factor, as I remember. Dr. Linda Duska: No, it wasn't. They stratified by center, age, and ECOG status Dr. Kathleen Moore: So you would hope with randomization that you would have an equal number in each arm. And they may be able to pull that out and do a very exploratory look. But I would be interested to see just completely hypothesis-generating what this looks like for the patients with BRCA, and I hope that they will present that. I know they're busy at work. They have translational work. They have a lot pending with TRUST. It's an incredibly rich resource that I think is going to teach us a lot, and I am excited to see what they do next. Dr. Linda Duska: So, outside of TRUST, we are out of time. I just want to give you a moment if there were any other messages that you want to share with our listeners before we wrap up. Dr. Kathleen Moore: It's an exciting time to be in GYN oncology. For so long, it was just chemo, and then the PARP inhibitors nudged us along quite a bit. We did move more patients, I believe, to the cure fraction. When we ultimately see OS, I think we'll be able to say that definitively, and that is exciting. But, you know, that is the minority of our patients. And while HRD positive benefits tremendously from PARP, I am not as sure we've moved as many to the cure fraction. Time will tell. But 50% of our patients have these tumors that are less HRD. They have a worse prognosis. I think we can say that and recur more quickly. And so the advent of these antibody-drug conjugates, and we could name 20 of them in development in GYN right now, targeting tumor-associated antigens because we're not really driven by mutations other than BRCA. We do not have a lot of things to come after. We're not lung cancer. We are not breast cancer. But we do have a lot of proteins on the surface of our cancers, and we are finally able to leverage that with some very active regimens. And we're in the early phases, I would say, of really understanding how best to use those, how best to position them, and which one to select for whom in a setting where there is going to be obvious overlap of the targets. So we're going to be really working this problem. It is a good problem. A lot of drugs that work pretty well. How do you individualize for a patient, the patient in front of you with three different markers? How do you optimize it? Where do you put them to really prolong survival? And then we finally have cell surface. We saw at ASCO, CDK2 come into play here for the first time, we've got a cell cycle inhibitor. We've been working on WEE1 and ATR for a long time. CDK2s may hit. Response rates were respectable in a resistant population that was cyclin E overexpressing. We've been working on that biomarker for a long time with a toxicity profile that was surprisingly clean, which I like to see for our patients. So that is a different platform. I think we have got bispecifics on the rise. So there is a pipeline of things behind the ADCs, which is important because we need more than one thing, that makes me feel like in the future, I am probably not going to be using doxil ever for platinum-resistant disease. So, I am going to be excited to retire some of those things. We will say, "Remember when we used to use doxil for platinum-resistant disease?" Dr. Linda Duska: I will be retired by then, but thanks for that thought. Dr. Kathleen Moore: I will remind you. Dr. Linda Duska: You are right. It is such an incredibly exciting time to be taking care of ovarian cancer patients with all the opportunities.  And I want to thank you for sharing your valuable insights with us on this podcast today and for your great work to advance care for patients with GYN cancers. Dr. Kathleen Moore: Likewise. Thanks for having me. Dr. Linda Duska: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. You will find links to the TRUST study and other studies discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. 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. More on today's speakers:   Dr. Linda Duska  @Lduska Dr. Kathleen Moore Follow ASCO on social media:     @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter) ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook     ASCO on LinkedIn     Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest:    Dr. Linda Duska:   Consulting or Advisory Role: Regeneron, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Ellipses Pharma  Research Funding (Inst.): GlaxoSmithKline, Millenium, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Aeterna Zentaris, Novartis, Abbvie, Tesaro, Cerulean Pharma, Aduro Biotech, Advaxis, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Leap Therapeutics  Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: UptToDate, Editor, British Journal of Ob/Gyn  Dr. Kathleen Moore: Leadership: GOG Partners, NRG Ovarian Committee Chair Honoraria: Astellas Medivation, Clearity Foundation, IDEOlogy Health, Medscape, Great Debates and Updates, OncLive/MJH Life Sciences, MD Outlook, Curio Science, Plexus, University of Florida, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Congress Chanel, BIOPHARM, CEA/CCO, Physician Education Resource (PER), Research to Practice, Med Learning Group, Peerview, Peerview, PeerVoice, CME Outfitters, Virtual Incision Consulting/Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Immunogen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Eisai, Verastem/Pharmacyclics, AADi, Caris Life Sciences, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Regeneron, zentalis, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, BioNTech SE, Immunocore, Seagen, Takeda Science Foundation, Zymeworks, Profound Bio, ADC Therapeutics, Third Arc, Loxo/Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Tango Therapeutics, Abbvie, T Knife, F Hoffman La Roche, Tubulis GmbH, Clovis Oncology, Kivu, Genmab/Seagen, Kivu, Genmab/Seagen, Whitehawk, OnCusp Therapeutics, Natera, BeiGene, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Day One Biopharmaceuticals, Debiopharm Group, Foundation Medicine, Novocure Research Funding (Inst.): Mersana, GSK/Tesaro, Duality Biologics, Mersana, GSK/Tesaro, Duality Biologics, Merck, Regeneron, Verasatem, AstraZeneca, Immunogen, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, Immunocore, Torl Biotherapeutics, Allarity Therapeutics, IDEAYA Biosciences, Zymeworks, Schrodinger Other Relationship (Inst.): GOG Partners

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies 'ChatGPT, MD?' - Large Language Models at the Bedside Management decisions in myocarditis Statistics Made Easy: Mendelian randomisation Host: Emer Joyce Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Folkert Asselbergs, Massimo Imazio Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2179 Want to watch that extended interview on 'ChatGPT, MD?': Large Language Models at the Bedside? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2179?resource=interview Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis through an independent funding. The programme has not been influenced in any way by its funding partners. 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, Folkert Asselbergs, Yasmina Bououdina, Massimo Imazio, 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. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder MyCardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. 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.

Host: Emer Joyce Guest: Folkert Asselbergs Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2179 Want to watch that extended interview on 'ChatGPT, MD?': Large Language Models at the Bedside? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2179?resource=interview Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis through an independent funding. The programme has not been influenced in any way by its funding partners. 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, Folkert Asselbergs, Yasmina Bououdina, 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. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder MyCardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. E mma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson. Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Send us a textGood morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we delve into the dynamic landscape of the industry, exploring significant scientific advancements, regulatory changes, clinical trial outcomes, and strategic investments that are shaping the future of healthcare.Starting with strategic investments, Regeneron is making a bold move with a $2 billion investment to transform a former magazine factory in Saratoga Springs, New York, into a state-of-the-art drug manufacturing plant. This investment reflects a broader industry trend towards enhancing domestic manufacturing capabilities to ensure supply chain resilience. Similarly, CSL is channeling $1.5 billion into U.S. plasma-based manufacturing over the next five years. These investments are critical as plasma-derived therapies continue to play a vital role in treating various conditions, necessitating robust manufacturing infrastructure to meet growing demand.In clinical research, Merck's Winrevair has shown promising results in a proof-of-concept study for heart failure patients. This advancement highlights ongoing efforts to address one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide—heart failure. The study paves the way for further exploration of activin signaling inhibitors in cardiovascular therapies.On the regulatory front, Eli Lilly has expanded its market reach with the approval of its Alzheimer's medication for distribution in India. This milestone represents progress in tackling the global Alzheimer's disease burden, an ailment that presents significant challenges to healthcare systems worldwide.The FDA's recent critique of AstraZeneca's Farxiga advertisement underscores the importance of accuracy in pharmaceutical marketing. The agency's concerns about potential misleading impressions emphasize ongoing regulatory vigilance to align marketing practices with approved therapeutic uses and ensure patient safety.Shifting to business strategies, Zymeworks' transition towards becoming a 'royalty-driven organization' marks an evolution in biotech business models. By leveraging successful licensing frameworks, Zymeworks aims to enhance revenue streams while focusing on innovation without the traditional constraints of direct commercialization.In cardiovascular therapeutics, Cytokinetics is positioning itself strategically by funding a heart registry, signaling an intensifying competitive landscape as companies vie for leadership in this critical area of healthcare.Roche's development of giredestrant, an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), has achieved success in a phase 3 adjuvant breast cancer trial. This positions Roche to capture an unoccupied niche within the competitive breast cancer treatment market and highlights a trend towards targeted therapies with potentially significant patient outcomes.Addressing side effects associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists, Vanda Pharmaceuticals is making strides with tradipitant to mitigate nausea and vomiting induced by Wegovy. As GLP-1 agonists gain traction for their metabolic benefits, adjunct therapies addressing side effects are becoming increasingly pertinent.In digital health initiatives, Humana's collaboration with Epic aims to automate insurance verification and patient check-ins, aligning with federal interoperability goals. This represents a broader industry shift towards digital solutions designed to streamline administrative processes and enhance patient experience.Meanwhile, Lonza's expansion at its Stein facility in Switzerland underscores ongoing capacity-building efforts among contract development and manufacturing organizations (CDMOs). Such expansions are crucial as they provide biopharmaceutical companies with the neSupport the show

Trump, Epstein belgelerine dair tutum değiştirdi ve dosyaların yayımlanması yönünde oy kullanma çağrısı yaptı. Bangladeş'te eski Başbakan Şeyh Hasina idam cezasına çarptırıldı.Bu bölüm AstraZeneca hakkında reklam içermektedir. AstraZeneca Türkiye Türk Tıbbi Onkoloji Derneği işbirliği ile hayata geçirdiği “Belirti Yoksa da Yok Sayma” farkındalık kampanyasıyla akciğer kanserinde erken tanının önemine dikkat çekiyor. Kampanya filmini buradan izleyebilirsiniz.

The Friday Five for November 14, 2025: iPhone Pocket Brings Back… Pockets. CMS Rural Health Transformation Program Government Shutdown Update Most-Favored Nation Drug Pricing CMS GENEROUS Model   Get Connected:

PFDK, 120 futbolcuya bahis oynadıkları gerekçesiyle hak mahrumiyeti cezası verdi. Düşen askerî kargo uçağındaki 20 askerin naaşları Türkiye'ye getirilirken Millî Savunma Bakanlığı, C-130 uçuşlarının tedbiren durdurulduğunu açıkladı.Bu bölüm AstraZeneca hakkında reklam içermektedir. Bugün Dünya Diyabet Günü. AstraZeneca Türkiye, “Diyabete Karşı Sağlıkta İnecek Var” kampanyasıyla diyabet hastalığına karşı harekete geçmeye davet ediyor. Kampanya filmini izlemek için buraya tıklayabilirsiniz.Bu bölüm Boyner hakkında reklam içermektedir. Yılın o zamanı geldi, 11.11 indirimleri başladı. Olay ürünler ve olay indirimler Boyner'de. Alışverişe başlamak için buraya tıklayabilirsiniz.

“I realized that rather than talking one-to-one with patients in the exam room, you could talk one-to-many on social media,” says Dr. Kevin Pho, explaining the origins of KevinMD, the highly influential information sharing site he created for physicians, medical students and patients twenty years ago. Since then, KevinMD has become a valuable space for clinicians and patients to share stories and perspectives on topics from burnout and moral injury to technology and trust. In this conversation with Raise the Line host Michael Carrese, Dr. Pho reflects on the dual paths that have defined his career: as a practicing internal medicine physician and as one of healthcare's most trusted online voices. And despite the challenges of doing so, Dr. Pho encourages other medical providers to follow his lead. “Patients are going online, and if physicians are not there, they're going to get information that's perhaps politically-driven or simply inaccurate.”This thoughtful conversation also explores: How social media has reshaped health communicationThe risks and rewards for clinicians of having an online presence Why medical schools should teach negotiating skillsMentioned in this episode:KevinMDEstablishing, Managing and Protecting Your Online Reputation 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/podcast

Oliver Patel has built a sizeable online following for his social media posts and Substack about enterprise AI governance, using clever acronyms and visual frameworks to distill down insights based on his experience at AstraZeneca, a major global pharmaceutical company. In this episode, he details his career journey from academic theory to government policy and now practical application, and offers insights for those new to the field. He argues that effective enterprise AI governance requires being pragmatic and picking your battles, since the role isn't to stop AI adoption but to enable organizations to adopt it safely and responsibly at speed and scale. He notes that core pillars of modern AI governance, such as AI literacy, risk classification, and maintaining an AI inventory, are incorporated into the EU AI Act and thus essential for compliance. Looking forward, Patel identifies AI democratization—how to govern AI when everyone in the workforce can use and build it—as the biggest hurdle, and offers thougths about how enteprises can respond. Oliver Patel is the Head of Enterprise AI Governance at AstraZeneca. Before moving into the corporate sector, he worked for the UK government as Head of Inbound Data Flows, where he focused on data policy and international data transfers, and was a researcher at University College London. He serves as an IAPP Faculty Member and a member of the OECD's Expert Group on AI Risk. His forthcoming book, Fundamentals of AI Governance, will be released in early 2026. Transcript Enterprise AI Governance Substack Top 10 Challenges for AI Governance Leaders in 2025 (Part 1)  Fundamentals of AI Governance book page  

** AWS re:Invent 2025 Dec 1-5, Las Vegas - Register Here! **SnapLogic CTO Jeremiah Stone reveals how they evolved from open-source to AI-powered integration platform, doubled AI adoption with one UX change, and delivers measurable enterprise ROI.Topics Include:SnapLogic CTO shares their decade-long journey building AI-powered integration with AWS partnership.SnapLogic drives "human cost of integration to zero" for thousands of global companies.Started as open-source project, pivoted to cloud in 2015 with AWS infrastructure.Began AI workloads in 2018, predicting next steps in integration workflows using models.Became AWS Bedrock launch partner, completely reinventing their product for generative AI era.SnapLogic lives through transformations first, then credibly helps ISV customers do same.Helped Adobe migrate entire CRM from Salesforce to Microsoft over single weekend.Built normalized data architecture using S3, Iceberg, Glue for analytics-ready enterprise data.SnapGPT copilot converts plain language prompts into complete integration pipelines in minutes.Live demo shows generating Salesforce-to-Redshift pipeline with filters using natural language commands.Small UX tweak adding helpful header doubled monthly active users of SnapGPT.Changed legal agreements in 2017 to capture metadata, enabling AI features years later.Agent Creator delivers ROI across customers: Inspirant, Core Plus, AstraZeneca use cases.SnapLogic's own finance team cut order reconciliation from 40 hours monthly to 90 minutes.Key lessons: governance first, understand business impact, use AWS native patterns consistently.Participants:Jeremiah Stone – Chief Technical Officer, SnapLogicOlawale Oladehin – Managing Director, NAMER Technology Segments, Amazon Web ServicesSee how Amazon Web Services gives you the freedom to migrate, innovate, and scale your software company at https://aws.amazon.com/isv/

“We've created this ecosystem where the vast majority of information on social media, particularly in nutrition science, is inaccurate or misleading,” says Dr. Jessica Knurick, a registered dietitian and Ph.D. in nutrition science specializing in chronic disease prevention. As you'll learn on this episode of Raise the Line with host Lindsey Smith, countering that trend has become Dr. Knurick's focus in the past several years, and her talent for translating complex scientific information into practical guidance has attracted a large following on social media. Beyond equipping her audience with the tools to think critically and make informed choices for themselves, she also wants them to make the connection between the generally poor health status of most Americans with public policies on food and health and advocate for more beneficial approaches. “We can create systems that put the most people in the position to succeed versus putting the most people in the position to fail.” Tune in to learn from this trusted voice on nutrition, food policy, and public health as she shares her perspectives on: Strategies for risk reduction and behavior changeWhat can rebuild trust in medical information How you can cut through the noise and spot misinformation onlineMentioned in this episode:Dr. Knurick's WebsiteTikTok ChannelInstagram FeedFacebook Page 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/podcast

Could studying the DNA of extinct animals – or even bringing them back to life – help us save today's endangered species and inform modern medicine?  That may sound like the premise for a Hollywood movie, but it's work that our Raise the Line guest, Dr. Beth Shapiro, is actually engaged in as Chief Science Officer at Colossal Biosciences, which describes itself as the world's first and only de-extinction company.  “It's not just about learning about the past. It's learning about the past so we have more validated scientific information that we can use to predict what we can do to better influence the future,” she tells host Michael Carrese. An internationally-renowned evolutionary molecular biologist and paleogeneticist, Dr. Shapiro is a pioneer in ancient DNA research and has successfully sequenced genomes, like that of the dodo, to study evolution and the impact on humans. At Colossal Biosciences, she leads teams working to bring back traits of extinct species such as the mammoth, not for spectacle, but to restore ecological balance. “When species become extinct, you lose really fundamental interactions between species that existed in that ecosystem. By taking a species that's alive today and editing its DNA so that it resembles those extinct species, we can functionally replace those missing ecological interactions.” Tune into this utterly fascinating conversation to hear about what Jurassic Park got wrong, the positive ecological impact of reintroducing giant tortoises to Mauritius, and the ethics of using gene editing and other biotechnologies. Mentioned in this episode:Colossal Biosciences 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/podcast