Podcasts about Novartis

Nvidia, Trump, la Fed, la France, la Chine, l'inflation, et un mois d'août qui se termine dans la fatigue des marchés… Tout est dans ce nouvel épisode !

In a world where marketing agencies are racing to keep up with rapid change, how do you grow faster without losing your people, your culture, or your edge? In this episode of Leader Generation, Mod Op's new COO, Stuart Goldstein, joins Tessa Burg to share his playbook for scaling agencies. With years of experience leading firms through mergers, digital transformations, and process overhauls, Stuart reveals why the real challenge isn't the technology or the tools—it's bringing people along for the ride. Listeners will get an inside look at why Mod Op is uniting specialized agencies under one platform to offer clients deep expertise without the coordination headaches of managing multiple vendors. Listeners will get an inside look at why Mod Op is uniting specialized agencies under one platform, how to turn skeptics into champions, and the leadership moves that make change stick. From integrating AI across disciplines to avoiding the “shiny object” trap, he offers candid advice and relatable stories that apply to any leader facing transformation. This conversation delivers practical ways to align people, processes, and platforms—to keep your team motivated and your clients happy. Leader Generation is hosted by Tessa Burg and brought to you by Mod Op.  About Stuart Goldstein: As an experienced operations leader with over 20 years of success, Stuart can captain any ship. From start-up to heavyweight, Stuart has helped agencies and organizations pave their path to greatness. His expertise has been instrumental in driving growth and fame for renowned clients such as Johnson & Johnson, Oreo, Coca-Cola, American Express, Novartis, Diageo, eBay, GlaxoSmithKline, Time Warner, and Marvel, among others. And somehow, he still finds a way to drop a joke and take life one day at a time as long as it fits the brief. About Tessa Burg: Tessa is the Chief Technology Officer at Mod Op and Host of the Leader Generation podcast. She has led both technology and marketing teams for 15+ years. Tessa initiated and now leads Mod Op's AI/ML Pilot Team, AI Council and Innovation Pipeline. She started her career in IT and development before following her love for data and strategy into digital marketing. Tessa has held roles on both the consulting and client sides of the business for domestic and international brands, including American Greetings, Amazon, Nestlé, Anlene, Moen and many more. Tessa can be reached on LinkedIn or at Tessa.Burg@ModOp.com.  

As you may have heard, AI-designed medicines have crossed a historic line. In this episode, Alex Zhavoronkov - CEO of Insilico Medicine and founder of ARDD walks us through how Insilico's rentosertib became the first AI-generated small molecule with peer-reviewed clinical efficacy, while arguing against AI hype and reminding us that biology still moves at “the speed of traffic.” That duality runs through the whole conversation. On one side: a pragmatic operator obsessed with credible science, biomarkers, and clinical benchmarks; on the other: an AI visionary investing in cryonics, sketching “pharmaceutical superintelligence,” and thinking in decades, not quarters.We start in Basel, home to Roche and Novartis, where ARDD was born, then trace how the conference morphed into a ”high-signal filter for longevity” - packed with startups (who also fund it), hard data, and mainstream pharma.Alex looks back at his 2014 Nvidia talk (”Can Nvidia solve aging?”) and explains why Insilico trains its AI to learn age first - so it actually grasps biology. Years of problem-solving with pharma turned into their Pharma.AI toolkit (Biology42, Chemistry42, Medicine42, Science42).Insilico now runs 40+ programs and in an early Phase 2 study for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), their drug rentosertib showed a dose-dependent boost in lung capacity.Compared with the old path - often $150–200M and ~5 years just to pick a lead molecule - Insilico says it can often reach that point for under $3M or even less. Still, Alex is cautious: no matter how smart the AI gets, real-world testing and regulation won't speed up overnight.Also in this episode:What made Alex cry.Why he wouldn't give his own drug to patients - yet.How a mirror on a conference poster led to a proposal.How ARDD became the “WEF of longevity”.Why internal “kill teams” try to stop their own drug candidates.Why labeling aging a disease helps - but won't shortcut approvals.Why he writes to “feed AI”.How Nvidia threads through the story - from free GPUs to Jensen's video.

Shea Belsky shares his top do's and don'ts for managing neurodiversity in the workplace.— YOU'LL LEARN — 1) Why neurodivergency is unavoidable at work2) The unique strengths and struggles of autistic people3) When and how to discuss neurodiversity at workSubscribe or visit AwesomeAtYourJob.com/ep1087 for clickable versions of the links below. — ABOUT SHEA — Shea Belsky is an autistic self-advocate. He is a Tech Lead II at HubSpot, and the former Chief Technology Officer of Mentra. Having been the manager of neurodivergent & neurotypical employees, he brings many unique perspectives on neurodiversity in the workplace. Shea has championed neurodiversity for organizations like Novartis, the Kennedy Krieger Institute, Northeastern University, in addition to being featured in Forbes and the New York Post.• LinkedIn: Shea Belsky• Podcast: Autistic Techie• Website: SheaBelsky.com— RESOURCES MENTIONED IN THE SHOW — • Book: Radical Candor: Be a Kick-Ass Boss Without Losing Your Humanity by Kim Scott• Past episode: 150: Expressing Radical Candor with Kim Scott• Past episode: 860: The Science of Compelling Body Language with Richard Newman• Past episode: 1049: What Dyslexia Can Teach Us About Creativity, Problem Solving, and Critical Thinking with Kate Griggs• Past episode: 1070: An ADHD Strategist's Pro Tips for Staying Motivated and Productive When You Can't Focus with Skye Waterson• Past episode: 1085: How to Find More Fun at Work Every Day with Bree Groff— THANK YOU SPONSORS! — • Strawberry.me. Claim your $50 credit and build momentum in your career with Strawberry.me/Awesome• LinkedIn Jobs. Post your job for free at linkedin.com/beawesome• Quince. Get free shipping and 365-day returns on your order with Quince.com/Awesome• Square. See how Square can transform your business by visiting Square.com/go/awesomeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

US-Präsident Trump will tiefere Medikamentenpreise und droht mit Zöllen. Nutzen Roche, Novartis und Co. den US-Markt aus? Und, warum fällt es der Branche so schwer Preise zu senken, angesichts der hohen Gewinne und Gehälter? Kritische Fragen an Interpharma-Geschäftsführer René Buholzer. Ergänzend zum Tagesgespräch finden Sie jeden Samstag in unserem Kanal die aktuelle Samstagsrundschau. Die Schweizer Pharma-Industrie steht gleich unter mehrfachem Druck aus den USA: einerseits soll sie die Preise senken für Medikamente in den USA und vermehrt im Land produzieren. Die Industrie hat Milliardeninvestitionen angekündigt, doch dem US-Präsidenten reicht das nicht. Bis Ende September soll die Industrie darlegen, wie sie die Medikamentenpreise, die teilweise ein Mehrfaches über denjenigen in Europa inklusive der Schweiz liegen, senken will. Gelingt das nicht drohen der Branche hohe Zölle. Die Hälfte aller Schweizer Pharma-Exporte gehen in die USA. Wie konnte die Branche so abhängig werden von einem Markt? Warum soll es trotz der hohen Margen im Geschäft nicht möglich sein, die Preise in den USA zu senken, ohne sie in Europa anzuheben? Was hat die Schweiz von Roche, Novartis und Co. tatsächlich? Und, nutzt die Branche die aktuelle Situation, um alte Forderungen nach weniger Regulierung durchzubringen? René Buholzer, der Chef von Interpharma, dem Verband der forschenden Pharmafirmen in der Schweiz, nimmt Stellung in der Samstagsrundschau bei Klaus Ammann.

US-Präsident Trump will tiefere Medikamentenpreise und droht mit Zöllen. Nutzen Roche, Novartis und Co. den US-Markt aus? Und, warum fällt es der Branche so schwer Preise zu senken, angesichts der hohen Gewinne und Gehälter? Kritische Fragen an Interpharma-Geschäftsführer René Buholzer. Die Schweizer Pharma-Industrie steht gleich unter mehrfachem Druck aus den USA: einerseits soll sie die Preise senken für Medikamente in den USA und vermehrt im Land produzieren. Die Industrie hat Milliardeninvestitionen angekündigt, doch dem US-Präsidenten reicht das nicht. Bis Ende September soll die Industrie darlegen, wie sie die Medikamentenpreise, die teilweise ein Mehrfaches über denjenigen in Europa inklusive der Schweiz liegen, senken will. Gelingt das nicht drohen der Branche hohe Zölle. Die Hälfte aller Schweizer Pharma-Exporte gehen in die USA. Wie konnte die Branche so abhängig werden von einem Markt? Warum soll es trotz der hohen Margen im Geschäft nicht möglich sein, die Preise in den USA zu senken, ohne sie in Europa anzuheben? Was hat die Schweiz von Roche, Novartis und Co. tatsächlich? Und, nutzt die Branche die aktuelle Situation, um alte Forderungen nach weniger Regulierung durchzubringen? René Buholzer, der Chef von Interpharma, dem Verband der forschenden Pharmafirmen in der Schweiz, nimmt Stellung in der Samstagsrundschau bei Klaus Ammann.

Send us a textJennifer Garvey Berger designs and teaches leadership programs, coaches senior leaders and their teams, and supports new ways of thinking about strategy and people. In her four highly acclaimed books, Unleash Your Complexity Genius (co-authored with Carolyn Coughlin), Unlocking Leadership Mindtraps, Simple Habits for Complex Times (co-authored with Keith Johnston), and Changing on the Job, Jennifer builds on deep theoretical knowledge to offer practical ways to make leaders' organizations more successful, their work more meaningful, and their lives more gratifying. Jennifer has worked with senior leaders in the private, non-profit, and government sectors worldwide (like Novartis, Google, KPMG, Intel, Microsoft, Wikimedia, and the New Zealand Department of Conservation).Jennifer is a co-founder and CEO of Cultivating Leadership. She has a masters and a doctorate from Harvard University. Formerly an associate professor at George Mason University, Jennifer learned about deep change more than a decade ago when she turned down the tenure offer and moved to a small seaside village in New Zealand with her husband, two kids, and the family dog. While she still considers herself a Kiwi by choice, you can find her in the French countryside, where she has bought a house with eleven friends who live in community and try to keep the dog from terrifying the cats.A Quote From This Episode“My job is to admire that meaning system and hold space for that meaning system to grow a little bit. My job is not to fix it…”Resources Mentioned in This Episode 

Entre les chiffres d'inflation « magiquement » contenus, la consommation qui mollit, les semiconducteurs qui commencent à couiner et Trump qui souffle le chaud et le froid, une seule obsession domine les marchés :

As summer winds down and September approaches, many people with asthma notice their symptoms getting worse. This is no coincidence as more asthma triggers appear during this time of year, from pollen and viruses to stress and weather changes. This combination peaks during Asthma Peak Week, a time when asthma attacks and ER visits spike across the country. Allergist Dr. Kristin Sokol joins us to discuss seasonal asthma triggers, why fall can be especially risky, and how you can prepare to keep your asthma under control. You'll learn how to identify your personal triggers, steps to reduce your exposure, and why staying consistent with your medication routine is critical. We also cover tools like an asthma action plan, preparing for school, and making sure caregivers and teachers know how to respond to an asthma flare. What we cover in our episode about managing asthma triggers during the fall: Understanding asthma: learn why even mild asthma should be reviewed before the fall. Identifying triggers: from indoor allergens to seasonal pollen and surprising emotional triggers, know what can set off your asthma. Preparing for Asthma Peak Week: discover how viruses, ragweed pollen, and stress combine into a dangerous flare period and how to get ahead of it. Staying in control: strategies to avoid or reduce asthma trigger exposure, prepare for school, and keep your asthma action plan up to date. Supporting everyone with asthma: special considerations for adults, caregivers, and teachers to stay healthy and ready year-round. More episodes about asthma Ep. 81: Why asthma attacks rise in September peak week Ep. 58: What is controlled Asthma? - Everything you need to know! Ep. 117: As-Needed Albuterol–Budesonide in Mild Asthma (BATURA Trial) Made in partnership with The Allergy & Asthma Network. Thanks to Novartis for sponsoring today's episode.  This podcast is for informational purposes only and does not substitute professional medical advice. Always consult with your healthcare provider for any medical concerns.

As AI continues to reshape everything from medicine to flight decks, the question isn't whether it's coming to your organization; it's whether leaders are ready for it.  The future belongs to executives who can blend critical thinking with adaptive leadership, who can shed old assumptions and operate ahead of the curve.  According to psychologist and organizational strategist Eric Olson, the most crucial skill for tomorrow's leaders is resilience rooted in clarity, connection, and courageous action. What's driving this leadership revolution isn't just digital disruption; it's cognitive disruption. Across industries, AI is exposing the limits of traditional thinking and highlighting the cost of bias, rigidity, and ego-driven leadership. In this high-stakes environment, emotional intelligence, adaptability, and mission-first thinking are no longer soft skills; they're survival tools. Eric Olson, PhD, is the founder of EMO Advisors and a trusted advisor to leaders at Microsoft, Hawaiian Airlines, Ford, and Spirit Airlines. In this episode, we unpack the emerging playbook for 21st-century leadership, from the cockpit to the boardroom.  You'll hear how elite teams regulate for excellence, and what over 1,000 pilots revealed about what makes teams thrive under pressure.  You'll also learn: Why past performance fails in AI-disrupted environments, and what to assess instead The surprising truth about pilot personalities  How Microsoft is reengineering its executive ranks to lead in an AI-first world What the Norwegian Sovereign Fund did to eliminate bias and boost performance Why effective leaders must press pause during crises to regain clarity How self-regulation and cross-functional trust reduce catastrophic errors in high-stakes teams The hidden costs of amygdala-driven leadership, and how to train for resilience How Delta Airlines is using AI to extract more wallet share, and why that's just the beginning The “Olson Resilience Model” that Fortune 50 teams use to perform under pressure   Guest Bio Eric Olson, PhD, is the founder of EMO Advisors. He develops leaders and management teams to improve business performance through a growth mindset. He builds resilience with senior teams using strategic planning offsites, culture change, innovation labs, team coaching, and other methods. Eric's client list includes Microsoft, Hawaiian Airlines, Ford, GitHub, IBM, The Coca-Cola Company, Disney, and Novartis, among many others. He works in the digital transformation space (Cloud + AI, mixed reality, engineering, UX, devices, etc.). Eric coaches leaders to build highly engaging cultures through a blend of financial, organizational, and psychological insights. Connect with Eric on LinkedIn.  About Your Host Craig Picken is an Executive Recruiter, writer, speaker and ICF Trained Executive Coach. He is focused on recruiting senior-level leadership, sales, and operations executives in the aviation and aerospace industry. His clients include premier OEMs, aircraft operators, leasing/financial organizations, and Maintenance/Repair/Overhaul (MRO) providers and since 2008, he has personally concluded more than 400 executive-level searches in a variety of disciplines. Craig is the ONLY industry executive recruiter who has professionally flown airplanes, sold airplanes, and successfully run a P&L in the aviation industry. His professional career started with a passion for airplanes. After eight years' experience as a decorated Naval Flight Officer – with more than 100 combat missions, 2,000 hours of flight time, and 325 aircraft carrier landings – Craig sought challenges in business aviation, where he spent more than 7 years in sales with both Gulfstream Aircraft and Bombardier Business Aircraft. Craig is also a sought-after industry speaker who has presented at Corporate Jet Investor, International Aviation Women's Association, and SOCAL Aviation Association.    Check out this episode on our website, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify, and don't forget to leave a review if you like what you heard. Your review feeds the algorithm so our show reaches more people. Thank you! 

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

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

Audio roundup of selected biopharma industry content from Scrip over the business week ended August 8, 2025. In this episode: Trump ups pressure on MFN pricing; Pfizer says pharma working with Trump on direct sales; Sanofi says direct sales worth considering: Aurigene Oncology CEO on biotech valuations and more; and Novartis progresses pipeline-in-a-product assets. https://insights.citeline.com/scrip/podcasts/scrips-five-must-know-things/quick-listen-scrips-five-must-know-things-RCXSH2B5EVCC3IIK35GXUSNZVA/ This episode was produced with the help of AI text-to-voice and voice emulation tools. Playlist: soundcloud.com/citelinesounds/sets/scrips-five-must-know-things

Bei der Klage geht es um 291 Millionen Dollar. Diesen Betrag klagt die Firma «Richmond Global Compass» ein. Novartis habe eine Anlagestrategie für nachhaltige Anlagen von der Firma gestohlen. Relativiert wird die Klage vom einem Wirtschaftsprofessor. Solche Klagen seinen in den USA relativ üblich. Ausserdem: - Ruine Schauenburg oben an Frenkendorf wird saniert - Petersplatz soll saniert werden, für 8,3 Millionen CHF - Dreiländer-Museum mit neuer Ausstellung zum Elsass während der Nazi-Zeit

Eine US-Investment-Firma hat bei einem Gericht in New York eine Klage gegen Novartis eingereicht. Es geht um eine Vermögensanlage. Die Investmentfirma wirft Novartis vor, sie habe die Anlagestrategie gestohlen und unlauter gehandelt. Es geht um 291 Millionen Dollar. Ausserdem Thema: · Basler Strafgericht verhandelt Vergewaltigungsfall · Hitzewarnung für die nächsten Tage

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

On this week's episode, Grace Colón, John Maraganore, Paul Matteis and Eric Schmidt dive in with a discussion on policy news, including the pharma tariffs and latest on the Trump administration's Most Favored Nations drug pricing plans. The co-hosts then question if Vinay Prasad has a path back to the FDA and express hope for someone more centrist if he does not return. They also mention the CRLs for Scholar Rock and Regeneron were due to manufacturing issues. Continuing with policy news, they cover RFK Jr.'s decision to cancel ~$500 million in Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) contracts related to mRNA vaccine development. In data news, the group discusses Vertex's latest non-opioid pain data and the company's future in this therapeutic area. Next, the co-hosts highlight Alnylam's recently approved treatment for cardiomyopathy, noting it has surpassed consensus estimates and predicting mega-blockbuster status. A recent report on patient deaths among those who took Agios' Pyrukynd for anemia - though determined to be unrelated to the drug - is also discussed. The co-hosts then review Biogen's new “ventures” team, and the episode concludes with an overview of Novartis and Avidity deal rumors. *This episode aired on August 8, 2025.

Dr. Adam Kinnaird of the University of Alberta joins Dr. Aly-Khan Lalani and Dr. Christopher Wallis to explore the evolution of prostate cancer diagnostics, from the limitations of transrectal ultrasound to the rise of MRI and micro-ultrasound. They unpack key trials, discuss real-world challenges like long MRI wait times in Canada, and examine how micro-ultrasound offers a scalable, point-of-care solution. This can't-miss episode charts a path toward faster and more accurate prostate cancer care.This podcast has been made possible through unrestricted financial support by Novartis, Bayer, Astellas, Tolmar, Ipsen, J&J, Merck, Pfizer, Eisai and AbbVie.The View on GU with Lalani & Wallis integrates key clinical data from major conferences and high impact publications, sharing meaningful take home messages for practising clinicians in the field of genitourinary (GU) cancers. Learn more about The View on GU: theviewongu.ca

How can biotech companies stay resilient and competitive when public sector funding becomes unpredictable? In this episode, host James Zanewicz, JD, LLM, RTTP, sits down with Adeyinka “Adey” Pierce-Watkins, MS, PMP—Director of Biodefense and Government Contracting at BDO USA—for a timely conversation on surviving and thriving in today's evolving federal funding landscape. From defense contracts to international partnerships, Adey shares practical guidance for life science leaders aiming to tap into strategic public funding opportunities. In this episode, you'll learn: How to identify and access alternative funding sources—including state, federal, and international opportunities. What biotech organizations need in place to be “government-ready” for grants, contracts, and urgent response funding. Why strategic planning, partnerships, and compliance infrastructure are essential to winning and executing federal awards. Whether you're pursuing BARDA grants, entering international consortia, or rethinking your risk exposure, this episode offers actionable insights to help biotech innovators chart a smarter path forward. Links: Connect with Adey Pierce, MS, PMP, and check out BDO USA. Connect with James Zanewicz, JD, LLM, RTTP and learn about Tulane Medicine Business Development and the School of Medicine. Learn more about the Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas, TEDCO, and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Learn more about Flagship Pioneering, Andreessen Horowitz, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, and Roche. Learn more about HERA, Horizon Europe, AMED, and A*STAR. Connect with Ian McLachlan, BIO from the BAYOU producer. Check out BIO on the BAYOU and make plans to attend October 28 & 29, 2025. Learn more about BIO from the BAYOU - the podcast. Bio from the Bayou is a podcast that explores biotech innovation, business development, and healthcare outcomes in New Orleans & The Gulf South, connecting biotech companies, investors, and key opinion leaders to advance medicine, technology, and startup opportunities in the region.

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech Daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma and Biotech world.##Breaking News: Pfizer announces successful COVID-19 vaccine trialsIn a groundbreaking announcement, Pfizer revealed that their COVID-19 vaccine candidate has shown to be over 90% effective in preventing the virus. This news brings hope to the world as we continue to battle the global pandemic.##FDA approves new treatment for Alzheimer's diseaseThe FDA has approved a new treatment for Alzheimer's disease, marking a significant advancement in the fight against this debilitating condition. This approval could potentially change the lives of millions of patients and their families.##Johnson & Johnson recalls baby powder due to asbestos contaminationJohnson & Johnson has issued a voluntary recall of its baby powder products after trace amounts of asbestos were found in samples. This news has raised concerns about the safety of talc-based products and the potential risks they pose to consumers.##Novartis announces major breakthrough in cancer researchNovartis has made a significant breakthrough in cancer research with the development of a new targeted therapy that has shown promising results in clinical trials. This innovation has the potential to revolutionize cancer treatment and improve outcomes for patients.##Merck receives FDA approval for new diabetes drugMerck has received FDA approval for a new diabetes drug that offers another option for patients struggling to manage their condition. This approval expands treatment options and provides hope for those living with diabetes.##Roche acquires biotech company in multi-billion dollar dealRoche has announced the acquisition of a biotech company in a multi-billion dollar deal that will expand its portfolio and strengthen its position in the market. This strategic move demonstrates Roche's commitment to innovation and growth in the biotech sector.##Incyte collaborates with academic research center to develop new therapiesIncyte has formed a collaboration with an academic research center to develop new therapies for a range of diseases, including cancer and inflammatory conditions. This partnership brings together expertise from both sectors to accelerate the discovery and development of innovative treatments.##Overall, these recent developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech industry highlight the ongoing efforts to advance healthcare and improve patient outcomes. From groundbreaking vaccines to innovative therapies, these advancements are shaping the future of medicine and providing hope for patients worldwide.

As the world's largest biotech partnering event took place in Boston in June, MTPConnect was there introducing an Australian delegation to the Boston ecosystem, hosting business events to drive international collaborations and leading the Australian Pavilion to highlight Australia's fast-growing life sciences sector to the international biotech industry.Our CEO Stuart Dignam was on the ground to find out why people are making the trip to BIO and what the buzz is all about. In this episode, Stuart speaks to Brent Owens, co-founder of Ballarat-based Vitrafy Life Sciences – a company pioneering cryopreservation technology and Brent Barnes, CEO and Manager Director of Adelaide-based Clever Culture Systems - inventor of APAS Independence, an intelligent microbiology culture plate reading technology that is revolutionising pharmaceutical lab work. These Australian start-ups have established a foothold in the US and are looking to expand and navigate the new tariff regime. Stuart also catches up with Professor Chris Molloy from the UK's Medicines Discovery Catapult to get his take on BIO and find out more about the BIOBridge initiative and why collaboration is key to solving the world's health challenges. For the support and partnership, MTPConnect would like to thank the state governments of NSW, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia, and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, Austrade, CSIRO and AusBiotech.And thanks for the industry support from Moderna, Novartis, Australia & New Zealand, Cytiva, Sanofi, Arrotex Pharmaceuticals and Nutromics, and support for MTPConnect's Australian delegation site visit program from CSL and Global Pharma Solutions. 

Do adults with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) have a higher risk of death over time compared to people without hives? We review the findings from “Mortality in adult patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: A real-world cohort study,” published in April 2025, in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. While CSU is often considered a non-life-threatening condition, this large study found something surprising: people with CSU had a significantly higher risk of death, especially from suicide. Dr. G and Dr. Blaiss walk through key takeaways from a dataset of over 272,000 CSU patients and nearly 13 million matched controls. They explore what the results mean for mortality risk, clinical care, mental health screening, and the importance of proper, guideline-based treatment. What we cover in our episode about CSU and mortality risk: What is CSU? Chronic hives are an unpredictable, itchy, and sometimes painful condition. It lasts for 6 weeks or longer and can continue for years. Mental health connection: CSU affects more than skin. Anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts are common and serious concerns. Study findings: CSU was associated with higher mortality at 3 months, 1 year, and 5 years. Suicide risk was over 3 times higher than in people without CSU. Demographics: Younger and White patients with CSU had the highest increase in risk. Treatment impact: Patients using guideline-recommended treatments like second-generation antihistamines or omalizumab had lower death rates. INFOGRAPHIC The Itch Review, hosted by Dr. Gupta, Kortney, and Dr. Blaiss, explores allergy and immunology studies, breaking down complex research in conversations accessible to clinicians, patients, and caregivers. Each episode provides key insights from journal articles and includes a one-page infographic in the show notes for easy reference.   Made in partnership with The Allergy & Asthma Network. Thanks to Novartis for sponsoring today's episode.  This podcast is for informational purposes only and does not substitute professional medical advice. Always consult with your healthcare provider for any medical concerns.

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

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

On this week's episode, Josh Schimmer, Chris Garabedian, Sam Fazeli, Yaron Werber and guest Adam Feuerstein dive into breaking news, including Sarepta's recent updates -- layoffs, a black box warning, and pipeline reorganization -- and the juxtaposition of Amylyx's post-bariatric hypoglycemia and GLP-1 inhibitor following a webinar update at ENDO 2025. In regulatory news, the group discusses the evolving FDA under Makary's leadership, examining agency morale, rapid review processes for favorable drug pricing, and recent CRLs including Ultragenyx. The discussion then explores what these changes mean for CBER and Peter Marks' accelerated approval pathway for orphan disorders, alongside the ODAC panel for GSK's belantamab for multiple myeloma and the broader space. Market sentiment analysis reveals encouraging signs with the second quarter and first half reports on VC investment showing a clear uptick, along with additional positive feedback from a CEO forum on the FDA's listening tour. The group shares some interesting stats around M&A so far this year, demonstrating strong momentum and a possible trajectory to possibly beat, or at least meet, the 2020 numbers. Data updates include, lung cancer survey insights, DiaMedica's preeclampsia results, obesity updates from Hengrui/Kailera and Chinese biotech. The episode wraps with an overview of Novartis and J&J earnings reports. *This episode aired on July 18, 2025.

This week on Inside Indiana Business with Gerry Dick, we spotlight Indiana's emergence as the “Radiopharmaceutical Capital of the World.” With major investments from companies like RayzeBio, Novartis, and SpectronRx, plus a new Purdue master's program and the state's central role in cancer-fighting innovation, Indiana is transforming the future of nuclear medicine—and its economy. Plus, IBJ Media unveils the 2025 Indiana 250 list, recognizing the state's most influential business and civic leaders. We also get a sneak peek inside Noblesville's new $93 million arena, share the IU Luddy School's new STEM outreach for kids, and examine Indiana's nuclear energy potential. Also in this episode: Kylie Veleta on why radiopharmaceuticals are saving lives—and creating jobs A first look at Noblesville's Innovation Mile and the new home of the Indiana Pacers G League team, the Noblesville Boom CountryMark's $100M investment in renewable diesel in Mount Vernon IU's “Chip Kids” web series gets middle schoolers excited about semiconductors Indiana 250 voices reflect on statewide growth and economic opportunity The business case for nuclear energy in southwest Indiana

Audio roundup of selected biopharma industry content from Scrip over the business week ended July 25, 2025. In this episode: Sanofi's Vicebio buy; Sarepta halts US Elevidys shipments; Novartis warning over Europe; US CRL for Genentech's Columvi; and an interview with Novavax. https://insights.citeline.com/scrip/podcasts/scrips-five-must-know-things/quick-listen-scrips-five-must-know-things-U4IN5X7DRVFLVIBJ4Q72VTAJUY/ This episode was produced with the help of AI text-to-voice and voice emulation tools. Playlist: soundcloud.com/citelinesounds/sets/scrips-five-must-know-things

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech Daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma and Biotech world. The European Medicines Agency's CHMP did not recommend approving Elevidys for ambulatory patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, dealing a blow to Sarepta. FDA is rumored to request new data for Elevidys, leading to uncertainty as FDA considers a new study for the drug. In other news, Eli Lilly commits $856 million to Gate Bioscience for a new class of medicines, while Rocket trims headcount and pipeline focus. Roche also drops an early obesity asset as layoffs continue in the biopharma industry, with companies like Adicet optimizing their pipelines. Novartis makes a billion-dollar drug discovery deal with Matchpoint, and the FDA opens a pilot run of the commissioner voucher program.Stay tuned for more updates on the latest developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world.

Analizamos los valores clave en el Viejo Continente de la mano de Pablo García, director general de Diovacons-Alphavalue. Miramos al pacto comercial entre la UE y EE.UU, el sector automovilístico, ST Micro, ASML, Infineon, Roche, Sanofi, Novartis, Heineken, Prosibiensat y Media for Europe.

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma and Biotech world.Roche has dropped an early-stage obesity asset, CT-173, citing lack of competitiveness. Novartis has entered into a drug discovery deal with Matchpoint Therapeutics, acquiring global rights on all molecules for several inflammatory diseases. AstraZeneca claims a Phase III win with its nanobody treatment for myasthenia gravis. Second-quarter earnings season is approaching, and biotechs to watch include Sarepta and others facing challenges in the biopharma industry. Genentech downsizes as priorities shift, and GSK's comeback for Blenrep is on pause as the FDA delays its decision. The FDA's lack of transparency has tarnished Sarepta's reputation after patient deaths triggered an FDA battle. Opportunities in the industry include roles like Quality Specialist at CSL and Clinical Research Physician at Eli Lilly and Company.

Jonathan Mann, aka the Song a Day Guy, is a songwriter and Internet icon who has been writing and sharing an original song every day since 2009. We discuss his artistic journey, his experiences with NFTs, and the future of digital art and music on blockchain. He also opens up about his legal battle with the SEC, and the challenges he has faced in the crypto space. Key Takeaways:  His transition from an unemployed, aspiring artist to a full-time musician who leverages Web3 and creates digital collectibles The impact of AI on music creation, and advice for aspiring creators working at the intersection of music and cryptocurrency The freedom and empowerment he feels from being able to mint a song a day to his community through NFTs without being restricted by any other party His experience suing the SEC and what he was fighting for Guest Bio:  Jonathan Mann is a songwriter, performer, and Internet icon best known for writing and sharing an original song every single day for the last 17 years—a streak that has earned him millions of views and a devoted following. As The Conference Troubadour, he creates custom songs live at events for companies like Apple, TEDMED, and Novartis. His work sits at the intersection of creativity, technology, and culture—and he's now exploring how crypto and AI are reshaping the future of artistic expression. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About this Show: The Brave Technologist is here to shed light on the opportunities and challenges of emerging tech. To make it digestible, less scary, and more approachable for all! Join us as we embark on a mission to demystify artificial intelligence, challenge the status quo, and empower everyday people to embrace the digital revolution. Whether you're a tech enthusiast, a curious mind, or an industry professional, this podcast invites you to join the conversation and explore the future of AI together. The Brave Technologist Podcast is hosted by Luke Mulks, VP Business Operations at Brave Software—makers of the privacy-respecting Brave browser and Search engine, and now powering AI everywhere with the Brave Search API. Music by: Ari Dvorin Produced by: Sam Laliberte

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in Pharma and Biotech world. Sarepta Therapeutics experienced a significant drop in shares as the FDA considers requesting a halt to shipments of the Duchenne muscular dystrophy therapy Elevidys. This decision comes after a third patient death linked to the underlying platform. The company's stock plummeted by 37% on Friday afternoon as reports of the potential shipment stop circulated in the media. This news adds to the already turbulent week for Sarepta, which has been facing challenges in its gene therapy and siRNA biotech developments. ## Novartis announced positive results from a phase 3 trial of its drug Cosentyx in treating axial spondyloarthritis. The study showed that patients treated with Cosentyx had significant improvements compared to those on a placebo. These results further solidify Novartis' position in the market for treatments of autoimmune diseases. The company plans to submit the data to regulatory authorities for potential approval of this indication.Novartis revealed encouraging outcomes from a phase 3 trial of its drug Cosentyx for treating axial spondyloarthritis. The study demonstrated that patients who received Cosentyx experienced notable enhancements compared to those who were given a placebo. These findings strengthen Novartis' standing in the autoimmune disease treatment market. The company intends to present the data to regulatory bodies for potential approval of this indication.## AstraZeneca faced setbacks as it announced delays in delivering its COVID-19 vaccine doses to the EU. The company cited production issues as the cause of the holdup, leading to frustration among European officials. This news comes at a time when vaccine distribution is crucial in combating the ongoing pandemic, highlighting the challenges faced by pharmaceutical companies in meeting global demand for vaccines.AstraZeneca encountered obstacles when it disclosed delays in distributing its COVID-19 vaccine doses to the EU. The company attributed production problems as the reason for the delay, causing frustration among European officials. This development occurs during a critical period in vaccine distribution to combat the current pandemic, underscoring the difficulties pharmaceutical companies encounter in meeting worldwide vaccine demands.## Pfizer and BioNTech announced plans to test a third dose of their COVID-19 vaccine to assess its effectiveness against new variants of the virus. The study will involve participants who have already received two doses of the vaccine and will evaluate the immune response generated by a booster shot. This initiative reflects ongoing efforts by pharmaceutical companies to adapt their vaccines to combat emerging strains of the virus.Pfizer and BioNTech unveiled intentions to examine a third dose of their COVID-19 vaccine to determine its efficacy against new virus variants. The research will include individuals who have already been administered two doses of the vaccine and will assess the immune response produced by an additional shot. This undertaking demonstrates continuous endeavors by pharmaceutical firms to modify their vaccines in response to evolving virus mutations.

“Charisma is really about how we portray ourselves and engage with people on a deeper level.” In this episode, organizational psychologist Richard Reid talks to us about the power of charisma and why being charismatic may not mean exactly what you think it does. Learn about the difference between our System 1 and System 2 brains, how to unlock your charisma, and engage people to create the best outcomes for everyone.We also talk about how leaders can more effectively lead through crisis, why emotional intelligence is key and silence is underrated. Plus, so much more!“When we create space in conversations and validate positions, even if we don't agree with them, it makes people feel psychologically safe. When they do, they bring the best versions of themselves, speak up when they don't understand things, etc. When they don't, they shut down or leave.”Charisma is a continuum, as well as a leadership skill that can be developed. This episode is a great temperature check and place to tap into your charismatic leadership style.—Richard Reid is a highly qualified psychologist, coach, and organisational consultant with over twenty years of experience. He has consulted with several prominent organisations, including the City of London Police, Transport for London and the Witness Protection programme.In addition, he runs a boutique international practice that provides therapy, coaching, and psychology-related consultancy services to entrepreneurs, high-net-worth individuals, and C-Suite-level leadership. His particular spheres of interest lie in the areas of Trauma, Resilience, Workplace Culture and Charisma.Richard is a regular media spokesperson on channels such as Sky News, CNBC, BBC and ITV and has co-hosted the Sky One series "Extreme Phobias, Extreme Cures". Moreover, he is a published author with Penguin Books and a global keynote speaker.His corporate portfolio includes Sophos, Novartis, Ernst & Young, Cap Gemini and the Ministry of Defence.Learn more about Richard and his work by heading to richard-reid.com or connecting with him on LinkedIn.

In der heutigen Folge sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Lea Oetjen und Holger Zschäpitz über einen Mega-Deal von Lucid, Billionen-Träume bei Netflix und den Absturz von Jungheinrich. Außerdem geht es um Quantumscape, Bigbear.AI, Aeva Technologies, D-Wave, Archer Aviation, Intuitive Machines, Rocket Lab, AST Spacemobile, Netflix, Disney, ComCast, Warner Brothers Discovery, Uber Technology, Interactive Brokers, TSMC, ASML, PepsiCo, Taiwan Semiconductor, Novartis, Richemont, ABB, Siemens, Salzgitter, Burberry, American Express, Tema Neuroscience and Mental Health ETF (WKN: A408EL), Vertex Pharmaceutical, Eisai, Biogen, Eli Lilly, DexCom, Siemens Healthineers, Johnson&Johnson, Pfizer, Lindbeck, GSK, Atai Life Science, Mind Medicine, iShares Core MSCI World (A0RPWH), Xtrackers MSCI World USD (A1XB5U), Vanguard FTSE All-World USD (A2PKXG), Xtrackers AI & Big Data (A2N6LC), Amundi MSCI World USD (ETF146), Amundi Core Stoxx Europe 600 (LYX0Q0), iShares MSCI ACWI (A1JMDF), Xtrackers II EUR Overnight (DBX0AN), WisdomTree Europe Defence ETF (A40Y9K), HanETF Future of Defence ETF (A3EB9T). Habt Ihr suizidale Gedanken, oder habt Ihr diese bei einem Angehörigen/Bekannten festgestellt? Hilfe bietet die Telefonseelsorge: Anonyme Beratung erhält man rund um die Uhr unter den kostenlosen Nummern 0800 / 111 0 111 und 0800 / 111 0 222. Auch eine Beratung über das Internet ist möglich unter http://www.telefonseelsorge.de. Eine Liste mit bundesweiten Hilfsstellen findet sich auf der Seite der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Suizidprävention. Wir freuen uns über Feedback an 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

Good morning from Pharma and Biotech Daily: the podcast that gives you only what's important to hear in the Pharma and Biotech world. Sarepta Therapeutics has recently experienced an 18% increase in its stock value following a significant business overhaul, which included staff layoffs and pipeline shifts. Analysts are cautiously optimistic about the company's future. At the same time, patients are advocating for access to Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics' ALS drug, Nurown, after promising results from an expanded access program. In other news, Novartis is in the process of reshoring its drug manufacturing operations in the US, a move that may take several years to complete. Additionally, a notable number of employees have departed from the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research amidst an overhaul by the Department of Health and Human Services. These developments underscore the continuous changes and challenges within the pharmaceutical industry. Sarepta Therapeutics recently announced a strategic overhaul, which involved cutting 500 staff members and shifting focus to sirna platform assets. This decision came after two patients passed away following treatment with its Duchenne muscular dystrophy gene therapy, Elevidys. The company has also added a black box warning for acute liver injury and failure to Elevidys as it pivots away from gene therapy programs.

We love to hear from our listeners. Send us a message.On this episode of Cell & Gene: The Podcast, Host Erin Harris talks to Ralf Schmid, Ph.D., Associate Director of Preclinical Research at Novartis Biomedical Research, about the evolving use of large animal models in gene therapy development. Dr. Schmid discusses the current reliance on non-human primates (NHPs), their growing logistical and ethical challenges, and the emerging interest in alternatives like genetically engineered pigs and sheep. He outlines key considerations around safety, biodistribution, and immunogenicity that still necessitate large-animal testin —particularly for CNS-targeted AAV therapies — and emphasizes the need for thoughtful study design, responsible sourcing, and diversification in model systems. Dr. Schmid also previews his participation in the upcoming Next Generation Gene Therapy Vectors Summit and reflects on the future of preclinical safety testing in a landscape aiming to balance innovation, rigor, and compassion.Subscribe to the podcast!Apple | Spotify | YouTube

Novartis announced disappointing sales for a key psoriasis drug and the looming retirement of its respected finance chief, which overshadowed a modest outlook raise. Novartis CEO Vasant Narasimham speaks with Bloomberg's Scarlet Fu on the impact of pharma tariffs.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The CEOs of Pepsi, Novartis and Citizens Financial join the show to break down quarterly results. Pepsi working to navigate the “Make America Healthy Again” movement. Novartis' CEO warnings about the expansion of Chinese drug innovation. And Citizens laying out future growth drivers, including a robust M&A pipeline. All that on Money Movers.

President Trump denies he plans to fire U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell following reports he had written a draft dismissal letter and discussed the move with lawmakers. Trump did again, however, criticise Powell for his failure to lower interest rates. The world's largest contract chip maker, TSMC, posts a massive 60 per cent surge in profits in the second quarter. Drug giant Novartis hikes its full-year guidance on the back of a narrow Q2 core earnings beat and double-digit sales numbers. European Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen outlines her next budget plans but faces stiff criticism from Brussels and member states for the content and handling of the €2.3tn package.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In der heutigen Folge sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Lea Oetjen und Holger Zschäpitz über den beeindruckenden Kurssprung des Dividenkönigs, den Absturz eines europäischen Chipwerts und 13 Investments, mit denen ihr in den Aufstieg von Europa investieren könnt. Außerdem geht es um Johnson & Johnson, ASML, Infineon, Aixtron, Suss Microtec, Renault, Opendoor Technologies, Fuchs, Rigetti, Tesla, Stellantis, Vinci, Ferrovial, Novartis, Netflix, PepsiCo, Abbott Laboratories, Travelers Companies, Nordea Bank, GE Aerospace, ABB, Volvo AB, iShares Core Euro STOXX 50 (DBX1DA), SPDR MSCI Europe Indus (A1191T), Global X Euro Infrastructure Development (A40E7B), Xtrackers DAX (A0YEDJ), WisdomTree Europe Defensive (A40Y9K), iShares STOXX Europe 600 Construction & Materials (A0H08F), Engie, Poste Italiane, Rightmove, SPIE, Beazley, Iberdrola, Telia, MS&AD Insurance (JP3890310000). CoinShares Physical Staked Ethereum (WKN: A3GQ2N), Virtune Coinbase 50 Index ETP (WKN: A3G9AF) Wir freuen uns über Feedback an 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 ICD Indications in primary prevention Drug treatment of cardiac amyloidosis Mythbusters Host: Rick Grobbee Guests: Carlos Aguiar, Gerhard Hindricks, Marianna Fontana Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1810   Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors.  This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English-language always prevails. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Rick Grobbee, Gerhard Hindricks and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. Marianna Fontana has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Alnylam, Alexion/Caelum Biosciences, Astrazeneca, Bridgbio/Eidos, Prothena, Attralus, Intellia Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Cardior, Lexeo Therapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Prothena, Pfizer, Novonordisk, Bayer, Mycardium. Research grants from: Alnylam, Bridgbio, Astrazeneca, Pfizer. Share options in LexeoTherapeutics and shares in Mycardium. 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: Rick Grobbee Guest: Gerhard Hindricks Want to watch that extended interview? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/1810?r Disclaimer: ESC TV Today is supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis. This scientific content and opinions expressed in the programme have not been influenced in any way by its sponsors. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English-language always prevails. Declarations of interests: Stephan Achenbach, Rick Grobbee, Gerhard Hindricks and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi Aventis, Novo Nordisk, Terumo. 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.

US President Trump said they are very close to an India deal, could possibly make one with Europe & it is too soon to say re. Canada.US stocks finished higher but with volatile trade amid reports that Trump had drafted a letter to fire Powell; later, Trump denied this.DXY has regained some composure after getting hit on Fed independence concerns, G10s softer with AUD lagging after soft jobs data.USTs ease after Wednesday's upside, JGBs initially followed suit but picked up after the latest JGB liquidity auction.Crude remains afloat, XAU rangebound, base peers lack conviction in contained trade.Highlights include Australian Employment, UK Jobs, EZ HICP (Final), US Trade, Jobless Claims, Retail Sales & Atlanta Fed GDPNow, G20 Finance Ministers Meeting, Speakers including Fed's Kugler, Daly, Cook & Waller, Supply from Spain, France & UK, Earnings from Novartis, Publicis, Volvo, PepsiCo, GE, Abbott Laboratories, Netflix & TSMC.Click for the Newsquawk Week Ahead.Read the full report covering Equities, Forex, Fixed Income, Commodites and more on Newsquawk

Swatch, Novartis und ABB publizieren heute zum Halbjahr. Ein gutes Ergebnis heisst nicht unbedingt Gutes für die Aktie, ein schlechtes Ergebnis wie bei Swatch nicht unbedingt Schlechtes. Gewisse Schnäppchenjäger hätten wohl bei Swatch zugeschlagen, so Matthias Geissbühler, Anlagechef der Raiffeisen. SMI +0.4%

Drs. Hope Rugo, Sheri Brenner, and Mikolaj Slawkowski-Rode discuss the struggle that health care professionals experience when terminally ill patients are suffering and approaches to help clinicians understand and respond to suffering in a more patient-centered and therapeutic way. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a monthly podcast series from ASCO that features engaging conversations between editors and authors of the ASCO Educational Book.  I'm your host, Dr. Hope Rugo. I'm director of the Women's Cancers Program and division chief of breast medical oncology at the City of Hope Cancer Center, and I'm also the editor-in-chief of the Educational Book. On today's episode, we'll be exploring the complexities of grief and oncology and the struggle we experience as healthcare professionals when terminally ill patients are suffering. Our guests will discuss approaches to help clinicians understand and respond to suffering in a more patient-centered and therapeutic way, as outlined in their recently published article titled, “Oncology and Suffering: Strategies on Coping With Grief for Healthcare Professionals.” I'm delighted today to welcome Dr. Keri Brenner, a clinical associate professor of medicine, palliative care attending, and psychiatrist at Stanford University, and Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode, a senior research fellow in philosophy in the Humanities Research Institute at the University of Buckingham, where he also serves as director of graduate research in p hilosophy. He is also a research fellow in philosophy at Blackfriars Hall at the University of Oxford and associate professor at the University of Warsaw.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Brenner and Dr. Sławkowski-Rode, thanks for being on the podcast today. Dr. Keri Brenner: Great to be here, Dr. Rugo. Thank you so much for that kind introduction. Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: Thank you very much, Dr. Rugo. It's a pleasure and an honor. Dr. Hope Rugo: So I'm going to start with some questions for both of you. I'll start with Dr. Brenner. You've spoken and written about the concept of suffering when there is no cure. For oncologists, what does it mean to attune to suffering, not just disease? And how might this impact the way they show up in difficult conversations with patients? Dr. Keri Brenner: Suffering is something that's so omnipresent in the work of clinical oncology, and I like to begin by just thinking about what is suffering, because it's a word that we use so commonly, and yet, it's important to know what we're talking about. I think about the definition of Eric Cassell, who was a beloved mentor of mine for decades, and he defined suffering as the state of severe distress that's associated with events that threaten the intactness of a person. And my colleague here at Stanford, Tyler Tate, has been working on a definition of suffering that encompasses the experience of a gap between how things are versus how things ought to be. Both of these definitions really touch upon suffering in a person-centered way that's relational about one's identity, meaning, autonomy, and connectedness with others. So these definitions alone remind us that suffering calls for a person-centered response, not the patient as a pathology, but the panoramic view of who the patient is as a person and their lived reality of illness. And in this light, the therapeutic alliance becomes one of our most active ingredients in care. The therapeutic alliance is that collaborative, trusting bond as persons that we have between clinician and patient, and it's actually one of the most powerful predictors of meaningful outcomes in our care, especially in oncologic care.  You know, I'll never forget my first day of internship at Massachusetts General Hospital. A faculty lecturer shared this really sage insight with us that left this indelible mark. She shared, “As physicians and healers, your very self is the primary instrument of healing. Our being is the median of the medicine.” So, our very selves as embodied, relationally grounded people, that's the median of the medicine and the first most enduring medicine that we offer. That has really borne fruit in the evidence that we see around the therapeutic alliance. And we see this in oncologic care, that in advanced cancer, a strong alliance with one's oncologist truly improves a patient's quality of life, treatment adherence, emotional well-being, and even surpasses structured interventions like psychotherapeutic interventions. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's just incredibly helpful information and actually terminology as well, and I think the concept of suffering differs so much. Suffering comes in many shapes and forms, and I think you really have highlighted that. But many oncologists struggle with knowing what to do when patients are suffering but can't be fixed, and I think a lot of times that has to do with oncologists when patients have pain or shortness of breath or issues like that. There are obviously many ways people suffer. But I think what's really challenging is how clinicians understand suffering and what the best approaches to respond to suffering are in the best patient-centered and therapeutic way. Dr. Keri Brenner: I get that question a lot from my trainees in palliative care, not knowing what to do. And my first response is, this is about how to be, not about knowing what to do, but how to be. In our medical training, we're trained often how to think and treat, but rarely how to be, how to accompany others. And I often have this image that I tell my trainees of, instead of this hierarchical approach of a fix-it mentality of all we're going to do, when it comes to elements of unavoidable loss, mortality, unavoidable sufferings, I imagine something more like accompaniment, a patient walking through some dark caverns, and I am accompanying them, trying to walk beside them, shining a light as a guide throughout that darkness. So it's a spirit of being and walking with. And it's so tempting in medicine to either avoid the suffering altogether or potentially overidentify with it, where the suffering just becomes so all-consuming like it's our own. And we're taught to instead strike a balance of authentic accompaniment through it. I often teach this key concept in my palli-psych work with my team about formulation. Formulation is a working hypothesis. It's taking a step back and asking, “Why? Why is this patient behaving in this manner? What might the patient's core inner struggle be?” Because asking that “why” and understanding the nuanced dimensions of a patient's core inner struggle will really help guide our therapeutic interactions and guide the way that we accompany them and where we choose to shine that light as we're walking with them. And oftentimes people think, “Well Keri, that sounds so sappy or oversentimental,” and it's not. You know, I'm just thinking about a case that I had a couple months ago, and it was a 28-year-old man with gastric cancer, metastatic disease, and that 28-year-old man, he was actually a college Division I athlete, and his dad was an acclaimed Division I coach. And our typical open-ended palliative care questions, that approach, infuriated them. They needed to know that I was showing up confident, competent, and that I was ready, on my A-game, with a real plan for them to follow through. And so my formulation about them was they needed somebody to show up with that confidence and competence, like the Division I athletes that they were, to really meet them and accompany them where they were on how they were going to walk through that experience of illness. Dr. Hope Rugo: These kinds of insights are so helpful to think about how we manage something that we face every day in oncology care. And I think that there are many ways to manage this.  Maybe I'll ask Dr. Sławkowski-Rode one question just that I think sequences nicely with what you're talking about.  A lot of our patients are trying to think about sort of the bigger picture and how that might help clinicians understand and support patients. So, the whole concept of spirituality, you know, how can we really use that as oncology clinicians to better understand and support patients with advanced illness, and how can that help patients themselves? And we'll talk about that in two different ways, but we'll just start with this broader question. Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: I think spirituality, and here, I usually refer to spirituality in terms of religious belief. Most people in the world are religious believers, and it is very intuitive and natural that religious beliefs would be a resource that people who help patients with a terminal diagnosis and healthcare professionals who work with those patients appeal to when they try to help them deal with the trauma and the stress of these situations.  Now, I think that the interesting thing there is that very often the benefit of appealing to a religious belief is misunderstood in terms of what it delivers. And there are many, many studies on how religious belief can be used to support therapy and to support patients in getting through the experience of suffering and defeating cancer or facing a terminal diagnosis. There's a wealth of literature on this. But most of the literature focuses on this idea that by appealing to religious belief, we help patients and healthcare practitioners who are working with them get over the fact and that there's a terminal diagnosis determining the course of someone's life and get on with our lives and engaging with whatever other pursuits we might have, with our job if we're healthcare practitioners, and with the other things that we might be passionate about in our lives. And the idea here is that this is what religion allows us to do because we sort of defer the need to worry about what's going to happen to us until the afterlife or some perspective beyond the horizon of our life here.  However, my view is – I have worked beyond philosophy also with theologians from many traditions, and my view here is that religion is something that does allow us to get on with our life but not because we're able to move on or move past the concerns that are being threatened by illness or death, but by forming stronger bonds with these things that we value in our life in a way and to have a sense of hope that these will be things that we will be able to keep an attachment to despite the threat to our life. So, in a sense, I think very many approaches in the field have the benefit of religion upside down, as it were, when it comes to helping patients and healthcare professionals who are engaged with their illness and treating it. Dr. Hope Rugo: You know, it's really interesting the points that you make, and I think really important, but, you know, sometimes the oncologists are really struggling with their own emotional reactions, how they are reacting to patients, and dealing with sort of taking on the burden, which, Dr. Brenner, you were mentioning earlier. How can oncologists be aware of their own emotional reactions? You know, they're struggling with this patient who they're very attached to who's dying or whatever the situation is, but you want to avoid burnout as an oncologist but also understand the patient's inner world and support them. Dr. Keri Brenner: I believe that these affective, emotional states, they're contagious. As we accompany patients through these tragic losses, it's very normal and expected that we ourselves will experience that full range of the human experience as we accompany the patients. And so the more that we can recognize that this is a normative dimension of our work, to have a nonjudgmental stance about the whole panoramic set of emotions that we'll experience as we accompany patients with curiosity and openness about that, the more sustainable the work will become. And I often think about the concept of countertransference given to us by Sigmund Freud over 100 years ago. Countertransference is the clinician's response to the patient, the thoughts, feelings, associations that come up within us, shaped by our own history, our own life events, those unconscious processes that come to the foreground as we are accompanying patients with illness. And that is a natural part of the human experience. Historically, countertransference was viewed as something negative, and now it's actually seen as a key that can unlock and enlighten the formulation about what might be going on within the patient themselves even. You know, I was with a patient a couple weeks ago, and I found myself feeling pretty helpless and hopeless in the encounter as I was trying to care for them. And I recognized that countertransference within myself that I was feeling demoralized. It was a prompt for me to take a step back, get on the balcony, and be curious about that because I normally don't feel helpless and hopeless caring for my patients. Well, ultimately, I discovered through processing it with my interdisciplinary team that the patient likely had demoralization as a clinical syndrome, and so it's natural many of us were feeling helpless and hopeless also accompanying them with their care. And it allowed us to have a greater interdisciplinary approach and a more therapeutic response and deeper empathy for the patient's plight. And we can really be curious about our countertransferences. You know, a few months ago, I was feeling bored and distracted in a family meeting, which is quite atypical for me when I'm sharing serious illness news. And it was actually a key that allowed me to recognize that the patient was trying to distract all of us talking about inconsequential facts and details rather than the gravitas of her illness.  Being curious about these affective states really allows us to have greater sustainability within our own practice because it normalizes that human spectrum of emotions and also allows us to reduce unconscious bias and have greater inclusivity with our practice because what Freud also said is that what we can't recognize and say within our own selves, if we don't have that self-reflective capacity, it will come out in what we do. So really recognizing and having the self-awareness and naming some of these emotions with trusted colleagues or even within our own selves allows us to ensure that it doesn't come out in aberrant behaviors like avoiding the patient, staving off that patient till the end of the day, or overtreating, offering more chemotherapy or not having the goals of care, doing everything possible when we know that that might result in medically ineffective care. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, I love the comments that you made, sort of weaving in Freud, but also, I think the importance of talking to colleagues and to sharing some of these issues because I do think that oncologists suffer from the fact that no one else in your life wants to hear about dying people. They don't really want to hear about the tragic cases either. So, I think that using your community, your oncology community and greater community within medicine, is an important part of being able to sort of process. Dr. Keri Brenner: Yes, and Dr. Rugo, this came up in our ASCO [Education] Session. I'd love to double click into some of those ways that we can do this that aren't too time consuming in our everyday practice. You know, within palliative care, we have interdisciplinary rounds where we process complex cases. Some of us do case supervision with a trusted mentor or colleague where we bring complex cases to them. My team and I offer process rounds virtually where we go through countertransference, formulation, and therapeutic responses on some tough cases.  You know, on a personal note, just last week when I left a family meeting feeling really depleted and stuck, I called one of my trusted colleagues and just for 3 minutes constructively, sort of cathartically vented what was coming up within me after that family meeting, which allowed me to have more of an enlightened stance on what to do next and how to be therapeutically helpful for the case. One of my colleagues calls this "friend-tors." They coined the phrase, and they actually wrote a paper about it. Who within your peer group of trusted colleagues can you utilize and phone in real time or have process opportunities with to get a pulse check on where what's coming up within us as we're doing this work? Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, and it's an interesting question about how one does that and, you know, maintaining that as you move institutions or change places or become more senior, it's really important.  One of the, I think, the challenges sometimes is that we come from different places from our patients, and that can be an issue, I think when our patients are very religious and the provider is not, or the reverse, patients who don't have religious beliefs and you're trying to sort of focus on the spirituality, but it doesn't really ring true. So, Dr. Sławkowski-Rode, what resources can patients and practitioners draw on when they're facing death and loss in the absence of, or just different religious beliefs that don't fit into the standard model? Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: You're absolutely right that this can be an extremely problematic situation to be in when there is that disconnect of religious belief or more generally spiritual engagement with the situation that we're in. But I just wanted to tie into what Dr. Brenner was saying just before. I couldn't agree more, and I think that a lot of healthcare practitioners, oncologists in particular who I've had the pleasure to talk to at ASCO and at other events as well, are very often quite skeptical about emotional engagement in their profession. They feel as though this is something to be managed, as it were, and something that gets in the way. And they can often be very critical of methods that help them understand the emotions and extend them towards patients because they feel that this will be an obstacle to doing their job and potentially an obstacle also to helping patients to their full ability if they focus on their own emotions or the burden that emotionally, spiritually, and in other ways the illness is for the patient. They feel that they should be focusing on the cancer rather than on the patient's emotions. And I think that a useful comparison, although, you know, perhaps slightly drastic, is that of combat experience of soldiers. They also need to be up and running and can't be too emotionally invested in the situation that they're in. But there's a crucial difference, which is that soldiers are usually engaged in very short bursts of activity with the time to go back and rethink, and they often have a lot of support for this in between. Whereas doctors are in a profession where their exposure to the emotions of patients and their own emotions, the emotions of families of patients is constant. And I think that there's a great danger in thinking that this is something to be avoided and something to compartmentalize in order to avoid burnout. I think, in a way, burnout is more sure to happen if your emotions and your attachment to your patients goes ignored for too long. So that's just following up on Keri's absolutely excellent points. As far as the disconnect is concerned, that's, in fact, an area in which I'm particularly interested in. That's where my research comes in. I'm interested in the kinds of connections that we have with other people, especially in terms of maintaining bonds when there is no spiritual belief, no spiritual backdrop to support this connection. In most religious traditions, we have the framework of the religious belief that tells us that the person who we've lost or the values that have become undermined in our life are something that hasn't been destroyed permanently but something that we can still believe we have a deep connection to despite its absence from our life. And how do you rebuild that sense of the existence of the things that you have perceivably lost without the appeal to some sort of transcendent realm which is defined by a given religion? And that is a hard question. That's a question, I think, that can be answered partly by psychology but also partly by philosophy in terms of looking at who we are as human beings and our nature as people who are essentially, or as entities that are essentially connected to one another. That connection, I believe, is more direct than the mediation of religion might at first suggest. I think that we essentially share the world not only physically, it's not just the case that we're all here, but more importantly, the world that we live in is not just the physical world but the world of meanings and values that helps us orient ourselves in society and amongst one another as friends and foes. And it is that shared sense of the world that we can appeal to when we're thinking about retaining the value or retaining the connection with the people who we have lost or the people who are helping through, go through an experience of facing death. And just to finish, there's a very interesting question, I think, something that we possibly don't have time to explore, about the degree of connection that we have with other people. So, what I've just been saying is something that rings more true or is more intuitive when we think about the connections that we have to our closest ones. We share a similar outlook onto the world, and our preferences and our moods and our emotions and our values are shaped by life with the other person. And so, appealing to these values can give us a sense of a continued presence. But what in those relationships where the connection isn't that close? For example, given the topic of this podcast, the connection that a patient has with their doctor and vice versa. In what sense can we talk about a shared world of experience? Well, I think, obviously, we should admit degrees to the kind of relationship that can sustain our connection with another person. But at the same time, I don't think there's a clear cutoff point. And I think part of emotional engagement in medical practice is finding yourself somewhere on that spectrum rather than thinking you're completely off of it. That's what I would say. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's very helpful and I think a very helpful way of thinking about how to manage this challenging situation for all of us.  One of the things that really, I think, is a big question for all of us throughout our careers, is when to address the dying process and how to do that. Dr. Brenner, you know, I still struggle with this – what to do when patients refuse to discuss end-of-life but they're very close to end of life? They don't want to talk about it. It's very stressful for all of us, even where you're going to be, how you're going to manage this. They're just absolutely opposed to that discussion. How should we approach those kinds of discussions? How do we manage that? How do you address the code discussion, which is so important? You know, these patients are not able to stay at home at end-of-life in general, so you really do need to have a code discussion before you're admitting them. It actually ends up being kind of a challenge and a mess all around. You know, I would love your advice about how to manage those situations. Dr. Keri Brenner: I think that's one of the most piercing and relevant inquiries we have within our clinical work and challenges. I often think of denial not as an all-or-nothing concept but rather as parts of self. There's a part of everyone's being where the unconscious believes it's immortal and will live on forever, and yet we all know intellectually that we all have mortality and finitude and transience, and that time will end. We often think of this work as more iterative and gradual and exposure based. There's potency to words. Saying, “You are dying within days,” is a lot higher potency of a phrase to share than, “This is serious illness. This illness is incurable. Time might be shorter than we hoped.” And so the earlier and more upstream we begin to have these conversations, even in small, subtle ways, it starts to begin to expose the patient to the concept so they can go from the head to the heart, not only knowing their prognosis intellectually but also affectively, to integrate it into who they are as a person because all patients are trying to live well while also we're gradually exposing them to this awareness of mortality within their own lived experience of illness. And that, ideally, happens gradually over time. Now, there are moments where the medical frame is very limited, and we might have short days, and we have to uptitrate those words and really accompany them more radically through those high-affective moments. And that's when we have to take a lot of more nuanced approaches, but I would say the more earlier and upstream the better. And then the second piece to that question as well is coping with our own mortality. The more we can be comfortable with our own transience and finitude and limitations, the more we will be able to accompany others through that. And even within my own life, I've had to integrate losses in a way where before I go in to talk to one of my own palliative care patients, one mantra I often say to myself is, “I'm just a few steps behind you. I don't know if it's going to be 30 days or 30 years, but I'm just a few steps behind you on this finite, transient road of life that is the human experience.” And that creates a stance of accompaniment that patients really can experience as they're traversing these tragedies. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's great. And I think those are really important points and actually some pearls, which I think we can take into the clinic. I think being really concrete when really the expected life expectancy is a few days to a couple of weeks can be very, very helpful. And making sure the patients hear you, but also continuing to let them know that, as oncologists, we're here for them. We're not abandoning them. I think that's a big worry for many, certainly of my patients, is that somehow when they would go to hospice or be a ‘no code', that we're not going to support them anymore or treat them anymore. That is a really important process of that as well. And of course, engaging the team makes a big difference because the whole oncology team can help to manage situations that are particularly challenging like that. And just as we close, I wanted to ask one last question of you, Dr. Brenner, that suffering, grief, and burnout, you've really made the point that these are not problems to fix but dimensions that we want to attend to and acknowledge as part of our lives, the dying process is part of all of our lives. It's just dealing with this in the unexpected and the, I think, unpredictability of life, you know, that people take on a lot of guilt and all sorts of things about, all sorts of emotions. And the question is now, people have listened to this podcast, what can they take back to their oncology teams to build a culture that supports clinicians and their team at large to engage with these realities in a meaningful and sustainable way? I really feel like if we could build the whole team approach where we're supporting each other and supporting the patients together, that that will help this process immeasurably. Dr. Keri Brenner: Yes, and I'm thinking about Dr. Sławkowski-Rode's observation about the combat analogy, and it made me recognize this distinction between suppression and repression. Repression is this unconscious process, and this is what we're taught to do in medical training all the time, to just involuntarily shove that tragedy under the rug, just forget about it and see the next patient and move on. And we know that if we keep unconsciously shoving things under the rug, that it will lead to burnout and lack of sustainability for our clinical teams. Suppression is a more conscious process. That deliberate effort to say, “This was a tragedy that I bore witness to. I know I need to put that in a box on the shelf for now because I have 10 other patients I have to see.” And yet, do I work in a culture where I can take that off the shelf during particular moments and process it with my interdisciplinary team, phone a friend, talk to a trusted colleague, have some trusted case supervision around it, or process rounds around it, talk to my social worker? And I think the more that we model this type of self-reflective capacity as attendings, folks who have been in the field for decades, the more we create that ethos and culture that is sustainable because clinician self-reflection is never a weakness, rather it's a silent strength. Clinician self-reflection is this portal for wisdom, connectedness, sustainability, and ultimately transformative growth within ourselves. Dr. Hope Rugo: That's such a great point, and I think this whole discussion has been so helpful for me and I hope for our audience that we really can take these points and bring them to our practice. I think, “Wow, this is such a great conversation. I'd like to have the team as a whole listen to this as ways to sort of strategize talking about the process, our patients, and being supportive as a team, understanding how we manage spirituality when it connects and when it doesn't.” All of these points, they're bringing in how we process these issues and the whole idea of suppressing versus sort of deciding that it never happened at all is, I think, very important because that's just a tool for managing our daily lives, our busy clinics, and everything we manage. Dr. Keri Brenner: And Dr. Rugo, it's reminding me at Stanford, you know, we have this weekly practice that's just a ritual where every Friday morning for 30 minutes, our social worker leads a process rounds with us as a team, where we talk about how the work that we're doing clinically is affecting us in our lives in ways that have joy and greater meaning and connectedness and other ways that might be depleting. And that kind of authentic vulnerability with one another allows us to show up more authentically for our patients. So those rituals, that small 30 minutes once a week, goes a long way. And it reminds me that sometimes slowing things down with those rituals can really get us to more meaningful, transformative places ultimately. Dr. Hope Rugo: It's a great idea, and I think, you know, making time for that in everybody's busy days where they just don't have any time anymore is important. And you don't have to do it weekly, you could even do something monthly. I think there's a lot of options, and that's a great suggestion. I want to thank you both for taking your time out for this enriching and incredibly helpful conversation. Our listeners will find a link to the Ed Book article we discussed today, which is excellent, in the transcript of this episode. I want to thank you again, Dr. Brenner and Dr. Sławkowski-Rode, for your time and for your excellent thoughts and advice and direction. Dr. Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode: Thank you very much, Dr. Rugo. Dr. Keri Brenner: Thank you. Dr. Hope Rugo: And thanks to our listeners for joining us today. Please join us again next month on By the Book for more insightful views on topics you'll be hearing at the education sessions from ASCO meetings and our deep dives on new approaches that are shaping modern oncology. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:      Dr. Hope Rugo @hope.rugo Dr. Keri Brenner @keri_brenner Dr. Mikolaj Slawkowski-Rode @MikolajRode Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on X (formerly Twitter)      ASCO on Bluesky     ASCO on Facebook      ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:     Dr. Hope Rugo: Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma Consulting/Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Bristol Myer Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman La-Roche AG/Genentech, In., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx Dr. Keri Brenner: No relationships to disclose Dr. Mikolaj Slawkowski-Rode: No relationships to disclose    

Novartis het goedkeuring ontvang in Switserland vir Coartem Baby, die eerste middel wat malaria in babas en baie jong kinders behandel. Babas is tot dusver formulerings gegee wat vir ouer kinders bedoel is, wat die risiko van oordosis verhoog. Malaria-entstowwe word ook nie vir die jongste babas goedgekeur nie. Agt Afrika-lande wat aan die assessering deelgeneem het, sal na verwagting die behandeling vinnig goedkeur. Dr. Caroline Boulton, hoof van Novartis se globale malaria-program, lig die skaal van die probleem uit.

A new treatment for malaria in babies and very small children has just been approved; we hear more about the drug expected to save many lives.Also in the programme: is Israel's new plan to create a so-called “humanitarian city” for Palestinians in Gaza from where they could “voluntarily” emigrate, actually legal? And a report on the environmental damage caused by China's rare earth mineral industry.(IMAGE: The company logo is seen at the new cell and gene therapy factory of Swiss drugmaker Novartis in Stein, Switzerland, November 28, 2019. Novartis developed the new anti-malaria drug known as Coartem Baby or Riamet Baby in collaboration with the Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV), a Swiss-based not-for-profit organisation initially backed by the British, Swiss and Dutch Governments, as well as the World Bank and the Rockefeller Foundation / IMAGE: Reuters / Arnd Wiegmann)

Das Schweizerische Heilmittelinstitut Swissmedic hat ein Medikament gegen Malaria von Novartis zugelassen, das speziell für Kleinkinder ist. Bei Erwachsenen wird das Mittel schon seit Jahren eingesetzt, nun wurde es in acht afrikanischen Ländern auch bei Kleinkindern getestet. Weitere Themen: Bundesrat Albert Rösti hat am Dienstag zu einem Sommergespräch auf den Moléson geladen. Ziel war es, über Themen aus seinem Departement zu berichten, die Stromversorgung etwa oder die Verkehrsinfrastruktur. Der Transportminister Russlands, Roman Starowoit, wurde wegen Korruption abrupt entlassen. Stunden später wurde sein Tod vermeldet, offenbar Suizid. Vieles ist unklar. Klar ist hingegen, dass Starowoits Tod ein Schlaglicht auf die grassierende Korruption im Land wirft.

What if the next virus isn't natural, but deliberately engineered and used as a weapon? As geopolitical tensions rise and biological threats become more complex, health security and life sciences are emerging as critical pillars of national defense.In the special edition episode from our new series, “The Ripple Effect: Investing in Life Sciences”, host Dan Riskin is joined by two leading voices at the intersection of biotechnology and defense: Dawn Meyerriecks, former CIA Deputy Director for Science and Technology and current member of the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, and Jason Kelly, co-founder and CEO of Ginkgo Bioworks. Together, they explore the dual-use nature of biotechnology and the urgent need for international oversight, genetic attribution standards, and robust viral surveillance. From pandemic preparedness and fragile supply chains to AI-driven lab automation and airport biosurveillance, their conversation highlights how life science innovation strengthens national resilience and strategic defense.This timely conversation follows the June 25th, 2025 Hague Summit Declaration, where NATO allies pledged to invest 5% of GDP in defense by 2035—including up to 1.5% on resilience and innovation to safeguard critical infrastructure, civil preparedness, networks, and the defense industrial base. This limited series, produced by GZERO's Blue Circle Studios in partnership with Novartis, examines how life science innovation plays a vital role in fulfilling that commitment. Subscribe to “The Ripple Effect: Investing in Life Sciences” series on your preferred podcast platform.Look for the next episode of the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer podcast when we kick off our eighth season on July 5, 2025.Host: Dan RiskinGuests: Jason Kelly, Dawn Meyerriecks Subscribe to the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.

We've curated a special 10-minute version of the podcast for those in a hurry. Here you can listen to the full episode: https://podcasts.apple.com/no/podcast/novartis-ceo-medical-innovation-tech-partnerships-and/id1614211565?i=1000714438745&l=nb Can AI help us find cures for diseases we've never been able to treat? Nicolai Tangen speaks with Vasant 'Vas' Narasimhan, CEO of Novartis, about pioneering pharmaceutical innovation. They explore breakthrough cell and gene therapies, AI partnerships with leading tech companies, and how Novartis transformed from a sprawling conglomerate into a streamlined drug discovery company. Vas shares his unique perspective as a physician-scientist turned CEO, his concerns about Europe's declining pharma competitiveness, and his leadership philosophy of being the 'chief energy officer.' With €235 billion in market cap and groundbreaking treatments reaching patients worldwide, Novartis continues unlocking medical breakthroughs. Tune in!In Good Company is hosted by Nicolai Tangen, CEO of Norges Bank Investment Management. New full episodes every Wednesday, and don't miss our Highlight episodes every Friday.The production team for this episode includes Isabelle Karlsson and PLAN-B's Niklas Figenschau Johansen, Sebastian Langvik-Hansen and Pål Huuse. Background research was conducted by Isabelle Karlsson.Watch the episode on YouTube: Norges Bank Investment Management - YouTubeWant to learn more about the fund? The fund | Norges Bank Investment Management (nbim.no)Follow Nicolai Tangen on LinkedIn: Nicolai Tangen | LinkedInFollow NBIM on LinkedIn: Norges Bank Investment Management: Administrator for bedriftsside | LinkedInFollow NBIM on Instagram: Explore Norges Bank Investment Management on Instagram Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.