) is the third leading cause of cancer-related death despite only accounting for 3% of all new cancer diagnoses.

 Obesity is a well-known risk factor for multiple types of cancer, including PDAC. In fact, there exists a relative risk of PDAC of 1.10 for every 5-unit increment increase in body mass index (BMI).

 While bariatric surgery has been demonstrated to reduce overall cancer incidence and mortality, conflicting data exist regarding the effects of bariatric surgery on PDAC.

We performed a retrospective case-control study utilizing the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from October 2015 to December 2020. All adult subjects (age ≥18 years) with a BMI >40 kg/m2 or >35 kg/m2 with ≥1 metabolic comorbidity were identified and stratified into those with and without a history of bariatric surgery (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy).

, Tenth Edition Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes were used to define variables of interest. Baseline characteristics and comorbidities among the 2 groups were compared using chi-squared and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the risk of PDAC after adjusting for multiple risk factors, including tobacco use, acute and chronic pancreatitis, diabetes mellitus and various stages of obesity.

Over 19 million subjects were included, 1,656,329 of whom had a history of bariatric surgery. Patients with a history of bariatric surgery were significantly younger, more frequently female (75% vs 58%), had higher rates of class 3 obesity (69% vs 52%) and lower prevalence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, chronic kidney disease, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥3, tobacco use, acute and chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer (0.1% vs 0.2%) while having a higher prevalence of OSA (

 <.001). Additionally, in-hospital mortality (0.5% vs 1.8%), total hospital charges and overall length of stay were lower in the bariatric surgery cohort compared to the nonsurgical cohort (

 <.001). After adjusting for multiple comorbidities and risk factors, history of bariatric surgery was demonstrated to significantly reduce the risk of PDAC on both univariable (odds ratio [OR], 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44 - 0.56) and multivariable analysis (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.61 - 0.77).

This is the largest analysis to date investigating the effects of bariatric surgery on pancreatic cancer risk reduction and serves to clarify previously inconclusive data. We have shown bariatric surgery to exhibit an independently protective effect against PDAC oncogenesis. It is reasonable to suggest that patients at increased risk of PDAC as well as other obesity-related malignancies may be recommended for surgically-assisted weight loss earlier and more frequently.

With advancements in minimally invasive bariatric procedures, expanding patient eligibility and indications for surgery, increasing utilization of bariatric surgery and endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies may help alleviate the growing burden of pancreatic cancer.

Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Result (SEER) Program. Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute. 2023 Apr 25. https://seer.cancer.gov.

Aune D, Greenwood DC, Chan DS, et al. Body mass index, abdominal fatness and pancreatic cancer risk: a systematic review and non-linear dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. Ann Oncol. Apr 2012;23(4):843-52. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr398

Schauer DP, Feigelson HS, Koebnick C, et al. Bariatric Surgery and the Risk of Cancer in a Large Multisite Cohort. Ann Surg. Jan 2019;269(1):95-101. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002525

Adams TD, Stroup AM, Gress RE, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality after gastric bypass surgery. Obesity (Silver Spring). Apr 2009;17(4):796-802. doi:10.1038/oby.2008.610

Sjöström L, Gummesson A, Sjöström CD, et al. Effects of bariatric surgery on cancer incidence in obese patients in Sweden (Swedish Obese Subjects Study): a prospective, controlled intervention trial. Lancet Oncol. Jul 2009;10(7):653-62. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70159-7

Tee MC, Cao Y, Warnock GL, Hu FB, Chavarro JE. Effect of bariatric surgery on oncologic outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. Dec 2013;27(12):4449-56. doi:10.1007/s00464-013-3127-9

Bulsei J, Chierici A, Alifano M, et al. Bariatric surgery reduces the risk of pancreatic cancer in individuals with obesity before the age of 50 years: A nationwide administrative data study in France. Eur J Surg Oncol. Apr 2023;49(4):788-793. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2022.11.013

Fan H, Mao Q, Zhang W, Fang Q, Zou Q, Gong J. The Impact of Bariatric Surgery on Pancreatic Cancer Risk: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Obes Surg. Apr 05 2023;doi:10.1007/s11695-023-06570-x

Wilson RB, Lathigara D, Kaushal D. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Bariatric Surgery on Future Cancer Risk. Int J Mol Sci. Mar 24 2023;24(7)doi:10.3390/ijms24076192

A history of bariatric surgery was associated with up to 50% reduced risk of PDAC among a national cohort.

Bariatric Surgery is Associated with Reduced Risk of Pancreatic Cancer: Analysis of a US National Database

C. Roberto Simons-Linares, MD

Jazz Pharmaceuticals

And so before we go further, what's shared decision-making? It's basically the health provider and the patient have to work together to come up with a decision that's not best for the clinic, it's not best for the provider, it's best for the patient. And it's really all about knowledge. The knowledge base that we have is on the medical side. The knowledge base that the patient has is on the cultural, on the socioeconomic aspects, on values. All those things have to come together. We're going to talk about this a little bit more detail later on, but this is the SHARE approach. There are 5 steps: seek your patient's participation, help your patient explore and compare treatment options, assess your values for the patient, the preferences, then reach a decision. But don't forget step five. Every now and then you got to step back and evaluate the decision and see where we stand. And this is based on these 9 essential elements, you have to look at the problem, you have to present options, risk benefits, costs, values of the patient's preferences, the ability, self-efficacy of the patient, the recommendations, of course, the medical recommendations, right? Are you sure the patient's understanding? And then you make a decision and then you arrange for follow-up and re-evaluation.

But, again, why? We're here to talk about the data, right? Why do we care? We're busy. We're seeing a million patients. Why do we care? Because it helps everybody. It improves the patient's experience. It makes them more likely to adhere to treatment, to follow-up, to not get lost to follow-up. It increases the quality of care delivered and it increases the patient satisfaction. Well, great. That's wonderful for the patient. That in and of itself should be reason enough to do it. But frankly, it's good for the clinic, too. And I found this really interesting, because I am probably guilty of this. Many healthcare providers believe patients are not interested in participating in the decision-making process. There's actually this literature that suggests that patients actually want more information than they're typically given. Many of them would want to be more involved with the caveat that we all have that patient that does not want to, or is not ready to be part of the decision-making process. And, you know, that's something that we're respected. You will get that patient that says, “Doc, whatever you think is best for me, go ahead and do that.” That in and of itself is a decision, too. But on average, many people want more information than we think.

Well, how do we do this? Well, we were talking about the SHARE approach. Step 1, seek your patient's participation. That's probably the easiest thing to do. “Hey, do you want to be in a dialogue?” “Do you want to be involved in making this decision?” Or, do you fall into that category of, “Hey, doc, do what's best for me?” Start the dialogue. Step 2 is risk-benefits alternatives. That's an important consent in my mind. Discuss the benefits and harms of each option. We do this all the time. Sometimes a little bit more thoroughly than others. Possibly depending on how many patients you're seeing that day. But risk -benefits alternatives. Step 3, this is where it gets interesting. This is where we may not have the time or the training to do as well as we otherwise might. Assess your patient's values and preferences, and if they are taking into account what matters most to them. Now, I think many times, right now, specials do a great job with that. For example, if you have a patient with wet macular generation, you have this form of scar. And I'm willing to bet you have patients that say, “I don't care if I have this form of scar. I understand that it's not going to get any better. But I'm worried that it might get a little bit bigger. Keep going.” Or, if other patients say, “I don't want to keep going. That's not my decision.” That's their values, right? And we have that discussion all the time.

Then step 4, you reach a decision. And step 5, every now and again: “Okay, Ms. Jones, you've decided to keep injecting that this form of scar. We've been doing it for X number of months. Are you still happy with that? Do you see a difference?” You got to reevaluate it now and then it's not carved in stone. Patient buy-in is really essential to adherence. Now, without belaboring this anymore, there's so much more. This, this in and of itself could be like a 10-hour talk. But we do want to touch on just a few hurdles, because it seems so easy when you think about it. But there's more than a few hurdles. One, language, hearing, eyesight; [these are] common barriers. We all know about the vision. That's why we're here. But 9 out of a 100 limited English proficiency; 2 out of a hundred visual disability, 3% hearing disability, qualified medical interpreters. We have a bevy of qualified medical interpreters, which are listed here. Now, having a family members translate is probably not the best idea. And so that is one thing that we need to think about: health literacy. Twelve percent of US adults age 16 and older have proficient reading skills. Thirty-six percent of the population lack adequate literacy skills. And [that’s] for all ages, races, and income. So how can you get informed consent? It's really a conundrum that needs to be addressed. The impact is disproportionate. It affects lower socioeconomic and minority groups more so than it does others, so you have to keep that in mind. And here's the kicker: Nearly 9 out of 10 adults lack full literacy and have difficulty using everyday health information. It's shifting gears and trying to understand where the patients [are] coming from. Because here's the reason why: they are more likely to skip tests, underuse healthcare, to visit the emergency room, be hospitalized, not comply with treatment plan, etc.

The issue is patient buy-in. Here's some of the strategies. Unlike me, you should probably speak slowly and not rush through everything. Show some empathy. Avoid medical jargon. I think I'm as guilty of that as the next person, right? You're using plain language. The teach-back technique, I think is wonderful. It just takes a lot of time asking, “Hey, Mrs. Jones, what did I just tell you? What did we agree on?” That's hard, but it may be worth it, putting that effort in that first time and then read the benefits.

I think we're all really good at thinking about literacy, but what is numeracy? The ability to use numeric information in the context of health; it is also limited. Have you ever had a discussion with a patient and say, “Well, there's a 1 in 4,000 risk of [a certain side effect] or there's a 0.5% risk of [another side effect]?” And do you ever get that look [when you know you’ve] lost them. That's exactly what it is, because you need to understand numbers when choosing treatments, when weighing the risks and the benefits, right? If Matt and I were all happy, we’re thrilled, if close to 80% of patients can go up to Q12 to Q16 weeks. That’s a lot of numbers coming at you. You need these numbers for a bevy of tasks that are shown here. Here are some of the strategies. Frankly, use them only when you need them. When you need precision, use everyday words and approximations; [for example,] say “about one half” instead of 48%. You can elaborate for providing estimate numbers. Visual aids are great. Absolute risk instead of relative risk. That's a beautiful one, right? If you say, well, there's an additional small risk of X% and I do this all the time, just say, well, it's a tiny percent additional risk.

Transcript is AI-generated and edited for clarity and readability.

Mark Barakat, MD, reviews the best practices for patient communication and shared decision making.

Patient Communication and Shared Decision Making

Mark Barakat, MD

Marlyn Mayo, MD, is a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center.

 treatment landscape was limited to just a handful of agents with limited efficacy. However, to the excitement of clinicians and patients alike, 2024 saw a major shift in PBC management with the addition of 2 new second-line therapies: elafibranor (Iqirvo) and seladelpar (Livdelzi).

The proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) agonists earned accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration in June and August, respectively. Whereas obeticholic acid used to be the only other option for patients who do not respond to or cannot tolerate first-line ursodeoxycholic acid, elafibranor and seladelpar offer long-awaited choices for patients who do not benefit from these traditional PBC therapies.

In addition to greatly expanding the PBC treatment landscape, the approvals of elafibranor and seladelpar also provide patients with treatment options that target one of the most common but underrecognized and subsequently undertreated symptoms of PBC: pruritus.

Despite studies reporting pruritus occurrence in 50-80% of PBC cases, Marlyn Mayo, MD, a professor of internal medicine at UT Southwestern Medical Center, explained to 

 how clinicians often underestimate both its prevalence and impact, as evidenced by disparities between patient-reported and physician-assessed pruritus severity. Beyond discomfort, she explained how itch has a profound effect on quality of life, contributing to sleep disturbances, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and functional impairments, including missed work and social isolation.

Marlyn Mayo, MD: Improving Pruritus Management in PBC Care

“Our traditional [PBC] therapies don't help with itch at all and may in fact make it worse,” Mayo said, describing the different guideline-recommended therapies for addressing pruritus in PBC but calling attention to the fact that none of them are universally efficacious.

However, elafibranor and seladelpar may offer viable treatment options for treating both the underlying disease as well as the itch associated with it.

“This is a really exciting time,” Mayo emphasized. “We have just had 2 new drugs approved in the US by the FDA for second-line treatment of PBC, elafibranor and seladelpar, and both of those medications seem to have a beneficial effect on pruritus… For some patients, that might be enough to treat the underlying disease as well as the itching.”

Mayo also expressed optimism about recent advancements in the development of ileal bile acid transporter (IBAT) for treating itch in PBC, with phase 3 trials nearing completion and potentially offering hope for broader application beyond their currently approved pediatric indications.

She went on to emphasize the importance of a nuanced and patient-centered approach to pruritus assessment in patients with PBC, noting the importance of moving beyond binary questioning about the presence of itching to detailed discussions of its severity, quality-of-life impacts, and patient preferences for treatment. Mayo also cites the need for early intervention with guideline-recommended pruritus-directed therapies, especially in patients with severe pruritus who cannot wait the typical 6-12 months to evaluate response to first-line treatment before initiating an itch-effective second-line option like elafibranor or seladelpar.

Editors’ note: Mayo has relevant disclosures with CymaBay, GENFIT, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ironwood, Intercept, Ipsen, and Mirum.

Brooks, A. FDA Grants Accelerated Approval to Elafibranor (Iqirvo) for PBC. HCPLive. June 10, 2024. Accessed December 9, 2024. 

https://www.hcplive.com/view/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-to-elafibranor-iqirvo-for-pbc

Brooks A. FDA Grants Accelerated Approval to Seladelpar (Livdelzi) for Primary Biliary Cholangitis. HCPLive. August 14, 2024. Accessed December 9, 2024. 

https://www.hcplive.com/view/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-to-seladelpar-livdelzi-for-primary-biliary-cholangitis

The treatment landscape for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) has significantly evolved with the FDA's accelerated approval of elafibranor and seladelpar as second-line therapies. These PPAR agonists offer new options for patients unresponsive to first-line ursodeoxycholic acid, addressing both the disease and pruritus, a common yet often underestimated symptom. The advancements highlight the need for a patient-centered approach to pruritus assessment and early intervention. Additionally, ongoing developments in ileal bile acid transporter therapies may further enhance treatment options for PBC-related itch.

Mayo explains current shortcomings of pruritus care in PBC and what the additions of elafibranor, seladelpar, and other agents in development may offer.

Marlyn Mayo, MD

 So in the last few minutes, I'm going to ask each of you as you look into the future caring for our patients with obstructive HCM [hypertrophic cardiomyopathy] and non-obstructive HCM, what other things are you excited about? We talked a little bit about the myosin inhibitors, but clearly there are other things that Milind alluded to that are coming down the pike for us. It's an exciting time to be in HCM position. What are the things that you're most looking forward to and Jim, I'll start with you.

 Yeah, thanks very much. I'll put my clinical trial hat on. We've fully enrolled a clinical trial looking at metabolic manipulation of myocardial function using a partial fatty acid oxidase inhibitor in patients with HCM. So approaching the question from a completely different angle that would be additive together with cardiac myosin inhibition, so thinking about newer pathways to address in patients with HCM to improve their symptoms. That's really exciting to me.

 So speaking as a heart failure, transplant cardiologist is what I spend most of my time doing. I think we still have so many unanswered questions in patients with non-obstructive HCM with advanced symptoms. What's the role of guideline directed medical therapy—was just traditional garden variety heart failure with preserved ejection fraction therapy like mineralocorticoid antagonists, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors. Do they work? Will they be effective in non-obstructive HCM? I think that is an unmet need in a huge space that I'm hopeful in the future we'll have more answers.

 I agree with you completely. That group of patients are perhaps the most difficult and challenging to treat in the clinic and hopefully will make some headway there. Milind, what are you looking forward to?

 I will start with what Michelle alluded to the next frontier is the non-obstructive HCM. So I am not a heart failure transplant doctor, but can mavacamten or CMIs [cardiac myosin inhibitors] work in this space because it's not all about the LVOT [left ventricular outflow tract] obstruction. There are structural changes that are happening, and we are answering this question in an ongoing randomized clinical trial, RCHCM, and there is another one with aficamten, that is being planned coming down the pike. That will help us clear some of that air. Of course, we need to understand the other drugs like SGLT. Could that work? But the bigger picture I think is the genetic space, the gene therapies, the adenovirus-based therapies that can help modulate the deficient protein in the heart of MYBPC3 so that space is active and brewing the business of gene editing CRISPR, etcetera. All these things obviously, I often joke as long as it does not create mutant Ninja Turtles down the road, meaning the uncertain offshoot effects, I think the future is bright. Honestly, I just told this to one of my patients a couple of days ago is that I can excitedly look forward to having a potential cure for this disease before I hang my boots into retirement. So I'm looking forward to all and plus the PROs [patient reported outcomes] and the shared-decision making. The other thing is the HCMR trial, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy registry from NIH which I am also part of, so I have to plug it in. That is going to start reading out in the next year or so that will help understand the risk stratification space a lot more.

 What's left? They've taken all the low hanging fruit And even the high hanging fruit from the tree. No fruit left on the tree.

 You're climbing all the way up the tree to the top.

 No fruit left on the tree. So I would echo what Jim said. I think that the potential for positive remodeling of the left ventricle not only pathologically with hypertrophy, but maybe reducing the progression of fibrosis would be a major advancement. If we can show that a therapy reduces progressive fibrosis that we can see on late gadolinium enhancement, we know its association with worsening progressive heart failure as well as ventricular arrhythmias, that would be a huge benefit. As Milind said that fibrosis is also shown with severe diastolic dysfunction as well, and many of our patients have some symptoms with outflow tract relief from diastolic dysfunction. So I think that is another unmet need. The last thing I would say is you know how normal can we make patients feel? With obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, will they be safe to be highly competitive, vigorous athletes, even with this condition? Can we really get close to normalizing what they really can do and feel like they can do and want to do?

 Yeah, that's what's a wonderful goal. It is a lofty goal, but one that we may meet. So with that, I'd like to thank you all for joining our panel today. This has been a very rich, informative and lively discussion and thank you audience for watching our HCPLive Peer Exchange®. You can subscribe to the enewsletter and receive other great content right in your inbox. Thanks again everyone.

Andrew Wang, MD; James Januzzi, MD; Michelle M. Kittleson, MD, PhD; and Milind Desai, MD, MBA, share a look into the future of oHCM treatment.

The Future of oHCM Treatment

Michelle M. Kittleson, MD, PhD

Iltefat Hamzavi, MD, explores key areas of patient communication that may shape adherence and outcomes in patients with vitiligo.

Communication With Patients With Vitiligo

Pearl E. Grimes, MD

The panel offers their final recommendations for physicians managing patients with asthma.

Advice for Clinicians Managing Asthma

S. Shahzad Mustafa, MD

Serena Fasano, MD, PhD

Siddharth M. Patel, MD, MPH, is a TIMI Study Group Investigator, Associate Physician in the Cardiovascular Division at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Instructor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Abelacimab Benefits Spectrum of Bleeding Risk with Siddharth Patel, MD, MPH

Abelacimab, a novel factor XI inhibitor, achieved reductions across the spectrum of bleeding risk, compared with rivaroxaban, in patients with 

, with a greater absolute safety benefit in those at high bleeding risk.

American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2025 Annual Scientific Sessions

, the analysis compared the safety of abelacimab to rivaroxaban using the direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) score among 1287 patients with atrial fibrillation enrolled in the AZALEA-TIMI 71 trial.

“If you think about the risk factors for predisposition to bleeding, including advanced age, renal impairment, use of other concomitant medications, these are folks who have an indication for reducing ischemic risk, but typically post a significantly higher bleeding risk,” Siddharth Patel, MD, MPH, an associate physician in the cardiovascular division at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, told 

. “We’re really encouraged by the results, the fact that even in that very high bleeding risk group, we saw the same substantial reduction in bleeding risk in those receiving abelacimab, compared with rivaroxaban.”

Results from AZALEA-TIMI 71 showed abelacimab significantly lowered the risk of major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding in patients with AF, compared with rivaroxaban. Both abelacimab doses (90 mg and 150 mg) were pooled for this analysis. Using the validated DOAC score, 8%, 33%, 37%, 16%, and 5% of patients were categorized as very low (0-3), low (4-5), moderate (6-7), high (8-9), and very high (10) bleeding risk, respectively.

Upon analysis, rates of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding per 100 patient years increased stepwise based on risk scores in the rivaroxaban arm, from 5.6% in the low risk category to 21.2% in the very high risk category. In contrast, bleeding rates in the pooled abelacimab arm were 2.5% in the low-risk category versus 7.1% in the very high-risk category.

Further analysis showed the absolute risk reduction (ARR) increased from 3.1% in the low risk category to 14.1% in the very high risk category (

-trend <.001). Pending further research, regulatory approval of abelacimab could be particularly beneficial for patients with AF at high bleeding risk.

“If these therapies are confirmed to be effective for the prevention of thromboembolism in ongoing Phase 3 trials, this could really represent an opportunity to expand the armamentarium of therapies to patients who have traditionally not been anticoagulated due to history of bleeding, or even the perceived fear of bleeding,” Patel told 

Patel reports relevant disclosures with Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

Patel SM, Giugliano RP, Morrow DA, Goodrich EL, et al. Factor XI Inhibition with Abelacimab in Atrial Fibrillation Across the Spectrum of Bleeding Risk. Presented at: American College of Cardiology (ACC.25) Annual Scientific Session. March 29 – 31, 2025. Chicago, Il.

Anthos Therapeutics shares new data from the landmark Azalea-TIMI 71 study demonstrating the factor XI inhibitor Abelacimab significantly reduced bleeding in patients regardless of age or bleeding risk. Anthos Therapeutics. March 29, 2025. Accessed April 4, 2025. 

https://anthostherapeutics.com/press-release/anthos_2025-03-29_release/

In a new analysis at ACC.25, abelacimab reduced bleeding rates across the risk spectrum, with more benefits for those at higher bleeding risk.

Siddharth M. Patel, MD, MPH

New Insight: Exploring ENCELTO for MacTel with Rich Small, CEO of Neurotech

In this episode of New Insight, host Veeral Sheth, MD, MBA, director of clinical research at University Retina and Macula Associates, speaks with Rich Small, chief executive officer of Neurotech, about the recent 

 approval of revakinagene taroretcel-lwey (ENCELTO), a groundbreaking encapsulated cell therapy for 

This approval marked the first and only FDA–approved treatment for MacTel, a neurodegenerative disease of the retina that can cause progressive and irreversible vision loss.

“Today marks an extraordinary milestone for patients, the retina community, and Neurotech,” Small said in a statement. “I would like to express my gratitude to clinical study participants, clinical investigators and their teams, and the entire Neurotech organization who have helped make this a reality.”

Speaking with Sheth, Small recounted the long journey of Neurotech, which began in 2007, emphasizing the perseverance required to bring ENCELTO to market. He detailed his transition from Chief Financial Officer to CEO in 2016 and highlighted his team’s commitment, many of whom have been with the company for over a decade.

The conversation explored the scientific foundation of ENCELTO, which uses genetically modified cells to release neurotrophic factors that protect photoreceptors in the retina. Unlike previous treatments that relied on best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) as a clinical endpoint, ENCELTO’s approval was enabled by advancements in imaging technology that allowed for direct measurement of photoreceptor health. Small explained how Neurotech was pivotal in shifting FDA standards to accept these structural endpoints, paving the way for future therapies targeting slow-progressing retinal diseases.

Sheth and Small discussed the ideal patient profile for ENCELTO, noting that early intervention is key to preserving vision in MacTel patients. Small describes the treatment’s durability, citing cases where implants remained viable for approximately 14 years. He also outlined the surgical implantation process, emphasizing its straightforward nature and the company’s focus on proper physician training.

With ENCELTO’s approval secured, Small indicated the next step is widespread adoption, introducing 

 as a patient service hub designed to streamline diagnosis, treatment, and access to care.

Sheth underscored the significance of this approval, noting that for the first time, clinicians have an option for patients who previously had no treatment alternatives. Reflecting on the impact of perseverance in biotech innovation, and the hope ENCELTO brings to patients, Small expressed pride in Neurotech’s achievement and excitement about delivering this novel therapy to those in need.

Every episode of New Insight is available on HCPLive.com. Watch full episodes on our YouTube channel and listen wherever you get your podcasts.

Veeral Sheth, MD, is joined by the CEO of Neurotech to discuss the historic approval of revakinagene taroretcel (ENCELTO) for macular telangiectasia type 2.

Authors