Program Announcement for Annual ASPC Congress on CVD Prevention August 2025
KINGWOOD, Texas, April 29, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- The ASPC announces details of a full program of events to be held at their annual Congress on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention, scheduled for August 1-3, 2025, at the Omni Hotel at the Seaport in Boston, MA.
A new pre-conference course – ASPC Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Training Academy – is being offered to clinicians in training as a one-day comprehensive program designed to provide participants with a thorough introduction to preventive cardiology and will be held on Thu., July 31. This program was offered on an application process earlier this year. Selected applicants will be hosted by the ASPC for the duration of the Congress following the Training Academy. ASPC President, Dr. Michael Shapiro shares 'The launch of the ASPC Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Training Academy represents a critical step forward in shaping the next generation of preventive cardiologists. Our goal is to provide trainees with the foundational knowledge, clinical tools, and mentorship they need to deliver evidence-based, patient-centered care. This program embodies the ASPC's unwavering commitment to advancing the science and practice of prevention by investing in future leaders.'
The main ASPC 2025 Scientific Sessions program includes diverse content with international experts, honorees in the field of prevention, and a record number of abstracts in the poster hall!
The three ASPC honorees are:
ASPC is looking forward to honoring these awardees during the opening session of the Congress on Friday, August 1 from 8:00 – 9:05 AM.
The ASPC will collaborate with the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) to discuss Advances in Lipoprotein(a) Management during Session 3 on Friday, Augus 1 from 11:00 AM – 12:15 PM.
Three rousing debates will be featured during Session 5 on Friday, August 1 from 1:30 – 3:30 PM and additional debates will continue on Saturday, August 2 during Session 6 from 9:00 – 10:30 AM:
Other features of the Annual Congress on CVD Prevention include oral abstract presentations and over 200 abstract posters, expert theaters and symposia presented by industry sponsors, sunrise yoga, and an exhibit hall featuring 25+ preventive cardiology related organizations. Detailed program agenda for the Congress on CVD Prevention is available at www.aspconline.org/2025Congress.
The ASPC's mission is to promote the prevention of cardiovascular disease, advocate for the preservation of cardiovascular health, and disseminate high-quality, evidence-based information through the education of healthcare clinicians and their patients.
View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/program-announcement-for-annual-aspc-congress-on-cvd-prevention-august-2025-302438735.html
SOURCE The American Society for Preventive Cardiology
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Pinnacle Fertility California Expands Elite Physician Team with the Addition of Dr. Kristin Bendikson
40-year legacy clinic accelerates next chapter of innovation and excellence in Los Angeles LOS ANGELES, Aug. 14, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Pinnacle Fertility California, formerly known as California Fertility Partners, proudly announces the addition of nationally renowned reproductive endocrinologist Dr. Kristin Bendikson to its world-class physician team. Dr. Bendikson will begin seeing patients October 6, deepening the clinic's reach as a global destination for advanced fertility care. With a history of pioneering some of the first IVF births in the world, Pinnacle Fertility California has been a trusted leader in reproductive medicine for over four decades. Now part of the Pinnacle Fertility network, the clinic blends top medical talent, leading-edge science, and highly personalized care to set a new standard in fertility treatment. Powered by the Pinnacle Operational Model—which is redefining how fertility care is delivered at scale—the addition of Dr. Bendikson marks another bold step forward in shaping the future of reproductive medicine. "Kristin Bendikson is a force in reproductive medicine," said Beth Zoneraich, CEO of Pinnacle Fertility, Inc. "Her arrival strengthens our commitment to building the most accomplished medical team in the country." Dr. Bendikson brings exceptional expertise in IVF, fertility preservation, endometriosis, PCOS, and recurrent pregnancy loss. She previously served as Chief Medical Officer of Clinical Development at Kindbody, expanding access to fertility care nationwide, and played a pivotal role at USC Fertility, where she founded both the Center for Pregnancy Loss and the Fertility Diagnostic Testing Program. Her elite training at Harvard and Cornell laid the foundation for a career defined by innovation, leadership, and outstanding patient outcomes. As the past Chair of ASRM's Patient Education Committee and a current member of the prestigious ASRM Practice Committee, Dr. Bendikson brings not only leadership in patient care and national reproductive policy, but also over two decades of experience successfully guiding patients through their fertility journeys. Her expertise further positions Pinnacle Fertility California as a premier destination for clinical excellence, pioneering fertility care, and highly personalized patient treatment. "Joining Pinnacle Fertility California means becoming part of a culture built on clinical rigor, innovation, and truly personalized patient care," said Dr. Bendikson. "This team is known not only for its deep expertise, but for the way it tailors every step of the journey to each individual, supporting patients through one of the most important experiences of their lives. I'm honored to be part of it." As part of the Pinnacle network, patients have access to national resources, including Pinnacle Egg Bank and Pinnacle Surrogacy, while receiving the concierge-level care the Los Angeles clinic is known for. About Pinnacle Fertility CaliforniaPinnacle Fertility California, formerly California Fertility Partners (CFP), is a leader in the field of reproductive endocrinology and infertility and has helped thousands of people realize their dream of parenthood for more than 40 years. Dedicated to excellence in fertility and genomic medicine, the clinic is an international destination located in Los Angeles, California. Pinnacle Fertility California has helped create some of the first IVF babies in the world and is globally recognized for providing high-quality, comprehensive IVF treatments. The clinic remains committed to compassionate, personalized, and innovative fertility care for patients. About Dr. Kristin BendiksonDr. Kristin Bendikson is a double board-certified reproductive endocrinologist known for her expertise in IVF, fertility preservation, and complex reproductive conditions such as PCOS and endometriosis. She completed her medical training at NYU, residency at Harvard, and fellowship at Weill Cornell. A recognized national leader, she has held prominent roles within the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and is widely published in the field of reproductive medicine. She has been consistently recognized for many years as one of LA's Top Doctors by Los Angeles Magazine. About Pinnacle Fertility, Fertility, Inc. supports a premier network of physician-led fertility clinics committed to transforming dreams of parenthood into reality. Headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, Pinnacle manages a nationwide network of more than 40 clinics and 17 state-of-the-art embryology labs. With a team of over 1,000 dedicated professionals, Pinnacle Fertility empowers individuals and couples to build the families they've always dreamed of. To learn more or schedule an appointment, visit Media Contact: Communications@ View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Pinnacle Fertility Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
How States Could Save University Science
Whatever halfway measures Congress or the courts may take to stop President Donald Trump's assault on universities, they will not change the fact that a profound agreement has been broken: Since World War II, the U.S. government has funded basic research at universities, with the understanding that the discoveries and innovations that result would benefit the U.S. economy and military, as well as the health of the nation's citizens. But under President Trump—who has already targeted more than $3 billion in research funding for termination and hopes to cut much more, while at the same time increasing the tax on endowments and threatening the ability of universities to enroll international students —the federal government has become an unreliable and brutally coercive partner. The question for universities is, what now? It will take time for research universities to find a new long-term financial model that allows science and medicine to continue advancing—a model much less dependent on the federal government. But right now universities don't have time. The problem with recklessly cutting billions in funds the way the Trump administration has done—not just at elite private universities such as Harvard and Columbia but also at public research universities across the country—is that 'stop-start' simply doesn't work in science. If a grant is snatched away today, researchers are let go, graduate students are turned away, and clinical trials are halted with potentially devastating consequences for patients. Unused equipment gathers dust, samples spoil, lab animals are euthanized. Top scientists move their laboratories to other countries, which are happy to welcome this talent, much as the United States welcomed German scientists in the 1930s. Meanwhile, the best students around the world enroll elsewhere, where good science is still being done and their legal status is not up in the air. The result, ultimately, is that the U.S. leaves it to other nations to discover a cure for Alzheimer's disease or diabetes, or to make fusion energy practicable. No easy substitute exists for federal support of academic R&D—the scale of the investment is just too large. In fiscal year 2023, federal funding for university research amounted to about $60 billion nationwide. University-endowment spending, as reported by the '2024 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments,' is just half that—$30 billion, with much of the money earmarked for financial aid. Universities by themselves cannot save American science, engineering, and medicine. However, there is also no easy substitute within the American economy for university-based research—universities are the only major institutions that do what they do. The kind of curiosity-driven rather than profit-driven research pursued by universities is too risky for private corporations. By and large, industry conducts research to achieve milestones along a well-considered road map. It is up to universities to find the new roads and educate the experts who know how to travel them. Those roads are where the real potential for growth lies. After all, the internet and the artificial neural networks that enable generative AI arose out of basic research at U.S. universities. So did the most fundamental discoveries in molecular biology, which are now enabling astonishing one-time treatments that are potential cures for painful genetic diseases such as sickle cell. University research is particularly important in states where technology-intensive industries have grown up around the talent and ideas that universities generate—states such as Washington, California, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, Maryland, and North Carolina. Although the Trump administration may characterize federal research grants as wasteful spending, they are really an investment, one with higher returns than federal investment in infrastructure or private investment in R&D. There is a way forward—a way to bridge the huge gap in funding. It starts with the assumption that a bridge will be needed for several years, until some measure of sanity and federal support returns. It is based on the premise that, because universities are not the sole nor even the most significant beneficiaries of the scientific research they conduct, they should not be alone in trying to save their R&D operations. And it is focused not on Washington but on the individual states that have relied most on federal research spending. These states have the power to act unilaterally. They can set up emergency funds to replace canceled federal grants, allowing universities to keep their labs open until a shaky present gives way to a sturdier future. These states can also create incentives for corporations, investors, philanthropists, and of course universities themselves to step up in extraordinary ways at a time of emergency. This is not merely wishful thinking. Massachusetts has already made moves in this direction. At the end of July, Governor Maura Healey introduced legislation that would put $400 million of state funds into university-based research and research partnerships. Half would go to public colleges and universities, and half to other institutions, including private research universities and academic hospitals. Obviously, with $2.6 billion of multiyear research grants threatened at Harvard alone, action by the state will cover only part of the funding deficit, but it will help. It makes perfect sense for Massachusetts to be the first state to try to stanch the bleeding. With just 2 percent of the nation's workforce, Massachusetts is home to more than 11 percent of all R&D jobs in the country. It has the highest per capita funding from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation in the U.S. Every federal dollar invested in academic science in Massachusetts generates about $2 in economic return for the state. And that's before taking into account the economic impact of any discoveries. In particular, Massachusetts has a powerful biomedical-research ecosystem to protect. But each state has its own strategic imperatives, and many ways to structure such emergency funds exist. Because the grants canceled by the Trump administration have already undergone the federal peer-review process, states don't need to force themselves into the challenging business of judging the worthiness of individual research proposals. They could make a large difference simply by refilling the vessels that have been abruptly emptied, possibly with grants that allow the universities to prioritize the most important projects. States could require that, in exchange for state help, universities must raise matching funds from their donors. In addition, states could launch their own philanthropic funds, as Massachusetts is also doing. Philanthropy—which already contributes an estimated $13 billion a year to university research through foundations, individual gifts, and the income on gifts to university endowments—is particularly important at this moment. As federal-grant awards become scarcer, it is a fair bet that federal-funding agencies will become more risk averse. Philanthropists have always played an important role in encouraging unconventional thinking because they are willing to fund the very earliest stages of discovery. For example, the philanthropists Ted and Vada Stanley funded a center at MIT and Harvard's Broad Institute specifically to explore the biological basis of psychiatric disorders. In a landmark 2016 study, researchers there found strong evidence of a molecular mechanism underlying schizophrenia, establishing the first distinct connection in the disorder between gene variants and a biological process. Foundations can also launch sweeping projects that bring together communities of scientists from different organizations to advance a field, such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which has mapped a third of the night sky, or the Sloan Deep Carbon Observatory, which studied the carbon cycle beneath the surface of the Earth. States could also incentivize their business communities to be part of the rescue operation, perhaps by offering to match industry contributions to academic R&D. Some sectors, such as the biopharmaceutical industry, are particularly reliant on university discoveries. NIH-funded research contributed to more than 99 percent of all new drugs approved in the U.S. from 2010 to 2019. But China is now catching up to the U.S. in drug innovation. American biopharmaceutical companies are already dependent on China for raw materials. If they don't want to become completely reliant on China for breakthrough drugs as well—and able to access only those drugs that China is willing to share—they should do what they can to help save what has long been the world's greatest system for biomedical research. The same is true for science-based technology companies in fields that include quantum computing, artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and batteries. Academic breakthroughs underlie the products and services they sell. If they want to remain ahead of their global competition, they should help support the next generation of breakthroughs and the next generation of students who will contribute to those breakthroughs. Among those who would benefit from keeping U.S. university labs open are the venture capitalists and other investors who profit from the commercialization of university ideas. From 1996 to 2020, academic research generated 141,000 U.S. patents, spun out 18,000 companies, supported 6.5 million jobs, and contributed $1 trillion to the GDP. One of those spinouts was named Google. In our current state of emergency, investment firms should be considering ways to provide a lifeline to the university-based science that supports a high-tech economy. Governors and other leaders in states with major research universities will need to work quickly and decisively, bringing various parties together in order to stave off disaster. But what is the alternative? If states, corporations, donors, and other stakeholders do nothing, there will be fewer American ideas to invest in, fewer American therapies to benefit from, and fewer advanced manufacturing industries making things in the U.S. No contributions from elsewhere can completely replace broad-based federal support for university R&D. But until that returns, states with a lot on the line economically offer the best hope of limiting the losses and salvaging U.S. science.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Infectious Disease Therapies Market Projected to Reach $101 Billion by End of 2030
"As infectious diseases like HIV, hepatitis, tuberculosis, and influenza continue to challenge global health systems, new breakthroughs such as long acting injectables and monoclonal antibodies are driving better patient outcomes and fueling market growth, especially in the face of rising drug resistance." BOSTON, Aug. 14, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- According to the latest study from BCC Research, "Global Markets for Infectious Disease Treatments" is expected to grow from $72.5 billion in 2025 to $101 billion by the end of 2030, at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.9% during the forecast period of 2025 to 2030. This report analyzes the global market for infectious disease therapeutics, vaccines, and diagnostics, covering diseases such as HIV, influenza, hepatitis B and C, RSV, TB, HSV, malaria, rotavirus, and viral hemorrhagic fevers. It highlights market trends, challenges, and opportunities, along with insights into new products, acquisitions, collaborations, and ESG developments. The report also ranks leading companies by market share and provides detailed profiles of them. Excluded from the report are vector control strategies, symptomatic treatments, generic suppliers, and certain hospital-based diagnostic methods. This report is particularly relevant today because the COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped global priorities around infectious diseases. It exposed critical gaps in healthcare systems and underscored the urgent need for rapid diagnostics, effective treatments, and scalable vaccine platforms. In response, governments, organizations, and private companies invested in infectious disease research and infrastructure, driving innovation and global collaboration. The pandemic also highlighted the importance of early detection, surveillance, and preparedness, leading to renewed attention on emerging and neglected infectious diseases. The factors driving the market's growth include: Increasing Resistance to Drugs: Drug resistance is rising as bacteria and viruses evolve to withstand existing treatments, making infections harder to cure. This pushes pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs and therapies, driving growth in the infectious disease treatment market. Global Efforts to Combat Infectious Diseases: Governments and international organizations are investing in public health initiatives, research, and vaccination programs to control infectious diseases. These efforts create strong support for treatment development and expand market opportunities worldwide. Technological Advances in Diagnostics and Therapeutics: Innovations like rapid testing, AI-based drug discovery, and advanced vaccines are improving how diseases are detected and treated. These technologies enhance efficiency and effectiveness, boosting demand for more effective diagnostic and therapeutic solutions. Climate Change: Changing climate patterns are expanding the reach of disease-carrying organisms, leading to the spread of infections in new regions. This increases the need for treatments in previously unaffected areas, stimulating market expansion and adaptation. Request a sample copy of the global market for infectious disease treatments report. Report Synopsis Report Metric Details Base year considered 2024 Forecast period considered 2025-2030 Base year market size $68.3 billion Market size forecast $101 billion Growth rate CAGR of 6.9% for the forecast period of 2025-2030 Segments covered Product, Disease, and Region Regions covered North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa, and South America Countries covered U.S., Canada, Mexico, U.K., Germany, France, China, India, and Japan Market drivers • Increasing resistance to drugs. • Global efforts to combat infectious diseases. • Technological advances in diagnostics and therapeutics. • Climate change. • Increase in international travel. Interesting facts: More than 85% of hepatitis B virus infections never receive a diagnosis. Due to climate change, mosquito-borne infectious diseases are on the rise. The worldwide incidence of dengue has risen eightfold in the past 20 years. Emerging startups: Codagenix: The company develops vaccines and viral therapeutic candidates for infectious diseases. Its intranasal vaccine candidate, CoviLiv, is a live-attenuated vaccine against COVID-19. nChroma Bio: A biotechnology company advancing genetic medicines. CRMA-1001 is an epigenetic editor in development as a potential treatment for chronic hepatitis B and hepatitis D. The company plans to submit a clinical trial application in 2025. The report addresses the following questions: What are the projected size and growth rate of the Infectious disease treatments market?- The global Infectious disease treatments market was estimated at $68.3 billion in 2024. The market is projected to reach $101 billion in 2030, growing at a CAGR of 6.9% during the forecast period. Which market segments are covered in the report?- The report includes historical data and market projection on sales by product type, disease, and region. Which product type segment will be dominant through 2030?- Therapeutics is expected to have the largest share of the product type segment through the end of 2030. Which product type is showing the fastest growth?- The vaccine segment is the fastest growing product type segment. What are the key challenges and opportunities in the market?- Challenges: Pricing pressure is a significant factor restraining the growth of the infectious disease treatment market, particularly in low and middle-income countries where healthcare budgets are limited. Lack of awareness and underdiagnosis remain major barriers to the growth of the infectious disease treatment market.- Opportunities: Self-testing kits are rapidly gaining traction in the field of infectious diseases, offering individuals convenient, private, and timely diagnostic options. Market leaders include: ABBOTT ABBVIE INC. CSL DANAHER CORP. F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD. GILEAD SCIENCES INC. GSK PLC JOHNSON & JOHNSON MERCK & CO. INC. MOLBIO DIAGNOSTICS LTD. ORASURE TECHNOLOGIES INC. PFIZER INC. SANOFI SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT. LTD. SIEMENS HEALTHINEERS Related reports: The Global Influenza Market: This report provides a comprehensive review of the global influenza market, offering qualitative and quantitative insights. It explores the historical context of flu pandemics, current disease burden, and vaccine coverage across key regions. The market is segmented into vaccines (inactivated and live-attenuated), therapeutics, and diagnostics (rapid and conventional tests), with detailed analysis of each category. It also highlights leading products, clinical trials, new approvals, and emerging technologies. Regional demographics and growth prospects in North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific are examined, along with strategic profiles of major companies operating in the influenza sector. Purchase a copy of the report direct from BCC Research. For further information on any of these reports or to make a purchase, contact info@ About BCC Research BCC Research market research reports provide objective, unbiased measurement and assessment of market opportunities. Our experienced industry analysts' goal is to help you make informed business decisions free of noise and hype. Contact Us Corporate HQ: 50 Milk St., Ste. 16, Boston, MA 02109, USA Email: info@ Phone: +1 781-489-7301 For media inquiries, email press@ or visit our media page for access to our market research library. Any data and analysis extracted from this press release must be accompanied by a statement identifying BCC Research LLC as the source and publisher. Logo - View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE BCC Research LLC Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
