Citations

ABSTRACT Background A randomized phase II screening trial of gemcitabine, nab‐paclitaxel, and cisplatin with a medically supervised ketogenic diet (MSKD) versus usual diet (non‐MSKD) was conducted in patients with treatment‐naive metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods Patients with untreated metastatic PDAC were randomized 1:1 to MSKD or non‐MSKD while receiving gemcitabine, nab‐paclitaxel, and cisplatin on days 1 and 8 of a 21‐day cycle. The MSKD was guided by a remote health care team and daily ketone (beta‐hydroxybutyrate) levels, with goal beta‐hydroxybutyrate of 0.5 to 3.0 mM. The primary endpoint was progression‐free survival (PFS) using a one‐sided alpha level of 0.20. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), safety, and quality of life (QOL). Changes in microbiome were an exploratory endpoint. Findings Overall, there were 32 evaluable patients. In the MSKD arm, 15 of 16 patients achieved nutritional ketosis; the median proportion of days in ketosis was 39.4%. The median PFS was 8.5 months in MSKD patients and 6.2 months in non‐MSKD patients: hazard ratio, 0.53 (95% CI, 0.21–1.37); one‐sided p = .096. The median OS was 13.7 months with MSKD and 10.2 months in the non‐MSKD arm: hazard ratio, 0.58 (95% CI, 0.25–1.37); one‐sided p = .107). All MSKD‐related adverse events were grade 1‐2. There were no significant differences in grade ≥3 chemotherapy‐related adverse events between the arms. MSKD patients had no decline in QOL and had significant enrichment of beneficial taxa in the microbiome ( p < .05, log‐fold change ≥2). Conclusions The MSKD is feasible in patients with PDAC and, although not powered for definitive outcomes, shows trends in improved PFS and OS when combined with gemcitabine, nab‐paclitaxel, and cisplatin, without added toxicity or detriment to QOL. Larger studies are required to confirm these findings and establish the value of the MSKD in pancreatic cancer treatment.

Abstract Platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) continues to generate both excitement and skepticism within orthopaedics and sports medicine. As a biologic derived from autologous blood, PRP offers an appealing, minimally invasive option for treating musculoskeletal pathology through the delivery of concentrated growth factors and cytokines. Evidence across orthopaedic subspecialties remains mixed, however, with studies showing variable efficacy and inconsistent methodologies. Recent data on PRP use for extra‐articular hip pathology, particularly greater trochanteric pain syndrome, hamstring injuries, and piriformis syndrome show encouraging improvements in pain and function, including faster return to sport and favorable patient‐reported outcomes. Yet, significant heterogeneity in study design, PRP preparation, and control interventions limits generalizability and hinders clear clinical guidance. These inconsistencies mirror similar challenges in PRP research for a variety of other orthopaedic pathologies, underscoring the need for standardized preparation protocols and consistent reporting frameworks. Despite these limitations, a signal of efficacy persists within the data, suggesting PRP may indeed provide meaningful benefit for select extra‐articular hip conditions. As surgical alternatives for these pathologies often carry substantial morbidity, continued refinement of PRP formulations and methodology represents a promising step toward establishing biologics as reliable, evidence‐based tools in orthopaedic care.

Abstract Advances in biomarker technology, digital cognitive assessments, and amyloid‐targeting therapies have redefined the opportunities for accurate and early diagnosis and care of Alzheimer's disease (AD). These advances also create new possibilities for intervention before the onset of cognitive impairment. This paradigm shift has increased the focus on Stages 1 and 2 of AD, in which individuals are cognitively unimpaired but exhibit biological evidence of disease. While early identification of AD offers an opportunity to intervene early to delay progression and preserve quality of life, it also presents complex challenges related to communicating diagnostic results to patients and their families, contextualizing the cost effectiveness of early diagnosis and treatment, and implementation of and equitable access to treatments. Recent, successfully enrolled, preclinical AD trials highlight the complex strategies required to identify asymptomatic, biomarker‐positive individuals on a large scale, and demonstrate critical knowledge gaps in inclusion, follow‐up, and long‐term outcome measurement. The Spring 2025 Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable (AARR) meeting brought together academics, clinicians, industry, and regulatory leaders to exchange perspectives on current challenges, key learnings, and potential strategies for identifying and treating individuals in very early stages of AD, effectively and safely. This paper presents key takeaways from the Spring 2025 AARR meeting. Highlights New criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) enable early identification of AD pathology. Blood tests and digital cognitive assessment tools may facilitate early and personalized care. Plasma biomarkers may be scalable in clinical settings but need confirmation or follow‐up assessments in those individuals with equivocal results. Early therapy shows best results in people with lower initial amyloid and tau burden.