User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Third COVID-19 vaccine dose helped some transplant recipients
All of those with low titers before the third dose had high titers after receiving the additional shot, but only about 33% of those with negative initial responses had detectable antibodies after the third dose, according to the paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Researchers at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who keep a COVID-19 vaccine registry, perform antibody tests on all registry subjects and inform them of their results. Registry participants were asked to inform the research team if they received a third dose, and, the research team tracked the immune responses of those who did.
The participants in this case series had low antibody levels and received a third dose of the vaccine on their own between March 20 and May 10 of 2021.
Third dose results
In this cases series – thought to be the first to look at third vaccine shots in this type of patient group – all six of those who had low antibody titers before the third dose had high-positive titers after the third dose.
Of the 24 individuals who had negative antibody titers before the third dose, just 6 had high titers after the third dose.
Two of the participants had low-positive titers, and 16 were negative.
“Several of those boosted very nicely into ranges seen, using these assays, in healthy persons,” said William Werbel, MD, a fellow in infectious disease at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who helped lead the study. Those with negative levels, even if they responded, tended to have lower titers, he said.
“The benefits at least from an antibody perspective were not the same for everybody and so this is obviously something that needs to be considered when thinking about selecting patients” for a COVID-19 prevention strategy, he said.
Reactions to the vaccine were low to moderate, such as some arm pain and fatigue.
“Showing that something is safe in that special, vulnerable population is important,” Dr. Werbel said. “We’re all wanting to make sure that we’re doing no harm.”
Dr. Werbel noted that there was no pattern in the small series based on the organ transplanted or in the vaccines used. As their third shot, 15 of the patients received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine; 9 received Moderna; and 6 received Pfizer-BioNTech.
Welcome news, but larger studies needed
“To think that a third dose could confer protection for a significant number of people is of course extremely welcome news,” said Christian Larsen, MD, DPhil, professor of surgery in the transplantation division at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the easiest conceivable next intervention.”
He added, “We just want studies to confirm that – larger studies.”
Dr. Werbel stressed the importance of looking at third doses in these patients in a more controlled fashion in a randomized trial, to more carefully monitor safety and how patients fare when starting with one type of vaccine and switching to another, for example.
Richard Wender, MD, chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are a reminder that there is still a lot that is unknown about COVID-19 and vaccination.
“We still don’t know who will or will not benefit from a third dose,” he said. “And our knowledge is evolving. For example, a recent study suggested that people with previous infection and who are vaccinated may have better and longer protection than people with vaccination alone. We’re still learning.”
He added that specialists, not primary care clinicians, should be relied upon to respond to this emerging vaccination data. Primary care doctors are very busy in other ways – such as in getting children caught up on vaccinations and helping adults return to managing their chronic diseases, Dr. Wender noted.
“Their focus needs to be on helping to overcome hesitancy, mistrust, lack of information, or antivaccination sentiment to help more people feel comfortable being vaccinated – this is a lot of work and needs constant focus. In short, primary care clinicians need to focus chiefly on the unvaccinated,” he said.
“Monitoring immunization recommendations for unique at-risk populations should be the chief responsibility of teams providing subspecialty care, [such as for] transplant patients, people with chronic kidney disease, cancer patients, and people with other chronic illnesses. This will allow primary care clinicians to tackle their many complex jobs.”
Possible solutions for those with low antibody responses
Dr. Larsen said that those with ongoing low antibody responses might still have other immune responses, such as a T-cell response. Such patients also could consider changing their vaccine type, he said.
“At the more significant intervention level, there may be circumstances where one could change the immunosuppressive drugs in a controlled way that might allow a better response,” suggested Dr. Larsen. “That’s obviously going to be something that requires a lot more thought and careful study.”
Dr. Werbel said that other options might need to be considered for those having no response following a third dose. One possibility is trying a vaccine with an adjuvant, such as the Novavax version, which might be more widely available soon.
“If you’re given a third dose of a very immunogenic vaccine – something that should work – and you just have no antibody development, it seems relatively unlikely that doing the same thing again is going to help you from that perspective, and for all we know might expose you to more risk,” Dr. Werbel noted.
Participant details
None of the 30 patients were thought to have ever had COVID-19. On average, patients had received their transplant 4.5 years before their original vaccination. In 25 patients, maintenance immunosuppression included tacrolimus or cyclosporine along with mycophenolate. Corticosteroids were also used for 24 patients, sirolimus was used for one patient, and belatacept was used for another patient.
Fifty-seven percent of patients had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine originally, and 43% the Moderna vaccine. Most of the patients were kidney recipients, with two heart, three liver, one lung, one pancreas and one kidney-pancreas.
Dr. Werbel, Dr. Wender, and Dr. Larsen reported no relevant disclosures.
All of those with low titers before the third dose had high titers after receiving the additional shot, but only about 33% of those with negative initial responses had detectable antibodies after the third dose, according to the paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Researchers at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who keep a COVID-19 vaccine registry, perform antibody tests on all registry subjects and inform them of their results. Registry participants were asked to inform the research team if they received a third dose, and, the research team tracked the immune responses of those who did.
The participants in this case series had low antibody levels and received a third dose of the vaccine on their own between March 20 and May 10 of 2021.
Third dose results
In this cases series – thought to be the first to look at third vaccine shots in this type of patient group – all six of those who had low antibody titers before the third dose had high-positive titers after the third dose.
Of the 24 individuals who had negative antibody titers before the third dose, just 6 had high titers after the third dose.
Two of the participants had low-positive titers, and 16 were negative.
“Several of those boosted very nicely into ranges seen, using these assays, in healthy persons,” said William Werbel, MD, a fellow in infectious disease at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who helped lead the study. Those with negative levels, even if they responded, tended to have lower titers, he said.
“The benefits at least from an antibody perspective were not the same for everybody and so this is obviously something that needs to be considered when thinking about selecting patients” for a COVID-19 prevention strategy, he said.
Reactions to the vaccine were low to moderate, such as some arm pain and fatigue.
“Showing that something is safe in that special, vulnerable population is important,” Dr. Werbel said. “We’re all wanting to make sure that we’re doing no harm.”
Dr. Werbel noted that there was no pattern in the small series based on the organ transplanted or in the vaccines used. As their third shot, 15 of the patients received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine; 9 received Moderna; and 6 received Pfizer-BioNTech.
Welcome news, but larger studies needed
“To think that a third dose could confer protection for a significant number of people is of course extremely welcome news,” said Christian Larsen, MD, DPhil, professor of surgery in the transplantation division at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the easiest conceivable next intervention.”
He added, “We just want studies to confirm that – larger studies.”
Dr. Werbel stressed the importance of looking at third doses in these patients in a more controlled fashion in a randomized trial, to more carefully monitor safety and how patients fare when starting with one type of vaccine and switching to another, for example.
Richard Wender, MD, chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are a reminder that there is still a lot that is unknown about COVID-19 and vaccination.
“We still don’t know who will or will not benefit from a third dose,” he said. “And our knowledge is evolving. For example, a recent study suggested that people with previous infection and who are vaccinated may have better and longer protection than people with vaccination alone. We’re still learning.”
He added that specialists, not primary care clinicians, should be relied upon to respond to this emerging vaccination data. Primary care doctors are very busy in other ways – such as in getting children caught up on vaccinations and helping adults return to managing their chronic diseases, Dr. Wender noted.
“Their focus needs to be on helping to overcome hesitancy, mistrust, lack of information, or antivaccination sentiment to help more people feel comfortable being vaccinated – this is a lot of work and needs constant focus. In short, primary care clinicians need to focus chiefly on the unvaccinated,” he said.
“Monitoring immunization recommendations for unique at-risk populations should be the chief responsibility of teams providing subspecialty care, [such as for] transplant patients, people with chronic kidney disease, cancer patients, and people with other chronic illnesses. This will allow primary care clinicians to tackle their many complex jobs.”
Possible solutions for those with low antibody responses
Dr. Larsen said that those with ongoing low antibody responses might still have other immune responses, such as a T-cell response. Such patients also could consider changing their vaccine type, he said.
“At the more significant intervention level, there may be circumstances where one could change the immunosuppressive drugs in a controlled way that might allow a better response,” suggested Dr. Larsen. “That’s obviously going to be something that requires a lot more thought and careful study.”
Dr. Werbel said that other options might need to be considered for those having no response following a third dose. One possibility is trying a vaccine with an adjuvant, such as the Novavax version, which might be more widely available soon.
“If you’re given a third dose of a very immunogenic vaccine – something that should work – and you just have no antibody development, it seems relatively unlikely that doing the same thing again is going to help you from that perspective, and for all we know might expose you to more risk,” Dr. Werbel noted.
Participant details
None of the 30 patients were thought to have ever had COVID-19. On average, patients had received their transplant 4.5 years before their original vaccination. In 25 patients, maintenance immunosuppression included tacrolimus or cyclosporine along with mycophenolate. Corticosteroids were also used for 24 patients, sirolimus was used for one patient, and belatacept was used for another patient.
Fifty-seven percent of patients had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine originally, and 43% the Moderna vaccine. Most of the patients were kidney recipients, with two heart, three liver, one lung, one pancreas and one kidney-pancreas.
Dr. Werbel, Dr. Wender, and Dr. Larsen reported no relevant disclosures.
All of those with low titers before the third dose had high titers after receiving the additional shot, but only about 33% of those with negative initial responses had detectable antibodies after the third dose, according to the paper, published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Researchers at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, who keep a COVID-19 vaccine registry, perform antibody tests on all registry subjects and inform them of their results. Registry participants were asked to inform the research team if they received a third dose, and, the research team tracked the immune responses of those who did.
The participants in this case series had low antibody levels and received a third dose of the vaccine on their own between March 20 and May 10 of 2021.
Third dose results
In this cases series – thought to be the first to look at third vaccine shots in this type of patient group – all six of those who had low antibody titers before the third dose had high-positive titers after the third dose.
Of the 24 individuals who had negative antibody titers before the third dose, just 6 had high titers after the third dose.
Two of the participants had low-positive titers, and 16 were negative.
“Several of those boosted very nicely into ranges seen, using these assays, in healthy persons,” said William Werbel, MD, a fellow in infectious disease at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who helped lead the study. Those with negative levels, even if they responded, tended to have lower titers, he said.
“The benefits at least from an antibody perspective were not the same for everybody and so this is obviously something that needs to be considered when thinking about selecting patients” for a COVID-19 prevention strategy, he said.
Reactions to the vaccine were low to moderate, such as some arm pain and fatigue.
“Showing that something is safe in that special, vulnerable population is important,” Dr. Werbel said. “We’re all wanting to make sure that we’re doing no harm.”
Dr. Werbel noted that there was no pattern in the small series based on the organ transplanted or in the vaccines used. As their third shot, 15 of the patients received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine; 9 received Moderna; and 6 received Pfizer-BioNTech.
Welcome news, but larger studies needed
“To think that a third dose could confer protection for a significant number of people is of course extremely welcome news,” said Christian Larsen, MD, DPhil, professor of surgery in the transplantation division at Emory University, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the easiest conceivable next intervention.”
He added, “We just want studies to confirm that – larger studies.”
Dr. Werbel stressed the importance of looking at third doses in these patients in a more controlled fashion in a randomized trial, to more carefully monitor safety and how patients fare when starting with one type of vaccine and switching to another, for example.
Richard Wender, MD, chair of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the findings are a reminder that there is still a lot that is unknown about COVID-19 and vaccination.
“We still don’t know who will or will not benefit from a third dose,” he said. “And our knowledge is evolving. For example, a recent study suggested that people with previous infection and who are vaccinated may have better and longer protection than people with vaccination alone. We’re still learning.”
He added that specialists, not primary care clinicians, should be relied upon to respond to this emerging vaccination data. Primary care doctors are very busy in other ways – such as in getting children caught up on vaccinations and helping adults return to managing their chronic diseases, Dr. Wender noted.
“Their focus needs to be on helping to overcome hesitancy, mistrust, lack of information, or antivaccination sentiment to help more people feel comfortable being vaccinated – this is a lot of work and needs constant focus. In short, primary care clinicians need to focus chiefly on the unvaccinated,” he said.
“Monitoring immunization recommendations for unique at-risk populations should be the chief responsibility of teams providing subspecialty care, [such as for] transplant patients, people with chronic kidney disease, cancer patients, and people with other chronic illnesses. This will allow primary care clinicians to tackle their many complex jobs.”
Possible solutions for those with low antibody responses
Dr. Larsen said that those with ongoing low antibody responses might still have other immune responses, such as a T-cell response. Such patients also could consider changing their vaccine type, he said.
“At the more significant intervention level, there may be circumstances where one could change the immunosuppressive drugs in a controlled way that might allow a better response,” suggested Dr. Larsen. “That’s obviously going to be something that requires a lot more thought and careful study.”
Dr. Werbel said that other options might need to be considered for those having no response following a third dose. One possibility is trying a vaccine with an adjuvant, such as the Novavax version, which might be more widely available soon.
“If you’re given a third dose of a very immunogenic vaccine – something that should work – and you just have no antibody development, it seems relatively unlikely that doing the same thing again is going to help you from that perspective, and for all we know might expose you to more risk,” Dr. Werbel noted.
Participant details
None of the 30 patients were thought to have ever had COVID-19. On average, patients had received their transplant 4.5 years before their original vaccination. In 25 patients, maintenance immunosuppression included tacrolimus or cyclosporine along with mycophenolate. Corticosteroids were also used for 24 patients, sirolimus was used for one patient, and belatacept was used for another patient.
Fifty-seven percent of patients had received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine originally, and 43% the Moderna vaccine. Most of the patients were kidney recipients, with two heart, three liver, one lung, one pancreas and one kidney-pancreas.
Dr. Werbel, Dr. Wender, and Dr. Larsen reported no relevant disclosures.
Judge tosses hospital staff suit over vaccine mandate
A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.
In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.
“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.
“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”
In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.
“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”
He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.
“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”
Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.
“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”
The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”
The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.
Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.
“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.
In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.
“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.
“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”
In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.
“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”
He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.
“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”
Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.
“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”
The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”
The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.
Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.
“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.
In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.
“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.
“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”
In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.
“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”
He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.
“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”
Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.
“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”
The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”
The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.
Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.
“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The pandemic changed smokers, but farming didn’t change humans
Pandemic smoking: More or less?
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed a lot of habits in people, for better or worse. Some people may have turned to food and alcohol for comfort, while others started on health kicks to emerge from the ordeal as new people. Well, the same can be said about smokers.
New evidence comes from a survey conducted from May to July 2020 of 694 current and former smokers with an average age of 53 years. All had been hospitalized prior to the pandemic and had previously participated in clinical trials to for smoking cessation in Boston, Nashville, and Pittsburgh hospitals.
Researchers found that 32% of participants smoked more, 37% smoked less, and 31% made no change in their smoking habits. By the time of the survey, 28% of former smokers had relapsed. Although 68% of the participants believed smoking increased the risk of getting COVID-19, that still didn’t stop some people from smoking more. Why?
Respondents “might have increased their smoking due to stress and boredom. On the other hand, the fear of catching COVID might have led them to cut down or quit smoking,” said lead author Nancy A. Rigotti, MD. “Even before the pandemic, tobacco smoking was the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. COVID-19 has given smokers yet another good reason to stop smoking.”
This creates an opportunity for physicians to preach the gospel to smokers about their vulnerability to respiratory disease in hopes of getting them to quit for good. We just wish the same could be said for all of our excessive pandemic online shopping.
3,000 years and just one pair of genomes to wear
Men and women are different. We’ll give you a moment to pick your jaw off the ground.
It makes sense though, the sexes being different, especially when you look at the broader animal kingdom. The males and females of many species are slightly different when it comes to size and shape, but there’s a big question that literally only anthropologists have asked: Were human males and females more different in the past than they are today?
To be more specific, some scientists believe that males and females grew more similar when humans shifted from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a farming-based lifestyle, as agriculture encouraged a more equitable division of labor. Others believe that the differences come down to random chance.
Researchers from Penn State University analyzed genomic data from over 350,000 males and females stored in the UK Biobank and looked at the recent (within the last ~3,000 years; post-agriculture adoption in Britain) evolutionary histories of these loci. Height, body mass, hip circumference, body fat percentage, and waist circumference were analyzed, and while there were thousands of differences in the genomes, only one trait occurred more frequently during that time period: Females gained a significantly higher body fat content than males.
It’s a sad day then for the millions of people who were big fans of the “farming caused men and women to become more similar” theory. Count the LOTME crew among them. Be honest: Wouldn’t life be so much simpler if men and women were exactly the same? Just think about it, no more arguments about leaving the toilet seat up. It’d be worth it just for that.
Proteins don’t lie
Research published in Open Biology shows that the human brain contains 14,315 different proteins. The team conducting that study wanted to find out which organ was the most similar to the old brain box, so they did protein counts for the 32 other major tissue types, including heart, salivary gland, lung, spleen, and endometrium.
The tissue with the most proteins in common with the center of human intelligence? You’re thinking it has to be colon at this point, right? We were sure it was going to be colon, but it’s not.
The winner, with 13,442 shared proteins, is the testes. The testes have 15,687 proteins, of which 85.7% are shared with the brain. The researchers, sadly, did not provide protein counts for the other tissue types, but we bet colon was a close second.
Dreaming about COVID?
We thought we were the only ones who have been having crazy dreams lately. Each one seems crazier and more vivid than the one before. Have you been having weird dreams lately?
This is likely your brain’s coping mechanism to handle your pandemic stress, according to Dr. Erik Hoel of Tufts University. Dreams that are crazy and scary might make real life seem lighter and simpler. He calls it the “overfitted brain hypothesis.”
“It is their very strangeness that gives them their biological function,” Dr. Hoel said. It literally makes you feel like COVID-19 and lockdowns aren’t as scary as they seem.
We always knew our minds were powerful things. Apparently, your brain gets tired of everyday familiarity just like you do, and it creates crazy dreams to keep things interesting.
Just remember: That recurring dream that you’re back in college and missing 10 assignments is there to help you, not scare you! Even though it is pretty scary.
Pandemic smoking: More or less?
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed a lot of habits in people, for better or worse. Some people may have turned to food and alcohol for comfort, while others started on health kicks to emerge from the ordeal as new people. Well, the same can be said about smokers.
New evidence comes from a survey conducted from May to July 2020 of 694 current and former smokers with an average age of 53 years. All had been hospitalized prior to the pandemic and had previously participated in clinical trials to for smoking cessation in Boston, Nashville, and Pittsburgh hospitals.
Researchers found that 32% of participants smoked more, 37% smoked less, and 31% made no change in their smoking habits. By the time of the survey, 28% of former smokers had relapsed. Although 68% of the participants believed smoking increased the risk of getting COVID-19, that still didn’t stop some people from smoking more. Why?
Respondents “might have increased their smoking due to stress and boredom. On the other hand, the fear of catching COVID might have led them to cut down or quit smoking,” said lead author Nancy A. Rigotti, MD. “Even before the pandemic, tobacco smoking was the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. COVID-19 has given smokers yet another good reason to stop smoking.”
This creates an opportunity for physicians to preach the gospel to smokers about their vulnerability to respiratory disease in hopes of getting them to quit for good. We just wish the same could be said for all of our excessive pandemic online shopping.
3,000 years and just one pair of genomes to wear
Men and women are different. We’ll give you a moment to pick your jaw off the ground.
It makes sense though, the sexes being different, especially when you look at the broader animal kingdom. The males and females of many species are slightly different when it comes to size and shape, but there’s a big question that literally only anthropologists have asked: Were human males and females more different in the past than they are today?
To be more specific, some scientists believe that males and females grew more similar when humans shifted from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a farming-based lifestyle, as agriculture encouraged a more equitable division of labor. Others believe that the differences come down to random chance.
Researchers from Penn State University analyzed genomic data from over 350,000 males and females stored in the UK Biobank and looked at the recent (within the last ~3,000 years; post-agriculture adoption in Britain) evolutionary histories of these loci. Height, body mass, hip circumference, body fat percentage, and waist circumference were analyzed, and while there were thousands of differences in the genomes, only one trait occurred more frequently during that time period: Females gained a significantly higher body fat content than males.
It’s a sad day then for the millions of people who were big fans of the “farming caused men and women to become more similar” theory. Count the LOTME crew among them. Be honest: Wouldn’t life be so much simpler if men and women were exactly the same? Just think about it, no more arguments about leaving the toilet seat up. It’d be worth it just for that.
Proteins don’t lie
Research published in Open Biology shows that the human brain contains 14,315 different proteins. The team conducting that study wanted to find out which organ was the most similar to the old brain box, so they did protein counts for the 32 other major tissue types, including heart, salivary gland, lung, spleen, and endometrium.
The tissue with the most proteins in common with the center of human intelligence? You’re thinking it has to be colon at this point, right? We were sure it was going to be colon, but it’s not.
The winner, with 13,442 shared proteins, is the testes. The testes have 15,687 proteins, of which 85.7% are shared with the brain. The researchers, sadly, did not provide protein counts for the other tissue types, but we bet colon was a close second.
Dreaming about COVID?
We thought we were the only ones who have been having crazy dreams lately. Each one seems crazier and more vivid than the one before. Have you been having weird dreams lately?
This is likely your brain’s coping mechanism to handle your pandemic stress, according to Dr. Erik Hoel of Tufts University. Dreams that are crazy and scary might make real life seem lighter and simpler. He calls it the “overfitted brain hypothesis.”
“It is their very strangeness that gives them their biological function,” Dr. Hoel said. It literally makes you feel like COVID-19 and lockdowns aren’t as scary as they seem.
We always knew our minds were powerful things. Apparently, your brain gets tired of everyday familiarity just like you do, and it creates crazy dreams to keep things interesting.
Just remember: That recurring dream that you’re back in college and missing 10 assignments is there to help you, not scare you! Even though it is pretty scary.
Pandemic smoking: More or less?
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed a lot of habits in people, for better or worse. Some people may have turned to food and alcohol for comfort, while others started on health kicks to emerge from the ordeal as new people. Well, the same can be said about smokers.
New evidence comes from a survey conducted from May to July 2020 of 694 current and former smokers with an average age of 53 years. All had been hospitalized prior to the pandemic and had previously participated in clinical trials to for smoking cessation in Boston, Nashville, and Pittsburgh hospitals.
Researchers found that 32% of participants smoked more, 37% smoked less, and 31% made no change in their smoking habits. By the time of the survey, 28% of former smokers had relapsed. Although 68% of the participants believed smoking increased the risk of getting COVID-19, that still didn’t stop some people from smoking more. Why?
Respondents “might have increased their smoking due to stress and boredom. On the other hand, the fear of catching COVID might have led them to cut down or quit smoking,” said lead author Nancy A. Rigotti, MD. “Even before the pandemic, tobacco smoking was the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. COVID-19 has given smokers yet another good reason to stop smoking.”
This creates an opportunity for physicians to preach the gospel to smokers about their vulnerability to respiratory disease in hopes of getting them to quit for good. We just wish the same could be said for all of our excessive pandemic online shopping.
3,000 years and just one pair of genomes to wear
Men and women are different. We’ll give you a moment to pick your jaw off the ground.
It makes sense though, the sexes being different, especially when you look at the broader animal kingdom. The males and females of many species are slightly different when it comes to size and shape, but there’s a big question that literally only anthropologists have asked: Were human males and females more different in the past than they are today?
To be more specific, some scientists believe that males and females grew more similar when humans shifted from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a farming-based lifestyle, as agriculture encouraged a more equitable division of labor. Others believe that the differences come down to random chance.
Researchers from Penn State University analyzed genomic data from over 350,000 males and females stored in the UK Biobank and looked at the recent (within the last ~3,000 years; post-agriculture adoption in Britain) evolutionary histories of these loci. Height, body mass, hip circumference, body fat percentage, and waist circumference were analyzed, and while there were thousands of differences in the genomes, only one trait occurred more frequently during that time period: Females gained a significantly higher body fat content than males.
It’s a sad day then for the millions of people who were big fans of the “farming caused men and women to become more similar” theory. Count the LOTME crew among them. Be honest: Wouldn’t life be so much simpler if men and women were exactly the same? Just think about it, no more arguments about leaving the toilet seat up. It’d be worth it just for that.
Proteins don’t lie
Research published in Open Biology shows that the human brain contains 14,315 different proteins. The team conducting that study wanted to find out which organ was the most similar to the old brain box, so they did protein counts for the 32 other major tissue types, including heart, salivary gland, lung, spleen, and endometrium.
The tissue with the most proteins in common with the center of human intelligence? You’re thinking it has to be colon at this point, right? We were sure it was going to be colon, but it’s not.
The winner, with 13,442 shared proteins, is the testes. The testes have 15,687 proteins, of which 85.7% are shared with the brain. The researchers, sadly, did not provide protein counts for the other tissue types, but we bet colon was a close second.
Dreaming about COVID?
We thought we were the only ones who have been having crazy dreams lately. Each one seems crazier and more vivid than the one before. Have you been having weird dreams lately?
This is likely your brain’s coping mechanism to handle your pandemic stress, according to Dr. Erik Hoel of Tufts University. Dreams that are crazy and scary might make real life seem lighter and simpler. He calls it the “overfitted brain hypothesis.”
“It is their very strangeness that gives them their biological function,” Dr. Hoel said. It literally makes you feel like COVID-19 and lockdowns aren’t as scary as they seem.
We always knew our minds were powerful things. Apparently, your brain gets tired of everyday familiarity just like you do, and it creates crazy dreams to keep things interesting.
Just remember: That recurring dream that you’re back in college and missing 10 assignments is there to help you, not scare you! Even though it is pretty scary.
Texas hospital workers sue over vaccine mandates
objecting to its policy of requiring employees and contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk losing their jobs.
Plaintiffs include Jennifer Bridges, RN, a medical-surgical nurse at the hospital who has become the public face and voice of health care workers who object to mandatory vaccination, as well as Bob Nevens, the hospital’s director of corporate risk.
Mr. Nevens said the hospital was requiring him to be vaccinated even though he doesn’t treat patients and has been working from home for most of the past year.
“My civil rights and liberties have been trampled on,” he said in comments posted on an online petition. “My right to protect myself from unknown side effects of these vaccines has been placed below the optics of ‘leading medicine,’ “ he said.
Mr. Nevens says in his comments that he was fired on April 15, although the lawsuit says he is currently employed by the hospital’s corporate office.
The Texas attorney who filed the lawsuit, Jared Woodfill, is known to champion conservative causes. In March 2020, he challenged Harris County’s stay-at-home order, charging that it violated religious liberty. He was chairman of the Harris County Republican Party for more than a decade. His website says he is a frequent guest on the local Fox News affiliate.
The lawsuit hinges on a section of the federal law that authorizes emergency use of medical products – US Code 360bbb-3.
That law says that individuals to whom the product is administered should be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequence, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”
Legal experts are split as to what the provision means for vaccination mandates. Courts have not yet weighed in with their interpretations of the law.
The petition also repeats a popular antivaccination argument that likens requiring a vaccine approved for emergency use to the kind of medical experimentation performed by Nazi doctors on Jewish prisoners in concentration camps. It says forcing people to choose between an experimental vaccine and a job is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, which says that people must voluntarily and knowingly consent to participating in research.
The vaccines have already been tested in clinical trials. People who are getting them now are not part of those studies, though vaccine manufacturers, regulators, and safety experts are still watching closely for any sign of problems tied to the new shots.
It is true, however, that the emergency use authorization granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administraiton sped up the process of getting the vaccines onto market. Vaccine manufacturers are currently completing the process of submitting documentation required for a full biologics license application, the mechanism the FDA uses for full approval.
Houston Methodist sent an email to employees in April notifying them that they had until June 7 to start the vaccination process or apply for a medical or religious exemption. Those who decide not to will be terminated.
Marc Boom, MD, the health care system’s president and CEO, has explained that the policy is in place to protect patients and that it was the first hospital in the United States to require it. Since then, other hospitals, including the University of Pennsylvania Health System, have required COVID vaccines.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
objecting to its policy of requiring employees and contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk losing their jobs.
Plaintiffs include Jennifer Bridges, RN, a medical-surgical nurse at the hospital who has become the public face and voice of health care workers who object to mandatory vaccination, as well as Bob Nevens, the hospital’s director of corporate risk.
Mr. Nevens said the hospital was requiring him to be vaccinated even though he doesn’t treat patients and has been working from home for most of the past year.
“My civil rights and liberties have been trampled on,” he said in comments posted on an online petition. “My right to protect myself from unknown side effects of these vaccines has been placed below the optics of ‘leading medicine,’ “ he said.
Mr. Nevens says in his comments that he was fired on April 15, although the lawsuit says he is currently employed by the hospital’s corporate office.
The Texas attorney who filed the lawsuit, Jared Woodfill, is known to champion conservative causes. In March 2020, he challenged Harris County’s stay-at-home order, charging that it violated religious liberty. He was chairman of the Harris County Republican Party for more than a decade. His website says he is a frequent guest on the local Fox News affiliate.
The lawsuit hinges on a section of the federal law that authorizes emergency use of medical products – US Code 360bbb-3.
That law says that individuals to whom the product is administered should be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequence, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”
Legal experts are split as to what the provision means for vaccination mandates. Courts have not yet weighed in with their interpretations of the law.
The petition also repeats a popular antivaccination argument that likens requiring a vaccine approved for emergency use to the kind of medical experimentation performed by Nazi doctors on Jewish prisoners in concentration camps. It says forcing people to choose between an experimental vaccine and a job is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, which says that people must voluntarily and knowingly consent to participating in research.
The vaccines have already been tested in clinical trials. People who are getting them now are not part of those studies, though vaccine manufacturers, regulators, and safety experts are still watching closely for any sign of problems tied to the new shots.
It is true, however, that the emergency use authorization granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administraiton sped up the process of getting the vaccines onto market. Vaccine manufacturers are currently completing the process of submitting documentation required for a full biologics license application, the mechanism the FDA uses for full approval.
Houston Methodist sent an email to employees in April notifying them that they had until June 7 to start the vaccination process or apply for a medical or religious exemption. Those who decide not to will be terminated.
Marc Boom, MD, the health care system’s president and CEO, has explained that the policy is in place to protect patients and that it was the first hospital in the United States to require it. Since then, other hospitals, including the University of Pennsylvania Health System, have required COVID vaccines.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
objecting to its policy of requiring employees and contractors to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk losing their jobs.
Plaintiffs include Jennifer Bridges, RN, a medical-surgical nurse at the hospital who has become the public face and voice of health care workers who object to mandatory vaccination, as well as Bob Nevens, the hospital’s director of corporate risk.
Mr. Nevens said the hospital was requiring him to be vaccinated even though he doesn’t treat patients and has been working from home for most of the past year.
“My civil rights and liberties have been trampled on,” he said in comments posted on an online petition. “My right to protect myself from unknown side effects of these vaccines has been placed below the optics of ‘leading medicine,’ “ he said.
Mr. Nevens says in his comments that he was fired on April 15, although the lawsuit says he is currently employed by the hospital’s corporate office.
The Texas attorney who filed the lawsuit, Jared Woodfill, is known to champion conservative causes. In March 2020, he challenged Harris County’s stay-at-home order, charging that it violated religious liberty. He was chairman of the Harris County Republican Party for more than a decade. His website says he is a frequent guest on the local Fox News affiliate.
The lawsuit hinges on a section of the federal law that authorizes emergency use of medical products – US Code 360bbb-3.
That law says that individuals to whom the product is administered should be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequence, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”
Legal experts are split as to what the provision means for vaccination mandates. Courts have not yet weighed in with their interpretations of the law.
The petition also repeats a popular antivaccination argument that likens requiring a vaccine approved for emergency use to the kind of medical experimentation performed by Nazi doctors on Jewish prisoners in concentration camps. It says forcing people to choose between an experimental vaccine and a job is a violation of the Nuremberg Code, which says that people must voluntarily and knowingly consent to participating in research.
The vaccines have already been tested in clinical trials. People who are getting them now are not part of those studies, though vaccine manufacturers, regulators, and safety experts are still watching closely for any sign of problems tied to the new shots.
It is true, however, that the emergency use authorization granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administraiton sped up the process of getting the vaccines onto market. Vaccine manufacturers are currently completing the process of submitting documentation required for a full biologics license application, the mechanism the FDA uses for full approval.
Houston Methodist sent an email to employees in April notifying them that they had until June 7 to start the vaccination process or apply for a medical or religious exemption. Those who decide not to will be terminated.
Marc Boom, MD, the health care system’s president and CEO, has explained that the policy is in place to protect patients and that it was the first hospital in the United States to require it. Since then, other hospitals, including the University of Pennsylvania Health System, have required COVID vaccines.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chemotherapy/local excision avoids proctectomy in rectal cancer
Chemotherapy and local excision led to organ preservation in over half of early-stage rectal cancer patients in a small study, but follow-up was only a median of 15.4 months.
Even so, “we believe that subsequent trials ... are warranted,” said lead investigator Hagen F. Kennecke, MD, medical director of GI oncology at Providence Cancer Institute, Portland, Ore., who presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.
“The results are quite promising,” said study discussant Karyn Stitzenberg, MD, a surgical oncologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
“The reported organ preservation rates of 57% to 79% compare favorably with the rates previously demonstrated in studies of neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by local excision,” but longer-term follow up is needed “to know the true organ preservation rate,” she said.
Organ preservation – sparing the rectum during treatment – is a hot topic in rectal cancer. Total mesorectal excision (TME) is still the go-to option, but it’s fraught with bad GI, urinary, sexual, and other complications for patients. “Consequently, the concept of organ preservation ... is very appealing,” Dr. Stitzenberg explained.
The chemoradiation/local excision approach she referenced is gaining traction as an alternative, but the radiation component is itself associated with substantial short- and long-term problems, including sphincter dysfunction and wound healing complications.
The goal of Dr. Kennecke’s study, dubbed NEO [Neoadjuvant, Excision, Observation], was to see if the radiation could be left out altogether.
Recruited at eight centers in Canada and one in the United States, the 58 subjects had clinical stage T1-T3 A/B node-negative tumors with no pathologic high-risk features.
They received neoadjuvant FOLFOX (six cycles in 32 patients, 91% completion rate) or CAPOX (four cycles in 26 patients, 89% completion); 56 of the 58 subjects then went on to transanal endoscopic tumor excision; one of the other two patients wasn’t eligible because of tumor progression and the other one declined.
The 33 patients who were stage T0/T1N0 after treatment were spared organ removal and underwent observation every 3-6 months. TME was recommended for the 23 others who were stage 2 or higher or had nodal metastases following chemotherapy and excision.
The numbers translated to a per-protocol organ preservation rate of 57% over a median follow-up of 15.4 months; when the 13 patients who declined TME were added, the rate climbed to 79%.
Although “organ preservation in rectal cancer is becoming an increasingly promising and realistic option for a subset of patients,” Dr. Stitzenberg said, there are more reasons to be cautious beyond the short follow-up.
“The standard of care treatment for these patients would have been proctectomy ... Most would not have [had] systemic chemotherapy. As a result, the added morbidity of FOLFOX or CAPOX needs to be considered.” The study reported that there were no unexpected toxicities, but “what were the expected toxicities? How many patients experienced grade 3 to 5 complications?” she wondered.
Also, how realistic is it to expect patients to report for surveillance every few months outside of a trial? And how can they best be watched to make sure recurrence is caught “while salvage TME is still feasible? There are many longer-term follow-up questions that remain to be answered,” Dr. Stitzenberg said.
Even with short follow-up, there were two locoregional recurrences across the cohort (3.5%), both treated by TME to R0/1 resection. There were no distant relapses.
Subjects were a median of 67 years old, and over two-thirds were men. The majority had stage 2 disease at baseline. Tumors were well to moderately differentiated nonmucinous rectal adenocarcinomas with a median height of 6 cm.
The work was funded by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Kennecke disclosed relationships with Advanced Accelerator Applications, Ipsen, and Taiho Pharmaceutical. Dr. Stitzenberg had no relevant disclosures.
Chemotherapy and local excision led to organ preservation in over half of early-stage rectal cancer patients in a small study, but follow-up was only a median of 15.4 months.
Even so, “we believe that subsequent trials ... are warranted,” said lead investigator Hagen F. Kennecke, MD, medical director of GI oncology at Providence Cancer Institute, Portland, Ore., who presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.
“The results are quite promising,” said study discussant Karyn Stitzenberg, MD, a surgical oncologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
“The reported organ preservation rates of 57% to 79% compare favorably with the rates previously demonstrated in studies of neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by local excision,” but longer-term follow up is needed “to know the true organ preservation rate,” she said.
Organ preservation – sparing the rectum during treatment – is a hot topic in rectal cancer. Total mesorectal excision (TME) is still the go-to option, but it’s fraught with bad GI, urinary, sexual, and other complications for patients. “Consequently, the concept of organ preservation ... is very appealing,” Dr. Stitzenberg explained.
The chemoradiation/local excision approach she referenced is gaining traction as an alternative, but the radiation component is itself associated with substantial short- and long-term problems, including sphincter dysfunction and wound healing complications.
The goal of Dr. Kennecke’s study, dubbed NEO [Neoadjuvant, Excision, Observation], was to see if the radiation could be left out altogether.
Recruited at eight centers in Canada and one in the United States, the 58 subjects had clinical stage T1-T3 A/B node-negative tumors with no pathologic high-risk features.
They received neoadjuvant FOLFOX (six cycles in 32 patients, 91% completion rate) or CAPOX (four cycles in 26 patients, 89% completion); 56 of the 58 subjects then went on to transanal endoscopic tumor excision; one of the other two patients wasn’t eligible because of tumor progression and the other one declined.
The 33 patients who were stage T0/T1N0 after treatment were spared organ removal and underwent observation every 3-6 months. TME was recommended for the 23 others who were stage 2 or higher or had nodal metastases following chemotherapy and excision.
The numbers translated to a per-protocol organ preservation rate of 57% over a median follow-up of 15.4 months; when the 13 patients who declined TME were added, the rate climbed to 79%.
Although “organ preservation in rectal cancer is becoming an increasingly promising and realistic option for a subset of patients,” Dr. Stitzenberg said, there are more reasons to be cautious beyond the short follow-up.
“The standard of care treatment for these patients would have been proctectomy ... Most would not have [had] systemic chemotherapy. As a result, the added morbidity of FOLFOX or CAPOX needs to be considered.” The study reported that there were no unexpected toxicities, but “what were the expected toxicities? How many patients experienced grade 3 to 5 complications?” she wondered.
Also, how realistic is it to expect patients to report for surveillance every few months outside of a trial? And how can they best be watched to make sure recurrence is caught “while salvage TME is still feasible? There are many longer-term follow-up questions that remain to be answered,” Dr. Stitzenberg said.
Even with short follow-up, there were two locoregional recurrences across the cohort (3.5%), both treated by TME to R0/1 resection. There were no distant relapses.
Subjects were a median of 67 years old, and over two-thirds were men. The majority had stage 2 disease at baseline. Tumors were well to moderately differentiated nonmucinous rectal adenocarcinomas with a median height of 6 cm.
The work was funded by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Kennecke disclosed relationships with Advanced Accelerator Applications, Ipsen, and Taiho Pharmaceutical. Dr. Stitzenberg had no relevant disclosures.
Chemotherapy and local excision led to organ preservation in over half of early-stage rectal cancer patients in a small study, but follow-up was only a median of 15.4 months.
Even so, “we believe that subsequent trials ... are warranted,” said lead investigator Hagen F. Kennecke, MD, medical director of GI oncology at Providence Cancer Institute, Portland, Ore., who presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting.
“The results are quite promising,” said study discussant Karyn Stitzenberg, MD, a surgical oncologist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
“The reported organ preservation rates of 57% to 79% compare favorably with the rates previously demonstrated in studies of neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by local excision,” but longer-term follow up is needed “to know the true organ preservation rate,” she said.
Organ preservation – sparing the rectum during treatment – is a hot topic in rectal cancer. Total mesorectal excision (TME) is still the go-to option, but it’s fraught with bad GI, urinary, sexual, and other complications for patients. “Consequently, the concept of organ preservation ... is very appealing,” Dr. Stitzenberg explained.
The chemoradiation/local excision approach she referenced is gaining traction as an alternative, but the radiation component is itself associated with substantial short- and long-term problems, including sphincter dysfunction and wound healing complications.
The goal of Dr. Kennecke’s study, dubbed NEO [Neoadjuvant, Excision, Observation], was to see if the radiation could be left out altogether.
Recruited at eight centers in Canada and one in the United States, the 58 subjects had clinical stage T1-T3 A/B node-negative tumors with no pathologic high-risk features.
They received neoadjuvant FOLFOX (six cycles in 32 patients, 91% completion rate) or CAPOX (four cycles in 26 patients, 89% completion); 56 of the 58 subjects then went on to transanal endoscopic tumor excision; one of the other two patients wasn’t eligible because of tumor progression and the other one declined.
The 33 patients who were stage T0/T1N0 after treatment were spared organ removal and underwent observation every 3-6 months. TME was recommended for the 23 others who were stage 2 or higher or had nodal metastases following chemotherapy and excision.
The numbers translated to a per-protocol organ preservation rate of 57% over a median follow-up of 15.4 months; when the 13 patients who declined TME were added, the rate climbed to 79%.
Although “organ preservation in rectal cancer is becoming an increasingly promising and realistic option for a subset of patients,” Dr. Stitzenberg said, there are more reasons to be cautious beyond the short follow-up.
“The standard of care treatment for these patients would have been proctectomy ... Most would not have [had] systemic chemotherapy. As a result, the added morbidity of FOLFOX or CAPOX needs to be considered.” The study reported that there were no unexpected toxicities, but “what were the expected toxicities? How many patients experienced grade 3 to 5 complications?” she wondered.
Also, how realistic is it to expect patients to report for surveillance every few months outside of a trial? And how can they best be watched to make sure recurrence is caught “while salvage TME is still feasible? There are many longer-term follow-up questions that remain to be answered,” Dr. Stitzenberg said.
Even with short follow-up, there were two locoregional recurrences across the cohort (3.5%), both treated by TME to R0/1 resection. There were no distant relapses.
Subjects were a median of 67 years old, and over two-thirds were men. The majority had stage 2 disease at baseline. Tumors were well to moderately differentiated nonmucinous rectal adenocarcinomas with a median height of 6 cm.
The work was funded by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Kennecke disclosed relationships with Advanced Accelerator Applications, Ipsen, and Taiho Pharmaceutical. Dr. Stitzenberg had no relevant disclosures.
FROM ASCO 2021
Medical licensing questions continue to violate ADA
With the COVID-19 pandemic, already high rates of suicide, depression, and burnout among physicians became even more acute. Yet, 3 years after the Federation of State Medical Boards issued recommendations on what questions about mental health status license applications should – or mostly should not – include, only North Carolina fully complies with all four recommendations, and most states comply with two or fewer, a study of state medical board applications has found (JAMA. 2021 May 18;325[19];2017-8).
Questions about mental health history or “its hypothetical effect on competency,” violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, the study authors stated. In a research letter to JAMA, the authors also reported that five state boards do not comply with any of the FSMB recommendations. Twenty-four states comply with three of the four recommendations.
Overall, the mean consistency score was 2.1, which means state medical licensing applications typically run afoul of the Americans With Disabilities Act when it comes to mental health history of applicants.
“No one should ever wonder, ‘Will I lose my job, or should I get help?’ ” said co–senior author Jessica A. Gold, MD, MS, a psychiatrist at Washington University in St. Louis. “This should absolutely never be a question on someone’s mind. And the fact that it is, in medicine, is a problem that needs to be solved. I hope that people are beginning to see that, and we can make a change to get people the help they need before it is too late.”
High rates of depression, suicide
She noted that before COVID-19, physicians already had higher rates of depression, burnout, and suicide than the general population. “Over COVID-19, it has become clear that the mental health of physicians has become additionally compounded,” Dr. Gold said.
One study found that physicians had a 44% higher rate of suicide (PLoS One. 2019 Dec;14[12]:e0226361), but they’re notoriously reluctant to seek out mental health care. A 2017 study reported that 40% of physicians would be reluctant to seek mental health care because of concerns about their licensure (Mayo Clin Proc. 2017;92[10]:1486-93).
As the pandemic went on, Dr. Gold and her colleagues decided to study whether state boards had improved their compliance with the FSMB recommendations issued in 2018. Those recommendations include these four limitations regarding questions about mental health conditions on license applications:
- Include only when they result in impairment.
- Include only when the mental health conditions are current – that is, when they’ve occurred within the past 2 years.
- Provide safe haven nonreporting – that is, allow physicians to not report previously diagnosed and treated mental health conditions if they’re being monitored and are in good standing with a physician health program.
- Include supportive or nonjudgmental language about seeking mental health care.
The study considered board applications that had questions about mental health status as consistent with the first three recommendations. Seventeen states complied.
Thirty-nine state boards complied with the first recommendation regarding impairment; 41 with the second recommendation about near-term history; 25 with safe-haven nonreporting. Only eight states were consistent with the recommendation on supportive language.
The ADA limits inquiries about an applicant’s impairment to only current conditions. In a 2017 study, only 21 state boards had limited questions to current impairment. “This is a significant improvement, but this still means the rest of the states are violating an actual law,” Dr. Gold said. “Another plus is that 17 states asked no questions at all that could require mental health disclosure. This, too is significant because it highlights change in thinking.”
But still, the fact that five states didn’t comply with any recommendation and only one followed all of them is “utterly unacceptable,” Dr. Gold said. “Instead, we should have universal adoption of FSMB recommendations.”
Time to remove stigma
Michael F. Myers, MD, a clinical psychiatrist at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said removing the stigma of seeking help for mental health conditions is especially important for physicians. He’s written several books about physician mental health, including his latest, “Becoming a Doctor’s Doctor: A Memoir.”
“I would say at least 15% of the families that I interviewed who lost a physician loved one to suicide have said the doctor was petrified of going for professional help because of fears of what this could do to their medical license,” he said. “It is extremely important that those licensing questions will be either brought up to speed, or – the ones that are clearly violating the ADA – that they be removed.”
Applications for hospital privileges can also run afoul of the same ADA standard, Dr. Myers added. “Physicians have told me that when they go to get medical privileges at a medical center, they get asked all kinds of questions that are outdated, that are intrusive, that violate the ADA,” he said.
Credentialing is another area that Dr. Gold and her colleagues are interested in studying, she said. “Sometimes the licensing applications can be fine, but then the hospital someone is applying to work at can ask the same illegal questions anyway,” she said. “So it doesn’t matter that the state fixed the problem because the hospital asked them anyway. You feel your job is at risk in the same way, so you still don’t get help.”
Dr. Gold and Dr. Myers have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
With the COVID-19 pandemic, already high rates of suicide, depression, and burnout among physicians became even more acute. Yet, 3 years after the Federation of State Medical Boards issued recommendations on what questions about mental health status license applications should – or mostly should not – include, only North Carolina fully complies with all four recommendations, and most states comply with two or fewer, a study of state medical board applications has found (JAMA. 2021 May 18;325[19];2017-8).
Questions about mental health history or “its hypothetical effect on competency,” violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, the study authors stated. In a research letter to JAMA, the authors also reported that five state boards do not comply with any of the FSMB recommendations. Twenty-four states comply with three of the four recommendations.
Overall, the mean consistency score was 2.1, which means state medical licensing applications typically run afoul of the Americans With Disabilities Act when it comes to mental health history of applicants.
“No one should ever wonder, ‘Will I lose my job, or should I get help?’ ” said co–senior author Jessica A. Gold, MD, MS, a psychiatrist at Washington University in St. Louis. “This should absolutely never be a question on someone’s mind. And the fact that it is, in medicine, is a problem that needs to be solved. I hope that people are beginning to see that, and we can make a change to get people the help they need before it is too late.”
High rates of depression, suicide
She noted that before COVID-19, physicians already had higher rates of depression, burnout, and suicide than the general population. “Over COVID-19, it has become clear that the mental health of physicians has become additionally compounded,” Dr. Gold said.
One study found that physicians had a 44% higher rate of suicide (PLoS One. 2019 Dec;14[12]:e0226361), but they’re notoriously reluctant to seek out mental health care. A 2017 study reported that 40% of physicians would be reluctant to seek mental health care because of concerns about their licensure (Mayo Clin Proc. 2017;92[10]:1486-93).
As the pandemic went on, Dr. Gold and her colleagues decided to study whether state boards had improved their compliance with the FSMB recommendations issued in 2018. Those recommendations include these four limitations regarding questions about mental health conditions on license applications:
- Include only when they result in impairment.
- Include only when the mental health conditions are current – that is, when they’ve occurred within the past 2 years.
- Provide safe haven nonreporting – that is, allow physicians to not report previously diagnosed and treated mental health conditions if they’re being monitored and are in good standing with a physician health program.
- Include supportive or nonjudgmental language about seeking mental health care.
The study considered board applications that had questions about mental health status as consistent with the first three recommendations. Seventeen states complied.
Thirty-nine state boards complied with the first recommendation regarding impairment; 41 with the second recommendation about near-term history; 25 with safe-haven nonreporting. Only eight states were consistent with the recommendation on supportive language.
The ADA limits inquiries about an applicant’s impairment to only current conditions. In a 2017 study, only 21 state boards had limited questions to current impairment. “This is a significant improvement, but this still means the rest of the states are violating an actual law,” Dr. Gold said. “Another plus is that 17 states asked no questions at all that could require mental health disclosure. This, too is significant because it highlights change in thinking.”
But still, the fact that five states didn’t comply with any recommendation and only one followed all of them is “utterly unacceptable,” Dr. Gold said. “Instead, we should have universal adoption of FSMB recommendations.”
Time to remove stigma
Michael F. Myers, MD, a clinical psychiatrist at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said removing the stigma of seeking help for mental health conditions is especially important for physicians. He’s written several books about physician mental health, including his latest, “Becoming a Doctor’s Doctor: A Memoir.”
“I would say at least 15% of the families that I interviewed who lost a physician loved one to suicide have said the doctor was petrified of going for professional help because of fears of what this could do to their medical license,” he said. “It is extremely important that those licensing questions will be either brought up to speed, or – the ones that are clearly violating the ADA – that they be removed.”
Applications for hospital privileges can also run afoul of the same ADA standard, Dr. Myers added. “Physicians have told me that when they go to get medical privileges at a medical center, they get asked all kinds of questions that are outdated, that are intrusive, that violate the ADA,” he said.
Credentialing is another area that Dr. Gold and her colleagues are interested in studying, she said. “Sometimes the licensing applications can be fine, but then the hospital someone is applying to work at can ask the same illegal questions anyway,” she said. “So it doesn’t matter that the state fixed the problem because the hospital asked them anyway. You feel your job is at risk in the same way, so you still don’t get help.”
Dr. Gold and Dr. Myers have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
With the COVID-19 pandemic, already high rates of suicide, depression, and burnout among physicians became even more acute. Yet, 3 years after the Federation of State Medical Boards issued recommendations on what questions about mental health status license applications should – or mostly should not – include, only North Carolina fully complies with all four recommendations, and most states comply with two or fewer, a study of state medical board applications has found (JAMA. 2021 May 18;325[19];2017-8).
Questions about mental health history or “its hypothetical effect on competency,” violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, the study authors stated. In a research letter to JAMA, the authors also reported that five state boards do not comply with any of the FSMB recommendations. Twenty-four states comply with three of the four recommendations.
Overall, the mean consistency score was 2.1, which means state medical licensing applications typically run afoul of the Americans With Disabilities Act when it comes to mental health history of applicants.
“No one should ever wonder, ‘Will I lose my job, or should I get help?’ ” said co–senior author Jessica A. Gold, MD, MS, a psychiatrist at Washington University in St. Louis. “This should absolutely never be a question on someone’s mind. And the fact that it is, in medicine, is a problem that needs to be solved. I hope that people are beginning to see that, and we can make a change to get people the help they need before it is too late.”
High rates of depression, suicide
She noted that before COVID-19, physicians already had higher rates of depression, burnout, and suicide than the general population. “Over COVID-19, it has become clear that the mental health of physicians has become additionally compounded,” Dr. Gold said.
One study found that physicians had a 44% higher rate of suicide (PLoS One. 2019 Dec;14[12]:e0226361), but they’re notoriously reluctant to seek out mental health care. A 2017 study reported that 40% of physicians would be reluctant to seek mental health care because of concerns about their licensure (Mayo Clin Proc. 2017;92[10]:1486-93).
As the pandemic went on, Dr. Gold and her colleagues decided to study whether state boards had improved their compliance with the FSMB recommendations issued in 2018. Those recommendations include these four limitations regarding questions about mental health conditions on license applications:
- Include only when they result in impairment.
- Include only when the mental health conditions are current – that is, when they’ve occurred within the past 2 years.
- Provide safe haven nonreporting – that is, allow physicians to not report previously diagnosed and treated mental health conditions if they’re being monitored and are in good standing with a physician health program.
- Include supportive or nonjudgmental language about seeking mental health care.
The study considered board applications that had questions about mental health status as consistent with the first three recommendations. Seventeen states complied.
Thirty-nine state boards complied with the first recommendation regarding impairment; 41 with the second recommendation about near-term history; 25 with safe-haven nonreporting. Only eight states were consistent with the recommendation on supportive language.
The ADA limits inquiries about an applicant’s impairment to only current conditions. In a 2017 study, only 21 state boards had limited questions to current impairment. “This is a significant improvement, but this still means the rest of the states are violating an actual law,” Dr. Gold said. “Another plus is that 17 states asked no questions at all that could require mental health disclosure. This, too is significant because it highlights change in thinking.”
But still, the fact that five states didn’t comply with any recommendation and only one followed all of them is “utterly unacceptable,” Dr. Gold said. “Instead, we should have universal adoption of FSMB recommendations.”
Time to remove stigma
Michael F. Myers, MD, a clinical psychiatrist at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said removing the stigma of seeking help for mental health conditions is especially important for physicians. He’s written several books about physician mental health, including his latest, “Becoming a Doctor’s Doctor: A Memoir.”
“I would say at least 15% of the families that I interviewed who lost a physician loved one to suicide have said the doctor was petrified of going for professional help because of fears of what this could do to their medical license,” he said. “It is extremely important that those licensing questions will be either brought up to speed, or – the ones that are clearly violating the ADA – that they be removed.”
Applications for hospital privileges can also run afoul of the same ADA standard, Dr. Myers added. “Physicians have told me that when they go to get medical privileges at a medical center, they get asked all kinds of questions that are outdated, that are intrusive, that violate the ADA,” he said.
Credentialing is another area that Dr. Gold and her colleagues are interested in studying, she said. “Sometimes the licensing applications can be fine, but then the hospital someone is applying to work at can ask the same illegal questions anyway,” she said. “So it doesn’t matter that the state fixed the problem because the hospital asked them anyway. You feel your job is at risk in the same way, so you still don’t get help.”
Dr. Gold and Dr. Myers have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
FROM JAMA
Mohs surgery favorable as monotherapy for early Merkel cell carcinomas
Pittsburgh.
The results compare favorably with the standard treatment approach, wide local excision with or without radiation, which has a local recurrence rate of 4.2%-31.7% because of incomplete excision or false negative margins, said Vitaly Terushkin, MD, a Mohs surgeon who presented the findings of the study, a retrospective chart review, at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
Mohs surgery as monotherapy offered “survival at least as good as historical controls treated with wide local excision plus radiation therapy, and because of the superior local control, Mohs surgery may obviate the need for adjuvant radiation and decrease the chance for additional surgery for the treatment of local recurrence,” said Dr. Terushkin, now in practice in the New York City area.
“We hope this data fuel additional studies with larger cohorts to continue to explore the value of Mohs for Merkel cell carcinoma,” he said.
The findings add to a growing body of literature supporting Mohs for many types of rare tumors. “Micrographic surgery or complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin analysis has been shown to be superior to wide local excision in a variety of tumors and clinical scenarios,” said Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington.
“When the entire margin is able to be evaluated over random bread-loafed sections, there is growing evidence that this leads to superior outcomes and disease specific mortality,” he said when asked for comment on the study results.
In all, 56 primary Merkel cell carcinomas were treated in the 53 patients from 2001 to 2019; about two-thirds of the patients had stage 1 tumors and the rest stage 2a.
They were treated with Mohs alone, without radiation. Average follow up was 4.6 years, with about a third of patients followed for 5 or more years.
The average age of the patients was 78 years, and just over half were men. In more than half the cases, tumors were located on the head and neck (62.5%), and the mean tumor size was 1.7 cm. Patients were negative for lymphadenopathy and declined lymph node biopsy.
Although there was no local recurrence, defined as tumor reemerging within or adjacent to the surgery site, 7 patients (12.7%) developed in-transit metastases, 13 (23.6%) developed nodal metastases, and 3 developed distant metastases.
The 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 91.2% for stage 1 and 68.6% for stage 2a patients, which compared favorably with historical controls treated with wide local excision with or without radiation, with reported 5-year disease-specific survival rates of 81%-87% for stage 1 disease and 63%-67% for stage 2. Although radiation wasn’t used in the study, Dr. Patel noted that more investigation is needed about the role of adjuvant radiation therapy after Mohs surgery “given recent publications showing improved outcomes in patients with narrow margin excision and postoperative radiation therapy.”
No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Terushkin had no disclosures. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
Pittsburgh.
The results compare favorably with the standard treatment approach, wide local excision with or without radiation, which has a local recurrence rate of 4.2%-31.7% because of incomplete excision or false negative margins, said Vitaly Terushkin, MD, a Mohs surgeon who presented the findings of the study, a retrospective chart review, at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
Mohs surgery as monotherapy offered “survival at least as good as historical controls treated with wide local excision plus radiation therapy, and because of the superior local control, Mohs surgery may obviate the need for adjuvant radiation and decrease the chance for additional surgery for the treatment of local recurrence,” said Dr. Terushkin, now in practice in the New York City area.
“We hope this data fuel additional studies with larger cohorts to continue to explore the value of Mohs for Merkel cell carcinoma,” he said.
The findings add to a growing body of literature supporting Mohs for many types of rare tumors. “Micrographic surgery or complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin analysis has been shown to be superior to wide local excision in a variety of tumors and clinical scenarios,” said Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington.
“When the entire margin is able to be evaluated over random bread-loafed sections, there is growing evidence that this leads to superior outcomes and disease specific mortality,” he said when asked for comment on the study results.
In all, 56 primary Merkel cell carcinomas were treated in the 53 patients from 2001 to 2019; about two-thirds of the patients had stage 1 tumors and the rest stage 2a.
They were treated with Mohs alone, without radiation. Average follow up was 4.6 years, with about a third of patients followed for 5 or more years.
The average age of the patients was 78 years, and just over half were men. In more than half the cases, tumors were located on the head and neck (62.5%), and the mean tumor size was 1.7 cm. Patients were negative for lymphadenopathy and declined lymph node biopsy.
Although there was no local recurrence, defined as tumor reemerging within or adjacent to the surgery site, 7 patients (12.7%) developed in-transit metastases, 13 (23.6%) developed nodal metastases, and 3 developed distant metastases.
The 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 91.2% for stage 1 and 68.6% for stage 2a patients, which compared favorably with historical controls treated with wide local excision with or without radiation, with reported 5-year disease-specific survival rates of 81%-87% for stage 1 disease and 63%-67% for stage 2. Although radiation wasn’t used in the study, Dr. Patel noted that more investigation is needed about the role of adjuvant radiation therapy after Mohs surgery “given recent publications showing improved outcomes in patients with narrow margin excision and postoperative radiation therapy.”
No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Terushkin had no disclosures. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
Pittsburgh.
The results compare favorably with the standard treatment approach, wide local excision with or without radiation, which has a local recurrence rate of 4.2%-31.7% because of incomplete excision or false negative margins, said Vitaly Terushkin, MD, a Mohs surgeon who presented the findings of the study, a retrospective chart review, at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
Mohs surgery as monotherapy offered “survival at least as good as historical controls treated with wide local excision plus radiation therapy, and because of the superior local control, Mohs surgery may obviate the need for adjuvant radiation and decrease the chance for additional surgery for the treatment of local recurrence,” said Dr. Terushkin, now in practice in the New York City area.
“We hope this data fuel additional studies with larger cohorts to continue to explore the value of Mohs for Merkel cell carcinoma,” he said.
The findings add to a growing body of literature supporting Mohs for many types of rare tumors. “Micrographic surgery or complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin analysis has been shown to be superior to wide local excision in a variety of tumors and clinical scenarios,” said Vishal Patel, MD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the cutaneous oncology program at George Washington University, Washington.
“When the entire margin is able to be evaluated over random bread-loafed sections, there is growing evidence that this leads to superior outcomes and disease specific mortality,” he said when asked for comment on the study results.
In all, 56 primary Merkel cell carcinomas were treated in the 53 patients from 2001 to 2019; about two-thirds of the patients had stage 1 tumors and the rest stage 2a.
They were treated with Mohs alone, without radiation. Average follow up was 4.6 years, with about a third of patients followed for 5 or more years.
The average age of the patients was 78 years, and just over half were men. In more than half the cases, tumors were located on the head and neck (62.5%), and the mean tumor size was 1.7 cm. Patients were negative for lymphadenopathy and declined lymph node biopsy.
Although there was no local recurrence, defined as tumor reemerging within or adjacent to the surgery site, 7 patients (12.7%) developed in-transit metastases, 13 (23.6%) developed nodal metastases, and 3 developed distant metastases.
The 5-year disease-specific survival rate was 91.2% for stage 1 and 68.6% for stage 2a patients, which compared favorably with historical controls treated with wide local excision with or without radiation, with reported 5-year disease-specific survival rates of 81%-87% for stage 1 disease and 63%-67% for stage 2. Although radiation wasn’t used in the study, Dr. Patel noted that more investigation is needed about the role of adjuvant radiation therapy after Mohs surgery “given recent publications showing improved outcomes in patients with narrow margin excision and postoperative radiation therapy.”
No external funding of the study was reported. Dr. Terushkin had no disclosures. Dr. Patel is a consultant for Sanofi, Regeneron, and Almirall.
FROM ACMS 2021
Noses can be electronic, and toilets can be smart
Cancer loses … by a nose
Since the human nose is unpredictable at best, we’ve learned to rely on animals for our detailed nozzle needs. But researchers have found the next best thing to man’s best friend to accurately identify cancers.
A team at the University of Pennsylvania has developed an electronic olfaction, or “e-nose,” that has a 95% accuracy rate in distinguishing benign and malignant pancreatic and ovarian cancer cells from a single blood sample. How?
The e-nose system is equipped with nanosensors that are able to detect the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by cells in a blood sample. Not only does this create an opportunity for an easier, noninvasive screening practice, but it’s fast. The e-nose can distinguish VOCs from healthy to cancerous blood cells in 20 minutes or less and is just as effective in picking up on early- and late-stage cancers.
The investigators hope that this innovative technology can pave the way for similar devices with other uses. Thanks to the e-nose, a handheld device is in development that may be able to sniff out the signature odor of people with COVID-19.
That’s one smart schnoz.
Do you think this is a (food) game?
Dieting and eating healthy is tough, even during the best of times, and it has not been the best of times. With all respect to Charles Dickens, it’s been the worst of times, full stop. Millions of people have spent the past year sitting around their homes doing nothing, and it’s only natural that many would let their discipline slide.
Naturally, the solution to unhealthy eating habits is to sit down and play with your phone. No, that’s not the joke, the Food Trainer app, available on all cellular devices near you, is designed to encourage healthy eating by turning it into a game of sorts. When users open the app, they’re presented with images of food, and they’re trained to tap on images of healthy food and pass on images of unhealthy ones. The process takes less than 5 minutes.
It sounds really simple, but in a study of more than 1,000 people, consumption of junk food fell by 1 point on an 8-point scale (ranging from four times per day to zero to one time per month), participants lost about half a kilogram (a little over one pound), and more healthy food was eaten. Those who used the app more regularly, along the lines of 10 times per month or more, saw greater benefits.
The authors did acknowledge that those who used the app more may have been more motivated to lose weight anyway, which perhaps limits the overall benefit, but reviews on Google Play were overall quite positive, and if there’s one great truth in this world, it’s that Internet reviewers are almost impossible to please. So perhaps this app is worth looking into if you’re like the LOTME staff and you’re up at the top end of that 8-point scale. What, pizza is delicious, who wouldn’t eat it four times a day? And you can also get it from your phone!
It’s time for a little mass kickin’
The universe, scientists tell us, is a big place. Really big. Chromosomes, scientists tell us, are small. Really small. But despite this very fundamental difference, the universe and chromosomes share a deep, dark secret: unexplained mass.
This being a medical publication, we’ll start with chromosomes. A group of researchers measured their mass with x-rays for the first time and found that “the 46 chromosomes in each of our cells weigh 242 picograms (trillionths of a gram). This is heavier than we would expect, and, if replicated, points to unexplained excess mass in chromosomes,” Ian K. Robinson, PhD, said in a written statement.
We’re not just talking about a bit of a beer belly here. “The chromosomes were about 20 times heavier than the DNA they contained,” according to the investigators.
Now to the universe. Here’s what CERN, the European Council for Nuclear Research, has to say about the mass of the universe: “Galaxies in our universe … are rotating with such speed that the gravity generated by their observable matter could not possibly hold them together. … which leads scientists to believe that something we cannot see is at work. They think something we have yet to detect directly is giving these galaxies extra mass.”
But wait, there’s more! “The matter we know and that makes up all stars and galaxies only accounts for 5% of the content of the universe!”
So chromosomes are about 20 times heavier than the DNA they contain, and the universe is about 20 times heavier than the matter that can be seen. Interesting.
We are, of course, happy to share this news with our readers, but there is one catch: Don’t tell Neil deGrasse Tyson. He’ll want to reclassify our genetic solar system into 45 chromosomes and one dwarf chromosome.
A photo finish for the Smart Toilet
We know that poop can tell us a lot about our health, but new research by scientists at Duke University is really on a roll. Their Smart Toilet has been created to help people keep an eye on their bowel health. The device takes pictures of poop after it is flushed and can tell whether the consistency is loose, bloody, or normal.
The Smart Toilet can really help people with issues such as irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease by helping them, and their doctors, keep tabs on their poop. “Typically, gastroenterologists have to rely on patient self-reported information about their stool to help determine the cause of their gastrointestinal health issues, which can be very unreliable,” study lead author Deborah Fisher said.
Not many people look too closely at their poop before it’s flushed, so the fecal photos can make a big difference. The Smart Toilet is installed into the pipes of a toilet and does its thing when the toilet is flushed, so there doesn’t seem to be much work on the patient’s end. Other than the, um, you know, usual work from the patient’s end.
Cancer loses … by a nose
Since the human nose is unpredictable at best, we’ve learned to rely on animals for our detailed nozzle needs. But researchers have found the next best thing to man’s best friend to accurately identify cancers.
A team at the University of Pennsylvania has developed an electronic olfaction, or “e-nose,” that has a 95% accuracy rate in distinguishing benign and malignant pancreatic and ovarian cancer cells from a single blood sample. How?
The e-nose system is equipped with nanosensors that are able to detect the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by cells in a blood sample. Not only does this create an opportunity for an easier, noninvasive screening practice, but it’s fast. The e-nose can distinguish VOCs from healthy to cancerous blood cells in 20 minutes or less and is just as effective in picking up on early- and late-stage cancers.
The investigators hope that this innovative technology can pave the way for similar devices with other uses. Thanks to the e-nose, a handheld device is in development that may be able to sniff out the signature odor of people with COVID-19.
That’s one smart schnoz.
Do you think this is a (food) game?
Dieting and eating healthy is tough, even during the best of times, and it has not been the best of times. With all respect to Charles Dickens, it’s been the worst of times, full stop. Millions of people have spent the past year sitting around their homes doing nothing, and it’s only natural that many would let their discipline slide.
Naturally, the solution to unhealthy eating habits is to sit down and play with your phone. No, that’s not the joke, the Food Trainer app, available on all cellular devices near you, is designed to encourage healthy eating by turning it into a game of sorts. When users open the app, they’re presented with images of food, and they’re trained to tap on images of healthy food and pass on images of unhealthy ones. The process takes less than 5 minutes.
It sounds really simple, but in a study of more than 1,000 people, consumption of junk food fell by 1 point on an 8-point scale (ranging from four times per day to zero to one time per month), participants lost about half a kilogram (a little over one pound), and more healthy food was eaten. Those who used the app more regularly, along the lines of 10 times per month or more, saw greater benefits.
The authors did acknowledge that those who used the app more may have been more motivated to lose weight anyway, which perhaps limits the overall benefit, but reviews on Google Play were overall quite positive, and if there’s one great truth in this world, it’s that Internet reviewers are almost impossible to please. So perhaps this app is worth looking into if you’re like the LOTME staff and you’re up at the top end of that 8-point scale. What, pizza is delicious, who wouldn’t eat it four times a day? And you can also get it from your phone!
It’s time for a little mass kickin’
The universe, scientists tell us, is a big place. Really big. Chromosomes, scientists tell us, are small. Really small. But despite this very fundamental difference, the universe and chromosomes share a deep, dark secret: unexplained mass.
This being a medical publication, we’ll start with chromosomes. A group of researchers measured their mass with x-rays for the first time and found that “the 46 chromosomes in each of our cells weigh 242 picograms (trillionths of a gram). This is heavier than we would expect, and, if replicated, points to unexplained excess mass in chromosomes,” Ian K. Robinson, PhD, said in a written statement.
We’re not just talking about a bit of a beer belly here. “The chromosomes were about 20 times heavier than the DNA they contained,” according to the investigators.
Now to the universe. Here’s what CERN, the European Council for Nuclear Research, has to say about the mass of the universe: “Galaxies in our universe … are rotating with such speed that the gravity generated by their observable matter could not possibly hold them together. … which leads scientists to believe that something we cannot see is at work. They think something we have yet to detect directly is giving these galaxies extra mass.”
But wait, there’s more! “The matter we know and that makes up all stars and galaxies only accounts for 5% of the content of the universe!”
So chromosomes are about 20 times heavier than the DNA they contain, and the universe is about 20 times heavier than the matter that can be seen. Interesting.
We are, of course, happy to share this news with our readers, but there is one catch: Don’t tell Neil deGrasse Tyson. He’ll want to reclassify our genetic solar system into 45 chromosomes and one dwarf chromosome.
A photo finish for the Smart Toilet
We know that poop can tell us a lot about our health, but new research by scientists at Duke University is really on a roll. Their Smart Toilet has been created to help people keep an eye on their bowel health. The device takes pictures of poop after it is flushed and can tell whether the consistency is loose, bloody, or normal.
The Smart Toilet can really help people with issues such as irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease by helping them, and their doctors, keep tabs on their poop. “Typically, gastroenterologists have to rely on patient self-reported information about their stool to help determine the cause of their gastrointestinal health issues, which can be very unreliable,” study lead author Deborah Fisher said.
Not many people look too closely at their poop before it’s flushed, so the fecal photos can make a big difference. The Smart Toilet is installed into the pipes of a toilet and does its thing when the toilet is flushed, so there doesn’t seem to be much work on the patient’s end. Other than the, um, you know, usual work from the patient’s end.
Cancer loses … by a nose
Since the human nose is unpredictable at best, we’ve learned to rely on animals for our detailed nozzle needs. But researchers have found the next best thing to man’s best friend to accurately identify cancers.
A team at the University of Pennsylvania has developed an electronic olfaction, or “e-nose,” that has a 95% accuracy rate in distinguishing benign and malignant pancreatic and ovarian cancer cells from a single blood sample. How?
The e-nose system is equipped with nanosensors that are able to detect the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by cells in a blood sample. Not only does this create an opportunity for an easier, noninvasive screening practice, but it’s fast. The e-nose can distinguish VOCs from healthy to cancerous blood cells in 20 minutes or less and is just as effective in picking up on early- and late-stage cancers.
The investigators hope that this innovative technology can pave the way for similar devices with other uses. Thanks to the e-nose, a handheld device is in development that may be able to sniff out the signature odor of people with COVID-19.
That’s one smart schnoz.
Do you think this is a (food) game?
Dieting and eating healthy is tough, even during the best of times, and it has not been the best of times. With all respect to Charles Dickens, it’s been the worst of times, full stop. Millions of people have spent the past year sitting around their homes doing nothing, and it’s only natural that many would let their discipline slide.
Naturally, the solution to unhealthy eating habits is to sit down and play with your phone. No, that’s not the joke, the Food Trainer app, available on all cellular devices near you, is designed to encourage healthy eating by turning it into a game of sorts. When users open the app, they’re presented with images of food, and they’re trained to tap on images of healthy food and pass on images of unhealthy ones. The process takes less than 5 minutes.
It sounds really simple, but in a study of more than 1,000 people, consumption of junk food fell by 1 point on an 8-point scale (ranging from four times per day to zero to one time per month), participants lost about half a kilogram (a little over one pound), and more healthy food was eaten. Those who used the app more regularly, along the lines of 10 times per month or more, saw greater benefits.
The authors did acknowledge that those who used the app more may have been more motivated to lose weight anyway, which perhaps limits the overall benefit, but reviews on Google Play were overall quite positive, and if there’s one great truth in this world, it’s that Internet reviewers are almost impossible to please. So perhaps this app is worth looking into if you’re like the LOTME staff and you’re up at the top end of that 8-point scale. What, pizza is delicious, who wouldn’t eat it four times a day? And you can also get it from your phone!
It’s time for a little mass kickin’
The universe, scientists tell us, is a big place. Really big. Chromosomes, scientists tell us, are small. Really small. But despite this very fundamental difference, the universe and chromosomes share a deep, dark secret: unexplained mass.
This being a medical publication, we’ll start with chromosomes. A group of researchers measured their mass with x-rays for the first time and found that “the 46 chromosomes in each of our cells weigh 242 picograms (trillionths of a gram). This is heavier than we would expect, and, if replicated, points to unexplained excess mass in chromosomes,” Ian K. Robinson, PhD, said in a written statement.
We’re not just talking about a bit of a beer belly here. “The chromosomes were about 20 times heavier than the DNA they contained,” according to the investigators.
Now to the universe. Here’s what CERN, the European Council for Nuclear Research, has to say about the mass of the universe: “Galaxies in our universe … are rotating with such speed that the gravity generated by their observable matter could not possibly hold them together. … which leads scientists to believe that something we cannot see is at work. They think something we have yet to detect directly is giving these galaxies extra mass.”
But wait, there’s more! “The matter we know and that makes up all stars and galaxies only accounts for 5% of the content of the universe!”
So chromosomes are about 20 times heavier than the DNA they contain, and the universe is about 20 times heavier than the matter that can be seen. Interesting.
We are, of course, happy to share this news with our readers, but there is one catch: Don’t tell Neil deGrasse Tyson. He’ll want to reclassify our genetic solar system into 45 chromosomes and one dwarf chromosome.
A photo finish for the Smart Toilet
We know that poop can tell us a lot about our health, but new research by scientists at Duke University is really on a roll. Their Smart Toilet has been created to help people keep an eye on their bowel health. The device takes pictures of poop after it is flushed and can tell whether the consistency is loose, bloody, or normal.
The Smart Toilet can really help people with issues such as irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease by helping them, and their doctors, keep tabs on their poop. “Typically, gastroenterologists have to rely on patient self-reported information about their stool to help determine the cause of their gastrointestinal health issues, which can be very unreliable,” study lead author Deborah Fisher said.
Not many people look too closely at their poop before it’s flushed, so the fecal photos can make a big difference. The Smart Toilet is installed into the pipes of a toilet and does its thing when the toilet is flushed, so there doesn’t seem to be much work on the patient’s end. Other than the, um, you know, usual work from the patient’s end.
Garbage out: How much trash does a Mohs surgery practice produce?
left behind after surgical procedures. Their findings: Just two physicians – a surgeon and a surgical fellow – manage to produce nearly a ton of noncontaminated surgical waste annually even though they only see patients twice a week. 
“While our emissions as Mohs surgeons are relatively small compared to other types of surgeries, we still emit a notable amount of greenhouse gases compared to nonmedical fields. Mohs surgeons tend to produce the most noncontaminated waste versus other categories, and that’s the category that could be most recyclable,” said Mohs surgeon Simon S. Yoo, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
Dr. Yoo, who spoke in an interview, said the coronavirus pandemic spurred the waste analysis. “In the past year, there seemed to be many questions as to the environmental causes and impacts of the pandemic,” he said. “We decided to investigate the environmental impact of Mohs surgery.”
He and surgical fellow Alvin Li, MD, analyzed all waste produced by their clinic over a 3-week period when 106 procedures were performed. They discovered that the surgeries produced 25.8 kg of biohazardous waste (29%), 2.2 kg of packaging waste (3%), 56.4 kg of noncontaminated waste (63%), and 7.5 kg of sharps waste (8%).
“The majority of the waste we produced was noncontaminated and possibly recyclable,” Dr. Yoo said. “However, most of this waste and its packaging did not have clear recycling instructions and presented a significant barrier to recycling by our staff.”
The study authors extrapolated the waste amount to annual totals of 413.5 kg of biohazardous waste, 34.9 kg of packaging waste, 902.3 kg of noncontaminated waste, and 119.9 kg of sharps waste. That adds up to 1,471 kg. The total of noncontaminated waste is the equivalent of nearly 2,000 pounds – a ton.
Dr. Yoo and Dr. Li estimate that the waste produced annual emissions equal to 6.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. They estimate that the amount of emissions produced by Mohs surgeons nationally each year is 7,592 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, equal to emissions produced by 19 million miles of passenger automobile travel.
Still, Dr. Yoo said, Mohs surgeries appear to produce fewer emissions than some other operations. “We estimate that an individual Mohs procedure generates around 10 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent whereas a single hysterectomy generates about 380 kg; much of this is due to the use of volatile anesthetics.”
Environmental protection advocate Mary Maloney, MD, professor of medicine and director of dermatologic surgery at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, urged colleagues to launch a similar waste-weighing project in their own clinics. “I challenge dermatologists to take a bag of your daily plastic waste and weigh it,” she said. “We’ll all be astounded by how much we throw away each day. Until you do that experiment yourself, you’ll have a hard time getting your arms around how much plastic we’re using.”
Dr. Maloney, a member of the American Academy of Dermatology Expert Resource Group for Climate Change and Environmental Issues, urged colleagues to consider strategies to reduce plastic use specifically. “Look at everything you use and see if there’s a nonplastic equivalent,” she said. Even reducing the use of plastic writing pens can make a difference, she said, as can cutting back on syringes and revising procedures so gloves don’t have to be changed as often.
No study funding was reported. Dr. Yoo and Dr. Maloney report no disclosures.
left behind after surgical procedures. Their findings: Just two physicians – a surgeon and a surgical fellow – manage to produce nearly a ton of noncontaminated surgical waste annually even though they only see patients twice a week.
“While our emissions as Mohs surgeons are relatively small compared to other types of surgeries, we still emit a notable amount of greenhouse gases compared to nonmedical fields. Mohs surgeons tend to produce the most noncontaminated waste versus other categories, and that’s the category that could be most recyclable,” said Mohs surgeon Simon S. Yoo, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
Dr. Yoo, who spoke in an interview, said the coronavirus pandemic spurred the waste analysis. “In the past year, there seemed to be many questions as to the environmental causes and impacts of the pandemic,” he said. “We decided to investigate the environmental impact of Mohs surgery.”
He and surgical fellow Alvin Li, MD, analyzed all waste produced by their clinic over a 3-week period when 106 procedures were performed. They discovered that the surgeries produced 25.8 kg of biohazardous waste (29%), 2.2 kg of packaging waste (3%), 56.4 kg of noncontaminated waste (63%), and 7.5 kg of sharps waste (8%).
“The majority of the waste we produced was noncontaminated and possibly recyclable,” Dr. Yoo said. “However, most of this waste and its packaging did not have clear recycling instructions and presented a significant barrier to recycling by our staff.”
The study authors extrapolated the waste amount to annual totals of 413.5 kg of biohazardous waste, 34.9 kg of packaging waste, 902.3 kg of noncontaminated waste, and 119.9 kg of sharps waste. That adds up to 1,471 kg. The total of noncontaminated waste is the equivalent of nearly 2,000 pounds – a ton.
Dr. Yoo and Dr. Li estimate that the waste produced annual emissions equal to 6.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. They estimate that the amount of emissions produced by Mohs surgeons nationally each year is 7,592 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, equal to emissions produced by 19 million miles of passenger automobile travel.
Still, Dr. Yoo said, Mohs surgeries appear to produce fewer emissions than some other operations. “We estimate that an individual Mohs procedure generates around 10 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent whereas a single hysterectomy generates about 380 kg; much of this is due to the use of volatile anesthetics.”
Environmental protection advocate Mary Maloney, MD, professor of medicine and director of dermatologic surgery at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, urged colleagues to launch a similar waste-weighing project in their own clinics. “I challenge dermatologists to take a bag of your daily plastic waste and weigh it,” she said. “We’ll all be astounded by how much we throw away each day. Until you do that experiment yourself, you’ll have a hard time getting your arms around how much plastic we’re using.”
Dr. Maloney, a member of the American Academy of Dermatology Expert Resource Group for Climate Change and Environmental Issues, urged colleagues to consider strategies to reduce plastic use specifically. “Look at everything you use and see if there’s a nonplastic equivalent,” she said. Even reducing the use of plastic writing pens can make a difference, she said, as can cutting back on syringes and revising procedures so gloves don’t have to be changed as often.
No study funding was reported. Dr. Yoo and Dr. Maloney report no disclosures.
left behind after surgical procedures. Their findings: Just two physicians – a surgeon and a surgical fellow – manage to produce nearly a ton of noncontaminated surgical waste annually even though they only see patients twice a week.
“While our emissions as Mohs surgeons are relatively small compared to other types of surgeries, we still emit a notable amount of greenhouse gases compared to nonmedical fields. Mohs surgeons tend to produce the most noncontaminated waste versus other categories, and that’s the category that could be most recyclable,” said Mohs surgeon Simon S. Yoo, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
Dr. Yoo, who spoke in an interview, said the coronavirus pandemic spurred the waste analysis. “In the past year, there seemed to be many questions as to the environmental causes and impacts of the pandemic,” he said. “We decided to investigate the environmental impact of Mohs surgery.”
He and surgical fellow Alvin Li, MD, analyzed all waste produced by their clinic over a 3-week period when 106 procedures were performed. They discovered that the surgeries produced 25.8 kg of biohazardous waste (29%), 2.2 kg of packaging waste (3%), 56.4 kg of noncontaminated waste (63%), and 7.5 kg of sharps waste (8%).
“The majority of the waste we produced was noncontaminated and possibly recyclable,” Dr. Yoo said. “However, most of this waste and its packaging did not have clear recycling instructions and presented a significant barrier to recycling by our staff.”
The study authors extrapolated the waste amount to annual totals of 413.5 kg of biohazardous waste, 34.9 kg of packaging waste, 902.3 kg of noncontaminated waste, and 119.9 kg of sharps waste. That adds up to 1,471 kg. The total of noncontaminated waste is the equivalent of nearly 2,000 pounds – a ton.
Dr. Yoo and Dr. Li estimate that the waste produced annual emissions equal to 6.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. They estimate that the amount of emissions produced by Mohs surgeons nationally each year is 7,592 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, equal to emissions produced by 19 million miles of passenger automobile travel.
Still, Dr. Yoo said, Mohs surgeries appear to produce fewer emissions than some other operations. “We estimate that an individual Mohs procedure generates around 10 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent whereas a single hysterectomy generates about 380 kg; much of this is due to the use of volatile anesthetics.”
Environmental protection advocate Mary Maloney, MD, professor of medicine and director of dermatologic surgery at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, urged colleagues to launch a similar waste-weighing project in their own clinics. “I challenge dermatologists to take a bag of your daily plastic waste and weigh it,” she said. “We’ll all be astounded by how much we throw away each day. Until you do that experiment yourself, you’ll have a hard time getting your arms around how much plastic we’re using.”
Dr. Maloney, a member of the American Academy of Dermatology Expert Resource Group for Climate Change and Environmental Issues, urged colleagues to consider strategies to reduce plastic use specifically. “Look at everything you use and see if there’s a nonplastic equivalent,” she said. Even reducing the use of plastic writing pens can make a difference, she said, as can cutting back on syringes and revising procedures so gloves don’t have to be changed as often.
No study funding was reported. Dr. Yoo and Dr. Maloney report no disclosures.
FROM THE ACMS ANNUAL MEETING
Gene therapy is bad business, and hugging chickens is just … bad
Look ma, I’m writing with no hands
Imagine being able to type every thought you had without using your hands, the words just magically appearing on the screen as fast as you can think of writing them down. Well, with the help of a new brain-computer interface (BCI), you can.
In a recent paper published in Nature, a team of researchers described how they developed a whole new way of communicating that blows previous BCIs, which used a method of pointing and clicking on letters, out of the water as far as accuracy and speed are concerned.
Developed for individuals with medical conditions or other disabilities that prevent them from communicating verbally or manually, the technology involves placing tiny sensors on the brain in the areas that control hand and arm movements. All the individual has to do is think of the process of writing and the system does the rest.
Even better, with continual use, the program’s algorithm comes to recognize the patterns of each letter, speeding up the number of words written. The previous record held for a BCI was about 40 characters per minute, but this new program enables users to type 90 characters per minute.
Think of how many emails you could reply to with just a thought. Or the LOTMEs we could write … or think? … Or think about writing?
Chicken noodle salmonella
Chickens and ducks sure are cute, especially babies, but humans should be extra careful around these animals for risk of salmonella. This isn’t a new thing to loyal readers of Livin’ on the MDedge.
As more people keep such creatures at home – Emily Shoop of Penn State University told the N.Y. Times that raising poultry was “the fastest-growing animal-related hobby in the United States” – the ducks and chickens are being treated more like house pets, which is sweet but not safe.
In the latest outbreak, more than 160 people, mostly children under 5 years old, have fallen ill from salmonella poisoning and more than 30 have been hospitalized across 43 states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suspects the numbers could be higher because many did not get tested and recovered on their own.
People should refrain from kissing these animals and should wash their hands for at least 20 seconds after handling them, their products, or their manure. If they do happen to kiss and cuddle these animals, they should wash their face and brush their teeth.
It’s not that ducks and chickens are dirty creatures, but they naturally carry bacteria. Some can get salmonella from contaminated food, or even contract it from their mothers before birth.
We can’t speak for everyone, but we would find it hard to connect with an animal that’s going to end up on our dinner plate.
This kidney research rocks!
When kids pick teams on the playground, someone is going to get their feelings hurt by being chosen last. There’s no way around it. Someone has to be last.
It’s the same way with research teams. When scientists are trying to cure diseases or pioneer new surgical techniques, they get a team together. And who always gets picked last? That’s right, the geologist, because who needs a geologist when you’re studying brain-computer interfaces?
Turns out, though, that there was a research team that needed a geologist: The one studying kidney stones.
Illinois geology professor Bruce Fouke explains: “The process of kidney stone formation is part of the natural process of the stone formation seen throughout nature. We are bringing together geology, biology, and medicine to map the entire process of kidney stone formation, step by step.”
In its latest work, the team found that kidney stones develop as tiny bits of mineral called microspherules, which can then come together to form larger crystals if they are not flushed out of the kidney tissue. Some eventually become large enough to cause excruciating pain.
Their transdisciplinary approach, known as GeoBioMed, has produced a device the team calls the GeoBioCell, which is “a microfluidic cartridge designed to mimic the intricate internal structures of the kidney,” they said.
Great stuff, no doubt, but we’re thinking the geologists haven’t quite gotten over the whole last-picked-for-the-team business, or maybe they’re just really into Batman. They’ve named the GeoBioCell after themselves, and he had the Batmobile and the Bat-tweezers. Also the Bat-funnel. And the Bat-scilloscope.
Gene therapy: What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!
Gene therapy has the potential to permanently cure all sorts of terrible diseases, and one would assume that this would be something we all could agree on. Yes, no more cancer or diabetes or anything like that, no sane person could possibly be against this, right?
Oh, you poor naive fool.
To be fair, the report written by Goldman Sachs does lay out many potential applications for gene therapy, and all the markets it can expand into. But then the writers ask the question that they’re not supposed to say out loud: Is curing patients a sustainable business model?
They go on to say that, while it would obviously be of enormous benefit to patients and society to give a one-shot cure rather than forcing a long, drawn-out series of treatments, current therapies for chronic disease represent a major source of money that would be cut off if a permanent treatment were found. They specifically mentioned hepatitis C, which has achieved a cure rate of over 90% in the past few years. In 2015, Gilead – the maker of these treatments – brought in sales of over $12 billion from its hepatitis C cure, but the report estimated that in 2021 they would bring in only $4 billion.
The authors of the report suggested that developers focus on “large markets,” such as hemophilia; diseases with high incidence like spinal muscular atrophy; and on diseases such as the various inherited retinal disorders, where there’s plenty of room to constantly bring out new and exciting treatments without sabotaging the all-important money flow.
While we can accept that Goldman Sachs may be technically correct in their assertion that curing disease is bad for business, that’s about as far as our sympathy goes, unless the big biotech companies of the world would like a sad song played on the world’s smallest violin.
Look ma, I’m writing with no hands
Imagine being able to type every thought you had without using your hands, the words just magically appearing on the screen as fast as you can think of writing them down. Well, with the help of a new brain-computer interface (BCI), you can.
In a recent paper published in Nature, a team of researchers described how they developed a whole new way of communicating that blows previous BCIs, which used a method of pointing and clicking on letters, out of the water as far as accuracy and speed are concerned.
Developed for individuals with medical conditions or other disabilities that prevent them from communicating verbally or manually, the technology involves placing tiny sensors on the brain in the areas that control hand and arm movements. All the individual has to do is think of the process of writing and the system does the rest.
Even better, with continual use, the program’s algorithm comes to recognize the patterns of each letter, speeding up the number of words written. The previous record held for a BCI was about 40 characters per minute, but this new program enables users to type 90 characters per minute.
Think of how many emails you could reply to with just a thought. Or the LOTMEs we could write … or think? … Or think about writing?
Chicken noodle salmonella
Chickens and ducks sure are cute, especially babies, but humans should be extra careful around these animals for risk of salmonella. This isn’t a new thing to loyal readers of Livin’ on the MDedge.
As more people keep such creatures at home – Emily Shoop of Penn State University told the N.Y. Times that raising poultry was “the fastest-growing animal-related hobby in the United States” – the ducks and chickens are being treated more like house pets, which is sweet but not safe.
In the latest outbreak, more than 160 people, mostly children under 5 years old, have fallen ill from salmonella poisoning and more than 30 have been hospitalized across 43 states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suspects the numbers could be higher because many did not get tested and recovered on their own.
People should refrain from kissing these animals and should wash their hands for at least 20 seconds after handling them, their products, or their manure. If they do happen to kiss and cuddle these animals, they should wash their face and brush their teeth.
It’s not that ducks and chickens are dirty creatures, but they naturally carry bacteria. Some can get salmonella from contaminated food, or even contract it from their mothers before birth.
We can’t speak for everyone, but we would find it hard to connect with an animal that’s going to end up on our dinner plate.
This kidney research rocks!
When kids pick teams on the playground, someone is going to get their feelings hurt by being chosen last. There’s no way around it. Someone has to be last.
It’s the same way with research teams. When scientists are trying to cure diseases or pioneer new surgical techniques, they get a team together. And who always gets picked last? That’s right, the geologist, because who needs a geologist when you’re studying brain-computer interfaces?
Turns out, though, that there was a research team that needed a geologist: The one studying kidney stones.
Illinois geology professor Bruce Fouke explains: “The process of kidney stone formation is part of the natural process of the stone formation seen throughout nature. We are bringing together geology, biology, and medicine to map the entire process of kidney stone formation, step by step.”
In its latest work, the team found that kidney stones develop as tiny bits of mineral called microspherules, which can then come together to form larger crystals if they are not flushed out of the kidney tissue. Some eventually become large enough to cause excruciating pain.
Their transdisciplinary approach, known as GeoBioMed, has produced a device the team calls the GeoBioCell, which is “a microfluidic cartridge designed to mimic the intricate internal structures of the kidney,” they said.
Great stuff, no doubt, but we’re thinking the geologists haven’t quite gotten over the whole last-picked-for-the-team business, or maybe they’re just really into Batman. They’ve named the GeoBioCell after themselves, and he had the Batmobile and the Bat-tweezers. Also the Bat-funnel. And the Bat-scilloscope.
Gene therapy: What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!
Gene therapy has the potential to permanently cure all sorts of terrible diseases, and one would assume that this would be something we all could agree on. Yes, no more cancer or diabetes or anything like that, no sane person could possibly be against this, right?
Oh, you poor naive fool.
To be fair, the report written by Goldman Sachs does lay out many potential applications for gene therapy, and all the markets it can expand into. But then the writers ask the question that they’re not supposed to say out loud: Is curing patients a sustainable business model?
They go on to say that, while it would obviously be of enormous benefit to patients and society to give a one-shot cure rather than forcing a long, drawn-out series of treatments, current therapies for chronic disease represent a major source of money that would be cut off if a permanent treatment were found. They specifically mentioned hepatitis C, which has achieved a cure rate of over 90% in the past few years. In 2015, Gilead – the maker of these treatments – brought in sales of over $12 billion from its hepatitis C cure, but the report estimated that in 2021 they would bring in only $4 billion.
The authors of the report suggested that developers focus on “large markets,” such as hemophilia; diseases with high incidence like spinal muscular atrophy; and on diseases such as the various inherited retinal disorders, where there’s plenty of room to constantly bring out new and exciting treatments without sabotaging the all-important money flow.
While we can accept that Goldman Sachs may be technically correct in their assertion that curing disease is bad for business, that’s about as far as our sympathy goes, unless the big biotech companies of the world would like a sad song played on the world’s smallest violin.
Look ma, I’m writing with no hands
Imagine being able to type every thought you had without using your hands, the words just magically appearing on the screen as fast as you can think of writing them down. Well, with the help of a new brain-computer interface (BCI), you can.
In a recent paper published in Nature, a team of researchers described how they developed a whole new way of communicating that blows previous BCIs, which used a method of pointing and clicking on letters, out of the water as far as accuracy and speed are concerned.
Developed for individuals with medical conditions or other disabilities that prevent them from communicating verbally or manually, the technology involves placing tiny sensors on the brain in the areas that control hand and arm movements. All the individual has to do is think of the process of writing and the system does the rest.
Even better, with continual use, the program’s algorithm comes to recognize the patterns of each letter, speeding up the number of words written. The previous record held for a BCI was about 40 characters per minute, but this new program enables users to type 90 characters per minute.
Think of how many emails you could reply to with just a thought. Or the LOTMEs we could write … or think? … Or think about writing?
Chicken noodle salmonella
Chickens and ducks sure are cute, especially babies, but humans should be extra careful around these animals for risk of salmonella. This isn’t a new thing to loyal readers of Livin’ on the MDedge.
As more people keep such creatures at home – Emily Shoop of Penn State University told the N.Y. Times that raising poultry was “the fastest-growing animal-related hobby in the United States” – the ducks and chickens are being treated more like house pets, which is sweet but not safe.
In the latest outbreak, more than 160 people, mostly children under 5 years old, have fallen ill from salmonella poisoning and more than 30 have been hospitalized across 43 states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suspects the numbers could be higher because many did not get tested and recovered on their own.
People should refrain from kissing these animals and should wash their hands for at least 20 seconds after handling them, their products, or their manure. If they do happen to kiss and cuddle these animals, they should wash their face and brush their teeth.
It’s not that ducks and chickens are dirty creatures, but they naturally carry bacteria. Some can get salmonella from contaminated food, or even contract it from their mothers before birth.
We can’t speak for everyone, but we would find it hard to connect with an animal that’s going to end up on our dinner plate.
This kidney research rocks!
When kids pick teams on the playground, someone is going to get their feelings hurt by being chosen last. There’s no way around it. Someone has to be last.
It’s the same way with research teams. When scientists are trying to cure diseases or pioneer new surgical techniques, they get a team together. And who always gets picked last? That’s right, the geologist, because who needs a geologist when you’re studying brain-computer interfaces?
Turns out, though, that there was a research team that needed a geologist: The one studying kidney stones.
Illinois geology professor Bruce Fouke explains: “The process of kidney stone formation is part of the natural process of the stone formation seen throughout nature. We are bringing together geology, biology, and medicine to map the entire process of kidney stone formation, step by step.”
In its latest work, the team found that kidney stones develop as tiny bits of mineral called microspherules, which can then come together to form larger crystals if they are not flushed out of the kidney tissue. Some eventually become large enough to cause excruciating pain.
Their transdisciplinary approach, known as GeoBioMed, has produced a device the team calls the GeoBioCell, which is “a microfluidic cartridge designed to mimic the intricate internal structures of the kidney,” they said.
Great stuff, no doubt, but we’re thinking the geologists haven’t quite gotten over the whole last-picked-for-the-team business, or maybe they’re just really into Batman. They’ve named the GeoBioCell after themselves, and he had the Batmobile and the Bat-tweezers. Also the Bat-funnel. And the Bat-scilloscope.
Gene therapy: What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!
Gene therapy has the potential to permanently cure all sorts of terrible diseases, and one would assume that this would be something we all could agree on. Yes, no more cancer or diabetes or anything like that, no sane person could possibly be against this, right?
Oh, you poor naive fool.
To be fair, the report written by Goldman Sachs does lay out many potential applications for gene therapy, and all the markets it can expand into. But then the writers ask the question that they’re not supposed to say out loud: Is curing patients a sustainable business model?
They go on to say that, while it would obviously be of enormous benefit to patients and society to give a one-shot cure rather than forcing a long, drawn-out series of treatments, current therapies for chronic disease represent a major source of money that would be cut off if a permanent treatment were found. They specifically mentioned hepatitis C, which has achieved a cure rate of over 90% in the past few years. In 2015, Gilead – the maker of these treatments – brought in sales of over $12 billion from its hepatitis C cure, but the report estimated that in 2021 they would bring in only $4 billion.
The authors of the report suggested that developers focus on “large markets,” such as hemophilia; diseases with high incidence like spinal muscular atrophy; and on diseases such as the various inherited retinal disorders, where there’s plenty of room to constantly bring out new and exciting treatments without sabotaging the all-important money flow.
While we can accept that Goldman Sachs may be technically correct in their assertion that curing disease is bad for business, that’s about as far as our sympathy goes, unless the big biotech companies of the world would like a sad song played on the world’s smallest violin.