Category: 3. Business

  • Trial Data Yield Risk-Based NRSTS Treatment Strategies

    Trial Data Yield Risk-Based NRSTS Treatment Strategies

    A new report affirms that surgical resection is generally sufficient for pediatric patients with low-risk non-rhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcoma (NRSTS) and suggests that patients with completely resected high-risk tumors do not necessarily benefit from adjuvant radiation.

    The findings, which were published in Pediatric Blood & Cancer, were based on findings from 2 trials that were designed to help develop a new risk-stratification system and compare different therapeutic regimens for patients with different risk profiles.1

    Corresponding author Monika Sparber-Sauer, MD, of the Stuttgart Cancer Center, in Germany, and colleagues, wrote that the current standard of care for pediatric NRSTS is based around surgical resection.

    “Primary tumor resection with wide margins in the NRSTS treatment mainstay, and is safe without further adjuvant treatment for low-risk disease,” they wrote.

    In unresectable tumors, neoadjuvant radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy can be used in hopes of facilitating later resection, as these patients have a low chance of a cure, they added. However, they said the role—or lack thereof—of adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy in patients with primarily resected NRSTS remains an open question.

    The new study is based on data from two prospective trials, the CWS-96 and CWS-2002P trials, both of which were designed to limit chemotherapy and radiotherapy by using a risk-based treatment strategy.2,3

    Between the 2 trials, a total of 1,249 patients with localized NRSTS were enrolled (483 in CWS-96 and 445 in CWS-2002P). In the former, patients were risk-stratified based on Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study (IRS) group, histology, and grade. In the CWS-2002P trial, patients were stratified based on IRS group, lymph node status, tumor histology, and tumor size.

    In both trials, low-risk patients were treated with surgical resection alone. Standard-risk patients in both trials were given hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (HART) by 44.8 Gy. In CWS-96, adjuvant chemotherapy with vincristine, actinomycin-D, ifosfamide, and 160–240 mg/m2 adriamycin (VAIA) was added for high-grade tumors, Sparber-Sauer and colleagues said.

    High-risk patients were given 6 cycles of VAIA in CWS-96 and an intensified adriamycin regimen (VAIA-III, 320 mg/m2 adriamycin) in CWS-2002P, along with delayed resection and/or 44.8 Gy radiotherapy. In some patients in CWS-2002P, maintenance treatment with cyclophosphamide and vinblastine was also given, the authors said.

    Overall, the investigators said patients in the CWS-2002P trial had a superior 5-year overall survival (OS; 81% versus 73%; P = 0.024), which they said was partly a result of the CWS-2002P trial’s inclusion of a greater number of entities like fibromyxoid sarcoma, which have a lower metastatic potential. The investigators added that improvements in surveillance, imaging, and surgical techniques over time also likely affected the outcomes.

    “We found that the IRS group alone was a strong predictor of EFS (event-free survival) and OS; despite incorporating multiple independent risk factors in CWS-2002P—including IRS, histology, lymph node size, and initial tumor size—no refinement to the risk-stratification system was achieved,” they said.

    Though CWS-2002P had improved OS in general, Sparber-Sauer and colleagues said the higher dose of anthracycline used in that trial did not appear to improve survival.

    Furthermore, they said low-risk patients who underwent surgery alone had a 5-year EFS and OS of 82% and 93% across both trials, suggesting that surgery alone is sufficient in most cases.

    “One remaining question is the role of chemotherapy in standard-risk disease,” they said. That’s because while radiotherapy alone was recommended for standard-risk patients in the CWS-2002P trial, in real-world usage clinicians often gave both chemotherapy and radiotherapy, as was the recommendation in the CWS-96 trial. Thus, the authors said, it is not possible to draw clear conclusions.

    Sparber-Sauer and colleagues concluded that in high-risk patients, clinicians should seek out entity-specific clinical trial data whenever possible.

    “Where no clinical trial is available, vincristine and actinomycin-D can be omitted, and the ifosfamide/doxorubicin regimen should be used, preferably with a reduced anthracycline dose in postoperative chemotherapy cycles,” they wrote.

    They added that their finding that high-risk patients undergoing R0 resection have a comparable prognosis to patients with high-risk disease who receive radiation following incomplete resection warrants further investigation.

    References

    1. Heinz AT, Schönstein A, Koscielniak E, et al. Children and Adolescents With Localised Non-Rhabdomyosarcoma Soft Tissue Sarcoma: Results of the CWS-96 and CWS-2002P Prospective Trials With Reclassification of the Trial Data Incorporating the Recent Soft Tissue Sarcoma Registry. Pediatr Blood Cancer. Published online November 11, 2025. doi:10.1002/pbc.32159
    2. Sparber-Sauer M, Ferrari A, Kosztyla D, et al. Long-term results from the multicentric European randomized phase 3 trial CWS/RMS-96 for localized high-risk soft tissue sarcoma in children, adolescents, and young adults. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2022;69(9):e29691. doi:10.1002/pbc.29691
    3. Koscielniak E, Blank B, Vokuhl C, et al. Long-term clinical outcome and prognostic factors of children and adolescents with localized rhabdomyosarcoma treated on the CWS-2002P protocol. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(4):899. doi:10.3390/cancers14040899

    Continue Reading

  • Merck Recommends Rejection of Tutanota’s “Mini-Tender” Offer

    Merck Recommends Rejection of Tutanota’s “Mini-Tender” Offer

    RAHWAY, N.J., November 22, 2025–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, has been notified that Tutanota LLC (Tutanota) has commenced an unsolicited “mini-tender” offer, dated November 10, 2025, to purchase up to 1,000,000 shares of Merck common stock at $65.00 per share. The offer price is approximately 24.66% below the closing price of Merck common stock on November 7, 2025 ($86.28), the last trading day before the date of the offer, and approximately 31.56% below the closing price of Merck common stock on November 20, 2025 ($94.97), the day prior to this release.

    Merck does not endorse Tutanota’s offer and recommends that Merck shareholders reject the offer and not tender their shares in response to Tutanota’s unsolicited mini-tender offer. This mini-tender offer is at a price below the closing price for Merck’s shares (as of the day prior to this release) and is subject to numerous conditions, including Tutanota’s ability to obtain financing. Merck is not associated in any way with Tutanota, its mini-tender offer or the offer documentation.

    Tutanota has made similar unsolicited mini-tender offers for shares of other publicly traded companies. Mini-tender offers seek to acquire less than 5% of a company’s outstanding shares. This lets the offering company avoid many of the disclosure and procedural requirements the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires for tender offers. As a result, mini-tender offers do not provide investors the same level of protections as provided by larger tender offers under U.S. federal securities laws.

    On its website, the SEC advises that the people behind mini-tender offers “frequently use mini-tender offers to catch shareholders off guard” and that investors “may end up selling at below-market prices.” The SEC’s website also contains important tips for investors regarding mini-tender offers.

    Like Tutanota’s other offers, this one puts individual investors at risk because they may not realize they are selling their shares at a discount. Merck urges shareholders to obtain current stock quotes for their shares of Merck common stock, to review the terms and conditions of the offer, to consult with their brokers or financial advisers, and to exercise caution with respect to Tutanota’s mini-tender offer.

    Merck shareholders who have already tendered are advised they may withdraw their shares by following the procedures for withdrawal described in the Tutanota offer documents prior to the expiration of the offer, which is currently scheduled for 5:00 p.m. EST on December 15, 2025.


    Continue Reading

  • Merck Recommends Rejection of Tutanota’s “Mini-Tender” Offer


    Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, has been notified that Tutanota LLC (Tutanota) has commenced an unsolicited “mini-tender” offer, dated November 10, 2025, to purchase up to 1,000,000 shares of Merck common stock at $65.00 per share. The offer price is approximately 24.66% below the closing price of Merck common stock on November 7, 2025 ($86.28), the last trading day before the date of the offer, and approximately 31.56% below the closing price of Merck common stock on November 20, 2025 ($94.97), the day prior to this release.

    Merck does not endorse Tutanota’s offer and recommends that Merck shareholders reject the offer and not tender their shares in response to Tutanota’s unsolicited mini-tender offer. This mini-tender offer is at a price below the closing price for Merck’s shares (as of the day prior to this release) and is subject to numerous conditions, including Tutanota’s ability to obtain financing. Merck is not associated in any way with Tutanota, its mini-tender offer or the offer documentation.

    Tutanota has made similar unsolicited mini-tender offers for shares of other publicly traded companies. Mini-tender offers seek to acquire less than 5% of a company’s outstanding shares. This lets the offering company avoid many of the disclosure and procedural requirements the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires for tender offers. As a result, mini-tender offers do not provide investors the same level of protections as provided by larger tender offers under U.S. federal securities laws.

    On its website, the SEC advises that the people behind mini-tender offers “frequently use mini-tender offers to catch shareholders off guard” and that investors “may end up selling at below-market prices.” The SEC’s website also contains important tips for investors regarding mini-tender offers.

    Like Tutanota’s other offers, this one puts individual investors at risk because they may not realize they are selling their shares at a discount. Merck urges shareholders to obtain current stock quotes for their shares of Merck common stock, to review the terms and conditions of the offer, to consult with their brokers or financial advisers, and to exercise caution with respect to Tutanota’s mini-tender offer.

    Merck shareholders who have already tendered are advised they may withdraw their shares by following the procedures for withdrawal described in the Tutanota offer documents prior to the expiration of the offer, which is currently scheduled for 5:00 p.m. EST on December 15, 2025.

    Merck encourages brokers, dealers, and other investors to review the SEC’s letter regarding broker-dealer mini-tender offer dissemination and disclosure.

    Merck requests that a copy of this news release be included with all distribution of materials related to Tutanota’s offer for shares of Merck common stock.

    About Merck

    At Merck, known as MSD outside of the United States and Canada, we are unified around our purpose: We use the power of leading-edge science to save and improve lives around the world. For more than 130 years, we have brought hope to humanity through the development of important medicines and vaccines. We aspire to be the premier research-intensive biopharmaceutical company in the world – and today, we are at the forefront of research to deliver innovative health solutions that advance the prevention and treatment of diseases in people and animals. We foster a diverse and inclusive global workforce and operate responsibly every day to enable a safe, sustainable and healthy future for all people and communities. For more information, visit www.merck.com and connect with us on X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and LinkedIn.

    Forward-Looking Statement of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, N.J., USA

    This news release of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, N.J., USA (the “company”) includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are based upon the current beliefs and expectations of the company’s management and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties. If underlying assumptions prove inaccurate or risks or uncertainties materialize, actual results may differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements.

    Risks and uncertainties include but are not limited to, general industry conditions and competition; general economic factors, including interest rate and currency exchange rate fluctuations; the impact of pharmaceutical industry regulation and health care legislation in the United States and internationally; global trends toward health care cost containment; technological advances, new products and patents attained by competitors; challenges inherent in new product development, including obtaining regulatory approval; the company’s ability to accurately predict future market conditions; manufacturing difficulties or delays; financial instability of international economies and sovereign risk; dependence on the effectiveness of the company’s patents and other protections for innovative products; and the exposure to litigation, including patent litigation, and/or regulatory actions.

    The company undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Additional factors that could cause results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements can be found in the company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 and the company’s other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) available at the SEC’s Internet site (www.sec.gov).


    Source: Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA


    Continue Reading

  • Merck Recommends Rejection of Tutanota’s “Mini-Tender” Offer


    Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, has been notified that Tutanota LLC (Tutanota) has commenced an unsolicited “mini-tender” offer, dated November 10, 2025, to purchase up to 1,000,000 shares of Merck common stock at $65.00 per share. The offer price is approximately 24.66% below the closing price of Merck common stock on November 7, 2025 ($86.28), the last trading day before the date of the offer, and approximately 31.56% below the closing price of Merck common stock on November 20, 2025 ($94.97), the day prior to this release.

    Merck does not endorse Tutanota’s offer and recommends that Merck shareholders reject the offer and not tender their shares in response to Tutanota’s unsolicited mini-tender offer. This mini-tender offer is at a price below the closing price for Merck’s shares (as of the day prior to this release) and is subject to numerous conditions, including Tutanota’s ability to obtain financing. Merck is not associated in any way with Tutanota, its mini-tender offer or the offer documentation.

    Tutanota has made similar unsolicited mini-tender offers for shares of other publicly traded companies. Mini-tender offers seek to acquire less than 5% of a company’s outstanding shares. This lets the offering company avoid many of the disclosure and procedural requirements the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires for tender offers. As a result, mini-tender offers do not provide investors the same level of protections as provided by larger tender offers under U.S. federal securities laws.

    On its website, the SEC advises that the people behind mini-tender offers “frequently use mini-tender offers to catch shareholders off guard” and that investors “may end up selling at below-market prices.” The SEC’s website also contains important tips for investors regarding mini-tender offers.

    Like Tutanota’s other offers, this one puts individual investors at risk because they may not realize they are selling their shares at a discount. Merck urges shareholders to obtain current stock quotes for their shares of Merck common stock, to review the terms and conditions of the offer, to consult with their brokers or financial advisers, and to exercise caution with respect to Tutanota’s mini-tender offer.

    Merck shareholders who have already tendered are advised they may withdraw their shares by following the procedures for withdrawal described in the Tutanota offer documents prior to the expiration of the offer, which is currently scheduled for 5:00 p.m. EST on December 15, 2025.

    Merck encourages brokers, dealers, and other investors to review the SEC’s letter regarding broker-dealer mini-tender offer dissemination and disclosure.

    Merck requests that a copy of this news release be included with all distribution of materials related to Tutanota’s offer for shares of Merck common stock.

    About Merck

    At Merck, known as MSD outside of the United States and Canada, we are unified around our purpose: We use the power of leading-edge science to save and improve lives around the world. For more than 130 years, we have brought hope to humanity through the development of important medicines and vaccines. We aspire to be the premier research-intensive biopharmaceutical company in the world – and today, we are at the forefront of research to deliver innovative health solutions that advance the prevention and treatment of diseases in people and animals. We foster a diverse and inclusive global workforce and operate responsibly every day to enable a safe, sustainable and healthy future for all people and communities. For more information, visit www.merck.com and connect with us on X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and LinkedIn.

    Forward-Looking Statement of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, N.J., USA

    This news release of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, N.J., USA (the “company”) includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are based upon the current beliefs and expectations of the company’s management and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties. If underlying assumptions prove inaccurate or risks or uncertainties materialize, actual results may differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements.

    Risks and uncertainties include but are not limited to, general industry conditions and competition; general economic factors, including interest rate and currency exchange rate fluctuations; the impact of pharmaceutical industry regulation and health care legislation in the United States and internationally; global trends toward health care cost containment; technological advances, new products and patents attained by competitors; challenges inherent in new product development, including obtaining regulatory approval; the company’s ability to accurately predict future market conditions; manufacturing difficulties or delays; financial instability of international economies and sovereign risk; dependence on the effectiveness of the company’s patents and other protections for innovative products; and the exposure to litigation, including patent litigation, and/or regulatory actions.

    The company undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Additional factors that could cause results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements can be found in the company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 and the company’s other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) available at the SEC’s Internet site (www.sec.gov).


    Source: Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA


    Continue Reading

  • New Proteomic Analysis Maps Cytokine Signatures Driving IPF

    New Proteomic Analysis Maps Cytokine Signatures Driving IPF

    A new proteomic analysis is shedding a fresh light on the cytokine networks fueling idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), identifying a set of differentially expressed signaling proteins and potential drug targets that may help reshape future therapeutic strategies for one of the most challenging interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) to treat.

    The integrative proteomic study provides one of the most comprehensive views to date of cytokine abnormalities in IPF. By defining core signaling hubs, immune-cell associations, and potential therapeutic targets, the research offers new molecular signposts for drug development—an urgent need for a disease that remains fatal for most patients despite current treatments.

    “While pirfenidone and nintedanib (the only antifibrotic drugs currently approved for treating IPF) can slow lung function decline, their efficacy in halting pulmonary fibrosis progression and enhancing patients’ quality of life remains limited,” wrote the researchers. “Additionally, there are concerns regarding drug resistance and adverse effects. Therefore, safe and effective pharmacological agents are urgently needed.”

    The new findings, generated from cytokine profiling of lung tissue and supported by bioinformatics, single-cell sequencing, and drug–gene interaction mapping, offer a high-resolution look into the molecular dysregulation underlying fibrosis.

    IPF is defined by relentless scarring of lung tissue, eventual respiratory failure, and a median survival between 3 and 5 years.2 Although decades of research have highlighted roles for transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) and other profibrotic mediators, no study until now has systematically examined hundreds of cytokines directly within human lung tissue. In the current work, detailed in Canadian Respiratory Journal, researchers collected explanted lungs from 5 individuals undergoing transplantation for IPF and compared them with donor control lungs. Using high-throughput protein microarrays capable of detecting 440 cytokines, the team constructed one of the most detailed IPF cytokine maps to date.

    The analysis identified 32 differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) between IPF and control lungs, with 11 upregulated and 21 downregulated. Many of these proteins have been previously associated with IPF development, including chemokines, matrix-remodeling enzymes, and receptors involved in immune signaling. The expression patterns were sufficiently distinct to separate IPF and control samples through principal component analysis, emphasizing that cytokine dysregulation is a defining molecular feature of the disease.

    Functional enrichment analysis revealed that these DEPs were highly concentrated in pathways associated with cell chemotaxis, growth factor binding, PI3K–Akt signaling, MAPK signaling, and cytokine–receptor interactions—all known contributors to fibroblast activation, epithelial injury, and extracellular matrix accumulation. Additional gene-set enrichment analysis performed across all 440 measured cytokines highlighted enrichment of biological processes tied to peptide hormone signaling, nitrogen compound response, and insulin-response pathways, suggesting oversights in current models of IPF pathophysiology.

    To understand how these DEPs organize into functional networks, the researchers generated a protein–protein interaction map using STRING and identified 5 hub proteins with high centrality scores: FGF2, HGF, HBEGF, ERBB3, and ANGPT2. These molecules act as central communication nodes in cytokine signaling and growth-factor pathways, and their dysregulation may represent core drivers of IPF progression. One hub protein, HGF, showed the strongest functional similarity to other hub proteins, implying it may be especially critical in the broader cytokine network.

    The study also used transcription-factor prediction algorithms to map which upstream regulators may drive the expression of these hub proteins. Thirty-one transcription factors—including SP1, STAT3, HIF1A, and LMO2—emerged as potential regulatory controllers, underscoring the deep integration of cytokine signaling with inflammation, hypoxia, and wound-repair pathways.

    Since IPF is strongly linked to immune dysregulation, the team analyzed immune-cell infiltration using the CIBERSORT algorithm. Among 22 immune-cell types examined, resting natural killer (NK) cells were significantly more abundant in IPF lung tissue and were inversely correlated with HBEGF expression. This relationship suggests an underexplored interface between NK-cell activity and cytokine-driven injury repair.

    Recognizing the urgent need for new treatment strategies, investigators used the DGIdb database to explore whether the five hub proteins are targetable by existing drugs. The analysis surfaced 67 potential agents, 13 of which have prior evidence of antifibrotic or immunomodulatory effects. These include widely studied compounds such as sirolimus, imatinib, resveratrol, and atorvastatin, as well as chemotherapy agents used in patients with lung cancer and comorbid fibrosis. While these findings do not establish clinical efficacy, they highlight promising entry points for drug repurposing.

    Hub-protein expression was further validated in 3 independent GEO datasets and through immunohistochemistry on IPF lung tissue. Finally, single-cell RNA sequencing revealed the specific cellular sources of these cytokines—fibroblasts, myofibroblasts, macrophages, epithelial cells, and specialized vascular endothelial populations—confirming that cytokine dysregulation in IPF arises from multiple interacting cell types, not a single dominant driver.

    References

    1. Shen C, Wang W, Li G, et al. Cytokine expression profiling in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: insights from integrative proteomic analysis. Can Respir J. Published online November 7, 2025. doi:10.1155/carj/2272156
    2. Raghu G, Remy-Jardin M, Richeldi L, Thomson CC, Inoue Y, Johkoh T, et al. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (an update) and progressive pulmonary fibrosis in adults: an official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2022;205:e18–e47.

    Continue Reading

  • Move over fillers – people are getting facial injections derived from fish sperm

    Move over fillers – people are getting facial injections derived from fish sperm

    Ruth CleggHealth and Wellbeing reporter

    BBC Abby has long brown hair and she is looking straight at the cameraBBC

    In my many years as a journalist, I never thought I would be asking someone how it feels to have trout sperm injected into their face.

    And yet, here I am.

    Abby Warnes is lying on a large, black padded chair at a small aesthetics clinic in south Manchester.

    She winces as a small cannula is delicately inserted into her cheek.

    “Ouch. Ouch,” she exclaims.

    I should make it clear that 29-year-old Abby is not actually receiving a pure dose of trout sperm.

    The lower part of her face is being injected with tiny fragments of DNA, known as polynucleotides, which have been extracted from either trout or salmon sperm.

    Why? Well, interestingly, our DNA is pretty similar to that of a fish.

    So the hope is Abby’s body will not only welcome these tiny strands of fish DNA, her skin cells will be spurred into action, producing more collagen and elastin, two proteins which are vital for maintaining the structural integrity of our skin.

    For Abby, the aim is to freshen her skin, keep it healthy, and hopefully, treat the acne she’s lived with for many years by reducing scarring and redness.

    “I just want to target those problem areas,” she explains.

    Abby undergoing facial injection

    Abby is having injections in her lower face to help rejuvenate her skin and tackle “problem areas”

    Polynucleotides are being touted as the next big skincare “miracle” and are rapidly gaining popularity after a number of celebrities have spoken candidly about their “salmon sperm facials”.

    Earlier this year, Charli XCX told her nine million Instagram followers that she felt “fillers are kind of over now”, and explained she had moved onto polynucleotides, which are “kinda like deep vitamins”.

    Kim and Khloe Kardashian are also reportedly avid fans. And when asked about her skincare routine on a recent episode of Jimmy Kimmel Live, Jennifer Aniston responded: “Don’t I have beautiful salmon skin?”

    EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock A close up shot of Pop star Charli XCX looks smouldering and pouts. She has brown eye shadow and clear skin on a red carpet.EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock

    Charli XCX says she uses polynucleotides which are “kinda like” injectable vitamins for the skin

    So, despite their fishy beginnings, are polynucleotides transforming skincare?

    “We are having a Benjamin Button moment,” Suzanne Mansfield, who works for aesthetics company Dermafocus, tells me.

    That’s a reference to the 2008 film The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, where Brad Pitt plays a man who ages backwards. By the time he’s in his later years, he has the skin of a baby’s bottom.

    While such an effect is highly unlikely and would probably be a tad disconcerting, Ms Mansfield says polynucleotides are forging the way when it comes to regenerative skincare.

    A small but growing body of research and clinical trials suggest that injecting polynucleotides can rejuvenate skin, not only making it healthier but potentially reducing fine lines, wrinkles and scars.

    Graphic explaining how fish DNA is extracted and how it potentially reacts in the skin

    “All we are doing, by using it in the aesthetics industry,” she says, “is enhancing something the body already does. That’s why these are so special.”

    But they also come with a pretty hefty price tag.

    A single session of polynucleotide injections can cost anywhere from £200 to £500 – and it’s recommended you have three of these over several weeks.

    After that clinics tend to advise you need to top up every six to nine months to maintain the look.

    Back at the clinic, Abby’s treatment is almost finished.

    “Just one area left,” Helena Dunk, the aesthetic nurse practitioner who owns the clinic, Skin HD, reassures her.

    She says polynucleotides have massively increased in popularity over the past 18 months.

    “Half my clients really notice a huge difference – their skin feels more hydrated, healthier, younger – while the other half don’t see such a big change. But their skin does tend to feel tighter and fresher.”

    Abby has already had the area under her eyes injected as part of a three-course treatment at the clinic – and she’s really pleased with the results.

    She received lots of tiny injections of polynucleotides, which was a “pretty painful procedure”, but says it’s helped reduce the dark circles under her eyes.

    Charlotte Bickley Charlotte Bickley is wearing a white vest. She has long light brown hair and she has dark circles just above her cheek bones under her eyes Charlotte Bickley

    Charlotte says she has been left with black rings under her eyes after being injected with polynucleotides before her wedding

    While a growing number of studies consider it a safe and effective treatment, it is still relatively new and some experts warn the hype may be outpacing the science.

    Consultant dermatologist Dr John Pagliaro, based in Brisbane, Australia, says that while we know that nucleotides play an important role in our bodies – they are the building blocks of our DNA for a start – he questions whether “injecting salmon DNA, cut into little pieces” into our faces is going to work as well as our own nucleotides.

    “We do not have good, strong data,” he says. “As a medical specialist, I would want to see at least a few more years of big, credible studies showing safety and efficacy before I started using them in my practice. We’re just not there yet.”

    Charlotte Bickley describes her foray into the world of polynucleotides as “salmon-gate”.

    The 31-year-old from New York had the treatment last year as part of her “wedding glow up”, shortly before she was due to get married.

    But Charlotte ended up with a skin infection, inflammation and darker rings under her eyes than before she had the treatment.

    “I got the complete opposite of what I wanted,” she says. “I trusted that doctor, but he’s left me scarred.”

    Charlotte believes she was injected too deeply under her eyes, causing a negative reaction. There can be side effects – such as redness, swelling and bruising but these tend to be temporary.

    In some cases, people can have an allergic reaction, or, if polynucleotides are not injected properly, there are longer term risks, such as skin pigmentation and infections.

    Polynucleotides are widely used across the UK. They are registered as medical devices with the Medicines Health and Regulatory Authority (MHRA) but they are not regulated like medicines.

    They have not been approved by the UK’s equivalent in the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

    “I just keep thinking, ‘Why did I go through with it?’” Charlotte says. “When something goes wrong on my face I hyperfixate on it.”

    She’s paid thousands in medical bills to try to rectify the situation, but 10 months on, there’s still some scarring below her eyes.

    “I would never have salmon DNA injected into my face again,” Charlotte says, “ever.”

    Ashton Collins, director of Save Face, an organisation which campaigns for better regulation of the cosmetic industry and who runs a government-approved register of clinics in the UK, says polynucleotides are generally considered a safe treatment when administered by a medically-trained professional and the brand of polynucleotides used is from a reputable company.

    “But, we are now seeing products coming onto the market that haven’t been tested properly, that’s the worry,” she says.

    Dr Sophie Shotter, president of the British College of Aesthetic Medicine, agrees.

    “Due to the lack of regulation, anyone can use products that have not been robustly tested. It is a real issue.”

    In her opinion, are polynucleotides effective though?

    “I have them on my shelf, in my toolbox. I definitely offer them to clients, who want a natural look and want to potentially invest long-term,” Dr Shotter says.

    “Polynucleotides as a treatment is not the panacea. There are plenty of other treatments out there that can do similar, and have more data behind them.”

    There is no one treatment that will work for everyone, she adds.

    “We all respond differently to different things, and that is not always predictable.”

    Continue Reading

  • When loss strikes twice: Health shocks and household financial distress

    Financial distress affects roughly one in five adults in OECD countries (OECD 2024). It constrains access to credit, impairs labour market outcomes, and makes the economy less resilient to macroeconomic shocks (Dobbie et al. 2020, Bos et al. 2018, Maturana and Nickerson 2020, Kaur et al. 2025, Mustre-del-Río et al. 2025).

    While prior studies have examined the role of individual characteristics and abilities in shaping financial distress (Parise and Peijnenburg 2019, Keys et al. 2023), less is known about how health shocks – especially fatal ones – trigger financial instability.

    To address this gap, we examine the financial consequences of a spouse’s illness or death, using data from Sweden (Majlesi et al. 2025). We use population-wide administrative data, linking detailed health and mortality records with information on all unpaid financial claims handled by the Swedish Enforcement Authority. This captures both households with and without access to formal credit markets. Because Sweden’s universal healthcare limits out-of-pocket medical costs and strategic default is rare, these records provide an unusually precise measure of genuine financial distress.

    When tragedy triggers financial strain

    We compare households that experience a severe health shock to otherwise similar households that experience the same event a few years later. This quasi-experimental design isolates the causal effect of the health shock on financial well-being.

    The results are striking. The death of a spouse raises the likelihood of default on financial claims by about 20%, with effects persisting for several years (Figure 1). Spouses exposed to a fatal health shock are nearly 1 percentage point more likely to receive a debt claim within four years – a 56% increase from baseline – showing that more individuals continue to fall into financial distress over time.

    Defaults are not driven by forgetfulness or grief: small debts are repaid promptly, while large debts (over roughly $1,000) often enter debt collection. These findings point to liquidity constraints rather than inattention as the key mechanism.

    Even among financially stable households with no prior defaults, the incidence of unpaid bills rises sharply after a spouse’s death. The shock effectively pushes many previously solvent households into financial trouble.

    Figure 1 Dynamic effects of a fatal health shock on the probability of receiving a claim from the Swedish Enforcement Authority

    Note: This figure shows the estimated effect of a fatal health shock on the probability of receiving a claim from the Swedish Enforcement Authority. Estimates are obtained using the difference-in-differences method of Callaway and Sant’Anna (2021). The figure reports coefficient estimates with 95% confidence intervals, along with the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) and the effect in percentage terms relative to the mean one year before the event. Standard errors are clustered at the household level.

    Housing wealth as self-insurance

    Income losses following a spouse’s death are substantial: households’ disposable income falls by about 50%.  But the ability to draw on housing wealth determines who can cope. Homeowners generally avoid defaults by liquidating their homes, whereas renters face a higher risk of entering debt collection (Figure 2).

    Figure 2 Dynamic effect of a fatal health shock on the probability of entering collection for a large debt

    Note: This figure displays the dynamic treatment effects of a fatal health shock on the likelihood of facing collection for a large debt, estimated separately for renters and homeowners. Estimates are obtained using the difference-in-differences method of Callaway and Sant’Anna (2021). The figure reports coefficient estimates with 95% confidence intervals, along with the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) and the effect in percentage terms relative to the mean one year before the event. Standard errors are clustered at the household level.

    Although the loss of a spouse can also take a toll on mental health, this does not explain the financial divide. Both homeowners and renters experience similar increases in prescriptions for antidepressants and diagnoses of mental disorders after the event. These differences are not observed when comparing households with different incomes, suggesting that wealth, rather than income alone, provides a financial buffer.

    Intergenerational echoes

    The financial repercussions extend beyond the immediate household. Adult children of survivors also experience higher financial stress, particularly when the surviving parent suffered a large income loss and lacked home equity (Figure 3). For this group, the probability of entering debt collection rises by about 10%, and reliance on social benefits increases markedly. All children reduce labour earnings following these shocks, but those with vulnerable parents are less able to cope.

    These intergenerational effects suggest that when parents cannot self-insure, financial distress cascades down family lines, either because children step in to support parents or because parental assistance dries up.

    Figure 3 The effect of a fatal health shock on adult children, by income loss and homeownership status of the surviving spouse

    Note: This figure presents estimates of the effect of a fatal health shock on adult children, by the homeownership status and income loss of the surviving parent. Panels A–D correspond to children of renters or homeowners, further distinguished by whether the deceased parent was the primary earner (smaller income loss) or the secondary earner (larger income loss). Effects on debt collection, social benefits, and labour income are estimated with 95% confidence intervals using the Callaway–Sant’Anna (2021) difference-in-differences method, controlling for 10-year age bins of the children. The reported coefficients are expressed as percentage impacts relative to the mean outcome one year prior to the event. Standard errors are clustered at the parent level.

    Beyond death: Non-fatal health shocks

    Severe but non-fatal health shocks, such as heart attacks, strokes, or injuries, also raise the risk of default, though by a smaller margin (around 9%). The mechanism differs: income losses are smaller and more temporary, and both homeowners and renters face increased risk of debt collection, unlike after fatal shocks where housing wealth provides protection.

    These findings are consistent with the idea that housing is a ‘consumption commitment’, which is costly to adjust when shocks are temporary (Chetty and Szeidl 2007).

    Policy implications

    Our findings have two key implications.

    • Housing equity acts as self-insurance, mainly for permanent shocks. Households use housing wealth to cushion permanent income losses, such as after a spouse’s death, but home equity is less protective for temporary shocks, consistent with housing as a consumption commitment. For homeowners, formal insurance is therefore more welfare-improving for short-term risks, when selling a home is too costly.
    • Survivor benefits should target the asset-poor. Increasing survivor pensions for renters could prevent long-term and intergenerational hardship by helping them better withstand permanent income losses.

    Concluding thoughts

    Health shocks expose the limits of even generous welfare systems. When one partner dies or falls ill, many families ‘lose twice’ – first emotionally, then financially. Our results underscore the need to evaluate household insurance in terms of both income and wealth access.

    As ageing populations strain public insurance systems, understanding how families self-insure – through housing, savings, and intergenerational transfers – will be central to strengthening financial resilience to life’s most severe shocks.

    References

    Bos, M, E Breza, and A Liberman (2018), “The labor market effects of credit market information”, The Review of Financial Studies 31(6): 2005–37.

    Callaway, B, and P H Sant’Anna (2021), “Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods”, Journal of Econometrics 225(2): 200–230.

    Chetty, R, and A Szeidl (2007), “Consumption commitments and risk preferences”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 122(2): 831–77.

    Dobbie, W, P Goldsmith-Pinkham, N Mahoney, and J Song (2020), “Bad credit, no problem? Credit and labor market consequences of bad credit reports”, The Journal of Finance 75(5): 2377–419.

    Kaur, S, S Mullainathan, S Oh, and F Schilbach (2025), “Do financial concerns make workers less productive?”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 140(1): 635–89.

    Majlesi, K, E Molin, and P Roth (2025), “Severe health shocks and financial well-being”.

    Keys, B J, N Mahoney, and H Yang (2023), “What determines consumer financial distress? Place-and person-based factors”, The Review of Financial Studies 36(1): 42–69.

    Maturana, G, and J Nickerson (2020), “Real effects of workers’ financial distress: Evidence from teacher spillovers”, Journal of Financial Economics 136: 137–51.

    Mustre-del-Río, J, J M Sánchez, R Mather, and K Athreya (2025), “The effects of macroeconomic shocks: Household financial distress matters”, The Review of Financial Studies 38(2): 564–604.

    OECD (2024), How’s life? 2024: Well-being and resilience in times of crisis, OECD Publishing.

    Parise, G, and K Peijnenburg (2019), “Noncognitive abilities and financial distress: Evidence from a representative household panel”, The Review of Financial Studies 32(10): 3884–919.

    Continue Reading

  • Japan’s Takaichi Faces Market Tests From Yen to Stocks and Bonds – Bloomberg.com

    1. Japan’s Takaichi Faces Market Tests From Yen to Stocks and Bonds  Bloomberg.com
    2. Japan’s cabinet approves lavish stimulus as markets fret over Takaichi’s fiscal policy  Reuters
    3. Takaichi’s Growth Gamble: The 30-Year JGB Is Flashing a Warning  The Diplomat – Asia-Pacific Current Affairs Magazine
    4. From ‘Widow-Maker’ to market shaker: Why Japan’s bonds are sending shockwaves globally  Times of India
    5. FX Daily Snapshot  MUFG Research

    Continue Reading

  • Genetic Study Establishes Causal Link Between RA and Interstitial Lung Disease Risk

    Genetic Study Establishes Causal Link Between RA and Interstitial Lung Disease Risk

    A new Mendelian randomization (MR) study published in Respirology provides new evidence supporting a causal relationship between rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the development of interstitial lung disease (ILD).1

    Researchers analyzed genetic data from more than 57,000 individuals with RA to determine if it directly contributes to the development of ILD. The analysis drew on large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS), with data from 14,361 RA cases and 42,923 controls of European ancestry, and then examined their relationship with 1969 ILD cases and 196,986 controls from the FinnGen consortium. The authors note that excluding RA-related diagnostic codes from the FinnGen ILD phenotype further reinforces the analysis’s validity by preventing overlap between the exposure and outcome.

    Using 52 independent single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with RA as instrumental variables, the study found that genetic predisposition to RA increased ILD risk by 15.5% (OR, 1.155; 95% CI, 1.083-1.232; P = 1.04 × 10⁻⁵). The MR approach relies on these genetic variants to serve as instrumental variables to estimate causality, contingent on meeting 3 core criteria: a strong association with the exposure, independence from confounders, and an effect on the outcome solely through the exposure itself. Because these variants are fixed at conception, MR helps reduce bias from factors such as smoking history, age, disease severity, and treatment patterns, key limitations of traditional observational studies.

    Sensitivity analyses consistently reinforced the direction and magnitude of the causal association between RA and ILD. The weighted median and simple mode approaches yielded ORs of 1.098 and 1.196, respectively, which align with the primary estimate, whereas MR-Egger regression yielded a more conservative OR of 1.074 and showed no evidence of directional pleiotropy (P = .147). Additional tests, including Cochran’s Q statistic (IVW Q = 45.424; P = .694), which indicated no significant heterogeneity, and MR-PRESSO (P = .26), which detected no horizontal pleiotropy or outlier variants, further supported the validity of the findings. Leave-one-out analyses demonstrated that no single genetic instrument disproportionately influenced the overall estimate, and symmetrical funnel plot patterns confirmed the absence of influential bias. “Collectively, these sensitivity analyses provide convergent evidence that the observed causal relationship between RA and ILD is unlikely to be explained by horizontal pleiotropy, outliers or outlier effects, or single-­SNP influence,” the authors explain.

    The investigators note that RA and ILD share several immunopathogenic mechanisms that may explain this causal association. Persistent systemic inflammation, the generation of autoantibodies such as rheumatoid factor and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies, and common HLA genetic susceptibility factors all contribute to both joint and lung manifestations of the disease. Previous research has documented the presence of citrullinated proteins and ectopic lymphoid structures in lung tissue from patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease, supporting the hypothesis that pulmonary tissue may serve as an initial site of immune activation in the disease process.2 The MR findings are consistent with this emerging model and support the interpretation that ILD may represent an organ-specific extension of the systemic autoimmune process underlying RA.

    “Our approach improves upon earlier work by using updated summary statistics, stringent pleiotropy control (such as MR-PRESSO), and exclusion of overlapping autoimmune phenotypes from the ILD outcome dataset. We also utilized the Finn-b-ILD phenotype, which is broader than IPF-focused datasets and may better represent the clinical spectrum of ILD in RA,” the authors note. However, limitations include the predominantly European ancestry of study populations, potential heterogeneity within the ILD phenotype, and the inability to conduct reverse MR analysis due to insufficient genome-wide significant variants for ILD.

    “Our findings provide robust genetic evidence supporting a causal effect of RA on the development of ILD,” the researchers concluded. Clinically, the results reinforce the need for earlier respiratory evaluation in patients with RA, particularly those with longstanding, seropositive disease or other known risk factors for ILD. Although the study did not stratify risk across patient subgroups, the authors suggest that integrated genetic, serologic, and clinical risk stratification tools could enhance risk prediction and may help identify patients who warrant closer pulmonary monitoring before irreversible fibrotic damage occurs.

    References

    1. Zhang M, Chen X, Zhang W, Yang G, Yin Y, Qu Y. Mendelian randomization analysis of the causal link between rheumatoid arthritis and interstitial lung disease. Respirology. Published online October 31, 2025. doi:10.1002/resp.70156
    2. Bernstein EJ, Barr RG, Austin JHM, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis-associated autoantibodies and subclinical interstitial lung disease: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Thorax. 2016;71(12):1082-1090. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208932

    Continue Reading

  • BOJ close to raising rates, board member Masu says -Nikkei – Reuters

    1. BOJ close to raising rates, board member Masu says -Nikkei  Reuters
    2. BoJ’s Ueda says weak Japanese Yen pushes up import prices, factor in higher CPI  FXStreet
    3. BOJ ‘close’ to decision to raise rates: policy board member  Nikkei Asia
    4. Bank of Japan drops fresh hints of near-term rate hike as yen slides  MSN
    5. BOJ chief to meet finance, economy ministers as monetary policy, weak yen in focus  WTVB

    Continue Reading