Category: 8. Health

The University of Surrey has been awarded £250,000 to combat an aggressive form of childhood cancer.

The grant will fund research into paediatric acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), which the institution said has “tragically low survival rates”.

Researchers will be looking into therapeutic interventions for children diagnosed with the disease as the current treatments “still lead to unacceptable long-term side effects and early mortality,” said Dr Lisie Meira.

The lecturer in DNA damage and ageing at the University of Surrey added: “We need to find safer, more effective alternatives.”

Dr Meira said researchers are working to understand how inhibiting the SET gene can stop the growth of leukemic cells and test new, non-immunosuppressive drugs.

“We’ve already made promising discoveries,” added Dr Maria Teresa Esposito, senior lecturer in biochemistry, who is spearheading the project along with Dr Meira.

Some forms of AML present an “especially grim prognosis”, with only 20 to 50% of infants and children surviving five years after diagnosis, according to the University of Surrey.

Though initial responses to chemo can be positive, relapse rates are “alarmingly high” at 47 to 100%, it added.

The grant is a joint initiative by the CCLG: The Children and Young People’s Cancer Association and the Little Princess Trust.

Atlanta (Vax-Before-Travel News)

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently endorsed vaccine recommendations against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), meningococcal, and chikungunya diseases.

Published on the CDC’s website on June 25, 2025, these recommendations were adopted by the U.S. HHS Secretary.

As the conclusion of last month’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting, the members issued the following statement, which is inserted below:

‘Honesty, transparency, and compassion with regard to public health. These are the three pillars that we, the new ACIP members, are guided by. Our central duty is to protect public health, and we understand that we must answer the call for reestablishing confidence in the scientific examination process. This committee strongly supports the use of vaccines and other countermeasures, predicated on evidence-based medicine, including rigorous evaluation and expansive, credible scientific data, for both safety and efficacy.

All stakeholders, including healthcare providers, parents, children, schools, nursing homes, insurance providers, public health agencies, manufacturers, and the rare few who may be harmed by recommended interventions, need to have understandable, digestible, scientifically correct information. This group is committed to providing that information, and in order to do so, we must have data representing large populations. Data collection is a central question that may require constructing a broad risk-benefit analysis. The committee will endeavor to assess the status of programs that are intended to collect data from large populations that have, or have not, received vaccines. These data are needed in order to assess both adverse short- and long-term side effects and to evaluate the magnitude of side effects.

We came to this meeting with no predetermined ideas and will make judgements as if we are treating our own families. Unbiased scientific thinking is fundamental to the committee’s charge. Our votes are recommendations, but we know that some may perceive them as mandates, so we take this responsibility very seriously. We pledge not to hold a vote if there is not sufficient information to enable evaluation of the risks and benefits.

This committee is not in competition with other committees, organizations, or each other – we are all in competition with the infectious diseases, and we will work together to ensure the best outcomes for public health.’

Women who see themselves as having lower social status are more likely than other people to show early signs of heart stress linked to future disease risk, according to a new study led by researchers at McGill and Concordia universities.

One in three women in North America die from heart disease. Yet, women are less likely to receive important cardiac interventions or therapies than men. This highlights the need to rethink how we assess cardiovascular risk in women.”

Dr. Judy Luu, Co-Lead Author, Assistant Professor in McGill’s Department of Medicine and a clinician-scientist at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre

Subjective social status – how people feel they rank compared to others in terms of their social standing – has previously been linked to physical and mental health, with lower social status associated with poorer health. The findings of this study are among the first to show measurable, sex-specific effects in the heart.

More than 400 adults between the ages of 35 and 83, all without diagnosed heart disease, took part in the study. Each completed a questionnaire ranking their social standing on a 10-rung ladder. Cardiac MRI scans then measured early signs of stress in the heart’s tissue.

Women who ranked their social status lower showed more signs of potential inflammation and early scarring in the heart, even when their income and education matched those who ranked their status higher. Men who ranked their social status lower than others with the same income and education did not show these warning signs.

Why might women be more affected?

There are two theories that may explain the findings, said co-lead author Jean-Philippe Gouin, Full Professor of Psychology at Concordia.

“First, subjective social status may better reflect women’s real-life experiences than objective data on their socioeconomic status,” he said. “For example, even with the same education as men, women often earn less or face additional social pressures. So, their self-perception may capture those realities more accurately.”

The second theory is about psychological impact, he said. Women may feel fewer opportunities for upward mobility, which can lead to more stress.

The researchers note that stress is one of the top five risk factors for heart disease in women under 65. Experiences such as trauma, discrimination, and caregiving demands may contribute to the subtle changes in heart tissue observed in this study – suggesting early signs of inflammation, even before disease is diagnosed.

The researchers plan to follow a larger group of participants over time to see whether these early markers predict heart disease.

“We hope our work helps shift the paradigm in cardiac care,” said Luu. “We want to make it normal to discuss mental wellness, social circumstances and stress in routine medical practice.”

A cancer immunotherapy drug that is already on pharmacy shelves is showing fresh potential in the fight against Parkinson’s disease.

In mouse experiments, nivolumab–relatlimab, a fixed‑dose antibody combination used for treating melanoma, blocked the cell‑to‑cell spread of toxic protein clumps that drive the disorder.

More than 8.5 million people worldwide are living with Parkinson’s disease. Current drugs ease symptoms but do little to halt the relentless loss of movement, speech, and independence.

Xiaobo Mao of Johns Hopkins University led an international team that traced the blockade to a newly revealed partnership between two brain proteins, Aplp1 and LAG‑3. Their study offers a practical target for slowing disease progression.

How cancer drug blocks Parkinson’s

Alpha‑synuclein normally helps nerve cells chat across synapses, yet when it misfolds it becomes sticky and forms Lewy bodies.

The group discovered that Aplp1 and LAG‑3 act like twin door handles, swinging the misfolded cargo into neurons together.

“Now that we know how Aplp1 and LAG-3 interact, we have a new way of understanding how alpha‑synuclein contributes to the disease progression of Parkinson’s disease,” confirmed Mao.

Deleting either handle in genetically engineered mice cut protein uptake, but deleting both slashed it by 90 percent.

Using cultured neurons, the team showed that antibodies against LAG‑3 disrupted the partnership and kept most toxic fibrils outside. That hint of druggability set the stage for tests with the approved melanoma therapy.

Repurposing a cancer drug for Parkinson’s

Nivolumab–relatlimab, marketed as Opdualag^TM, won FDA clearance in 2022 as the first combination to target PD‑1 and LAG‑3 checkpoints in tumors.

Because relatlimab binds LAG‑3, the Parkinson’s team wondered whether it could also short‑circuit the neural handshake.

They injected the antibody mix into mice previously dosed with pathogenic fibrils. Treated animals accumulated far fewer Lewy‑like inclusions, keeping the midbrain’s dopamine supply and motor skills intact.

“The anti‑LAG-3 antibody was successful in preventing further spread of alpha‑synuclein seeds in the mouse models,” said Ted Dawson, also from Johns Hopkins.

The effect outperformed complete genetic knockout of LAG‑3 because the drug simultaneously disrupted its partner, Aplp1.

A protein traffic jam in the brain

The brain’s substantia nigra houses dopamine‑producing neurons that fine‑tune movement. When alpha‑synuclein fibrils march from cell to cell, these neurons choke and die, triggering tremor and rigidity.

LAG-3 had been flagged as a fibril receptor before, yet blocking it alone left plenty of pathology. The new work clarifies that Aplp1 forms a complex with LAG-3, which creates a high‑affinity docking site for toxic cargo.

By filming neurons with pH‑sensitive dye, researchers watched fibrils enter healthy cells in minutes. Removal of either handle delayed entry, while removal of both stopped it almost completely.

The discovery may explain why single‑target strategies have struggled to translate. Therapies that ignore Aplp1 risk leaving a back‑door route open for disease spread.

Why Parkinson’s is so difficult

Parkinson’s is diagnosed only after motor symptoms emerge, by which time over half of nigral dopamine neurons have perished. Lewy bodies start forming decades earlier and appear to propagate along neural highways.

Scientists debate whether the fibrils cause disease or merely mark dying cells, yet the correlation is strong enough that reducing their spread remains a key goal.

Animal studies that limit fibril movement often preserve motor behavior and cortical thinking.

The Aplp1–Lag3 duo offers a concise molecular explanation for long‑range propagation. It also supplies a measurable biomarker, their physical interaction, that drug developers can monitor.

Antibodies in action

Preclinical success seldom guarantees human benefit, yet repurposing an approved therapy skips many safety hurdles.

Opdualag’s^TM pharmacokinetics, dosing, and adverse‑event profile are already mapped in thousands of cancer patients.

The antibody crosses the mouse blood–brain barrier at roughly 0.5 percent of plasma levels, similar to other IgG medicines. That level sufficed to curb fibril uptake and protect motor performance in pole and cylinder tests.

If forthcoming primate and human studies confirm brain penetration, clinicians could move swiftly into small Parkinson’s trials using this cancer treatment drug. Outcome measures might track motor scores, cerebrospinal fibril counts, and imaging of nigral dopamine.

Parkinson’s gets help from cancer drug

Cancer checkpoint drugs can unleash immune‑related side effects, including rash, thyroid imbalance, and fatigue. Whether similar events would occur at lower neurological doses remains unknown.

Another question is timing. Most cancer antibodies are delivered in pulses, whereas chronic neuroprotection for Parkinson’s patients might require years of therapy.

Finally, fibril spread is only one facet of Parkinson’s biology. Mitochondrial stress, environmental toxins, and genetics also contribute, so a combination of treatments will likely be needed.

Even so, the ease of testing an off‑the‑shelf cancer medicine for Parkinson’s patients makes this avenue irresistible. As Dawson observed, stopping spread “could significantly slow the progression of Parkinson’s disease.”

The study is published in Nature Communications.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–

A new study by investigators from Europe, including the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (UK), has shed light on significant ethical, administrative, regulatory, and logistical (EARL) hurdles in delivering multinational randomized clinical trials. The research was the first to comprehensively quantify these barriers for an international platform trial and emphasizes the need for urgent improvements, particularly in preparing for future public health crises.

Randomized controlled trials provide the highest level of evidence to inform medical practice. Yet, delivering such trials presents significant operational challenges and is becoming increasingly difficult. One of the many challenges of conducting high-quality, large-scale clinical research is ensuring compliance with all necessary ethical, administrative, regulatory, and logistical (EARL) requirements. In the event of severe infectious disease outbreaks requiring rapid action, EARL requirements and cross-country coordination make it challenging to implement clinical studies. The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that there is wide variation in how countries approached clinical research in a public health emergency. However, the differences in timelines between countries have not been comprehensively quantified.

Comparing timelines

In this study, researchers quantified the timelines for EARL procedures, comparing different European countries. They used data from the Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP), which spanned both the pre-pandemic (2016-2020) and pandemic (2020-2023) periods. REMAP-CAP, an international clinical trial with an innovative adaptive platform design, was designed to test multiple drugs for the treatment of pneumonia, including COVID-19, which allowed for the comparison of a large number of submissions. The new analysis, published this week in JAMA Network Open, covered 257 fully signed contracts with study sites in 19 European countries and focused on three key metrics: time to complete site contracts, time to regulatory and ethical approval (TTA), and time to first patient enrollment (FPI).

Differences between countries

The results showed that the UK achieved dramatic gains in efficiency during the pandemic, with median contract completion time dropping by 97 percent: from 196 days pre-pandemic to just 5 days during the pandemic. In contrast, non-UK countries in Europe saw only an 18 percent decrease, with median times dropping from 224 to 183 days. The study also revealed stark differences in the time to ethical and regulatory approvals. Median TTA in the UK during the pandemic was 8 days, compared to 115 days in non-UK countries. Time from approval to first patient enrollment was, on average, three months faster in the UK (26 days versus 116 days).

These findings highlight the striking differences in research infrastructure and interpretation of regulatory guidelines across Europe. For researchers, it is clear that EARL processes in Europe can be a major bottleneck to trial initiation and execution, slowing down patient access to potentially life-saving therapies. But addressing these challenges requires proactive efforts, also from researchers themselves.”

Denise van Hout, MD, PhD (Research Program Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases, UMC Utrecht), epidemiologist, first author of the manuscript

Consistent, transparent processes

The researchers also noted that while the UK benefited from its established research networks and emergency trial frameworks, other countries continued to face considerable challenges. These differences underscore the need for harmonization of EARL procedures across countries to reduce delays and maximize the impact of collaborative trials.

“For researchers planning or conducting multinational studies, it is vital to acknowledge how preparation and engagement with ethical processes can contribute early on.” Van Hout emphasized. “Researchers, policymakers, legal experts, and regulators must collaborate to develop consistent, transparent processes that prioritize trial delivery without compromising safety and ethics. This also includes more efficient contracting. Greater collaboration and streamlining EARL procedures are essential to ensure that patients across Europe can benefit from innovative research, especially during future pandemics.”

Mayo Clinic researchers have developed a new artificial intelligence (AI) tool that helps clinicians identify brain activity patterns linked to nine types of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, using a single, widely available scan – a transformative advance in early, accurate diagnosis. 

The tool, StateViewer, helped researchers identify the dementia type in 88% of cases, according to research published online on June 27, 2025, in Neurology, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology. It also enabled clinicians to interpret brain scans nearly twice as fast and with up to three times greater accuracy than standard workflows. Researchers trained and tested the AI on more than 3,600 scans, including images from patients with dementia and people without cognitive impairment. 

This innovation addresses a core challenge in dementia care: identifying the disease early and precisely, even when multiple conditions are present. As new treatments emerge, timely diagnosis helps match patients with the most appropriate care when it can have the greatest impact. The tool could bring advanced diagnostic support to clinics that lack neurology expertise. 

The rising toll of dementia 

Dementia affects more than 55 million people worldwide, with nearly 10 million new cases each year. Alzheimer’s disease, the most common form, is now the fifth-leading cause of death globally. Diagnosing dementia typically requires cognitive tests, blood draws, imaging, clinical interviews and specialist referrals. Even with extensive testing, distinguishing conditions such as Alzheimer’s, Lewy body dementia and frontotemporal dementia remains challenging, including for highly experienced specialists. 

StateViewer was developed under the direction of David Jones, M.D., a Mayo Clinic neurologist and director of the Mayo Clinic Neurology Artificial Intelligence Program. 

Every patient who walks into my clinic carries a unique story shaped by the brain’s complexity. That complexity drew me to neurology and continues to drive my commitment to clearer answers. StateViewer reflects that commitment – a step toward earlier understanding, more precise treatment and, one day, changing the course of these diseases.” 

Dr. David Jones, M.D., Mayo Clinic neurologist

To bring that vision to life, Dr. Jones worked alongside Leland Barnard, Ph.D., a data scientist who leads the AI engineering behind StateViewer. 

“As we were designing StateViewer, we never lost sight of the fact that behind every data point and brain scan was a person facing a difficult diagnosis and urgent questions,” Dr. Barnard says. “Seeing how this tool could assist physicians with real-time, precise insights and guidance highlights the potential of machine learning for clinical medicine.” 

Turning brain patterns into clinical insight 

The tool analyzes a fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan, which shows how the brain uses glucose for energy. It then compares the scan to a large database of scans from people with confirmed dementia diagnoses and identifies patterns that match specific types, or combinations, of dementia. 

Alzheimer’s typically affects memory and processing regions, Lewy body dementia involves areas tied to attention and movement, and frontotemporal dementia alters regions responsible for language and behavior. StateViewer displays these patterns through color-coded brain maps that highlight key areas of brain activity, giving all clinicians, even those without neurology training, a visual explanation of what the AI sees and how it supports the diagnosis. 

Mayo Clinic researchers plan to expand the tool’s use and will continue evaluating its performance in a variety of clinical settings. 

Journal: JSES Reviews, Reports & Techniques

Title: Mechanisms and Trends of Pediatric Clavicular Fractures in the United States: A 10-Year Epidemiologic Analysis of National Injury Data

Authors: Charu Jain, MD candidate at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Sheena Ranade, MD, Associate Professor of Orthopedics (Pediatric Orthopedic Surgery) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Bottom line: Clavicular fractures are common injuries among children, usually due to sports-related trauma or accidental falls. The purpose of this study was to assess the epidemiology of clavicular fractures among children in the United States between 2014 and 2023.

Why this study is unique: This study is the first of its kind to analyze 10 years of national emergency department data on pediatric clavicle fractures in the United States.

Why the study is important: Understanding how and where children sustain clavicular fractures helps guide injury prevention, especially in sports and at home. The rise in hospital admissions over the course of this study underscores a need to examine why these injuries may be getting more severe.

How the research was conducted: Data were extracted from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), a publicly available database representing approximately 100 emergency departments in the United States. NEISS was queried for all shoulder fractures in patients 0-18 years old. These fractures were then filtered for clavicle fractures. Queries were restricted to fractures from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2023.

Results: The findings show that while overall rates for pediatric clavicular fractures remained stable over the course of the study, there was a statistically significant increase in hospital admissions due to those injuries during that same period. This suggests an increase in severity of those injuries necessitating admission.

What this study means for doctors: The data suggest that pediatric clavicular fractures may be becoming more severe, which calls for better injury prevention and management strategies for doctors, parents, and patients. For physicians, this requires careful assessment and more intensive treatment or monitoring as needed. This study provides valuable insight into where pediatric clavicle fractures are treated—whether in emergency departments, outpatient clinics, or primary care—which can help guide resource allocation for health systems and improve care pathways for patients. Since many clavicle fractures in children heal well without surgery, understanding treatment settings can support better patient management, reduce unnecessary ED visits, and optimize follow-up care.

What this study means for patients: For patients and their parents, the findings emphasize that while many clavicular fractures may heal, some may require closer care or even hospitalization. The findings also emphasize the need for rigorous safety protocols during play and sports to reduce injury risk.

What the next steps are for this work: Next steps include using this data to investigate whether clavicular fracture cases presenting to the ED are more severe or more likely to require surgery compared to those seen in outpatient settings. We also aim to identify how many cases go untreated and explore whether specific injury patterns or treatment settings correlate with better long-term outcomes. This will help refine clinical decision-making and improve care strategies for pediatric clavicular fractures.

Quotes:

“Our review of recent national data on pediatric clavicle fractures demonstrates that among younger children, there has been an increase in bed-related falls causing clavicular fractures,” says Dr. Ranade. “Just as there has been a strong emphasis on safe sleep for infants, this study shows that attention should be placed in safe sleeping environments for toddler aged children to prevent falls out of bed.”

“Understanding common mechanisms like sports injuries and falls from beds can help guide targeted prevention strategies and parent education,” says Ms. Jain. “I would like to thank the Mount Sinai Department of Orthopedics for their support, our co-authors for their contributions, and Dr. Ranade for her guidance and mentorship throughout this project.”

About the Mount Sinai Health System

Mount Sinai Health System is one of the largest academic medical systems in the New York metro area, with 48,000 employees working across seven hospitals, more than 400 outpatient practices, more than 600 research and clinical labs, a school of nursing, and a leading school of medicine and graduate education. Mount Sinai advances health for all people, everywhere, by taking on the most complex health care challenges of our time—discovering and applying new scientific learning and knowledge; developing safer, more effective treatments; educating the next generation of medical leaders and innovators; and supporting local communities by delivering high-quality care to all who need it.

Through the integration of its hospitals, labs, and schools, Mount Sinai offers comprehensive health care solutions from birth through geriatrics, leveraging innovative approaches such as artificial intelligence and informatics while keeping patients’ medical and emotional needs at the center of all treatment. The Health System includes approximately 9,000 primary and specialty care physicians and 11 free-standing joint-venture centers throughout the five boroughs of New York City, Westchester, Long Island, and Florida. Hospitals within the System are consistently ranked by Newsweek’s® “The World’s Best Smart Hospitals, Best in State Hospitals, World Best Hospitals and Best Specialty Hospitals” and by U.S. News & World Report‘s® “Best Hospitals” and “Best Children’s Hospitals.” The Mount Sinai Hospital is on the U.S. News & World Report® “Best Hospitals” Honor Roll for 2024-2025.

For more information, visit https://www.mountsinai.org or find Mount Sinai on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, X, and YouTube.

#####

A study led by Cedars-Sinai investigators uncovered a significant uptick in chronic digestive disorders, like irritable bowel syndrome, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal Neurogastroenterology & Motility, highlight a potential link between pandemic-related stress on the gut-brain axis.

Using data from a national online study, we found that rates of digestive issues such as irritable bowel syndrome and chronic idiopathic constipation rose significantly. These findings underscore the significant toll the pandemic has taken on digestive health.”

Christopher V. Almario, MD, MSHPM, lead author and gastroenterologist at Cedars-Sinai

Also known as disorders of gut-brain interaction, conditions like irritable bowel syndrome and chronic idiopathic constipation are common gastrointestinal disorders driven by complex interactions between the gut and nervous system.

Nearly 40% of people in the U.S. are estimated to meet diagnostic criteria for at least one disorders of gut-brain interaction, making these conditions a major source of healthcare burden and reduced quality of life.

“These disorders involve chronic gastrointestinal symptoms that are often triggered or worsened by psychological stress,” said Almario.

To better understand how the viral infection might be linked with digestive health, researchers analyzed data from over 160,000 adults across the U.S. who participated in a national online survey conducted from May 2020 to May 2022.

Participants completed detailed questionnaires covering digestive symptoms, mental health and lifestyle changes. By tracking responses over time, the researchers observed a steady rise in gut-related health issues that began early in the pandemic and persisted throughout the survey period.

Key findings showed that:

• Rates of irritable bowel syndrome increased from around 6% among U.S. adults in May 2020 to about 11% in May 2022.
• Chronic idiopathic constipation rose slightly from 6.0% to 6.4%.
• Among adults who reported IBS, investigators noted that the prevalence of mixed IBS, a subtype of IBS where a person experiences both diarrhea and constipation, was most commonly reported. The investigators did not observe significant increases in other types of functional digestive disorders.

As doctors uncover the long-term health effects of COVID-19, study investigators hope this study may draw attention to how the virus’ impact on mental health may affect the gut-potentially triggering or worsening disorders like IBS and other gut-brain conditions.

“This research calls for a renewed focus on gastrointestinal health in the post-pandemic era,” said Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, corresponding author of the study and director of Health Services Research for Cedars-Sinai.

Spiegel, director of the Cedars-Sinai Master’s Degree Program in Health Delivery Science and the George and Dorothy Gourrich Chair in Digital Health Ethics, says even those who did not get COVID-19 but endured significant psychological distress also may have had alterations in their gut-brain axis.

“Healthcare providers must be vigilant in recognizing and addressing the long-term effects of the pandemic on digestive health,” said Spiegel.