Air pollution a factor in spiking cancer cases, report says

New estimates from the World Health Organization (WHO) predict a 77% increase in cancer cases globally by 2050. The report points to air pollution as one of the factors driving the expected increase in cancer rates, even though it does not have the same effect on everyone.

As a global health watchdog, the WHO rarely has good news. It stayed true to its mission ahead of World Cancer Day, when its International Agency for Research on Cancer released a report on February 1 predicting an increase of some 35 million new cases of cancer by 2050. This represents an increase of 77% compared to 2022, noted WHO.  

Among the factors driving the expected increase in cancer rates was air pollution.

Fine particles lead to cell dysfunction

“This mainly concerns fine particle pollution”, said Dr Emmanuel Ricard, a spokesperson for the French League Against Cancer.

Diesel exhaust is one of the main sources of these particles, he said. The finest of these particles can descend into the lungs, all the way down to the alveoli. These are the tiny air sacs located at the end of the respiratory tree-like structure of the lung, where the blood exchanges oxygen and carbon dioxide during the process of breathing in and breathing out.

The body’s defence cells will “want” to remove these particles, and inflammation follows. This ends up disrupting the cells which, instead of continuing to replicate in a healthy way, will begin to “dysfunction”, becoming cancerous. “These cancer cells will multiply, and form a tumour,” Ricard said.

More people, and older 

At least several factors indicated by the study are unrelated to pollution. The rapidly growing global cancer rate reflects population growth: as the number of human beings on the planet continues to increase, the total number of cancer cases will also increase.

And while humans are becoming more numerous, the species is also living longer. “Cancer is a problem of immunity, and immunity declines the older we get. As a result, the longer the population’s life expectancy, the more it will be at risk of getting cancer,” said Ricard.

Another classic illusion in the epidemiological data is linked to the improvement of cancer diagnosis itself. These are cases that already existed in the past, but which escaped medical radars. Now, as they are being detected, they contribute to an increase in overall cancer cases.

There are also situations of “overdiagnosis”, in which the presence of cancer cells is confused with cancer as such, said Catherine Hill, a French epidemiologist.

A classic case is prostate cancer. According to the French Institute for Public Health Surveillance (InVs), 30% of 30-year-old men and 80% of 80-year-old men have cancer cells in their prostate. “This is extremely common. It’s obvious that not all of these cancer cells give rise to symptomatic cancers,” said Hill.

Mental health

More and more studies are establishing – although it has yet to be confirmed – a link between pollution and the deterioration of health, including mental health. Pollution even supposedly aggravates depression.

These are “trends” full of scientific estimations, said Hill. After tobacco, alcohol consumption is the leading cause of cancer in France according to WHO, said Hill. “Pollution causes 50 times less cancer in France than tobacco, and 20 times less than alcohol,” she added, quoting a study by WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Yet it would be wrong to consider the factors of cancer as isolated, said Ricard. An individual exposed to several factors will have a higher risk of getting cancer. The knowledge that exists on the effect that tobacco and alcohol together can have on cancer rates can be applied elsewhere, he said. “We were thus able to find, in the case of lung cancer, genes that were just as impacted by cigarettes as by atmospheric pollution,” said Ricard.  

The dangers of the world’s ‘dumping ground’

Yet the pollution factor is not the same for everyone, since humans do not breathe the same air. “In the big cities of China, India, South America, Antananarivo [in Madagascar], and even Cairo, clouds of particles form out of the pollution. Under this ‘smog’, people develop lung cancer, just like in England during the industrial revolution,” said Ricard.

There is now a transfer of pollution towards the “South”, which is used as a “dumping ground for the world”, Ricard added. “Besides the ‘at-risk’ factories that industrialized countries prefer to relocate, developing economies are sold low-cost oil derivatives of inferior quality.”

Those who have visited the megacities of developing countries will agree: the pollution seems stronger there. This is indeed because it is more aggressive: “The diesel fuels used there are even richer in sulphur and nitrogen than those emitted in Europe,” said Ricard.

For Richard, WHO’s report highlights an epidemiological transition. The countries previously impacted by infectious diseases, which are declining, will soon face a surge of diseases, like cancer, common to Western countries.

An ecological wake-up call?

In France, for instance, air quality has improved over the past 30 years. In the Toulouse metropolitan area, the presence of fine particles and nitrogen oxide fell respectively by 40% and 17% between 2009 and 2019. This has had a positive impact on cardiovascular diseases, strokes, heart attacks and cancers, said Ricard.

Less encouraging is the study carried out in the Toulouse region, which concludes that the economically disadvantaged population is more exposed to air pollution, and more concerned by deaths attributable to long-term exposure.

Beyond these socio-economic disparities, Xavier Briffault, a researcher working in social sciences and epistemology of mental health at the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) saw potential for an ecological wake-up call. By demonstrating a direct correlation between health and environmental degradation, science could take us from environmental protection, driven by ethics, to ecological awareness, driven by public health concerns. 

Health is not an end in itself but also a means in our fight for a greener world, said Briffault. By mobilizing our fears, the health issue also allows citizens to put pressure on politicians with the message: “Not only are you killing the planet, but you are killing us.”

The rallying cry that “polluting is bad” is bound to disappear, to be replaced by a new logic: Pollution is killing us.

This article was translated from the original in French.

Source link

#Air #pollution #factor #spiking #cancer #cases #report

Speed is everything for patients: together we can bring medicines faster

Working in our industry brings huge responsibility. We deal with people’s lives, and our  medicines give people an opportunity to improve their health, often at the most overwhelming time for them. I had a strong reminder of that recently.

Last month, I met with a colleague, Heiko, who lives in Germany. His young daughter has central nervous system (CNS) neuroblastoma — a type of cancer that tends to affect children under the age of five.

Heiko and his family have been navigating the health system for months, including an overload of information in the form of complex ‘oncological-speak’, treatment guidelines and health insurance claims. They have also been dealing with constant travel to specialist centers — all while juggling the emotional burden of caring for a sick child and the daily challenges of home and work life.

He shared something that stuck in my mind the night I spoke with him, which serves as an important reminder for all of us working in health care.

“Trust must be bigger than fear.”

When their health is at stake, friends, families and colleagues put their trust in their local health care system — every part of it, including industry — in the hope of protecting the future for them and their loved ones.

As Heiko put it to me, “Speed is everything. If you gain enough speed, you gain enough time. And if you have time, you have the hope of more options that can help you.”

Faster, more equitable access to new, life-saving medicines for people living in Europe is a goal that I believe we all share. There are challenges in achieving this, but we at Roche are committed to addressing these, together with everyone involved.

It is the inequality in access to medicines that is untenable.

Teresa Graham, CEO, Roche Pharmaceuticals, and chair EFPIA’s Patient Access Committee | via EFPIA

The average time that patients in the EU wait to get access to a new medicine is around 517 days. Uptake of new technologies can be low and slow, but it is the inequality in access to medicines that is untenable. If you have cancer in Germany, you may need to wait, on average, 128 days to access a new medicine, but if you are a patient in Romania it will take you 918 days to receive the same treatment.

I am concerned that Europe’s policymakers believe this can be fixed with legislation alone. And, even if it could, families like Heiko’s do not have the luxury of waiting four to five years for the ongoing revision to the EU pharmaceutical legislation to attempt to resolve these issues.

Improving access to medicines requires solutions that are developed in partnership with everyone who has a stake in their delivery: industry, member states, health regulators, payers, patients and health care providers. With the right ambition and desire for collaboration, we can act now.

The crucial first step is for governments and policymakers to treat spending on health care and innovation as an investment in economic growth and societal advancement. Improving health care and expanding access to innovation are vital for reducing pressure on health care systems, maintaining a healthy and productive society, and driving future economic growth.

Governments and policymakers have a pivotal role in enabling and encouraging this cycle of improved health and economic benefit. We must take a strategic view of investing in innovation, acknowledging the wider societal value it provides, and find sustainable ways to manage immediate fiscal challenges that do not limit or delay access to new medicines and technologies.

The industry is also driving changes. One concrete commitment pharmaceutical companies have made is to file new medicines for pricing and reimbursement in all member states within two years of EU approval of a new medicine. This will improve timely access to the latest innovations.

The industry has also established a portal for tracking access delays and ensuring companies are held accountable in meeting the two-year filing commitment.

With the right ambition and desire for collaboration, we can act now.

With multiple ongoing legislative changes currently taking place in Europe — from the revision of the EU’s Pharmaceutical Legislation, to the EU’s reform of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and the introduction of the European Health Data Space (EHDS) — we have a unique opportunity to build a stronger and better European environment for life sciences and health care that serves patients’ best interests. One major opportunity for collaboration is the implementation of the EU’s HTA regulation. This aims to address access delays by streamlining and accelerating highly fragmented HTA processes across Europe. There is only one year to go before this either becomes a meaningful contributor to faster access decisions for patients or — if not adequately in focus during 2024 — risks becoming an additional hurdle for patient access to essential treatments. In order to avoid this scenario, industry involvement in the implementation of EU HTA is crucial to leverage expertise, co-design relevant processes, and ultimately ensure a workable system.

Such actions can reduce some of the delays in accessing new medicines, but they will not solve everything. The majority of delays come from the variation and delays in individual countries’ reimbursement and health care systems. That is why it is critical that member states, payers and health systems collaborate with industry to develop tailored access solutions. 

However, there are also proposals on the table today that are concerning and at face value will not lead to improved access for patients. For instance, the EU Commission is proposing to reduce a company’s intellectual property rights — specifically regulatory data protection (RDP) — if a medicine is not available in all member states within two years of receiving marketing authorisation. This would only hinder innovation, without delivering faster, more equitable access to new medicines.

If this were to go ahead as proposed, Europe would become a less attractive place for research. A recently-published study on the impact of the European Commission’s proposal estimated that it would reduce Europe’s share of global R&D investment by one-third by 2040.

I firmly believe this proposal must be reconsidered and focused on policy solutions that ensure patients in Europe continue to benefit from innovation.

As Heiko says, speed, time and hope are all people have. Often, patients are waiting for the next innovation, during which time, their disease progresses or their condition deteriorates. This makes the next clinical trial, the next regulatory approval, the next standard of care, the next reimbursement decision absolutely vital for those who simply cannot wait.

Across industry, there are more than 8,000 new medicines in the global pipeline today. This is the hope Heiko needs, and families like his are trusting us all to deliver.

Speaking with Heiko reminded me that the most effective treatment is the one that makes it to the patient when they need it. It is now our collective responsibility to find the path to making this happen for patients everywhere in Europe.



Source link

#Speed #patients #bring #medicines #faster

Glyphosate: Europe divided by the world’s most widely used pesticide

This article was originally published in French

The European Commission is preparing to renew the authorisation of glyphosate for a further ten years, with a vote scheduled for 13 October in Brussels.

ADVERTISEMENT

The European Union authorised the use of the herbicide glyphosate in 2017 for an initial five years, for a further year in December 2022.

Brussels’ decision to give this chemical the green light was based on conclusions from a European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) report, published in July, which found that glyphosate did not present a “critical area of concern”. But, this resolution has given rise to debate and concern within EU Member States.

Théo, a victim of weedkiller

In 2006, Sabine was still unaware that she was pregnant while using glyphosate at work. However, this powerful herbicide was about to mark her life forever.

“Every year, as part of my job as a horse ride organiser, I had to use a glyphosate-based weed killer on our riding arena. It’s a sandy area of about 700 square metres. And it took me several days to do it every time,” Sabine Grataloup told Euronews. “And that’s when Théo was in my belly, it was the beginning of my pregnancy and that’s exactly when Théo’s larynx, trachea and oesophagus were malformed.”

In 2018 Sabine sued Monsanto, the US agrochemical giant that sold the pesticide. The link between glyphosate and Theo’s malformations was recognised by a compensation commission for prenatal children exposed to pesticides.

This is the first time in France the herbicide has been officially recognised as a possible source of birth defects.

“It’s an amount that has the merit of existing, which is around €1,000 per month, paid from around March- April 2023 until March 2025, so for three years. And in March 2025, the Commission will re-examine Théo’s case to see whether the compensation should be extended or whether it is considered that his condition is no longer evolving,” Sabine explained.

A clear victory but one that does not erase years of suffering. 

“Théo has malformations in his oesophagus, trachea and larynx. It’s a polymalformative syndrome, so he has a series of malformations that required a lot of operations. He had a total of 54 operations,” said his mother.

Even today, because of a ruptured oesophagus, Théo, now aged 16, can only breathe with a tracheotomy, which is a hole made in his windpipe. Up to the age of six, he was fed through a tube.

Ahead of Friday’s vote, Sabine Grataloup is appealing to MEPs: “What I would like to say to them is to take their noses out of the figures, to take their noses out of the economic balance sheets and statistics, to tell themselves that behind the statistics there are real victims. If they take the decision to keep glyphosate on the European market, they are taking the decision that there will be these victims, they are responsible for this suffering and these future victims.”

What is glyphosate?

Glyphosate is a herbicide widely used around the world to eliminate weeds that invade agricultural crops and public spaces. It was introduced to the market in the 1970s by Monsanto under the trade name Roundup, although many other manufacturers also produce glyphosate-based formulations.

Its popularity is based on its undeniable effectiveness in controlling weeds, its ease of use and its relatively affordable cost. Its mode of action is to inhibit an enzyme that is crucial to plant growth, leading to elimination.

However, glyphosate is at the heart of controversy and debate due to growing concerns about its possible impact on human health and the environment. According to Gergely Simon, Senior Chemicals Officer at Pesticide Action Network (PAN Europe), an NGO dedicated to sustainable agricultural practices and the reduction of pesticide use in Europe, “Glyphosate is the most widely used pesticide in Europe and worldwide, and is essentially a herbicide. It’s used for a variety of applications such as pre-harvest use and desiccation, but it’s even used in national parks to combat invasive species, and we even know that quite a large quantity is used, for example, along railway lines for maintenance. But there are many other uses I could mention.”

According to the experts, this substance could easily be replaced. But Glyphosate EU, an organisation that brings together companies in favour of the pesticide, disagrees: “Many of the alternative approaches suggested for weed management require the reintroduction of mechanised farming practices. Apart from the negative impact this would have on the environment, the structural conditions of many crops do not allow the use of mechanical methods. For example, it is not possible to use machinery without destroying the crops,” the group told Euronews.

“In addition, no individual herbicide or combination of herbicides currently registered in Europe could offer the same benefits in terms of reduced tillage and the possibility of adopting cover crops, which are essential elements of conservation agriculture.”

The risks

Environmental groups have called EFSA’s assessment “shocking”.

“In our view, EFSA has downplayed the existing evidence from animal and epidemiological studies on the effects of glyphosate, which can cause DNA damage in certain organisms,” says Gergely Simon. “This indicates that glyphosate can cause cancer. We therefore believe that, in line with international guidelines from the US EPA, glyphosate should be classified as carcinogenic, which has already been done by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and also by France’s National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm). They have all concluded that, based on the available evidence, there is a probable link between exposure to glyphosate and the development of cancer”.

ADVERTISEMENT

EFSA, for its part, responded that “data gaps are mentioned” in their report, “either as questions that could not be completely answered or as open questions.”

The three questions that could not be finalised relate to the assessment of one of the impurities present in glyphosate, the dietary risk assessment for consumers and the risk assessment for aquatic plants. “Overall, the information available does not allow definitive conclusions to be drawn regarding this aspect of the risk assessment,” EFSA told Euronews.

Gergely Simon stresses that the risks should not be underestimated under any circumstances. “Numerous studies show that exposure to glyphosate can be linked to both autism in children and Parkinson’s disease. We therefore believe that the fact that EFSA has stated that there is no standardised protocol for drawing conclusions on the neurotoxicity of glyphosate should be a critical area of concern, which would mean that glyphosate could not be authorised as it currently is,” he emphasises

“In addition, there is a large body of alarming evidence about the destructive effects of glyphosate on the microbiome, as glyphosate is both a herbicide and an antibiotic. It is primarily used, for example, to alter the soil microbiome, but also the human gut microbiome. We know that there are many health risks associated with the destruction of the microbiome. Finally, EFSA has confirmed that glyphosate has the potential to cause endocrine disruption at doses considered safe in the European Union”, adds the PAN Europe representative.

“There are no internationally recognised guidelines for assessing the risks associated with the microbiome in the field of pesticides. Further research is needed”.

ADVERTISEMENT

Glyphosate EU, the group of companies in favour of renewing the authorisation of glyphosate in Europe, says: “All allegations have been raised on several occasions and have been dealt with by the regulatory authorities, in Europe and throughout the world. This is yet another attempt by non-governmental organisations to discredit the most comprehensive scientific dossier presented in the application for renewal of EU approval for glyphosate, and to undermine confidence in the regulatory authorities in order to prevent the renewal of approval for glyphosate in the EU”.

Opposing countries

Germany has argued in favour of abandoning glyphosate in the European Union. In September 2023, at the end of a meeting between representatives of the 27 member states to discuss the European Commission’s proposal, the German agriculture minister warned of the threats to biodiversity and stressed the need for a coordinated phase-out of glyphosate at European level, while warning of uneven levels of protection within the EU.

In 2021, the German government announced its decision to withdraw glyphosate from the market by the end of 2023. The country is therefore expected to vote against renewing the authorisation of this herbicide within the EU at the vote scheduled for 13 October.

France, for its part, had also tried to adopt restrictive measures with regard to glyphosate. In 2017, French President Emmanuel Macron announced his commitment to completely ban glyphosate in France before 2021.

In early 2019, Macron buried his promise during the Grand Débat. “Can we say that there will be no more glyphosate in five years? It’s impossible. I’m not going to lie to you, it’s not true. If I told you that, I’d be completely killing certain sectors”, he said. 

ADVERTISEMENT

PAN Europe carried out a poll in which two-thirds of those questioned said they wanted a total ban on pesticides such as glyphosate. “We believe that the Commission’s proposal not only breaches EU law, but also ignores the legitimate concerns of European citizens. Only 14% of citizens expressed support for the use of glyphosate. Around two-thirds of those questioned said they wanted a total ban,” concludes Gergely Simon.

Source link

#Glyphosate #Europe #divided #worlds #widely #pesticide

Beyond forgetfulness: Why we must act on Alzheimer’s disease now

In the face of an increasingly aging population, today’s reality reveals a harsh truth: health systems in the EU and beyond are ill-equipped to provide early and timely diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and embrace innovative treatments that could help to preserve memory and, with it, independence.  

Recent advances suggest that timely intervention may hold the promise to slow the memory decline in Alzheimer’s disease, making early diagnosis more critical than ever before. Yet without the necessary health care infrastructure in place to diagnose and provide treatment, we risk missing the crucial early window and the opportunity to delay — and hopefully in the near future prevent — distressing symptoms for patients and heartbreaking experiences for families.  

The EU and its member countries have the opportunity to be remembered for leading in this space by increasing funding for research, improving health care infrastructure to support accurate diagnosis and timely intervention, and enhancing support services at a national and regional level. The forthcoming European Parliament elections in June 2024 are the ideal moments to make that pledge. For individuals, families and health care systems, Alzheimer’s disease is a ticking time bomb unless we invest in our future health today.  

The EU is not prepared for Alzheimer’s disease  

In Europe, approximately 7 million people are affected by Alzheimer’s disease, a number set to double to 14 million by 2050.1 On top of the physical and emotional distress this will cause, there are direct financial and social implications on families and communities, with Alzheimer’s costs expected to reach a staggering €250 billion by 20302 — bigger than the GDP of Portugal3 — placing an additional and substantial weight on global health care systems that are already struggling under cost and capacity burdens.4 

Timely diagnosis stands as a cornerstone in determining the appropriate treatment for patients.

That’s why MEP Deirdre Clune is leading the call for a European Parliament hearing to discuss a focused EU strategy on dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. “Timely diagnosis stands as a cornerstone in determining the appropriate treatment for patients,” argues Clune. “Therefore, the EU must create a strategic framework which lays out clear recommendations for national governments and recognises the toll of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease on societies across Europe, encourage innovation and take on board best practices to develop effective and efficient approaches. Together, with a unified approach and firm commitment, the EU can pave the way for better Alzheimer’s care.”

In the next EU political mandate, policymakers must answer the call by developing a comprehensive EU Beating Dementia Plan that specifically addresses the unique challenges posed by Alzheimer’s disease and building on established coordinated action plans for other significant health burdens, such as the EU Beating Cancer Plan. The European Brain Council and EFPIA’s, RETHINKING Alzheimer’s disease White Paper is a useful resource, calling for policymakers to rethink Alzheimer’s and offering policy recommendations to make tangible changes to improve the lives of people living with the disease.  

EU member countries must commit to investing in diagnostic infrastructure, technology and integrated care that can help to detect Alzheimer’s disease at an early stage and ensure timely intervention resulting in the preservation of memory and, thereof, independent living and normal social functioning.  

Laying the foundations at national level  

While action is certainly needed at the EU level, huge opportunity lies at the national and regional levels. Each member country has the chance to apply well-funded national dementia plans that tailor their strategies and responses to address the distinct needs of their populations, making a real and meaningful impact on the people and health systems in their country.  

Inspiration stems from Italy, which recently launched its Parliamentary Intergroup for Neuroscience and Alzheimer’s, dedicating its efforts to raising awareness, fostering discussions among national and regional institutions, promoting clinician and patient involvement, supporting novel research, implementing new diagnostic models, and strengthening patient access to care. 

Italian MP Annarita Patriarca, co-host of the Parliamentary Intergroup, affirms: “Primary responsibility of a member state is to ensure to all citizens the greatest standards of diagnosis and access to treatment and care. Thus, it is necessary to put in place a strong collaboration between the public and private sector to strengthen investments in neurological diseases. Improving patients’ diagnostic and care pathways, especially in a disease area like AD with such a high unmet medical need and societal impact will be the core focus of the intergroup.” 

Additionally, during the Alzheimer’s and Neuroscience Conference: a priority for the country in July, members of the Italian Parliament importantly put forward legislative and regulatory solutions to ensure an early and accurate diagnosis. 

Leading the conversation on the international stage   

Amid the growing burden of Alzheimer’s disease globally, this is a moment for policymakers to hold each other accountable. Member countries are uniquely placed to do this within the EU but also across the wider health care ecosystem, calling on countries and leaders to honor prior commitments that prioritized investment in relieving major health burdens, including Alzheimer’s.  

Encouragingly, the May G7 Hiroshima Leaders’ Communiqué specifically recognized and supported dementia as a freestanding issue, breaking away from the typical categorization with NCDs. Moreover, the G7 health ministers published a joint Communiqué spotlighting the priority to “enhance early detection, diagnosis and interventions, including developing care pathways and capability and capacity building of health and primary care providers by strengthening primary health care (PHC)”.  

These promising steps mean that Alzheimer’s disease is beginning to gain the recognition it deserves but also acts as a line in the sand to ensure complacency doesn’t creep in. Collectively, EU countries must assume a leading voice within the international fora, ensuring that Alzheimer’s disease remains a global health care priority and receives the investment it warrants. 

Time to commit to action in Alzheimer’s disease  

September marks World Alzheimer’s Month, and its theme Never Too Early, Never Too Late, reiterates the importance of early diagnosis. It presents a valuable foundation to initiate discussions on country- and regional-level strategies to drive and strengthen diagnostic infrastructure and services for the prevention, diagnosis, case management, monitoring and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. 

Unless we act now, a generation of people will be forgotten as they begin to lose their memories.

“Unless we act now, a generation of people will be forgotten as they begin to lose their memories,” shares Frédéric Destrebecq, executive director of The European Brain Council. “By recognizing the urgency of the situation and making concerted investments, we can forge a path toward a more compassionate, empowered future for individuals, families and communities impacted by Alzheimer’s, and remember all those who’ve been lost to this devastating disease.”

It is never too early, never too late, to be remembered for taking action against this debilitating disease.  

References:  

1 – Jones RW, Mackell J, Berthet K, Knox S. Assessing attitudes and behaviours surrounding Alzheimer’s disease in Europe: key findings of the Important Perspectives on Alzheimer’s Care and Treatment (IMPACT) survey. The journal of nutrition, health & aging. 2010 Aug;14:525-30.  

2 – Cimler R, Maresova P, Kuhnova J, Kuca K. Predictions of Alzheimer’s disease treatment and care costs in European countries. PLoS One. 2019;14(1):e0210958. Published 2019 Jan 25. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210958 

3 – Published by Statista Research Department, 20 J. GDP of European countries 2022. Statista. June 20, 2023. Accessed August 1, 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/685925/gdp-of-european-countries/. 

4 – The Economist. Why health-care services are in chaos everywhere. Available at:  https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/01/15/why-health-care-services-are-in-chaos-everywhere. Accessed: July 2023.  



Source link

#forgetfulness #act #Alzheimers #disease

Labs: the (overlooked) building block of Universal Health Coverage

Hepatitis C (HCV) — a potentially life-threatening virus that infects 1.5 million new people around the world every year — is highly treatable if diagnosed early.[1]

Unfortunately,  access to quality screening is far from universal. Countries like Egypt — one of the countries with the highest prevalence of HCV in the world — demonstrate the impact screening can have. In 2015, HCV was prevalent in an estimated 7 percent of the country’s population and accounted for 7.6 percent of the country’s mortality, presenting a significant health care and societal burden.[2]

But since then, Egypt has turned a corner. In 2018, the Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population launched a massive nationwide HCV screening and treatment campaign as part of its 2014-2018 HCV action plan.[3] The campaign’s results were inspiring: by July 2020, Egypt had screened more than 60 million people[3] and treated 4 million residents.[2] Today, Egypt is set to be the world’s first country to eliminate HCV within its borders.[2]

The results of Egypt’s HCV screening program speak to diagnostics’ power in contributing to improved health outcomes around the world. Among the essential components of any health system is the capacity for prevention, which includes timely screening and detection. But a preventive approach based on timely diagnosis won’t work without the right infrastructure in place.

Strong laboratories as a cornerstone of building better health care

Matt Sause, CEO Roche Diagnostics | via Roche

The World Health Organization (WHO) highlights the critical role well-functioning laboratory services play in health systems with good reason.[4] Around the world, clinicians increasingly rely on  laboratory tests for diagnostic and treatment decisions. These tests help them make more informed decisions that result in better care and potentially improved outcomes for patients.

The challenges facing labs today — and tomorrow

Two key challenges facing laboratory systems today are underfunding and insufficient resources. Despite their central importance, laboratories struggle to garner the political and financial support they need to be as effective as possible. For example, it’s estimated that while lab results drive approximately 70 percent of clinical decision making, laboratories make up only 5 percent of hospital costs.[5]

After all, it’s the health care systems with strong, resilient labs that will be best placed to manage future pandemics and ever-growing health threats like heart disease and dementia.

What’s needed is a political commitment to provide everyone with access to accurate and timely diagnosis that paves the way to effective treatment and health. And putting this commitment into practice can only be achieved and sustained through coordinated multistakeholder efforts and public—private partnerships. This is not just a worthwhile investment for patients, but also the wider health care system in the long run. After all, it’s the health care systems with strong, resilient labs that will be best placed to manage future pandemics and ever-growing health threats like heart disease and dementia.

Another challenge is the health care workforce. Effective use of diagnostics requires qualified people to drive it, with expertise in pathology and laboratory medicine. Yet the world currently faces a laboratory staffing shortage. For diagnostics in particular, baccalaureate degree programs in laboratory science have previously been on the ‘endangered list’ of allied health professions.[6] In the end, inadequately trained staff, frequent turnover and scheduling problems all make quality lab results more difficult to guarantee.

This UHC ambition is only possible when backed by a network of strong laboratories that help ensure individuals can access high-quality diagnostics services without financial burden in all health care systems.

And that’s not all: inadequate infrastructure and staffing shortages are more present in low-income, rural communities, which exacerbate the broader diagnostics gap troubling global health care today. Many low-income countries lack an integrated laboratory network that can fully provide high-quality, accessible and efficient laboratory testing services for the entire population. In fact, a commission convened by The Lancet concluded that 81 percent of these populations have little or no access to diagnostics.[7]

The path to Universal Health Coverage

Put simply, innovative diagnostics are only meaningful if they reach people where and when they’re needed. Advancing this equity is at the heart of the WHO’s vision for Universal Health Coverage (UHC) by 2030. The goal? To guarantee all people have access to high-quality services for their health and the health of their families and communities, without facing financial hardship.

This UHC ambition is only possible when backed by a network of strong laboratories that help ensure individuals can access high-quality diagnostics services without financial burden in all health care systems. To do this, UHC should explicitly include diagnostics services. Financially, it’s savings from screening, early diagnosis and targeted treatment that make UHC feasible. Health care systems will have to undergo a systemic shift from focusing on treatment to focusing on prevention. And that’s just not possible when clinicians don’t have access to fast, accurate and cost-efficient lab results to inform their clinical decision-making. Policies and regulations that safeguard UHC goals of access and health equity are essential to make progress toward UHC.[8] The Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act (SALSA), in the United States, is an example of how national policies can help to ensure sustainable laboratory networks and contribute to equitable access to essential healthcare.

Stronger labs can not only help health care systems make savings in the routine management of population health; investing in them also helps to reduce costs and prepare in advance for any future public health crises.

This year has already seen encouraging progress toward achieving UHC through enhanced diagnostics capacity. The adoption of the resolution on strengthening diagnostics capacity at the World Health Assembly in May was an important signal of growing international political support for diagnostics. It was also a call to action. The next step for this month’s United Nations General Assembly and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Summit is channeling political support for diagnostics into the development of an action-oriented declaration.

To put us closer to UHC, this declaration should commit to ensuring that national health plans include access to timely detection and prevention. That starts with supporting laboratory systems and establishing National Essential Diagnostics Lists that identify the most critical diagnostic tests to help diagnose patients quickly and accurately so that they can receive needed treatment. At Roche, we’re advocating that governments, industry, civil society and other policy stakeholders will come together around concrete plans and shared resources that strengthen diagnostics and the lab infrastructure that makes them effective. In line with our commitment to increase patient access to important diagnostic solutions by 2030, we plan to do our part.


[1] Hepatitis C. World Health Organization. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hepatitis-c (Accessed 22.08.2023)

[2] Egypt’s Ambitious Strategy to Eliminate Hepatitis C Virus: A Case Study. Hassanin, A. et al. Available at:   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8087425/ (Accessed 22.08.2023)

[3] Hepatitis C in Egypt – Past, Present, and Future. Roche Diagnostics. Available at: https://diagnostics.roche.com/global/en/article-listing/egypt-s-road-to-eliminating-hepatitis-c-virus-infection—a-stor.html (Accessed 22.08.2023)

[4] Monitoring the Building Blocks of Health Systems. World Health Organization. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/258734/9789241564052-eng.pdf (Accessed 14.07.2023)

[5] The Cost-effective Laboratory: Implementation of Economic Evaluation of Laboratory Testing. Bogavac-Stanojevic N. & Jelic-Ivanovic Z. J Med Biochem. Volume 36, Issue 3, 238 – 242. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6287218/

[6] Ensuring Quality Cancer Care through the Oncology Workforce: Sustaining Care in the 21st Century: Workshop Summary. National Academy of Sciences. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK215247/ (Accessed 14.07.2023)

[7] Essential diagnostics: mind the gap. The Lancet Global Health. Available at: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(21)00467-8/fulltext (Accessed 14.07.2023)

[8] Private Sector Commitments To Universal Health Coverage. UHC Private Sector Constituency 2023 Statement. https://www.uhc2030.org/fileadmin/uploads/UHC2030_Private_Sector_Commitments_Statement_April2023.pdf (Accessed 29.08.2023)



Source link

#Labs #overlooked #building #block #Universal #Health #Coverage

Breast density changes over time could be linked to breast cancer risk, study finds | CNN



CNN
 — 

Breast density is known to naturally decrease as a woman ages, and now a study suggests that the more time it takes for breast density to decline, the more likely it is that the woman could develop breast cancer.

Researchers have long known that women with dense breasts have a higher risk of breast cancer. But according to the study, published last week in the journal JAMA Oncology, the rate of breast density changes over time also appears to be associated with the risk of cancer being diagnosed in that breast.

“We know that invasive breast cancer is rarely diagnosed simultaneously in both breasts, thus it is not a surprise that we have observed a much slower decline in the breast that eventually developed breast cancer compared to the natural decline in density with age,” Shu Jiang, an associate professor of surgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and first author of the new study, wrote in an email.

Breast density refers to the amount of fibrous and glandular tissue in a person’s breasts compared with the amount of fatty tissue in the breasts – and breast density can be seen on a mammogram.

“Because women have their mammograms taken annually or biennially, the change of breast density over time is naturally available,” Jiang said in the email. “We should make full use of this dynamic information to better inform risk stratification and guide more individualized screening and prevention approaches.”

The researchers, from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, analyzed health data over the course of 10 years among 947 women in the St. Louis region who completed routine mammograms. A mammogram is an X-ray picture of the breast that doctors use to look for early signs of breast cancer.

The women in the study were recruited from November 2008 to April 2012, and they had gotten mammograms through October 2020. The average age of the participants was around 57.

Among the women, there were 289 cases of breast cancer diagnosed, and the researchers found that breast density was higher at the start of the study for the women who later developed breast cancer compared with those who remained cancer-free.

The researchers also found that there was a significant decrease in breast density among all the women over the course of 10 years, regardless of whether they later developed breast cancer, but the rate of density decreasing over time was significantly slower among breasts in which cancer was later diagnosed.

“This study found that evaluating longitudinal changes in breast density from digital mammograms may offer an additional tool for assessing risk of breast cancer and subsequent risk reduction strategies,” the researchers wrote.

Not only is breast density a known risk factor for breast cancer, dense breast tissue can make mammograms more difficult to read.

“There are two issues here. First, breast density can make it more difficult to fully ‘see through’ the breast on a mammogram, like looking through a frosted glass. Thus, it can be harder to detect a breast cancer,” Dr. Hal Burstein, clinical investigator in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, who was not involved in the new study, said in an email. “Secondly, breast density is often thought to reflect the estrogen exposure or estrogen levels in women, and the greater the estrogen exposure, the greater the risk of developing breast cancer.”

In March, the US Food and Drug Administration published updates to its mammography regulations, requiring mammography facilities to notify patients about the density of their breasts.

“Breast density can have a masking effect on mammography, where it can be more difficult to find a breast cancer within an area of dense breast tissue,” Jiang wrote in her email.

“Even when you take away the issue of finding it, breast density is an independent risk factor for developing breast cancer. Although there is lots of data that tell us dense breast tissue is a risk factor, the reason for this is not clear,” she said. “It may be that development of dense tissue and cancer are related to the same biological processes or hormonal influences.”

The findings of the new study demonstrate that breast density serves as a risk factor for breast cancer – but women should be aware of their other risk factors too, said Dr. Maxine Jochelson, chief of the breast imaging service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was not involved in the study.

“It makes sense to some extent that the longer your breast stays dense, theoretically, the more likely it is to develop cancer. And so basically, it expands on the data that dense breasts are a risk,” Jochelson said, adding that women with dense breasts should ask for supplemental imaging when they get mammograms.

But other factors that can raise the risk of breast cancer include having a family history of cancer, drinking too much alcohol, having a high-risk lesion biopsied from the breast or having a certain genetic mutation.

For instance, women should know that “density may not affect their risk so much if they have the breast cancer BRCA 1 or 2 mutation because their risk is so high that it may not make it much higher,” Jochelson said.

Some ways to reduce the risk of breast cancer include keeping a healthy weight, being physically active, drinking alcohol in moderation or not at all and, for some people, taking medications such as tamoxifen and breastfeeding your children, if possible.

“Breast density is a modest risk factor. The ‘average’ woman in the US has a 1 in 8 lifetime chance of developing breast cancer. Women with dense breasts have a slightly greater risk, about 1 in 6, or 1 in 7. So the lifetime risk goes up from 12% to 15%. That still means that most women with dense breasts will not develop breast cancer,” Burstein said in his email.

“Sometimes radiologists will recommend additional breast imaging to women with dense breast tissue on mammograms,” he added.

The US Preventive Services Task Force – a group of independent medical experts whose recommendations help guide doctors’ decisions – recommends biennial screening for women starting at age 50. The task force says that a decision to start screening earlier “should be an individual one.” Many medical groups, including the American Cancer Society and Mayo Clinic, emphasize that women have the option to start screening with a mammogram every year starting at age 40.

“It’s also very clear that breast density tends to be highest in younger women, premenopausal women, and for almost all women, it tends to go down with age. However, the risk of breast cancer goes up with age. So these two things are a little bit at odds with each other,” said Dr. Freya Schnabel, director of breast surgery at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center and professor of surgery at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York, who was not involved in the new study.

“So if you’re a 40-year-old woman and your breasts are dense, you could think about that as just being really kind of age-appropriate,” she said. “The take-home message that’s very, very practical and pragmatic right now is that if you have dense breasts, whatever your age is, even if you’re postmenopausal – maybe even specifically, if you are postmenopausal – and your breasts are not getting less dense the way the average woman’s does, that it really is a reason to seek out adjunctive imaging in addition to just mammography, to use additional diagnostic tools, like ultrasound or maybe even MRI, if there are other risk factors.”

Source link

#Breast #density #time #linked #breast #cancer #risk #study #finds #CNN

US cigarette smoking rate falls to historic low, but e-cigarette use keeps climbing | CNN



CNN
 — 

The percentage of adults who smoked cigarettes in the United States fell to a historic low last year, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. However, e-cigarettes are becoming even more popular.

About 11% of adults told the CDC last year that they were current cigarette smokers, according to the latest preliminary data from the National Health Interview Survey, a biannual survey that provides general information about health-related topics. The survey includes responses from 27,000 people age 18 and older. In 2020 and 2021, about 12.5% of adults said they smoked cigarettes.

This is a significant drop from when surveys like these started. Surveys of Americans in the 1940s found that about half of all adults said they smoked cigarettes. Rates began to decline in the 1960s, and more recently, in 2016, 15.5% of adults said they smoked cigarettes.

Recent studies have shown some groups are still at higher risk. While the latest CDC survey doesn’t capture this level of detail, cigarette smoking rates among some communities – including Native Americans, Alaska Natives and members of the LGBTQ community remain “alarmingly high” according to the 2023 State of Tobacco Control report from the American Lung Association.

The general drop in cigarette smoking among adults should have a positive impact on public health.

Cigarette smoking is still the leading cause of preventable death and disability in the US. So many people have died from smoking, the CDC finds, that more than 10 times as many US citizens have died prematurely from cigarette smoking than have died in all the wars fought by the US.

Smokers are 90% of the lung cancer cases in the United States, but smoking can also cause someone to have a stroke, coronary heart disease, and COPD, as well as other cancers including bladder, colon, kidney, liver, stomach and other cancers. People who live with smokers also are at a greater risk of death, because of secondhand smoke.

This latest survey does not capture why fewer people smoked cigarettes, but the number has been on the decline since the 1960s, after the US surgeon general released the first report on smoking and health that concluded that smoking causes serious health problems.

Experts credit a variety of efforts for the decline in cigarette smoking – anti-smoking campaigns, programs that educate children about the danger of smoking, laws that severely restrict where people could smoke and where cigarette companies could advertise, as well as better access to smoking cessation programs and higher taxes that make cigarettes expensive.

However, Congress hasn’t raised federal tobacco taxes in 14 years. The federal cigarette tax remains $1.01 per pack, and taxes vary for other tobacco products. No state increased its cigarette taxes in 2022.

The pandemic may also have had an influence. Smokers were much more vulnerable to the severe consequences of Covid-19 and that gave some people the extra motivation they needed to quit – and may have given doctors the extra motivation they needed to help them too, according to Dr. Panagis Galiatsatos, a volunteer medical spokesperson with the American Lung Association. At some level, the pandemic also made the medical establishment easier to access.

“The pandemic, I think, really allowed physicians time they never probably had in the past to conduct these telemedicine visits that were appropriate just for smoking cessation strategies, helping them help patients quit and stay quit,” said Galiatsatos, who is a pulmonary and critical care medicine physician and is director of the Tobacco Treatment Clinic with Johns Hopkins Medicine.

Galiatsatos points to the US Surgeon General report released during the Trump administration, just prior to the start of the pandemic. The report detailed that of the patients they have now that smoke, the few that are left are going to be the most resistant to quitting. Then-Surgeon General Jerome Adams’ report encouraged more doctors to help their patients quit. The report found that 40% of smokers are not routinely told by their doctors to stop.

Still, the culture has changed. Smoking is much less socially acceptable in some cultures in the US.

E-cigarette use, though, seems to be more socially acceptable, especially among younger people studies show, and that may explain why those numbers are up.

The current survey found that e-cigarette use rose to nearly 6% last year, that’s up from about 4.9% the year before.

Some argue that e-cigarettes are a good substitute for regular cigarettes, and in some countries they are even promoted as a smoking cessation devices, but the CDC says that “e-cigarettes are not safe for youth, young adults, and pregnant women, as well as adults who do not currently use tobacco products.”

A BMJ study published in February found that people who used e-cigarettes to quit smoking found them to be less helpful than more traditional smoking cessation aids.

The US Food and Drug Administration says there is not enough evidence to support claims that these products are effective tools to help people quit smoking. None are approved for this purpose. The FDA says there are no safe tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, vapes, and other electronic nicotine delivery systems.

“I always hold no stigma or judgment when anyone wants to smoke a traditional cigarette or use electronic cigarettes, but as a lung doctor, I will always promote only air to come into the lungs,” said Galiatsatos. “From my standpoint, I think we should still have a public health mindset around e-cigarette usage because for some individuals, they’re going to have health consequences from this product.”

He said people may choose to vape instead of smoke cigarettes, but clinicians should be prepared to help this population if they do want to quit.

E-cigarettes can, though, produce a number of chemicals that are not good for human health, including acrolein, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde. Studies show these chemicals are known as aldehydes and can cause lung and heart disease, according to the American Lung Association.

Among teens, nicotine exposure can harm the developing brain, according to the US surgeon general.

E-cigarettes are much more popular than cigarettes among teens, so the adult e-cigarette user numbers will likely continue to grow.

About 14% of high school students said they used e-cigarettes, and 2% of high school students smoked cigarettes last year, according to separate CDC data.

The rate of kids that use e-cigarettesis high, the American Academy of Pediatrics says.

Specifically, in 2022, nearly 5% of middle school and about 17% of high school students reported some form of current tobacco use, according to CDC data from an earlier survey. In 2021, about 11% of middle schoolers and 34% of high schoolers said they had ever tried tobacco.

These “try rates” are important because most adult smokers started at young ages, according to the CDC.

The AAP continues to encourage pediatricians to screen for tobacco use as part of a child’s regular checkup. A talk about tobacco should start no later than age 11 or 12, the report says.

For adult smokers, the CDC encourages encourages people to call 1-800-QUIT-NOW where people can get free confidential coaching. The government also offers free online resources and even text programs that can help people quit.

Source link

#cigarette #smoking #rate #falls #historic #ecigarette #climbing #CNN

New study suggests Black women should be screened earlier for breast cancer | CNN



CNN
 — 

A new study on breast cancer deaths raises questions around whether Black women should screen at earlier ages.

An international team of researchers wrote in the study, published Wednesday in the journal JAMA Network Open, that clinical trials may be warranted to investigate whether screening guidelines should recommend Black women start screening at younger ages, around 42 instead of 50.

The US Preventive Services Task Force – a group of independent medical experts whose recommendations help guide doctors’ decisions – recommends biennial screening for women starting at age 50. The Task Force says that a decision to start screening prior to 50 “should be an individual one.” Many medical groups, including the American Cancer Society and Mayo Clinic, already emphasize that women have the option to start screening with a mammogram every year starting at age 40.

Even though Black women have a 4% lower incidence rate of breast cancer than White women, they have a 40% higher breast cancer death rate.

“The take-home message for US clinicians and health policy makers is simple. Clinicians and radiologists should consider race and ethnicity when determining the age at which breast cancer screening should begin,” Dr. Mahdi Fallah, an author of the new study and leader of Risk Adapted Cancer Prevention Group at the German Cancer Research Center in Heidelberg, Germany, said in an email.

“Also, health policy makers can consider a risk-adapted approach to breast cancer screening to address racial disparities in breast cancer mortality, especially the mortality before the recommended age of population screening,” said Fallah, who is also a visiting professor at Lund University in Sweden and an adjunct professor at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

Breast cancer screenings are typically performed using a mammogram, which is an X-ray picture taken of the breast that doctors examine to look for early signs of breast cancer developing.

“Guidelines for screening actually already do recommend basing a woman’s time to initiate screening on the risk of developing cancer, though race and ethnicity have not been traditional factors that go into these decisions,” Dr. Rachel Freedman, a breast oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, who was not involved in the new study, said in an email.

The American Cancer Society currently recommends that all women consider mammogram screenings for breast cancer risk starting at the age of 40 – and for women 45 to 54, it’s recommended to get mammograms every year. Those 55 and older can switch to screening every other year if they choose.

But “we are in the process of updating our breast cancer screening guidelines, and we are examining the scientific literature for how screening guidelines could differ for women in different racial and ethnic groups, and by other risk factors, in a way that would reduce disparities based on risk and disparities in outcome,” Robert Smith, senior vice president for cancer screening at the American Cancer Society, who was not involved in the new study, said in an email. “We are examining these issues closely.”

The American Cancer Society’s recommendations appear to align with the findings in the new study, as the research highlights how screening guidelines should not be a “one-size-fits-all policy,” but rather help guide conversations that patients and their doctors have together.

“We, here at the American Cancer Society, strongly recommend that all women consider a screening mammogram from the age of 40 onwards, and that means having a discussion with their doctor,” said Dr. Arif Kamal, the American Cancer Society’s chief patient officer, who was not involved in the new study.

“The authors highlight that age 50 can be a little late,” Kamal said about the study’s findings on when to begin breast cancer screening. “We are in agreement with that, particularly for women who may be at slightly higher risk.”

The researchers – from China, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway – analyzed data on 415,277 women in the United States who died of breast cancer in 2011 to 2020. That data on invasive breast cancer mortality rates came from the National Center for Health Statistics and was analyzed with the National Cancer Institute’s SEER statistical software.

When the researchers examined the data by race, ethnicity and age, they found that the rate of breast cancer deaths among women in their 40s was 27 deaths per 100,000 person-years for Black women compared with 15 deaths per 100,000 in White women and 11 deaths per 100,000 in American Indian, Alaska Native, Hispanic and Asian or Pacific Islander women.

“When the breast cancer mortality rate for Black women in their 40s is 27 deaths per 100,000 person-years, this means 27 out of every 100,000 Black women aged 40-49 in the US die of breast cancer during one year of follow-up. In other words, 0.027% of Black women aged 40-49 die of breast cancer each year,” Fallah said in the email.

In general, for women in the United States, their average risk of dying from breast cancer in the decade after they turn 50, from age 50 to 59, is 0.329%, according to the study.

“However, this risk level is reached at different ages for women from different racial/ethnic groups,” Fallah said. “Black women tend to reach this risk level of 0.329% earlier, at age 42. White women tend to reach it at age 51, American Indian or Alaska Native and Hispanic women at age 57 years, and Asian or Pacific Islander women later, at age 61.”

So, the researchers determined that when recommending breast cancer screening at age 50 for women, Black women should start at age 42.

Yet “the authors didn’t have any information on whether the women included in this study actually had mammographic screening and at what age. For example, it is possible that many women in this study actually had screening during ages 40-49,” Freedman, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, said in her email.

“This study confirms that the age of breast cancer-mortality is younger for Black women, but it doesn’t confirm why and if screening is even the main reason. We have no information about the types of cancers women developed and what treatment they had either, both of which impact mortality from breast cancer,” she said.

The harm of starting mammograms at a younger age is that it raises the risk of a false positive screening result – leading to unnecessary subsequent tests and emotional stress.

But the researchers wrote in their study that “the added risk of false positives from earlier screenings may be balanced by the benefits” linked with earlier breast cancer detection.

They also wrote that health policy makers should pursue equity, not just equality, when it comes to breast cancer screening as a tool to help reduce breast cancer death rates.

Equality in the context of breast cancer screening “means that everyone is screened from the same age regardless of risk level. On the other hand, equity or risk-adapted screening means that everyone is provided screening according to their individual risk level,” the researchers wrote. “We believe that a fair and risk-adapted screening program may also be associated with optimized resource allocation.”

The new study is “timely and relevant,” given the overall higher mortality rate for breast cancer in Black women and that Black women are more likely to be diagnosed at a younger age compared with other ethnic groups, Dr. Kathie-Ann Joseph, surgical oncologist at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center and professor of surgery and population health at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, said in an email.

“While some may argue that earlier screening may lead to increased recalls and unnecessary biopsies, women get recalled for additional imaging about 10% of the time and biopsies are needed in 1-2% of cases, which is quite low,” said Joseph, who was not involved in the new study.

“This has to be compared to the lives saved from earlier screening mammography,” she said. “I would also like to point out that while we certainly want to prevent deaths, earlier screening can have other benefits by allowing women of all racial and ethnic groups to have less extensive surgery and less chemotherapy which impacts quality of life.”

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the United States, except for skin cancers. This year, it is estimated that about 43,700 women will die from the disease, according to the American Cancer Society, and Black women have the highest death rate from breast cancer.

Even though Black women are 40% more likely than White women to die from the disease, Kamal of the American Cancer Society said that the disparity in deaths is not a result of Black women not following the current mammogram guidelines.

Rather, implicit bias in medicine plays a role.

“In the United States, across the country, there are not differences in mammogram screening rates among Black women and White women. In fact, across the entire country, the number is about 75%. We see about 3 in 4 women – Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian – are on time with their mammograms,” Kamal said.

Yet there are multiple timepoints after a patient is diagnosed with breast cancer where they may not receive the same quality of care or access to care as their peers.

“For example, Black women are less likely to be offered enrollment in a clinical trial. That is not because of a stated difference in interest. In fact, the enrollment rate in clinical trials is equal among Black women and White women, if they’re asked,” Kamal said.

“What we have to understand is where the implicit and systemic biases held by patients and their caregivers and their families may exist – those that are held within health systems and even policies and practices that impede everyone having fair and just access to high quality health care,” he said.

Additionally, Black women have nearly a three-fold increased risk of triple-negative breast cancers. Those particular type of cancers tend to be more common in women younger than 40, grow faster than other types of invasive breast cancer and have fewer treatment options.

Black women also tend to have denser breast tissue than White women. Having dense tissue in the breast can make it more difficult for radiologists to identify breast cancer on a mammogram, and women with dense breast tissue have a higher risk of breast cancer.

But such biological differences among women represent just a small part of a much larger discussion around racial disparities in breast cancer, Kamal said.

“There are systemic issues, access to care issues that really go beyond biology,” he said. “The reality is cancer affects everybody and it does not discriminate. Where the discrimination sometimes occurs is after the diagnosis, and that’s really what we need to focus on.”

Source link

#study #suggests #Black #women #screened #earlier #breast #cancer #CNN

Putting health back in health care

Advances in medical science and technology are rapidly changing and as we saw with the pandemic, diagnostic tests play a pivotal role in health care decision making. They inform treatment decisions, save costs and, most importantly, deliver better outcomes for patients. Unfortunately, these life-changing innovations are all too often not available to many of the people who need them most. Currently, 47 percent of the global population and 81 percent of people in low and lower-middle income countries have little or no access to life-saving diagnostics.

If you’re following the policy trend at large — or even if you’re not — this is where we inevitably turn to discussions of the role of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in the pursuit of better access to screening and diagnosis. Population health is not only in the best interest of individual countries, but as evidenced by a global pandemic, it is important to global health as well. UHC — ensuring people can access the health care they need, when they need it, without financial hardship — is foundational to improving world health care.  

Currently, 47 percent of the global population and 81 percent of people in low and lower-middle income countries have little or no access to life-saving diagnostics.

So, where do we start? With better access to diagnostics.

After the world faced a global pandemic and pulled together, we all learned vital lessons which must not be forgotten. First and foremost, we saw that by working together and sharing information early, we could develop diagnostics and vaccines faster. This learning must extend beyond times of crisis.

We also saw that health systems with well-developed diagnostics infrastructure were more effective at containing and controlling the pandemic. And they were better able to continue providing essential diagnostic tests and treatment monitoring for patients with other diseases such as cancer.        

Normally, it would take years to bring a new test to market. Here — through focus and collaboration — we managed to do so in months.

As the world responded to urgent calls for better access to COVID-19 tests, hopes were also expressed that this would spark innovation leading to widespread testing, vaccines and treatments, which ultimately would reduce the spread of the pandemic.

After the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 as a public health concern, the urgency galvanized companies to work at full speed. The first Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests for SARS-CoV-2 were available for limited laboratory use within eight days. Only 64 days later PCR tests were authorized for use and available for scaled-up testing in major health centers.[1]

Normally, it would take years to bring a new test to market. Here — through focus and collaboration — we managed to do so in months.

As reported by the Lancet Commission, investing in diagnostic capabilities has been shown to lead to fewer misdiagnoses, better use of resources, and better patient care.

Driven by necessity, countries invested in diagnostics capabilities to fight the virus and, as reported by The Lancet, real change was seen at a pace that would previously have seemed impossible.

Why stop there? 

Ann Costello, Global Head of Roche Diagnostics Solutions | via Roche

The recommended WHO Resolution on strengthening diagnostics capacity represents an important step toward recognizing access to diagnostics as a policy priority as well as establishing concrete policy measures, to ensure equitable and timely access. It would pave the way for a considerable shift in strengthening our health care systems, driving progress toward global health equity and global health security.

As reported by the Lancet Commission[2], investing in diagnostic capabilities has been shown to lead to fewer misdiagnoses, better use of resources, and better patient care.

Early diagnosis is the cornerstone of sustainable, efficient and resilient health care systems. This in turn would reduce late-stage health care expenditures, including long-term costs of chronic disease management and disability, and better manage costs for patients, payors and governments. 

Increasing access to diagnostics is crucial to controlling and potentially even eradicating certain diseases like cervical cancer, HIV, tuberculosis, viral hepatitis and malaria.

Laboratories are an essential component of a sustainable, efficient and resilient health system. But only if there’s enough of them and trained staff to run them. 

The crux of the matter is that staff shortages in both high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries continue to create a barrier to diagnostic services. 

How short-staffed are we? Well, to put a number on it, an estimated shortage in diagnostic workforce capacity saw a need for an additional 480,000-576,000 staff to support diagnostic testing.[2] And who loses when we don’t have enough skilled laboratory professionals? Patients.

Investment in diagnostics such as improving laboratory infrastructure and workforce development must also be supported by smart local regulatory approaches. This will ensure that patients, regardless of where they live, have timely access to innovation and safe, effective diagnostics.

Health care could enter a new golden age, shifting our focus from primarily treating disease to preserving health through prevention and by helping people live longer, more healthy lives.

This can be through adherence to international best practices, such as those created by International Medical Device Regulators Forum and implementation of regulatory reliance models — where one regulatory body (or the WHO) relies on the decisions, such as marketing authorizations, inspections and product changes, already made by trusted authorities and recognized institutions.

Governments should prioritize expansion of professionals with expertise in pathology and laboratory medicine[3] and introduce laboratory personnel as a key component of workforce initiatives to address the needs of currently over-burdened health care systems. 

A new golden age for health care?

Roche is building partnerships to increase access to diagnostic solutions in low- and middle-income countries and to strengthen targeted laboratory systems through workforce training classes. In May 2022, Roche entered a partnership with the Global Fund to support low- and middle-income countries in strengthening critical diagnostics infrastructure. The aim is building local capacity to tackle infrastructure challenges to improve diagnostic results and manage health care waste. This is in line with Roche’s ambition to double patient access to innovative, high-medical-value diagnostics for people around the world.

Health care could enter a new golden age, shifting our focus from primarily treating disease to preserving health through prevention and by helping people live longer, more healthy lives.

To achieve the golden age we need to learn from the past. All public and private stakeholders have a duty to work together to ensure diagnostics continue to improve health outcomes around the world by bringing this important resolution to life. 

Where a person lives should no longer be the key determining factor in their health. We have a tremendous opportunity here, let’s take it. 


[1] Accelerating diagnostic tests to prevent a future pandemic. Bill Rodriguez. Cepi. Available at: https://100days.cepi.net/100-days-mission-diagnostic-test-future-pandemic/ (Accessed 04.04.2023)

[2] The Lancet Commission on diagnostics: transforming access to diagnostics. Fleming, Kenneth A et al.The Lancet, Volume 398, Issue 10315, 1997 – 2050. https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(21)00673-5.pdf

[3] https://www.ihe.net/ihe_domains/ihe_pathology_and_laboratory_medicine/ (Accessed: 04.04.2023)



Source link

#Putting #health #health #care

EPA proposes new regulations on toxic gas used to sterilize spices and medical equipment | CNN



CNN
 — 

The US Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday proposed a set of new restrictions on facilities that use the cancer-causing chemical ethylene oxide, a colorless, odorless gas that is used to sterilize medical devices and spices.

The agency said the new rules, which have not been finalized, would help to reduce ethylene oxide gas that these facilities release by 80%, bringing emissions below a Clean Air Act standard for elevated cancer risk.

Communities exposed to ethylene oxide gas have been pushing the EPA to put tighter controls on plants that use ethylene oxide gas.

In 2018, an EPA report found that dozens of communities across the nation faced elevated cancer risks because of trace of amounts of ethylene oxide released into air as part of the sterilization process.

The EPA issued the report on the new risks without issuing a news release, as it had done for the same report in years past. Some affected communities learned of the risk through a health assessment conducted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a division of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and media reports. A report from the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General found that some communities weren’t alerted to their risk by EPA at all.

The elevated risk became apparent after a two-decade long review of the toxicity of ethylene oxide by scientists in EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program.

While the EPA acknowledged that ethylene oxide was more dangerous that had been previously understood, it continued to use an older set of rules to regulate facilities that released ethylene oxide as well as companies that manufacture it.

The proposed rules aim to better align regulations on the producers and users of ethylene oxide with the cancer risk posed by the chemical. They follow a set of proposed rules issued by EPA last week that would put new controls on facilities that manufacture ethylene oxide.

Taken together, the two sets of rules would remove 77 tons of ethylene oxide emissions a year, an 84% reduction compared with 2020 levels, EPA Deputy Administrator Janet McCabe said in a call with reporters on Tuesday.

Environmental watchdog groups applauded the proposed restrictions, but noted that they don’t go far enough to protect vulnerable communities, where residents are often low-income and disproportionately people of color.

“These regulations are long overdue, by almost a decade. I’m relieved and pleased that the EPA has finally issued proposed standards that are based on their own scientists’ recommendations on an updated, higher cancer risk value. If enacted, these updated regulations would reduce emissions in fenceline communities,” said Darya Minovi, a senior researcher scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“When the EPA issues the final rule, they should throw the net wider. The standard should cover a larger range of facilities to include off-site warehouses that often store recently sterilized equipment that continue to release ethylene oxide, but aren’t regulated for their air emissions.”

Minovi also said the EPA should require fenceline monitors – devices that constantly read the air outside of facilities to make sure that toxic gas isn’t drifting into neighborhoods.

Jaime Rukstales, a member of the Illinois grassroots advocacy group Stop EtO in Lake County – one of the communities impacted by ethylene oxide pollution – says the EPA needs to impose tougher restrictions on “all types of facilities that impact the health of our communities … including sterilizers, manufacturers and warehouses near our homes, schools and businesses.”

Some off-site warehouses used to store newly sterilized products have registered high levels of ethylene oxide due to off-gassing of the products.

Meanwhile, chemical manufacturers sued the EPA in February over its updated hazard assessment for ethylene oxide. The industry wants the agency to use a less protective standard developed by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

AdvaMed, a group that lobbies for the interests of medical device manufacturers, warned that more regulations could pose problems for patients.

“If new EPA regulations force sterilization facilities to close, patients could face treatment delays as sterile technology supplies, such as pacemakers and surgical equipment, fall short,” Scott Whitaker, president and CEO of AdvaMed, said in a comment posted on the group’s website.

The EPA said some commercial sterilizers have already made the planned changes.

“Many sterilization and health care facilities are already taking the steps outlined in the proposal and have seen emissions drop significantly,” McCabe said.

Most facilities have taken action to control ethylene oxide blown out of sterilization chambers through exhaust vents known as “back vents” but only 25% to 33% of sterilizers are controlling so-called fugitive emissions, ethylene oxide that escapes or leaks into room air, said Jonathan Witt, an environmental engineer and technical lead on EPA’s review of the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.

“So we think it’s a good sizable chunk of the industry, but still a little ways to go,” Witt said on a call with reporters.

If the rules go into effect, sterilizers would have 18 months to make the changes, which the EPA said is an accelerated time frame under the Clean Air Act.

AdvaMed’s Whitaker says that’s not enough time.

“It could take many months for abatement equipment to arrive. Supply chains and manufacturing are still recovering from the pandemic,” he noted in the statement.

In issuing the proposed rules, the EPA said it aimed to strike a balance between lowing cancer risks for impacted communities and workers who use ethylene oxide while preserving “critical sterilization capabilities.”

The proposed rules would apply to 86 commercial sterilization facilities in the United States that use ethylene oxide gas to fumigate spices and medical devices.

The EPA says 20 billion medical devices – mostly single-use, disposable items used in health care such as catheters, gloves and surgical gowns – are sterilized using ethylene oxide.

The US Food and Drug Administration is actively exploring alternatives to the use of the gas, the EPA said on Tuesday, but some devices still can’t be sterilized any other way.

In proposing the new rules, EPA said its new analysis found that exposure to ethylene oxide, or EtO, on the job significantly increased cancer risks for workers in sterilization facilities and those who apply ethylene oxide in health care facilities.

“Now, a new EPA analysis shows that there may also be significant risks to workers who handle [ethylene oxide] and people who live, work or go to school near places where EtO is used in sterilization. And failing to take action to address these risks is simply unacceptable,” EPA Administrator Janet McCabe said on a call with reporters.

The additional lifetime cancer risk for a worker exposed to ethylene oxide for eight hours a day, 240 days a year for 35 years was between 1 in 10 and 1 in 36 for workers in sterilization facilities; and between 1 in 12 and 1 in 25 for workers exposed to ethylene oxide in health care facilities.

To help lower those risks, the proposed rules require greater use of personal protective equipment for workers and new controls to decrease the amount of ethylene oxide in indoor air.

Whitaker from AdvaMed, the medical device industry group, said the cancer risk for employees exposed to ethylene oxide on the job is overstated and disregards “the strong employee protections already in practice.”

Companies will also be required to use new real-time monitoring methods to confirm that these pollution controls are working inside facilities. These controls can measure ethylene oxide in indoor air down to 10 parts per billion. If ethylene oxide levels climb above this threshold, everyone in the workplace would be required to wear protective equipment.

They will also lower the amount of ethylene oxide that can be used for each sterilization cycle. The EPA is proposing to limit the application rate for ethylene oxide to no more than 500 milligrams per liter of air.

The rules would eliminate some niche uses of ethylene oxide where alternatives exist, including its use in museums, archival settings, beekeeping, some cosmetics, and in musical instruments.

The EPA will take public comment on the new rules for 60 days. The agency will also host a virtual public webinar on May 1 to discuss its proposed rules and new risk assessment.

Source link

#EPA #proposes #regulations #toxic #gas #sterilize #spices #medical #equipment #CNN