Day: May 13, 2026

Categories : CancerTags :

New Drug Doubles One-year Survival in Pancreatic Cancer Trial

On By ModernMedia

Phase 2 randomised trial shows 38% reduction in risk of death with the drug when combined with chemotherapy

Kaplan–Meier estimates of OS in the mITT and ITT populations. Nature Medicine, 2026.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest cancers and among the hardest to treat, with most patients surviving less than a year after diagnosis. But a new drug developed at Northwestern University may soon help patients live longer.

In a randomised phase 2 clinical trial, patients who received the experimental drug elraglusib, alongside standard chemotherapy, were twice as likely to be alive after one year of treatment, compared to those receiving chemotherapy alone. The drug also reduced the risk of death by 38%.

The study is one of only a few successful randomised trials in the last decade to show a survival benefit that would be applicable to a broad population of pancreatic cancer patients, according to the authors.

The study, which was led by Northwestern Medicine, was published in Nature Medicine.

“Pancreatic cancer remains one of the most challenging solid tumours to treat, but these findings provide cautious optimism for patients,” said study lead author Dr Devalingam Mahalingam, professor of medicine in the division of Hematology and Oncology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

“While these results will need to be confirmed in phase 3 trials, observing survival benefit in such a difficult-to-treat cancer is encouraging. Given the novel mechanism of this drug, these findings raise the possibility that it could have broader application across other tumour types,” added Mahalingam, who also is the associate director of clinical research at Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University.

How the trial was conducted

The phase 2 trial enrolled 233 patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer across 60 sites in six countries in North America and Europe. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either standard chemotherapy or the same chemotherapy combined with elraglusib.

Those who received elraglusib lived a median of 10.1 months, compared to 7.2 months for those who only received chemotherapy. While that three-month difference may appear modest, it’s partly because the trial included patients whose cancer progressed too quickly to benefit from treatment.

Among patients who benefited from the drug, the impact was pronounced. Twice as many patients who received elraglusib were alive at one year (44% vs 22%) and about 13% of patients in the drug group were alive at two years, compared to none in the chemotherapy group.

Side effects were generally consistent with chemotherapy but slightly more common in the elraglusib group. The most frequent included low white blood cell counts, fatigue and temporary vision changes, which were reversible. Overall, the safety profile of the drug was considered manageable, the authors said in the study.

How elraglusib works

Elraglusib was developed nearly 15 years ago inside Northwestern University labs. It targets a protein known as GSK-3 beta, which plays a role in tumour growth and suppression of the immune system.

Unlike traditional chemotherapy, which aims to kill cancer cells, elraglusib seems to act on the tumour microenvironment – the mix of cancer cells, immune cells and surrounding tissue that can either support or weaken tumours.

Pancreatic tumours are hard to treat in part because of their microenvironment, which is particularly adept at suppressing immune response. In the study, patients who received elraglusib showed increases in cancer-fighting cells within their tumours, offering early evidence that the drug may help re-engage the immune system.

In addition, certain immune-related markers in the blood at the start of the trial were associated with longer survival among patients who received the drug. While these findings are preliminary, they suggest that elraglusib may be particularly effective in certain patients whose immune systems are already primed to respond.

Mahalingam and his colleagues are exploring a larger confirmatory phase 3 trial as funding and partnership allow. They are also interested in studying the drug in combination with other novel therapies to determine if broader clinical benefit can be achieved.

Source: Northwestern University

Categories : Lab Tests and ImagingTags :

Don’t Blame the Iodine For Reactions to Contrast Scans

On By ModernMedia

Patients may often be worried about reactions to the contrast agents used in their scans.

What is a contrast scan?

‘A contrast scan is a medical imaging test, such as a CT scan or MRI,’ says Dr Jean de Villiers, a radiologist and director of SCP Radiology, ‘that uses a special dye called a ‘contrast agent’ to make certain areas of the body easier to see. The contrast helps highlight blood vessels, organs or abnormal tissues, providing clearer and more detailed images. Dr de Villiers talks about the dye, what it is used for and debunks the myth that it is the iodine that causes allergic reactions in some people.

For MRI scans, a different type of contrast is used, which is gadolinium-based and, while allergic reactions are possible, they are extremely rare.

Why is it used?

The contrast agent shows the blood flow through arteries and veins, blockages, bleeding or abnormal growths and detailed organ structure (such as the brain, liver or kidneys).

In short, contrast helps to highlight differences between normal and abnormal tissue, improving diagnosis and treatment planning.

How is the dye administered?

The contrast agent is usually injected into a vein but, in some cases it can be swallowed or given as a rectal enema, depending on the area being examined. It temporarily changes the way radiation or magnetic fields interact with the body’s internal structures.

Is there an iodine allergy risk in a contrast scan?

This is a common concern, but it’s a bit misunderstood.

People often believe they are allergic to iodine because they may have reacted to contrast dye in the past or to shellfish, which contain iodine. However, iodine itself is not an allergen. According to radiologists and allergists, the body doesn’t mount an allergic immune response to iodine as it’s a basic element, essential to human health, particularly for thyroid function.

What causes allergic reactions in contrast scans?

The culprits are usually one of the other compounds, not iodine. Most contrast agents used in CT scans are iodinated contrast agents however, reactions tend to be linked to the chemical structure of the compound, not its iodine content.

Reactions may range from mild (nausea, itching, flushing) to more serious (difficulty breathing or anaphylactoid reactions), which mimic allergies but do not involve the immune system in the same way.

These reactions are typically caused by:

  • Concentration of the contrast agent
  • Molecular structure (ionic vs non-ionic)
  • Patient-specific factors such as history of allergies, asthma or previous reaction to contrast

Advancements in the type of contrast agent used have significantly reduced the rate of reactions in patients.

To confirm: It’s not the iodine, it’s the other compounds attached to the iodine in the dye and the body’s unique response to them. That is why patients are always asked about any previous contrast reactions, asthma or other allergies before being given the contrast injection.

‘Whether you are asked or not,’ says Dr de Villiers, it’s always best to inform the radiology team if you have had any previous allergic contrast reactions.’

Categories : Cardiovascular DiseaseTags :

Digoxin Benefits Heart Failure Patients, Study Shows

On By ModernMedia
Right side heart failure. Credit: Scientific Animations CC4.0

Analyses supporting the use of digitalis glycosides in patients with heart failure were presented in a Late-Breaking Science session at Heart Failure 2026, [1–3] the annual congress of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology.

Investigations from researchers at University Medical Center Groningen, Netherlands, evaluated the effects of the digitalis glycosides, digoxin and digitoxin, in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HF(m)rEF). 

“Digoxin is the oldest drug in cardiovascular medicine, but there has been uncertainty about its value in HF(m)rEF management,” explained Principal Investigator, Professor Dirk van Veldhuisen. “In the DIG trial, published in 1997, digoxin had a neutral effect on the primary endpoint of mortality, but a 28% reduction in heart failure hospitalisations (a secondary endpoint) was observed. Later analyses from DIG showed that lower serum digoxin levels were associated with a favourable effect, while higher digoxin levels worsened prognosis. [4] We conducted the DECISION trial to investigate whether low-dose digoxin has positive effects on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with HF(m)rEF receiving contemporary guideline-recommended treatments.”[1]

The double-blind DECISION trial was conducted at 43 sites in the Netherlands (NCT03783429). Patients with symptomatic mild-to-moderate HF(m)rEF (left ventricular ejection fraction <50%). were randomised to low-dose digoxin or placebo, with a target serum digoxin concentration of 0.5–0.9 ng/mL.  Both patients with sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation were enrolled. The primary outcome was a composite of total worsening HF events (defined as total hospitalisations or total urgent hospital visits for worsening HF) and cardiovascular mortality. A total of 1001 patients were randomised. The mean age of the participants was 73 years, 28% were women, and 29% had atrial fibrillation.

Low-dose digoxin did not significantly reduce the primary outcome. Over a median follow-up of 36.5 months, 238 primary-outcome events occurred in 131 of 500 patients in the digoxin group, while 291 primary-outcome events occurred in 152 of 501 patients in the placebo group (rate ratio [RR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61 to 1.07; p=0.133). Although not statistically significant, the total number of worsening HF events was lower in the digoxin group than in the placebo group (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.05). Cardiovascular mortality was similar with digoxin and placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.93; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.26). Low-dose digoxin was generally well tolerated and safe.

Last year, results were published from the DIGIT-HF trial, which studied another digitalis glycoside, digitoxin, in patients with advanced HF and reduced ejection fraction. [5] Treatment with digitoxin led to a lower risk of death from any cause or hospital admission for worsening HF.

A second presentation at Heart Failure 2026, by Associate Professor Kevin Damman, demonstrated positive overall benefits with digoxin/digitoxin in a meta-analysis of the DECISION, DIGIT-HF and DIG trials. [2] Across 9,013 patients, digitalis glycoside treatment reduced the risk of the primary endpoint of time to cardiovascular death or first worsening HF event compared with placebo (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.90; p<0.001). This reduction was mostly attributable to the effect on time to the first worsening HF event (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.81; p<0.001). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity by trial, treatment period or type of digitalis glycoside. In addition, the effect was not attenuated in patients who were already receiving full guideline-directed HF treatment. 

A third presentation, by Professor Peter van der Meer, found that digoxin withdrawal was associated with clinical deterioration. [3] This was a prespecified blinded analysis that followed patients who stopped taking study medication at the end of the DECISION trial, and were subsequently followed for another 6 weeks. Across 587 patients, there were more cardiovascular deaths and HF events in patients after withdrawal of digoxin than after placebo withdrawal (RR 7.37; 95% CI 1.56 to 34.88; p=0.012). 

Summing up the evidence, Professor van Veldhuisen concluded, “In patients with HF(m)rEF, low-dose digitalis glycosides seem to be an effective additional medical treatment option, which are cheap, safe and easy to use. The totality of the evidence supports the role of low-dose digoxin in the contemporary management of HF, with caution warranted when it is stopped.”

References

[1] ‘Low-dose digoxin in heart failure’ presented during the Hottest trials (2) session on 10 May at 13:15 to 14:15 in Room 3, with simultaneous publication in Nature Medicine: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-026-04406-6.


[2] ‘DECISION/DIGIT-HF/DIG study level meta analysis’ presented during the Hottest trials (2) session on 10 May at 13:15 to 14:15 in Room 3.


[3] ‘Blinded withdrawal of digoxin or placebo’ presented during the Hottest trials (2) session on 10 May at 13:15 to 14:15 in Room 3. 


[4] Digitalis Investigation Group. The effect of digoxin on mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:525−533.


[5] Bavendiek U, Großhennig A, Schwab J, et al. Digitoxin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2025;393:1155–1165.

Source: European Society of Cardiology

Categories : VaccinesTags :

Cipla Secures Vaccine Tender Across Key Immunisation Categories

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Mufid Majnun on Unsplash

Cipla has been awarded a public sector vaccine tender, reaffirming the company’s commitment to strengthening South Africa’s immunisation program through the equitable supply of high‑quality, affordable vaccines.

Cipla submitted bids across several critical paediatric and childhood immunisation categories, including Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV‑10), Rotavirus vaccine, Hepatitis B (Paediatric formulation). These vaccines play a vital role in preventing life‑threatening childhood illnesses and reducing the burden on healthcare systems.

CEO of Cipla Africa, Paul Miller, said: “This tender award marks an important milestone for Cipla as we continue to expand our vaccine footprint in support of national immunisation priorities. We can meaningfully contribute to comprehensive immunisation programmes and long‑term disease prevention efforts.

“Our participation across multiple vaccine categories demonstrates our commitment to addressing critical public health needs and strengthening health outcomes for children and communities.”

Cipla’s vaccine portfolio is underpinned by stringent quality standards and a focus on ensuring continuity of supply reliability. Cipla has a long history of partnering with the Department of Health to support equitable access to quality healthcare, including the supply of antiretrovirals and various vaccines.

Cipla South Africa focus will be ensuring reliability of supply, consistency, and responsible partnership with the public health sector, particularly in communities where access to healthcare remains uneven. CEO of Cipla Africa, Paul Miller, said: “This tender reaffirms our ongoing partnership with the state, as part of Cipla’s mission of ensuring access to quality, affordable healthcare.”

As part of our ethos of “Caring for Life”, we strongly believe in the importance of robust routine immunisation programmes that save lives, reduces inequality and delivery lasting benefits for society as a whole. In public health, progress often comes down to getting the basics right – ensuring vaccines are available, delivered on time, and reach every child who needs them.”

Participation in the Expanded Programme on Immunisation (EPI) aligns with Cipla’s broader mandate to support preventative healthcare and long‑term public health sustainability, said Miller.

Cipla South Africa continues to work closely with healthcare partners and has invested in initiatives to strengthen vaccines knowledge and reduce vaccine hesitancy. For more information about vaccines, visit https://medinformer.co.za/?s=vaccines

Categories : CancerTags :

Is Depression Being Overdiagnosed in Ovarian Cancer Patients?

On By ModernMedia

Study finds that physical symptoms may disproportionately inflate depression scores in patients. 

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels

In addition to causing mental symptoms such as sadness and despair, depression can cause physical sensations including fatigue, headaches, back pain, gastrointestinal issues, and sleep problems.

New research indicates that individuals with ovarian cancer report more of these physical issues at lower levels of depression than people in the general population. Published by Wiley online in CANCER, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society, the findings may reflect misattribution of cancer-related symptoms to depression in patients with ovarian cancer.

 Research indicates that more than one-quarter of patients with ovarian cancer develop depressive symptoms. Diagnosis is complicated because physical symptoms of depression overlap with those that can arise from cancer-related causes. Investigators examined how physical symptoms of depression are reported relative to other depression symptoms in patients with ovarian cancer at the time of diagnosis and one-year postdiagnosis, comparing the results with those from people without cancer. 

The team found that at diagnosis, patients reported physical symptoms more frequently than people without cancer and at a lower severity of depression (based on cognitive or emotional symptoms). These differences disappeared at the one-year follow-up, when disease processes no longer drove physical sympto “We intend these findings to help guide assessments of depressive symptoms to discriminate between physical symptoms that are related to cancer and cognitive or affective symptoms that may respond to more traditional interventions for depression,” said lead author Rachel Telles, MA, of the University of Iowa. “We hope that more tailored care will improve outcomes for these patients.”

Source: Wiley