Categories : Diseases, Syndromes and ConditionsTags :

Ivermectin Was Touted as a Cure for COVID, Now it’s Being Tested for Cancer. But what can it Actually Treat?

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Halgatewood.com on Unsplash

Nial Wheate, Macquarie University

Ivermectin was originally celebrated as a revolutionary treatment for parasitic disease in humans and animals. It has since evolved into a focal point of misinformation and heated debate.

During the early part of the COVID pandemic, it was touted on social media as a miracle cure for the virus, despite a lack of robust evidence.

Now the United States National Cancer Institute is looking into the drug as a potential cancer treatment, with early human clinical studies underway.

But what can it successfully treat?

What is ivermectin?

The drug is a small organic chemical that can be extracted from the bacterium Streptomyces avermitilis. This bacterium grows in the soil, and was first found near the grounds of a Japanese golf course.

Ivermectin’s discovery in the 1970s was considered so important its discoverers were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

It was first approved for use in animals in 1981 and in humans in 1987. It’s now available in various brands as tablets and creams you apply to the skin.

Assessing the evidence

Governments use human clinical trials to decide whether to approve a medicine for sale.

But clinical trials aren’t the highest level of evidence to inform best practice and guide decisions. For that, there are Cochrane reviews.

A Cochrane review brings together a panel of experts who collate and assess all the relevant evidence on a medication. It takes data from multiple clinical trials, and other studies, and evaluates it following clear and structured steps. It’s able to examine and critique study designs to identify bias and reject bad data.

Cochrane reviews are also regularly updated to take into account new information. The result is a summary that is considered the highest level of evidence to guide decision-making.

So what do Cochrane reviews say about ivermectin for different conditions?

What can and can’t ivermectin treat?

ConditionDoes it work?Notes
CancerUnclearStudies only just starting
COVIDNoDoes not prevent infection or treat
Gut and lymphatic wormsYesTreatment for various roundworms
MalariaUnclearNot enough evidence to decide
River blindnessUnclearNot enough evidence to decide
RosaceaYesUse the topical formulation
ScabiesYes, but with caveatsNot the most effective
Table: Nial Wheate Source: Cochrane reviews – variousGet the dataCreated with Datawrapper

Gut and lymphatic worms

Ivermectin is used to treat a variety of parasitic worm infections. These include the round worms Ascaris lumbricoides, Strongyloides stercoralis, Wuchereria bancrofti, and Brugia malayi.

The latter two worms cause the disease lymphatic filariasis (or elephantiasis) which causes severe swelling in the arms, legs, breasts and genitals.

When ivermectin is used to treat Strongyloides stercoralis, the Cochrane panel found it is better than albendazole and had fewer side effects than thiabendazole.

For Ascaris lumbricoides, the panel concluded ivermectin was as good as albendazole and mebendazole.

For treating lymphatic filariasis, a Cochrane review found ivermectin or diethylcarbamazine should be standard treatment in combination with albendazole.

Rosacea

The Cochrane review for rosacea evaluated 22 different treatments for this skin condition, including a variety of drugs, as well as light therapy, cosmetics and reducing the intake of spicy food.

It concluded that ivermectin applied to the skin was more effective than a placebo, and a bit better than the other standard medication, metronidazole.

Scabies

Cochrane has two reviews on the use of ivermectin for scabies. One specifically evaluated ivermectin and permethrin as treatments. The other evaluated all available treatments for scabies.

The first review concluded both permethrin and ivermectin were just as effective, regardless of whether the ivermectin was administered orally or directly onto the skin.

In contrast, the second review concluded ivermectin does work but topical permethrin appeared to be the most effective treatment.

Malaria

The Cochrane panel looked specifically at whether ivermectin could reduce transmission of the malaria parasite, rather than as a treatment.

Unfortunately there was just a single clinical trial to use as evidence. In that trial, residents of eight villages were given ivermectin and albendazole together, with follow up doses of just ivermectin. The researchers then looked at the rates of child infection over 18 weeks.

Even though the trial didn’t show ivermectin prevented infection, due to the high risk of bias in it, the Cochrane panel couldn’t conclude either way whether ivermectin worked or not.

River blindness

River blindness is caused by another parasitic worm called Onchocerca volvulus.

The Cochrane review concluded there was a lack of evidence either way to know whether it works to prevent infection-based visual impairment and blindness.

It evaluated the data from four clinical trials and two large community-based studies.

One of the reasons the panel was unable to make a firm conclusion was because it thought the drug may work differently against different strains of the parasite and in people of different ethnicity.

Cancer

There are no Cochrane reviews on ivermectin’s use for cancer because clinical interest in the drug for this condition is just starting.

There is a current clinical trial that is evaluating ivermectin in combination with antibody-based drugs for breast cancer.

Early results showed the combination of antibody drugs with ivermectin was safe to patients, but no efficacy data has been published.

COVID

The Cochrane panel rejected the data for seven clinical trials and included 11 other trials. Rejected trials included those which compared ivermectin against other drugs which were known to not be effective against COVID, such as hydroxychloroquine.

The review concluded there was no evidence to support the use of ivermectin for the treatment or prevention of COVID. In making that conclusion, it evaluated treatments that used invermectin or placebo in combination with standard care and whether treatment reduced death, illness, or the length of the infection.

Nial Wheate, Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Categories : Cancer Surgeries & ProceduresTags :

Method Spots Early Signs of Infection in Post-mastectomy Reconstruction

On By ModernMedia

Rapid detection, treatment of infections could avoid complications, additional surgeries after mastectomy

Many of those women opt to have their breasts surgically reconstructed, most commonly with implants, but a relatively high percentage develop infections after implant surgery, requiring intravenous antibiotics and often removal of the implant. This can lead to additional surgeries, delays in cancer care and increased costs, as well as added emotional distress for women already under strain from cancer diagnosis and treatment.

To address this problem, researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis have developed a new tool to detect reconstruction-related infections early, before they cause symptoms. This method, reported in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, could allow for preemptive treatment that preserves implants, improves patient outcomes and reduces the psychological and financial burden on patients.

Led by Jeffrey P. Henderson, MD, PhD, a WashU Medicine professor, the study identified biomarkers of infection in fluid drained from reconstruction patients’ breasts days or even weeks before symptoms appeared. This represents a major opportunity for improvement over existing diagnostic methods, which rely heavily on clinical symptoms, such as redness and inflammation, that take time to appear and can overlap with normal reactions to surgery.

The findings are available online and will publish in print Feb. 16 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

“The ability to identify with a molecular signature early on that a patient will go on to have an infection opens up the possibility of surveillance as part of standard care,” Henderson said. “This has the potential to enable earlier treatment that would be far more effective – and potentially curative – in patients who would otherwise progress to prolonged courses of treatment and surgery, or even implant removal and reconstructive failure.”

Small molecules, big impact

The study originated when Henderson’s WashU Medicine colleague Margaret A. Olsen, PhD, a retired professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases who studies hospital infections, noticed high rates of infection among US patients who had reconstruction with implants after mastectomy. The discovery prompted Henderson and Olsen, a co-author on the study, to ask WashU Medicine plastic surgeons who performed breast reconstruction what they would need to improve outcomes in these patients. Their answer was simple: a clear yes/no test for infection.

To develop such a test, Henderson and lead author John A. Wildenthal, an MD/PhD student, leveraged their expertise in metabolomics, the study of metabolites that are created or broken down during cellular processes in the body. Metabolites can indicate the presence of an infection because they include byproducts of both the body’s response to pathogens and the metabolic activity of the pathogens themselves. By analysing changes in metabolite levels, scientists can identify patterns that are characteristic of infections, enabling early diagnosis.

Henderson and colleagues coordinated with WashU Medicine plastic surgeons to obtain fluid samples from 50 patient volunteers during several routine follow-up visits after surgery. The patients included women who later developed infections after post-mastectomy reconstruction and those who did not.

The researchers analysed the samples for differences between the two groups and identified metabolites that were significantly associated with infection and that appeared days to weeks before clinical signs and symptoms of infection. Further, they found that the presence of certain metabolites indicated more serious infections that might require more aggressive treatment.

“Originating from clinical intuition and validated through a clinical study, the evidence in this paper now supports proactive, targeted interventions to predict and address infections before they become clinically significant,” said Justin M. Sacks, MD, a co-author on the paper. “Such interventions can substantially reduce the burden of complications, implant loss and reconstructive failures in these patients.”

For instance, the findings could lead to the development of a point-of-care test that could be provided during a woman’s routine post-operative visits, noted co-author Terence M. Myckatyn, MD, a professor of surgery at WashU Medicine, who performs plastic and reconstructive surgery for breast cancer patients.

“If the test is positive, antibiotics can be started preemptively in these select patients to thwart infection,” Myckatyn said. “And perhaps just as important, we would not give antibiotics to those with a negative test, thereby adhering to a thoughtful approach for antibiotic stewardship.” Such careful use of antibiotics is important for preventing antibiotic resistance, he said.

In the near term, the team is planning additional studies to validate the results. Then a diagnostic tool could be developed and tested in clinical practice. In the future, the broader metabolomic findings about the development of tissue infection in humans could allow physicians to more selectively target a variety of post-surgical infections, for example, by revealing new drug targets.

“While better techniques are always being sought, the reality is that infections still occur despite a meticulous surgical approach,” said Myckatyn. “To be able to identify biomarkers that can portend an infection days before it develops is huge.”

Source: Washington University

Categories : GastrointestinalTags :

Scientists Discover a Form of Constipation Caused by Gut-drying Bacteria

On By ModernMedia

Two bacteria working together to break down intestinal mucus are identified as a contributing factor to chronic constipation

Scientists at Nagoya University in Japan have found two gut bacteria working together that contribute to chronic constipation. The duo, Akkermansia muciniphila and Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, destroy the intestinal mucus coating essential for keeping the colon lubricated and faeces hydrated. Their excess degradation leaves patients with dry, immobile stool. This discovery, published in Gut Microbes, finally explains why standard treatments often fail for millions of people with chronic constipation.

Notably, the study shows that Parkinson’s disease patients, who suffer from constipation decades before developing tremors, have higher levels of these mucus-degrading bacteria. While constipation in Parkinson’s disease has traditionally been attributed to nerve degradation, these findings suggest that bacterial activity also plays a crucial role in the development of their symptoms.

Why mucin matters for digestion

Constipation is a very common digestive problem. Doctors have assumed it happens because of slow gut movement when our intestines are not moving food along fast enough. However, this explanation does not work for everyone.

Some people have constipation with no identifiable cause, referred to as chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC). Parkinson’s disease patients also face severe, treatment-resistant constipation, though it is clinically categorized separately from CIC. Many struggle with severe constipation for 20 or 30 years before they develop tremors and movement problems, but researchers did not know why until now.

Instead of focusing on nerve and muscle movement in the gut, the researchers examined the protective gel-like coating called colonic mucin, a substance in the large intestine that lines the intestinal walls and is found within stool. Colonic mucin keeps stool moist, helps it move smoothly through our digestive tract, and protects the intestinal wall from bacteria.

They found that two gut bacteria work in sequence to break down this mucin. B. thetaiotaomicron uses enzymes to remove protective sulfate groups from the mucin, and A. muciniphila then breaks down and consumes the exposed mucin.

Sulfate groups attached to colonic mucin molecules normally prevent bacteria from degrading them. When too much mucin is destroyed, stool loses moisture and becomes hard and dry, causing constipation. Because the problem is mucin loss, not slow gut movement, standard laxatives and gut motility drugs are often ineffective.

Researchers have identified a two-step bacterial process driving a new type of constipation: one bacterium removes protective sulfate groups while another consumes the exposed colonic mucin. Credit: Tomonari Hamaguchi, Nagoya University

A new frontier for gut health treatment

“We genetically modified B. thetaiotaomicron so it could no longer activate the enzyme sulfatase that removes sulfate groups from mucin,” Tomonari Hamaguchi, lead author and lecturer from the Academic Research & Industry-Academia-Government Collaboration Office at Nagoya University explained.

“We put these modified bacteria into germ-free mice together with Akkermansia muciniphila, and surprisingly the mice did not develop constipation; the mucin stayed protected and intact.”

The experiment proved that blocking the sulfatase enzyme prevents the bacteria from degrading mucin. Therefore, drugs that block sulfatase could treat bacterial constipation in humans.

For millions of patients with treatment-resistant constipation, including those with Parkinson’s disease, this discovery offers hope for new therapies that address the root microbial causes of their condition.

Source: Nagoya University

Categories : CancerTags :

Aspirin not a Quick Fix for Preventing Colorectal Cancer

On By ModernMedia
Photo by cottonbro studio

Daily aspirin use does not offer a quick or reliable way to prevent colorectal cancer in the general population and carries immediate risks of serious bleeding, a new Cochrane review finds. 

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common types of cancer worldwide. Prevention typically involves following a healthy lifestyle and periodically undergoing routine screening tests. In recent years, researchers have also explored the role of off-the-shelf medications, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), in reducing the incidence of colorectal cancer.

NSAIDs, which include ibuprofen and aspirin, are commonly used to reduce inflammation, fever, and pain. However, their role in the primary prevention of colorectal cancer remains uncertain and controversial.

Researchers from West China Hospital of Sichuan University in China analysed 10 randomised controlled trials including 124 837 participants, assessing whether aspirin or other NSAIDs could prevent colorectal cancer or precancerous polyps (adenomas) in people at average risk. The team found no suitable trials for non-aspirin NSAIDs, so their conclusions focus exclusively on aspirin.

Little to no short-term benefit and uncertain long-term effects

The review found that aspirin probably does not reduce the risk of colorectal cancer in the first 5 to 15 years of use. Possible protective effects after more than 10–15 years of follow-up were observed in some studies, but the certainty of this evidence is very low.

These potential long-term benefits come from observational follow-up phases of trials, in which participants may have stopped aspirin, started it independently, or begun other treatments, making the findings vulnerable to bias.

“While the idea of aspirin preventing bowel cancer in the long run is intriguing, our analysis shows that this benefit is not guaranteed and comes with immediate risks.”

— Dr Zhaolun Cai, lead author 

Immediate and well-established risks

The findings also show clear evidence that daily use of aspirin increases the risk of serious extracranial haemorrhage and probably increases the risk of haemorrhagic stroke. 

Although higher doses carry the greatest risk, low-dose (“baby”) aspirin also raises bleeding risk. Older adults and those with a history of ulcers or bleeding disorders may be particularly vulnerable.

The authors therefore caution that any potential long-term benefit must be weighed against the immediate and well-established risk of bleeding.
 

“My biggest worry is that people might assume that taking an aspirin today will protect them from cancer tomorrow. In reality, any potential preventive effect takes over a decade to appear, if it appears at all, while the bleeding risk begins immediately.”

— Dr Bo Zhang, senior author

Not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution

Previous evidence has shown potential benefits for people at high genetic risk of colorectal cancer, such as those with Lynch syndrome. However, this review focuses strictly on people at average risk, and the long-term evidence for them proved highly uncertain.

The authors urge that patients should not start taking aspirin for cancer prevention without a careful conversation with their healthcare professional about their personal risk of bleeding.
 

“This review reinforces that we must move away from a one-size-fits-all approach. Widespread aspirin use in the general population simply isn’t supported by the evidence. The future lies in precision prevention – using molecular markers and individual risk profiles to identify who might benefit most and who is most at risk.”

— Dr Dan Cao, senior author

The research team concludes that the story of aspirin for cancer prevention is far more complex than previously believed and that the balance of benefits and harms changes over time.

Dr Zhang adds:

“As scientists, we must follow the evidence where it leads. Our rigorous analysis of the highest-quality trials reveals that the ‘aspirin for cancer prevention’ story is more complex than a simple ‘yes or no.’ The current evidence does not support a blanket recommendation for aspirin use purely to prevent bowel cancer.” 

Read the review here.

Source: Cochrane

Categories : Obstetrics & GynaecologyTags :

Yawns in Healthy Foetuses Might Indicate Mild Distress

On By ModernMedia

Foetuses yawn in the womb, with more yawns associated with a lower weight at birth

Photo by Mart Production on Pexels

Even in the womb, where all oxygen is provided by the parental placenta, foetuses can – and do – yawn. More yawns during observation were associated with a lower weight at birth – potentially indicating mild foetal stress in the womb, according to a study published February 25, 2026 in the open-access journal PLOS One by Damiano Menin, of the Università degli Studi di Ferrara in Italy, and colleagues.

Yawning is a behaviour found across vertebrates – and no one quite knows why. In humans, foetuses yawn in the womb from about 11 weeks. Even though there is no air to breathe, they slowly open their mouths, make motions similar to inhalation and exhalation, and close their mouths again. To understand more about foetal yawns, the authors of this study used ultrasound to observe 32 healthy foetuses (56% female, 44% male) between 23 and 31 weeks. Each foetus was observed for 22.5 minutes.

The authors found that the foetuses yawned between zero and six times during the observation period, with an average of 3.63 yawns per hour. They also showed that foetuses that yawned more during their observations were more likely to have a low weight at birth, which is considered as an indicator of mild distress – though all foetuses in the study were born healthy.

The researchers did not perform any manipulations to see if they could affect foetal yawning and also did not record measures such as foetal heart rate or maternal temperature which might potentially be associated with the behaviour. Additionally, no high-risk pregnancies were observed. Based on their research, the authors suggest that frequent foetal yawning might be a sign of mild distress in the healthy foetus.

The authors add: “We found that yawning frequencies in the womb are negatively related to birth weight, potentially indicating a stress-related response in healthy fetuses. This suggests that even before birth, yawning may serve as an indicator of a foetus’s well-being.”

Provided by PLOS

Categories : General Interest Implants and ProsthesesTags :

‘What’s Your Epic?’ Gathers Momentum as Amputee Riders Prepare for the 2026 Cape Epic

On By ModernMedia

Movement is a Right, not a Privilege

Since launching late last year, Össur South Africa’s ‘What’s Your Epic?’ campaign has gained strong traction, with six amputee athletes now deep into training for the 2026 Cape Epic (15–22 March). As preparations intensify, the campaign continues to rally South Africans around a powerful belief: that access to mobility is fundamental to dignity, independence, and opportunity.

Three amputee teams will line up at one of the world’s most demanding mountain biking events, not only to test their physical limits, but to raise awareness and funds for three South African non-profit organisations restoring mobility and independence to people living with limb loss or disability: Jumping Kids, Rejuvenate SA, and Zimele.

Over the past few weeks, the riders have been balancing rigorous training schedules with advocacy, fundraising, and community engagement, using the build-up to the Cape Epic to shine a spotlight on the everyday barriers faced by thousands of South Africans who lack access to basic mobility solutions.

“Since launching ‘What’s Your Epic?’, the response has been incredibly encouraging,” says Blignaut Knoetze, Managing Director of Össur South Africa. “What’s been most powerful is seeing how this campaign has resonated beyond sport. It’s sparked conversations about access, inclusion, and what mobility truly means in people’s lives.”

For the six riders, the road to the Cape Epic is as much mental as it is physical. Long training rides, strength work, and recovery sessions are all undertaken with a deeper purpose in mind.

“Training for the Cape Epic is intense, but every ride reminds me why this matters,” says Rentia Retief, artist and amputee athlete. “With the right prosthetic and support, I’ve been able to reclaim the life I knew before losing my leg. Through this campaign, we’re trying to help make that same freedom possible for others.”

Mhlengi Gwala, international para-triathlete and African champion, adds, “This race is about more than endurance. It’s about representation and showing what’s possible when people are given the tools and support to move forward.”

Representing the third team, Brian Style, a passionate cyclist who rebuilt his life through mountain biking, says, “Preparing for the Cape Epic is both challenging and incredibly rewarding. Being part of this campaign gives real meaning to the training, knowing that every kilometre ridden helps create opportunities for others to regain their independence and confidence.”

Funds raised through the campaign will support:

  • Jumping Kids, which provides prosthetic limbs, education access, and sport opportunities to children with limb loss.
  • Rejuvenate SA, which supplies mobility aids to adults who cannot afford them, restoring dignity and independence.
  • Zimele, which supports adults with physical disabilities to regain independence, reintegrate into society, and build economic self-sufficiency.

Together, these organisations are changing lives every day, from helping a child take their first steps to enabling adults to return to work and participate fully in their communities.

“The riders may be the face of the campaign, but the real heroes are the organisations working on the ground,” says Knoetze. “Our role is to amplify their impact and encourage South Africans to get involved in any way they can.”

As race day draws closer, Össur South Africa is calling on individuals, corporates, and communities to support the campaign through donations, fundraising initiatives, partnerships, or simply by sharing the message.

“‘What’s Your Epic?’ asks a simple but powerful question,” says Knoetze. “How can each of us help remove barriers and create access? When we support mobility, we support inclusion, opportunity, and futures.”

Donate, fundraise, or get involved as an individual or company. Your support can help someone stand, walk, work, play, or believe in possibility again.

Donations: Össur Donations, ABSA Bank, Account number: 4123 215 542, Branch code: 632005, Reference: Company name and contact number. For more information or Section 18A certificates, please contact Amelda Potgieter at apotgieter@ossur.com.

This is more than a race. It’s a movement.
What’s your Epic?

Categories : Mental Health Substance UseTags :

Study: Adolescent Cannabis Use Linked to Doubling Risk of Psychotic and Bipolar Disorders

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Thought Catalog on Unsplash

Adolescents who use cannabis could face a significantly higher risk of developing serious psychiatric disorders by young adulthood, according to a large new study published in JAMA Health Forum. The longitudinal study followed nearly half a million adolescents ages 13 to 17 through age 26 and found that past-year cannabis use during adolescence was associated with a significantly higher risk of incident psychotic (doubled), bipolar (doubled), depressive and anxiety disorders.

The study was conducted by researchers from Kaiser Permanente, the Public Health Institute’s Getting it Right from the Start, the University of California, San Francisco and the University of Southern California, and was funded by a grant from NIH’s National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA0531920).

The study analysed electronic health record data from routine paediatric visits between 2016 and 2023. Cannabis use preceded psychiatric diagnoses by an average of 1.7 to 2.3 years. The study’s longitudinal design strengthens evidence that adolescent cannabis exposure is a potential risk factor for developing mental illness.

“As cannabis becomes more potent and aggressively marketed, this study indicates that adolescent cannabis use is associated with double the risk of incident psychotic and bipolar disorders, two of the most serious mental health conditions,” said Lynn Silver, MD, program director of the Getting it Right from the Start, a program of the Public Health Institute, and a study co-author.

The evidence increasingly points to the need for an urgent public health response — one that reduces product potency, prioritises prevention, limits youth exposure and marketing and treats adolescent cannabis use as a serious health issue, not a benign behaviour. 

Lynn Silver, MD, Program Director, PHI’s Getting it Right from the Start

Cannabis is the most used illicit drug among U.S. adolescents. The Monitoring the Future study shows use rising with grade level — from about 8% in 8th grade to 26% in 12th grade — and according to the 2024 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, more than 10% of all U.S. teens aged 12 to 17 report past-year use. At the same time, average THC levels in California cannabis flower now exceed 20%, far higher than in previous decades, and concentrates can exceed 95% THC.

Unlike many prior studies, the research examined any self-reported past-year cannabis use, with universal screening of teens during standard pediatric care, rather than focusing only on heavy use or cannabis use disorder.

“Even after accounting for prior mental health conditions and other substance use, adolescents who reported cannabis use had a substantially higher risk of developing psychiatric disorders — particularly psychotic and bipolar disorders,” said Kelly Young-Wolff, PhD, lead author of the study and senior research scientist at the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research.

This study adds to the growing body of evidence that cannabis use during adolescence could have potentially detrimental, long-term health effects. It’s imperative that parents and their children have accurate, trusted, and evidence-based information about the risks of adolescent cannabis use.

Kelly Young-Wolff, PhD, Lead Study Author and Senior Research Scientist, Kaiser Permanente Division of Research

The study also found that cannabis use was more common among adolescents enrolled in Medicaid and those living in more socioeconomically deprived neighbourhoods, raising concerns that expanding cannabis commercialisation could exacerbate existing mental health disparities.

Source: Public Health Institute

Categories : Lab Tests and Imaging OphthalmologyTags :

New Antenna Upgrade Boosts MRI Image Quality

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Mart Production on Pexels

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is one of medicine’s most powerful diagnostic tools. But certain tissues deep inside the body – including brain regions and delicate structures of the eye and orbit that are of particular relevance for ophthalmology – are difficult to image clearly. The problem is not the scanner itself, but the hardware that sends and receives radio signals. 

Now, researchers at the Max Delbrück Center have developed an advanced materials-based MRI antenna that overcomes these limitations – delivering enhanced images more quickly and that can be used in existing MRI machines. The research, led by Nandita Saha, a doctoral student in the Experimental Ultrahigh Field Magnetic Resonance lab of Professor Thoralf Niendorf, was published in Advanced Materials.

Niendorf and his team worked closely with researchers at Rostock University Medical Center, combining expertise in MRI physics with clinical ophthalmology and translational imaging. The Rostock team is also supporting clinical validation of the technology.

“By using concepts from metamaterials, we were able to guide radiofrequency fields more efficiently and demonstrate how advanced physics can directly improve medical imaging,” says Niendorf, senior author of the paper. “This work shows a pathway toward faster, clearer MRI scans that could benefit patients in many clinical areas.” 

Rethinking MRI hardware with metamaterials

MRI works by sending radiofrequency (RF) signals into the body and detecting how tissues respond inside a strong magnetic field. The stronger the signal response, the better the image. Conventional MRI antennas – also called RF coils – often struggle to collect enough signal from deep or anatomically complex regions. This leads to images that lack detail and prolongs scan times.

The research team addressed this bottleneck by integrating metamaterials directly into the MRI antenna. Metamaterials are engineered structures that interact with electromagnetic waves in ways not found in natural materials. The engineered RF antenna increases signal strength from targeted tissues, improves spatial resolution and image sharpness and enables faster data acquisition. Crucially, the antenna fits into existing MRI systems, avoiding the need for new infrastructure. The team validated the technology by imaging the eye and orbit region in a group of volunteers at 7.0 Tesla.

MRI image of an eye, the eye socket and the brain.
© AG Niendorf, Max Delbrück Center

“Our research demonstrates clear relevance for ophthalmological applications as it can facilitate anatomically detailed, high-spatial resolution MRI of the eye,” says Professor Oliver Stachs, a co-author of the paper at University Medicine Rostock. “It offers the potential to open a window into the eye and into (patho)physiological processes that in the past have been largely inaccessible.” 

“Our goal was to rethink MRI hardware from the modern physics of antenna design,” adds Saha. This technology can also be tuned to protect sensitive areas of the body during MRI, for example, to reduce unwanted heating around medical implants, she adds. It could also be used to focus RF energy more effectively for MRI guided therapies for various cancer treatments, such as gentle heating of tumors (hyperthermia) or thermal ablation of tissue. 

Better diagnostics

For patients, MRI scans can be uncomfortable and time-consuming – even more so when images need to be repeated because important details are hard to see. Faster scans mean patients spend less time inside scanners. Clearer images mean doctors can make diagnoses with greater confidence. And because the new antenna is lightweight and compact, it can also be designed to better fit specific parts of the body, improving comfort even further.

The technology could also be adapted to support MRI systems running at magnetic field strengths lower or higher than 7.0T, to image target anatomy other than the eye, orbit or the brain or to track metabolism or drug movement inside the body, says Niendorf. Special MRI scans that use other atoms, such as sodium or fluorine, could also benefit from this technology by producing clearer signals and better images, he adds. 

“Innovations in imaging hardware have the potential to transform diagnostics, and this study is an important step toward next-generation MRI technology,” says Dr Ebba Beller, a co-author of the paper at Rostock University Medical Center.

The researchers are already planning larger studies at multiple hospitals and adapting the design for other organs, such as the heart and kidneys. The collaboration will continue to be strengthened by long-standing reciprocal visiting scientist appointments of Stachs and Niendorf. 

Source: Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine

Categories : General Interest GeneticsTags :

Rare Disease Day 2026 Puts Equity for Patients in the Spotlight

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Cottonbro on Pexels

Rare diseases each affect relatively small numbers of people, but collectively they impact more than 300 million individuals worldwide across over 7000 known conditions, with 70% of these starting in childhood.1 For many patients and families, the reality is often long diagnostic journeys, uncertainty and ongoing challenges in accessing treatment and support.

This year’s global Rare Disease Day theme: “More Than You Can Imagine,” highlights the often unseen challenges faced by rare disease communities and the need for more equitable healthcare systems for people living with rare conditions worldwide.

Ahead of Rare Disease Day 2026, observed globally on 28 February, Sanofi South Africa is reaffirming its commitment to improving outcomes for people living with rare diseases through ongoing research, collaboration to improve access to treatment, and engagement in policy and advocacy discussions that support patients and caregivers.

According to Monique Nel, Medical Adviser for Rare Diseases at Sanofi South Africa, rare diseases demand a long-term mindset. “Patient populations may be small, but that makes every data point even more valuable. Building evidence takes time, yet each insight brings us closer to understanding these conditions and the unique needs of patients – enabling us to deliver better care.”

Research remains essential in rare diseases, where evidence is often limited and every patient experience matters. Global disease registries, such as the Global Gaucher Registry, allow clinicians and researchers to collect real-world data that deepens understanding of how conditions present across different regions and healthcare settings. Participation from South African patients helps ensure local experiences are reflected in global research.

“For me, equity starts with representation,” says Nel. “Patients are not the same everywhere. Genetics, environment, and healthcare systems all shape how a disease presents and progresses. If our research doesn’t reflect the diversity of the populations we serve, we risk missing a critical part of the picture.”

From scientific progress to real-world access

Innovation can transform outcomes for people living with rare diseases, but scientific progress only matters if patients can actually reach and stay on treatment.

Rare disease therapies are often complex and highly specialised, which means access depends on collaboration across clinicians, funders, policymakers and industry. The focus is increasingly on sustainable solutions that support affordability, continuity of care and long-term patient support.

“Access isn’t only about availability,” says Nel. “It’s also about what happens after treatment starts – whether patients can continue therapy, feel supported, and navigate their care with confidence.”

Strengthening policy and advocacy

Policy and legislative frameworks play an important role in shaping diagnosis, treatment pathways and long-term patient support. Ongoing engagement between stakeholders is essential to strengthen South Africa’s rare disease landscape and ensure decisions reflect real patient needs.

Patient voices are becoming increasingly important in policy and reimbursement discussions, offering insights that clinical data alone cannot provide.

“Patients and caregivers become experts through their own lived experiences,” says Nel. “Listening to their voices is what enables us to design better systems and ultimately deliver better care.”

“When we say rare diseases impact lives more than you can imagine, we’re talking about the invisible barriers patients face before they ever receive care,” says Nel. “Healthcare systems matter because they determine how quickly families find answers, how care is funded, and whether patients are truly included.”

She notes that South Africa’s constitutional commitment to healthcare, together with opportunities created through National Health Insurance, presents an important moment to strengthen support for rare disease communities.

South Africa’s support for the May 2025 rare diseases resolution at the World Health Assembly followed advocacy by Rare Diseases South Africa, which engaged the Department of Health and Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi, calling for rare diseases to be recognised as a national health priority.

“Progress comes from sustained advocacy, partnership and action. Strong policy needs partners who understand that acting for patients means helping build systems that work for them,” says Nel.

Working with patient communities

As part of Rare Disease Day 2026, Sanofi South Africa is once again partnering with Rare Diseases South Africa (RDSA) to raise awareness around rare disease equity and amplify the lived experiences of patients and families. The collaboration focuses on education, awareness and encouraging meaningful dialogue around patient needs.

“Healthcare is a constitutional right in South Africa,” says Kelly du Plessis, CEO & Founder of Rare Diseases South Africa. “The opportunity now is to ensure rare disease patients are fully included in that promise. Equity means policies that don’t simply acknowledge rare diseases but actively prioritise them.”

RDSA remains an independent patient advocacy organisation, while the partnership supports awareness initiatives and responsible collaboration that strengthens patient-centred advocacy.

“We remain committed to working for patients, but we’ve learned to do that more effectively by collaborating with patient societies,” says Nel. “That partnership approach is essential. Equity means ensuring every patient is heard, every voice contributes, and every partnership has the opportunity to drive better care.”

The partnership with RDSA aims to:

  • Increase understanding of rare diseases and their impact
  • Support patient-centred advocacy and awareness
  • Encourage informed dialogue across healthcare stakeholders
  • Highlight the importance of equity in research, access and policy

Both organisations agree that meaningful progress in rare diseases depends on collective action across patients, healthcare professionals, policymakers and industry partners.

Reference:
1. World Health Organization (WHO). Rare diseases: a global health priority for equity and inclusion. Seventy-eighth World Health Assembly, Draft Resolution A78/51, Fifth report of Committee A, 24 May 2025. Available from: https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA78/A78_51-en.pdf

Categories : Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

A Double Roadblock to NHI Implementation

On By ModernMedia

The National Health Insurance (NHI) Act On Friday (20 February), it was reported that President Cyril Ramaphosa had put a halt on putting the NHI Act into effect, amid an array of legal challenges. Four days later, the Pretoria High Court granted an order to the same effect.

The NHI has probably been the most contentious piece of legislation passed in South Africa, and the developments since it was signed into law have been coming thick and fast. The promulgation, that is, putting the law into effect, of the NHI was long predicted to be the hardest part of getting this attempt at universal healthcare to work.

This latest court order restrains President Ramaphosa from any further work in promulgating the NHI Act – something which he had already announced he would do just a few days ago, as reported by BusinessTech. This represents something of a pause in the ongoing legal maelstrom – nothing can be decided until the court cases clear, according to an attorney’s statement on behalf of the President.

Almost as soon as the NHI was signed into law, an array of unions, hospitals, professional organisations and even the Western Cape government launched legal challenges. A ruling compelled the President to provide the records of his decision to sign the NHI into law. One key part governing where healthcare professionals could practice has already been struck down as unconstitutional by a July 2025 High Court ruling.

The lobby group AfriForum last week entered the fray with multiple challenges to the NHI’s constitutionality, aiming to force the government to scrap the NHI completely. A few days later, President Ramaphosa paused the NHI’s promulgation. This all came amidst discussion by the Department of Health into phasing out medical aid tax credits to begin the NHI Fund – which would squeeze many middle-class families out of being able to afford private healthcare. (For now at least, there is good news – just as QuickNews was typing this, it was announced that medical aid tax credits would be increased for 2026).

Experts and even the government itself have acknowledged that these legal challenges will further delay the already decades-long implementation of the NHI, and it appears that this has come to pass. Whether the NHI is modified to a workable version along the lines suggested by industry experts, or whether it is scrapped entirely and South Africa remains stuck with its deeply unequal public/private sector divide remains to be seen.

What is certain is that the NHI as originally envisioned simply isn’t affordable for South Africa – or even a wealthy developed country. The National Treasury seems to be aware of this, as suggested by its minimal allocations to the NHI Fund and medical aid tax credits being updated for this year’s budget.