Category: MEDICINES – EXAMINATIONS

A Different Chemotherapy Approach for Ovarian Cancer

OVARIAN CANCER that spreads to the lining of the abdominal cavity, called the peritoneum, is difficult to treat. Patients with this advanced cancer typically undergo debulking, also called cytoreductive surgery, a lengthy procedure in which surgeons aim to remove all cancer from the abdominal cavity and affected organs, including the ovaries and fallopian tubes as well as the bladder, colon and other parts of the gastrointestinal tract. In recent years, researchers have looked at the efficacy of using hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), which is heated chemotherapy delivered directly to the peritoneum, to destroy remaining cancer cells immediately after debulking surgery.

Scientists in Belgium and the Netherlands published long-term data from OVHIPEC-1, a randomized phase III trial to evaluate adding HIPEC to interval cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer, in the October 2023 Lancet Oncology. (In interval surgery, chemotherapy is given to shrink the cancer prior to surgery.) The study enrolled 245 women with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer whose cancer showed no signs of progression after upfront chemotherapy. Researchers randomly assigned women to have debulking surgery alone, or surgery plus HIPEC using the chemotherapy drug cisplatin. After 10 years, median overall survival for the surgery-plus-HIPEC group was 44.9 months versus 33.3 months for the surgery group. Median progression-free survival was 14.3 months and 10.7 months, respectively. The rates of adverse events were similar—25% with surgery alone versus 27% with surgery plus HIPEC—and the most common events were abdominal pain, infection and slowed bowel function.

These results are in line with the researchers’ five-year analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2018. In that analysis, 6.6% of patients in the surgery group had survived without progression at five years, compared with 12.3% in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group. At 10 years, 6.6% of the people who received surgery were alive with no progression versus 10.1% in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group. While surgery plus HIPEC did not result in better cure rates, the authors note that it significantly prolonged the time cancer was controlled. “The most important finding is that the benefit for patients with stage III ovarian carcinoma when interval cytoreductive surgery is combined with HIPEC remains present after a 10-year follow up,” says Willemien van Driel, lead author and a gynecologic oncologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, who notes that patients in both arms of the study received similar treatment after subsequent recurrences.

Van Driel says that there is still variation in the use of HIPEC along with cytoreductive surgery. European guidelines published in October 2023 note that HIPEC with cytoreductive surgery should not be considered a standard of care. In the U.S., National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that HIPEC can be considered for patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer.

Van Driel and her colleagues are now enrolling patients in the OVHIPEC-2 trial, which will study the effect of adding HIPEC in women with stage III ovarian cancer undergoing primary surgery, which is surgery done upfront prior to chemotherapy. Other trials are evaluating HIPEC use for recurrent ovarian cancer. She notes there are several unanswered questions, including optimal dosing and temperature for HIPEC and the impact of including other drugs, such as PARP inhibitors, with this approach, since many of these drugs were not standard of care at the time of the trial.

HIPEC may be a valid choice for patients who are generally healthy and open to a longer procedure and hospital stay. Although the length of surgery plus HIPEC varies, HIPEC generally adds 90 minutes or more to debulking surgery, which itself takes several hours. Also, patients typically require a longer hospital stay for recovery, possibly with intravenous or tube feedings while the digestive system recovers. 

Find more :

A Different Chemotherapy Approach for Ovarian Cancer

Stem Cell Therapy: A New Horizon in Breast Cancer Treatment

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers affecting women worldwide, with millions of new cases diagnosed each year. Despite advances in treatment, it remains a leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women. Traditional treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation have improved survival rates, but they often come with significant side effects and may not be effective in all cases, particularly in advanced or metastatic stages of the disease. As the medical community continues to seek more effective and less invasive treatments, stem cell therapy is emerging as a promising frontier in the fight against breast cancer.

Understanding Breast Cancer: A Global Challenge

Breast cancer occurs when cells in the breast tissue grow uncontrollably, forming a tumor that can invade surrounding tissues and spread to other parts of the body. The causes of breast cancer are multifactorial, involving genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors. Early detection through screening programs like mammography has significantly improved outcomes, but the need for more effective treatments remains critical, especially for patients with aggressive or resistant forms of the disease.

Traditional treatments, while often life-saving, can have significant drawbacks. Surgery can be disfiguring and may not completely eliminate the risk of recurrence. Chemotherapy and radiation, although effective at killing cancer cells, also damage healthy cells, leading to side effects like fatigue, hair loss, and compromised immune function. Moreover, some breast cancers do not respond well to these treatments, particularly triple-negative breast cancer, which lacks the hormone receptors targeted by many therapies.

This is where stem cell therapy comes into play—a novel approach that has the potential to revolutionize breast cancer treatment.

Stem Cell Therapy: A New Horizon in Breast Cancer Treatment

Stem cell therapy has garnered significant attention in recent years as a potential game-changer in cancer treatment. Unlike traditional therapies that target the symptoms or manifestations of the disease, stem cell therapy aims to address the underlying causes by regenerating damaged tissues, boosting the immune system, and even targeting cancer stem cells that are believed to drive tumor growth and recurrence.

1. Understanding Stem Cells:

  • Stem cells are unique in their ability to develop into different types of cells in the body. They have the potential to repair or replace damaged tissues and can be used to regenerate healthy tissue in areas affected by cancer.
  • There are two primary types of stem cells relevant to cancer therapy: embryonic stem cells, which can differentiate into any cell type, and adult stem cells, which are more limited but still hold significant therapeutic potential. In breast cancer, researchers are particularly interested in the role of cancer stem cells— a small subset of cells within tumors that are resistant to conventional treatments and are thought to be responsible for relapse and metastasis.

2. The Role of Stem Cells in Breast Cancer:

  • One of the most promising aspects of stem cell therapy in breast cancer is its potential to target cancer stem cells. These cells are thought to be the root cause of tumor growth and metastasis, and they often evade traditional therapies, leading to recurrence. By specifically targeting and eliminating these cells, stem cell therapy could significantly reduce the risk of relapse and improve long-term outcomes.
  • Additionally, stem cell therapy can be used to regenerate healthy tissue damaged by surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation. For example, adipose-derived stem cells (from fat tissue) are being explored for their ability to repair tissue damage after a mastectomy or lumpectomy, improving cosmetic outcomes and reducing the need for additional surgeries.

3. Current Research and Clinical Trials:

  • While stem cell therapy for breast cancer is still in its early stages, there have been promising developments in both preclinical and clinical research. Clinical trials are currently underway to evaluate the safety and efficacy of various stem cell-based therapies for breast cancer.
  • One area of focus is the use of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), which have shown potential in targeting breast cancer cells and enhancing the effects of chemotherapy. These stem cells can be engineered to deliver anti-cancer drugs directly to tumors, increasing the precision and effectiveness of treatment while minimizing side effects.
  • Another exciting avenue is the use of stem cells in combination with immunotherapy. By enhancing the body’s immune response to cancer, stem cells could help to overcome the immune evasion tactics used by tumors, making immunotherapy more effective.

4. Challenges and Future Directions:

  • Despite the promise of stem cell therapy, there are still significant challenges to overcome. Ensuring the safety of these therapies is paramount, as there is a risk that stem cells could promote tumor growth if not properly controlled. Moreover, the complex nature of cancer stem cells means that therapies must be precisely targeted to avoid unintended consequences.
  • The future of stem cell therapy in breast cancer will likely involve a combination of approaches, integrating stem cells with existing treatments such as chemotherapy, radiation, and immunotherapy. As our understanding of cancer biology continues to grow, so too will the potential of stem cell therapy to provide more effective and less toxic treatment options for breast cancer patients.

    Conclusion: A Promising Future Ahead

    The fight against breast cancer is far from over, but the advent of stem cell therapy offers a new ray of hope. As research continues to advance, this innovative approach could become a cornerstone of breast cancer treatment, offering patients more effective, personalized, and less invasive options. While challenges remain, the potential of stem cell therapy to transform breast cancer care is undeniable, and the ongoing research in this field is something that the medical community and patients alike should watch closely.

    As we move forward, it is essential to continue supporting research and clinical trials that explore the full potential of stem cell therapy in breast cancer. With continued innovation and collaboration, we may one day see a world where breast cancer is not only treatable but curable—thanks in part to the incredible power of stem cells.

    Find more : https://www.linkedin.com/company/medipocketusa/posts/?feedView=all

How to Find the Right Oncologist for You

After a cancer diagnosis, it’s one of the most important decisions you’ll make.

After a career as a golf professional in southeastern New Mexico, Doug Lyle, 76, decided he had somewhere better to be than on the course: spending time with his new grandchild. Then this summer, just as he was settling into retirement, he learned he had prostate cancer.

“When you’re first diagnosed, you immediately go to the internet, and you can be overwhelmed in short order,” he said. “The more you read about it, the more complicated it gets.”

One of the first and most important choices he had to make was who his oncologist would be. Many of the two million patients diagnosed with cancer in the United States each year get the news from a primary care doctor. Those patients might accept a referral to an oncologist without question. But research suggests that it’s worth considering the choice closely: It can shape the care you receive, your satisfaction with the treatment and your chances of survival.

Not everyone has a choice of oncologists. There are fewer providers in rural areas, and patients must travel farther to reach them. Insurers may only cover certain clinicians and hospitals. And patients from certain populations have less access to oncologists for a range of reasons, which may affect the care they receive. For example, research suggests that Black and Hispanic women with breast cancer are more likely than white women to experience delays in starting radiotherapy. And Black men with prostate cancer are less likely than white men to receive treatment that’s intended to cure their condition, even when they’re at similar stages of disease.

No matter your circumstances, you should feel empowered to have a say in who treats your cancer.

Ideally, experts said, you’d be able to easily compare doctors’ levels of experience and the outcomes of patients they’ve treated with your same diagnosis. But such apples-to-apples comparisons are not always easy to make. But “right now, there are no publicly available data to help a patient with cancer say, ‘Oh, this is where I want to go,’” said Dr. Nancy Keating, a physician and professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School. (And even if there were, apples-to-apples comparisons are not always easy to make, since patient populations vary from one doctor to the next).

Still, there are some accreditations to look for. The National Cancer Institute has given a special designation to 72 cancer centers, which must show they treat patients in accordance with the latest evidence and also conduct research into new therapies. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer has accredited over 1,500 programs that meet certain standards. And the American Society of Clinical Oncology has several certification programs, including a list of 300 practices recognized for their quality and safety.

There are resources to help you search for oncologists, too, including a U.S. News & World Report directory that lets you sort by location, patient reviews and accepted forms of insurance. The consumer research firm Castle Connolly also has a database of doctors who are nominated by their peers and then evaluated for their qualifications, interpersonal skills and more.

Look for an oncologist who frequently treats patients with diagnoses similar to yours. Research has long shown that when doctors perform certain procedures more often, their patients have better outcomes. One study found that patients of surgeons who removed more than 25 lung cancers a year spent less time in the hospital, had a lower risk of infection and were more likely to survive three years without recurrence of disease.

Dr. Timothy Pawlik, the chair of the surgery department at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, said he only treats a handful of cancers. “You want someone with depth, not breadth,” Dr. Pawlik said. That way, he explained, “the patient may have a rare cancer, but it’s not rare to that doctor.”

Additionally, everyone else on the care team including the anesthesiologists and nurses, will also be familiar with your particular cancer and treatment.

Your primary care provider may be able to find someone specializing in your diagnosis. Some physicians’ websites will identify sub-specialties, and you can also ask for guidance from patient advocacy groups focused on your type of cancer. When you reach out to a doctor, don’t be shy about asking how many patients with similar cancers they treat per year.

Mr. Lyle hesitated to get a second opinion for fear of offending the first doctor he’d seen. But he ultimately chose to do so, a step many experts recommend. “Medicine is an art, and there are sometimes differences of opinion,” said Karen Knudsen, the chief executive of the American Cancer Society. Weighing those differences can help you make a more informed choice.

If a second physician agrees with your original treatment plan, it can give you more confidence in the approach. Research suggests a second opinion can also lead to clinically meaningful changes in treatment. One 2023 study of 120 cancer patients found that a for a third of patients, a second opinion led to treatment changes that yielded better outcomes. Many had received evidence-based care from their first doctor but decided after a second opinion to scale back treatments that might have been unnecessary and had harmful side effects.

Mr. Lyle said that during his first conversation with a physician, he didn’t know enough to ask the right questions about his diagnosis and newer treatment options. “The fine points, you’re not aware of yet. So you almost need a rehearsal,” he said. (For help with what to ask during an appointment, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network has detailed information about care for many cancers.)

When it is clinically appropriate, some cancer centers now offer second opinions through telehealth. You can call to see if it’s possible to submit your medical records and get a remote consultation.

Find more:

What to Know About the HPV Vaccine and Cancer Prevention

New research shows many eligible people are not getting the shots.

Nearly 20 years after the first vaccine against human papillomavirus became available, many eligible Americans still are not getting the shot — even though it provides powerful protection against the leading cause of cervical cancer and a strong risk factor for anal cancer.
HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States, and while most infections are asymptomatic and clear up on their own within two years, a small number persist and can cause cancer. HPV causes nearly all cases of cervical cancer, and can also lead to penile, anal, oral, vulvar and vaginal cancers.

The HPV vaccine, delivered as two or three doses, can significantly cut the risk of infection. It “is really one of the most effective vaccines we have,” said Dr. Lauri Markowitz, the HPV team lead in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division of viral diseases. But uptake remains stubbornly low: A report released by the C.D.C. this month showed that in 2022, only 38.6 percent of children ages 9 to 17 had received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine. Other new research suggests that HPV vaccination rates stalled in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

A study published this week laid out some of the primary reasons cited by parents in the United States who don’t plan to vaccinate their children against HPV, including safety concerns, a lack of knowledge about the vaccine and a belief that it isn’t necessary.
“We are still facing an uphill battle from what I would call inappropriate messaging or incomplete messaging when the vaccine rolled out about why this is so important,” said Karen Knudsen, chief executive of the American Cancer Society.

The HPV vaccine fools the body into thinking it has come into contact with the virus, marshaling antibodies in defense. Those antibodies can help clear the virus and prevent infection if someone is later exposed, which can happen through oral, anal and vaginal sex.

The vaccine offers protection from the types most likely to cause cervical and anal cancers and genital warts. Since the vaccine was introduced in 2006, infections with the types of HPV that cause most HPV-related cancers and genital warts have fallen by 88 percent among teen girls and by 81 percent among young adult women, according to the C.D.C.
One reason doctors are so enthusiastic about the vaccine is that it is one of very few tools to combat HPV: Condoms do not entirely prevent transmission, and there is no treatment for the virus itself. Researchers believe HPV is responsible for more than 90 percent of cervical and anal cancers and a majority of vaginal, vulvar, and penile cancers.

Children can be vaccinated starting at age nine. The C.D.C. recommends the vaccine for all preteens from the age of 11 or 12 and anyone up to age 26. It’s most effective before people are exposed to the virus, and “the assumption is that most people have started having sexual intercourse by age 26,” said Dr. Ban Mishu Allos, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

The vaccine may still provide some benefit for people over age 26, and is approved up until age 45. The C.D.C. says that people between the ages of 27 and 45 might get the vaccine after talking to their doctors about their risk for new HPV infections.

You can ask your primary care doctor or local health centers for the vaccine. Most insurance plans fully cover it through age 26. Children and adolescents who are uninsured or underinsured can get the shots for free through the Vaccines for Children program. After age 26, insurance may not fully cover the shot, which can cost hundreds of dollars per dose. Merck, which makes the HPV vaccine Gardasil 9, has a patient assistance program for eligible people.

Researchers believe much of the hesitation stems from a key misunderstanding: “More people perceive it as a sexually transmitted infection prevention vaccine, as opposed to a cancer prevention vaccine,” said Kalyani Sonawane, an associate professor of public health sciences at the M.U.S.C. Hollings Cancer Center and an author of the new paper on parental attitudes toward HPV vaccination.

Dr. Sonawane’s research has also found that many parents are concerned about side effects. But doctors say many people do not experience side effects, and for those that do, the issues are generally mild and can include arm soreness, nausea, dizziness or, in some cases, fainting.

Doctors urge parents to vaccinate their children before they’re likely to become sexually active, which gives some parents pause, said Dr. Monica Woll Rosen, an obstetrician-gynecologist at the University of Michigan Medical School.

“You’re doing something to prevent them from getting cancer in 30 years,” she said, “and the disconnect might be too large for some people to really wrap their heads around.”

 

Find more : https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/well/live/hpv-vaccine-cancer.html

Commercial determinants of health: how they are driving up rates of cancer and other NCDs

A new report from the WHO Regional Office for Europe looks at the impacts of the commercial determinants of health

Tobacco, alcohol, highly processed foods and fossil fuel industries cause 19 million deaths per year globally. These shocking statistics, reported in Commercial Determinants of noncommunicable diseases in the WHO European Region, show how commercial activities are harming our health and increasing the global burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including cancer (WCRF International contributed to two case studies to this report, one on civil society engagement and one on alcohol warning labels).

The commercial determinants of health (CDOH) assess how commercial industries and their products can influence and impact the overall health and health equity of people, and whole societies.

Impacts of CDOH are felt across society, from the individual consumer, their health behaviours and choices, extending to global levels of consumption, and the politics and economics of increasing globalisation.

Health-harming industries

Commercial determinants that negatively impact health involve products from unhealthy commodity industries, which produce and sell health-harming products such as:

  • tobacco
  • alcohol
  • highly processed foods
  • and fossil fuels

The recent WHO/Europe report shows how exposure to these health-harming products is driving up already exceptionally high rates of cancer and other NCDs globally.

In the European Region alone, almost two thirds (61.3%) of deaths caused by NCDs can be attributed directly to risk factors linked to unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, alcohol and tobacco consumption.

This equates to an estimated 2.7m deaths annually, or more than 7,400 deaths every day. Many of these deaths could be prevented with reduced exposure to these commercial products.

Corporate channels of influence

You will certainly have experienced commercial forces at play in the world in both visible and invisible ways. Industries influence and impact health, and undermine policymaking through the following corporate channels:

  • marketing and advertising
  • engaging in corporate social responsibility strategies and activities
  • lobbying governments and policymakers; and
  • deflecting attention away from their role and responsibilities in causing health harms

Marketing and advertising enhance the acceptability and desirability of health-harming products. Often selling a certain lifestyle, aesthetic or experience, it normalises these products as part of everyday life, as well as more aspirational ways of living.

Marketing and promotions have been found to disproportionately target low socioeconomic status or minority populations, with industry tactics ranging from timing marketing campaigns to coincide with the distribution of benefits from food assistance programmes, to aiming advertisements directly at children.

Corporate social responsibility activities serve to improve corporate brands and reputations. Coca-Cola or PepsiCo’s frequent sponsorship of sports teams, events, and funding children’s physical activity programmes seeks to shift focus away from how their own products contribute to the obesity epidemic, and instead reflect favourably on their support for physical activity promotion.

DrinkAware, an alcohol-industry funded health information organisation, promotes “responsible drinking” campaigns (despite alcohol being classified as a Group 1 carcinogen that is causally linked to 7 types of cancer), and engages in partnerships with government and public health agencies.

Lobbying governments and policymakers works to avoid or circumvent regulation. Examples include the food and beverage industry’s opposition to sugar-sweetened beverage taxes, or the alcohol industry’s use of legal threats to stop the implementation of health warning labels.

Public health experts are also targeted through less obvious channels, such as Coca-Cola’s emails to the US Centre for Disease Control (obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests) to advance corporate objectives over health, including trying to influence the WHO.

Other tactics include funding research and political parties to sway the evidence base and policymakers in their favour—influencing all levels of policy, from scientific evidence through to policy development and implementation.

Where does the buck stop?

Perhaps the most significant and insidious tactic used by health-harming industries is their deflection of responsibility. Industry uses the rhetoric of ‘personal responsibility’, ‘individual’ or ‘freedom of choice’ around the consumption of their products.

These messages shift the blame away from health-harming industries, and onto their customers. This argument is used not only to shape societal views around consuming tobacco, alcohol and unhealthy foods, but also in legal arguments to deny or downplay their responsibility and liability for the costs they impose on society.

Do not be mistaken: these efforts are intentionally well-crafted and funded. Health-harming industries seek to protect their own interests and offload their responsibility at the expense of public health. These narratives serve to manufacture doubt and increase uncertainty in the public, while simultaneously undermining trust in government agencies and scientific evidence to normalise the prevalence and use of their products.

Is addressing commercial determinants of health anti-business?

It’s also important to recognise what addressing CDOH is not. Addressing CDOH is not anti-business; but rather, it challenges the existing status quo and power imbalances. It also does not assume a solely negative impact: it accounts for industry actors to drive health and equity in either direction.

Profitable business and health promotion do not need to be mutually exclusive. For example, a coalition of Nestlé shareholders (co-ordinated by Share Action) has filed a resolution to challenge the company to increase their proportion of sales from healthier products.

Work to address CDOH is also not an attack on the free market, or personal liberties. It is about a consumer’s right to know about the risks involved with consuming a harmful product.

Say for instance you had a higher risk of developing breast cancer. Would knowing that drinking alcohol increases your risk of developing it, or 6 other types of cancer, impact whether you decide to consume alcohol? When buying products, would you want to be thoroughly informed about the risks you take?

Interestingly, critics of responses aimed to address CDOH often (knowingly or unknowingly) follow the same script taken straight from health-harming industries’ playbook.

This upholds the narrative that responsibility solely rests with the individual and does not hold corporations accountable for the health impacts of their products, or their influence through the four corporate channels.

Getting rid of the industry playbook; reframing the issues

But this criticism is misplaced: rather than effecting a ‘nanny-state’ or ‘prohibition’, addressing CDOH is an act to abolish and break free from the false-narratives and manipulation that industries employ for their own profit and gains.

Given the scale and size of transnational corporations, some with incomes higher than GDPs of whole countries, putting a focus on the CDOH and their impacts will have a global effect.

This is a movement to shift the focus and alignment of political will in a direction that better serves public health and health outcomes, including the reduction of health inequities, and incidence of cancer and other NCDs.

For more information on CDOH
> WHO Europe Report Commercial Determinants of noncommunicable diseases in the WHO European Region – the report also contains a number of case studies, which WCRF International has contributed to.

Nearly half of adult cancer deaths in the US could be prevented by making lifestyle changes, study finds

About 40% of new cancer cases among adults ages 30 and older in the United States — and nearly half of deaths — could be attributed to preventable risk factors, according to a new study from the American Cancer Society.

“These are things that people can practically change how they live every single day to reduce their risk of cancer,” said Dr. Arif Kamal, chief patient officer with the American Cancer Society.

Smoking was the leading risk factor by far, the study found, contributing to nearly 1 in 5 cancer cases and nearly a third of cancer deaths. Other key risk factors included excess body weight, alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, diet and infections such as HPV.

Overall, researchers analyzed 18 modifiable risk factors across 30 types of cancer. In 2019, these lifestyle factors were linked to more than 700,000 new cancer cases and more than 262,000 deaths, the study found.

Cancer grows because of DNA damage or because it has a fuel source, Kamal said. Other things — such as genetics or environmental factors — can also create these biological conditions, but modifiable risks explain a significantly larger share of cancer cases and deaths than any other known factors. Exposure to sunlight can damage DNA and lead to skin cancer, for example, while fat cells produce hormones that can feed certain cancers.

“With cancer, it oftentimes feels like you have no control,” Kamal said. “People think about bad luck or bad genetics, but people need to feel a sense of control and agency.”

Certain cancers are more preventable than others, the new study suggests. But modifiable risk factors contributed to more than half of new cases for 19 of the 30 types of cancer evaluated.

There were 10 types of cancer where modifiable risk factors could be attributed to at least 80% of new cases, including more than 90% of melanoma cases linked to ultraviolet radiation and nearly all cases of cervical cancer linked to HPV infection, which can be prevented with a vaccine.

Lung cancer had the largest number of cases attributable to modifiable risk factors — more than 104,000 cases among men and 97,000 among women — and the vast majority were linked to smoking.

After smoking, excess body weight was the second largest contributor to cancer cases, linked to about 5% of new cases in men and nearly 11% of cases in women. It was associated with more than a third of deaths from cancer of the endometrium, gallbladder, esophagus, liver and kidney, the new study found.

Another recent study found that the risk for certain cancers was significantly reduced for people taking popular weight-loss and diabetes medications such as Ozempic and Wegovy.

“Obesity is emerging, in some ways, as just as potent of a risk for people as smoking is,” said Dr. Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. He was not involved in the new study, but has prior experience working on cancer prevention initiatives.

Intervening on a set of “core behavioral risk factors” — quitting smoking, eating well and exercising, for example — can make a “dramatic difference in the rates and outcomes of chronic diseases,” Plescia said. And cancer is one of those chronic diseases, just like heart disease or diabetes.

Policymakers and health officials should work to “create environments where it’s easier for people, where the healthy choice is the easy choice,” he said. And it’s particularly important for people who are living in historically disadvantaged neighborhoods, where it might not be safe to exercise or easy to get to a store with healthy food.

As rates of early-onset cancer rise in the US, it’s especially important to create healthy habits early, experts say. It’s harder to quit smoking once you’ve started or lose weight that you’ve gained.

But “it’s never too late to make these changes,” Plescia said. “Turning (health behaviors) around later in life can make a profound difference.”

And making lifestyle changes to minimize exposure to certain factors can reduce cancer risk relatively quickly, experts say.

“Cancer is something your body fights every single day as your cells divide,” Kamal said. “It’s a risk that you face every day, and that also means that the reduction of the risks can benefit you every day as well.”

READ MORE :

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/11/health/cancer-cases-deaths-preventable-factors-wellness/index.html?utm_source=salesforce-marketing-cloud&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=July+23%2c+2024+Cancer+Today+eNewsletter&utm_term=Read+More+in+Cancer+Today

What Is a Cancer Vaccine?

When you hear the word “vaccine,” you might think of your annual flu shot or COVID booster, but did you know that some vaccines can treat—or even prevent—cancer?

But before we get there, let’s start with the basics—what is a vaccine? How does it protect you from disease?

A vaccine at its core delivers something associated with disease, such as a protein, into your body, which trains your immune system to recognize and react to the disease later on.

Think of it as training a dog on a specific scent.

Flu vaccines, for example, deliver pieces of a protein from the flu virus. Your immune system sees the protein, recognizes that it doesn’t belong in your body, mounts an immune response against it, and stores this information in its “memory.”

Now that your immune system has been trained to respond to this flu protein, it will be ready to attack if you later are infected with the flu, allowing it to rapidly get rid of the virus before it has a chance to make you sick.

CAN VACCINES PREVENT CANCER?

Yes! Several vaccines protect against human papillomavirus (HPV), the most common cause of cervical cancer and a major cause of anal, oral, throat, and genital cancers. By preventing HPV infection, these vaccines also prevent the cancer-causing changes induced by HPV.

The first HPV vaccine was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006, and since that time, the rate of cervical cancers has dropped significantly among people who were vaccinated as adolescents.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) recommends HPV vaccines for all adolescents (boys and girls) beginning at age 11 or 12 and up to age 26 for those who didn’t receive them earlier. Some people might be eligible for the vaccine after age 26 as well.

HOW DO VACCINES TREAT CANCER?

The vaccines we’ve discussed so far are preventive vaccines—they help people avoid a particular disease. Other vaccines, known as therapeutic vaccines, are instead used to treat patients already diagnosed.

Therapeutic vaccines for cancer work in the same way as preventive vaccines: biological material is injected into the patient, where it trains the immune system to find and attack disease, cancer in this case.

To date, only one targeted therapeutic cancer vaccine has been approved by the FDA, but researchers have continued to develop and test different types of cancer vaccines, with many of these showing recent promise against hard-to-treat cancers.

Unlike vaccines that target viruses, therapeutic vaccines for cancer train the immune system to attack the patient’s own cells, rather than an invading virus. Researchers, therefore, have to find ways to direct the immune response to cancer cells to avoid damaging healthy tissue.

To minimize effects on normal, noncancerous cells, therapeutic cancer vaccines train the immune system to recognize proteins that are either absent from normal cells or found at significantly lower levels on normal cells. Vaccines expose immune cells to these proteins in various ways, based on the type of vaccine.

PROTEIN-BASED VACCINES

Sipuleucel-T (Provenge), the sole FDA-approved therapeutic vaccine for cancer, was greenlit in 2010 for prostate cancer. It works by delivering small pieces of a protein found at high levels in prostate cancers. When the patient’s immune cells encounter the delivered protein, they become more likely to attack prostate cancer cells.

Multiple protein-based vaccines delivering other target proteins are under investigation for a variety of cancer types, including head and neck, lung, pancreatic, brain, and colorectal cancers, among others.

While protein-based cancer vaccines can be highly effective and well tolerated, they are expensive, time-consuming, and oftentimes difficult to develop.

RNA-BASED VACCINES

Another category of cancer vaccines uses messenger RNA (mRNA)—the same design used to develop the first COVID-19 vaccines. Instead of delivering the target protein, these vaccines provide cells with the genetic instructions (in the form of mRNA) to make the protein, which, in turn, stimulates the immune system to seek out and attack cancer.

mRNA-based vaccines can be produced much more rapidly than protein-based vaccines, but delivering the mRNA and preventing bothersome side effects can be a challenge.

mRNA-based vaccines are being tested to treat a myriad of cancer types, with recent success against advanced skin and pancreatic cancers. Many of these vaccines are custom-made for each patient—a level of personalization made possible by the mRNA platform, which allows custom vaccines to be produced quickly and without major delays in treatment.

DNA-BASED VACCINES

Like RNA-based vaccines, DNA-based vaccines deliver instructions to make the target protein, but they provide the instructions as DNA rather than mRNA.

DNA-based vaccines have many of the same benefits as RNA-based vaccines, including the inexpensive and rapid production. DNA-based vaccines, however, may cause autoimmune reactions or impact the patient’s own DNA. Further, administering DNA-based vaccines requires unconventional methods, and once administered, DNA still has to make its way into a specific compartment of the cell to function.

Despite these challenges, DNA-based vaccines have shown clinical promise against various solid tumors, such as cervical cancer, breast cancer, glioblastoma, and others.

VIRAL- AND BACTERIAL-BASED IMMUNE STIMULANTS

While not quite cancer vaccines, a related category of cancer therapy exploits the innate ability of viruses and bacteria to stimulate the immune response. The bacterial strain Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), for example, was originally developed as a preventive vaccine for tuberculosis but is now also used to treat bladder cancer. When BCG is administered into a patient’s bladder, it triggers an immune response within the organ that helps kill cancer cells.

Researchers are also using modified viruses that preferentially infect and kill cancer cells to release immune-stimulating molecules from cancer cells, with one such therapy approved to treat certain melanomas.

NEW DIRECTIONS IN VACCINE RESEARCH

Researchers continue to explore innovative strategies to improve therapeutic cancer vaccines, combining them with other immunotherapy drugs, using new technologies to identify and test novel designs, and developing faster ways to produce vaccines.

To learn about anticipated progress in the field of cancer vaccines, check out our interview with cancer vaccine expert Catherine J. Wu, MD, FAACR.

Read more

What Is a Cancer Vaccine? 

The evolution of customer care: AI and the Gen Z effect

With the coming of age of Gen Z—both as customers and new workforce entrants—customer demands are evolving. At the same time, generative AI (gen AI) is transforming how contact centers respond to these demands. Forward-thinking leaders must explore the latest trends, emphasize cohesive support strategies, and take actionable steps to enhance their customer care functions, addressing challenges such as service improvement, cost reduction, and sales function integration.

In this episode of McKinsey Talks Operations, host Daphne Luchtenberg sits down with McKinsey partners Brian Blackader and Eric Buesing. Listen in as they discuss the latest trends, the importance of a cohesive support strategy, and actionable steps contact center leaders can take to improve their customer care functions.

The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Dates and statistics correct at time of recording in May 2024.

Daphne Luchtenberg: Every time you buy a product or service, you start or build upon a relationship with the company that stands behind it. And when something goes wrong or you just need help, the ease with which you’re able to get the support you need can have a big impact on how you feel and whether you choose to continue the relationship. With the arrival of more communication channels than ever before and the onward march of gen AI, how should organizations be thinking about where to improve their customer care functions? Throw Gen Z into the mix—with perhaps surprising preferences about how they want to engage with companies today—and you’ve got a complex landscape to navigate.

I’m delighted to be joined today by two of the people behind our recent research, “Where is customer care in 2024?,” Eric Buesing is a partner in our Charlotte office, and Brian Blackader is a partner based in Düsseldorf.

Eric, what do contact centers look like at the moment, and what are the challenges that they are facing?

Eric Buesing: The customer care function of the contact center is currently in the spotlight more than ever before, discussed even at the board level. Contact center leaders face unprecedented pressure in various forms: operational pressure to be efficient and reduce costs, enhance the customer experience, manage employees in increasingly complex environments, and expand the contact center’s role to include more advisory or consultative selling to build loyalty.

Customer expectations aren’t getting easier. With more platforms available for sharing information, disgruntled customers can amplify their dissatisfaction more loudly and broadly.

Daphne Luchtenberg: Eric, what does good customer service look like in today’s contact centers? What should companies strive for?

Eric Buesing: I don’t know if there’s any one organization that gets it all right all the time. At its core, good service involves excelling in the moments that truly matter—those critical times when customers are most in need. In these moments, the goal is to delight them in a way that impresses, garners loyalty, and resolves their issues, while generally maintaining good service overall.

Good service is characterized by several key aspects: the ease of resolving issues, the accessibility of information, and the integration of communication channels so that every interaction contributes to a cohesive resolution process.

Brian Blackader: Adding to that, what good looked like a few years ago, especially during the pandemic, has changed. Back then, simply being available was often enough. Now, we’ve returned to fundamental principles like solving problems effectively and knowing the customer across different touchpoints. Expectations have risen; customers now expect not just solutions, but also personalized understanding and engagement.

Eric Buesing: Absolutely, Brian. The principles of, “Know me, know my issue, and understand me,” are easily said and very difficult to achieve. The organizations that manage to do well in this area invest considerable effort in understanding how to meet these expectations. It’s not a game you win. It’s a game you play. You’re always trying to get better.

Daphne Luchtenberg: It’s interesting to see leaders turning to gen AI tools across various business operations, particularly in business services and customer care. Could you elaborate on the potential for adopting these tools in these areas and how they might enhance the services you described?

Eric Buesing: We’re about 16–17 months into the era of gen AI being available to the wider public. From my perspective, gen AI promises significant disruption, particularly in service functions. I believe that it could reduce current phone volumes by 50 percent within five years. However, the initial progress has been slower than expected. Many believed that gen AI would quickly reduce call volumes and transform customer interactions, but that hasn’t been the case yet. Few organizations have implemented gen AI at a scale where its impact can be effectively measured, and it’s crucial to understand why.

Despite the technological advances, the need for human interaction remains critical, especially for empathy and connection. I do see gen AI playing a significant role in efficiently resolving complex customer issues. We’re likely to see an increase in interactions with chatbots and virtual voice assistants, which will provide quicker, more accurate responses. However, the moments that truly matter will still require a human touch.

Additionally, foundational elements such as data connectivity, data quality, and the technical systems needed to deploy these AI capabilities are also vital. It’s important to recognize that it’s never just tech; early strategic planning and implementation are key to leveraging these tools effectively.

Daphne Luchtenberg: Eric, considering we’re recording this session, could you discuss the role of recording live conversations and how this might enhance intelligence and optimize the call center experience in the future?

Eric Buesing: First, the concept of speech-to-text isn’t new; organizations have been recording conversations for years. However, there’s been a shift in expectations regarding the quality of insights derived from these recordings, moving toward what’s now often referred to as conversational or voice intelligence. This advancement is crucial as it helps organizations explore the root causes of customer calls. Generative AI plays a significant role here, particularly with the concept of multi-intent. This means recognizing that customer calls are complex and cannot be simply categorized as, for example, a “billing call” or a “policy inquiry.” Conversational intelligence enables organizations to understand the multiple reasons behind a customer’s call, which in turn helps in resolving issues more effectively and proactively sharing information across the organization to prevent future frustrations.

There’s potential to use customer care data beyond traditional confines, such as for improving product design or service delivery to reduce customer friction. This approach involves leveraging voice data more strategically than just for compliance and quality assurance.

Brian Blackader: Adding to Eric’s point, while many discuss using these insights for training models, the reality is that many organizations still have a basic understanding of why customers call. Often, the primary reason logged is simply the first option an agent selects from a dropdown menu. It’s vital to understand not just the primary reason for a call but also the second-, third-, fourth-, or fifth-level intent. This understanding is crucial for two reasons: it helps address root causes throughout the organization and enables more targeted training for agents on specific recurring issues, rather than a general overview of a category like billing. We can really be specific on the issue that they’re struggling with.

Daphne Luchtenberg: With the technological advancements in customer care, there’s also a growing need for new skills. Brian, could you expand on the talent challenges that customer care leaders are currently facing?

Brian Blackader: There are two main challenges that care leaders face regarding talent. First, in countries like Germany where I am, or even in the US, there’s a general labor shortage. This makes it difficult to recruit people who can handle increasingly complex issues, especially as simpler tasks become automated. The challenge is not only to find frontline talent but also to enable them to address these complex queries effectively, all while striving to provide excellent customer service amid rising expectations.

Second, the traditional customer care path, where an agent progresses to a team leader, and then to a business unit manager, has been effective for developing people managers for the past 25–30 years. However, this pathway doesn’t necessarily produce the specialized skills needed today, such as data scientists, engineers, or developers. Leaders need to consider how to attract individuals with these skills to the agent level, perhaps targeting students with backgrounds in these areas. Additionally, they must make roles in customer care appealing compared with opportunities in big tech and other industries, where demand for these skills is also high.

Daphne Luchtenberg: That’s interesting. Let’s talk more about the talent pipeline. As Gen Z matures into consumers and the workforce of the future, their perspectives and behaviors might differ from previous generations. I found your insights in the blog post “Why your kids aren’t calling you, but they are calling their bank” particularly interesting, where you noted that some expected trends aren’t necessarily holding true. Could you expand on that?

Brian Blackader: Our research revealed some surprising findings about Gen Z’s communication preferences with companies. Contrary to what might be expected, their behavior isn’t drastically different from millennials, Gen X, or even boomers. When facing an unsolvable problem, about 70 percent of Gen Z individuals prefer to make a phone call, a share similar to older generations. This preference changes when it comes to personal communications, such as contacting friends or family, where they favor texting or messaging apps. However, for serious issues with services like banking or telecommunications, they still turn to phone calls. This indicates that companies that can effectively resolve issues through voice bots and provide excellent experiences will likely outperform their competitors.

Eric Buesing: Adding to that, our research also touched on email preferences across different customer segments. Surprisingly, about 70 percent of customers still prefer using email to resolve issues, despite its decreasing popularity among organizational leaders. Leaders often consider email a challenging channel to manage because it’s hard to track and measure compared with phone or chat interactions. This creates a disconnect, as customers appreciate the asynchronous nature of email—it allows them to send a message at their convenience, while someone else works on the issue later. This discrepancy poses challenges for organizations as they plan future communication strategies.

Brian Blackader: Exactly, and there’s an additional layer to this when considering people’s preferences during work or school hours, where email is particularly favored for its convenience. Additionally, our work in financial services highlighted another unique aspect of Gen Z, especially in the premium segments. Unlike millennials, Gen Z individuals in these segments expect high levels of service, akin to what baby boomers expect. They view phone service as a justified expectation for the fees they pay, demanding quality assistance and a positive experience as part of their service package. This insight is crucial for businesses aiming to cater to this demographic effectively.

Daphne Luchtenberg: It seems like some aspects of customer service are evolving significantly, while others remain unchanged. What do you envision for the future of customer contact centers?

Eric Buesing: As I’ve noted before, I expect a significant shift toward self-service options, predicting that 50 percent of current phone volumes will transition to these channels within the next five years. This shift will likely be driven by improvements in how customer issues are addressed, enhancing interactions with chatbots and virtual assistants to a more meaningful level. Some enthusiasts even believe that virtual voice assistants will become more empathetic than humans, as they won’t carry frustrations from previous interactions. Looking ahead, I’m optimistic about the improvements in service quality. There’s a prevailing acceptance of mediocre service when people call in, often expecting delays and potentially unhelpful responses. However, I foresee a future where service excellence becomes a hallmark of distinguished brands, significantly influencing customer loyalty and brand preference.

Simultaneously, the importance of human interaction will not diminish, especially for critical service moments. If phone volumes reduce by half, the quality and impact of the remaining interactions will become more crucial. I envision a future where customer service agents evolve into “superagents” or “journey managers,” equipped with advanced tools to provide informed, accurate, and empathetic support.

Daphne Luchtenberg: That sounds promising. Brian, would you like to add anything?

Brian Blackader: To summarize, I believe that leading organizations will focus on three key areas over the next five to ten years. First, they will streamline resolutions and enhance self-service capabilities for simpler issues, leaving more complex matters to customer service. Second, echoing Eric’s point, these organizations will empower their agents—whom we might call super agents—with sophisticated tools that aid in resolving customer issues effectively, fostering loyalty, and delivering exceptional experiences, possibly even with minimal training.

Lastly, the concept of an omnichannel experience will be crucial. While this has been discussed for over a decade, truly successful organizations will offer a seamless customer experience across all platforms—whether in-store, over the phone, through chat, or even via underused channels like video, and potentially augmented or virtual reality for specific scenarios. This consistency will ensure that no matter how a customer chooses to interact with a company, the great ones will be able to make sure that that experience is consistent across all the different ways you might contact them.

Eric Buesing: Brian, I really appreciate the concepts of omnichannel and optichannel, which refers to using the optimal channel for resolving issues. Currently, customers face a confusing array of options—social media, YouTube, websites, apps, calls, chats, and more. It’s not transparent which channel is best for their needs, leading to random choices. However, with the optichannel approach, it will become clear to customers which channel is most effective for their specific issues.

Daphne Luchtenberg: So, this would also mean that customers will grow more sophisticated at selecting the right tools for their needs, correct?

Eric Buesing: Exactly. It boils down to whether it’s simpler to handle an issue ourselves or to call for help. As long as calling remains the easier option, that’s what people will choose.

Daphne Luchtenberg: We’ve discussed many important points today. Before we conclude, Eric, where should leaders look for inspiration as they move forward?

Eric Buesing: Leadership in this area really requires courage. I’m often underwhelmed when we are asked, “Hey, do you have a North Star vision? What do you want out of your customer care, your servicing function?” The answers are often very incremental: “I’d love to see a 5 percent improvement in this. I’d like our budgets to be down, our handle times to go down, and our customer satisfaction score to go up slightly.”

We need to think bolder than that. Being a courageous leader means having a plan and setting an aspiration that is difficult and makes people uncomfortable, and then seeing it through. It’s one thing to say, “Hey, we want to cut our volume by 50 percent.” It’s another challenge to actually go after it.

In many ways, it requires collaboration outside of the contact center. The contact center is the receiver of somebody else’s problem. There has been a breakdown somewhere else in the customer journey, either by a product that didn’t deliver, a service that didn’t meet expectations, or an experience that was subpar. That drives volume.

So how do we look upstream and tackle those issues? How do we bring together the organizations or business units within an organization that need to come together to resolve them?

Daphne Luchtenberg: Yeah, I love that. Brian, what do you think?

Brian Blackader: In my interactions with customer care leaders, I’ve noticed they typically align with one of two approaches. The first group is action-oriented; they want to start immediately and tackle tasks head-on. The second group prefers to strategize, aiming to develop a North Star vision and a detailed road map, as Eric mentioned. It’s crucial to combine both approaches.

Creating a North Star vision and a road map is essential to avoid merely making incremental changes and to thinking in the long term. This involves making necessary investments and managing change over time. However, it’s also important to recognize that presenting such plans isn’t new to boards, and there might be limited patience for long-term results. Therefore, I advise leaders to also focus on achieving quick wins. By demonstrating early successes, you can build credibility within the organization and show tangible progress.

Additionally, I want to emphasize the importance of voice communication. Despite advancements in technology like chatbots, many customers still prefer calling. If these calls go unanswered, customers might escalate issues to regulators. With today’s technology nearing the capability to automate voice interactions effectively, there’s a significant opportunity to enhance customer experiences through this channel.

Eric Buesing: Adding to Brian’s points, another aspect we briefly touched on is transforming the role of contact centers from purely service-oriented to also encompassing sales. While “sales” can sometimes be perceived negatively, it shouldn’t be feared. Customers expect a high level of service that not only addresses their immediate issues but also anticipates their needs. This could involve better use of current products or introducing superior ones. The contact center is uniquely positioned to not just solve problems but also to provide valuable advice and recommendations. This shift from aggressive selling to thoughtful consultation can significantly enhance customer satisfaction and loyalty.

Daphne Luchtenberg: Fantastic, Eric. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Thank you so much.

Here’s a few things that I loved about the conversation today to think about as we close: first, this idea that customer service and contact centers are not a game you win, but rather a game you choose to play. Secondly, that gen AI is changing that game, albeit not as quickly as we might have expected, including through ways such as voice automation. And finally, there’s no better place in the contact center to build and deepen customer relationships and to give them better experiences during those moments that really matter.

Πηγή: mckinsey.com

Empowering patients through medical technologies for a healthier future

By constantly investing in existing and future technologies, the medical technology sector contributes to a healthier Europe. The 2023 MedTech Forum looked at some key trends in legislation and business and the role that EU policymakers can play to bring medical innovations to patients in a timely manner.

Europe takes great pride in its robust social security systems and the fundamental principles of equitable healthcare access. Data indicates however that significant efforts are still required to ensure that all patients across the continent enjoy top-tier quality care and unfettered access to medical services and technologies.

Medical technologies empower early diagnoses, timely interventions, and remarkable outcomes. Medical technologies mend, revive, and improve body functions, while telemedicine and connected devices bring patient monitoring to new frontiers. Innovations speed up recovery, safeguard well-being, and equip healthcare workers with vital insights for optimal decisions and fewer complications. By relieving strain on healthcare systems, fostering social and economic vitality, averting complications, and advancing efficiency through cutting-edge data and machine learning, medical technologies are high-tech, high-value game-changers in healthcare. Diagnostic technologies also act as a first line of defence against disease outbreaks and help support their management.

Because of its innovation power, and its positive impact on patients, healthcare professionals, and health systems, the medical technology sector has developed into a key industry with an important economic and societal impact in Europe.

European leadership for the benefit of patients 

Europe’s 34,000 medical technology companies invest heavily in improving existing and innovating breakthrough technologies for the benefit of patients. These companies, 95% of which are SMEs, drive economic growth, provide employment in Europe, and boost EU exports. In doing so, the sector adheres to strict regulatory standards that ensure safe devices which live up to their performance claims. Patient health and well-being in mind, no other region in the world sets such high standards to guarantee that medical technologies are safe for patients and healthcare professionals to use.

Despite Europe’s fundamental strengths in health and medical solutions, there are growing indicationsthat new and existing products will struggle to reach European patients and health systems in a timely manner: 17% of today’s in vitro diagnostics are expected to be discontinued in Europe, particularly among SMEs and approximately 50% of medical device manufacturers are deprioritising the EU market (or will do so) as the geography of choice for first regulatory clearance of their new devices.

MedTech Europe, the leading European medical technology trade association, believes that there are persistent, system-level issues within the European regulations for medical technologies which lead to unpredictability and delays, dampen innovation, and undermine confidence in the long-term viability of the regulatory framework.

To remain a global leader in medical technologies, the EU must deliver a more patient-centred and innovation-friendly regulatory framework that addresses the system-level challenges of today while preparing for the opportunities of tomorrow.

Getting through the maze 

Beyond the medical technology industry’s sector-specific developments, fundamental changes have been brought about in the last decade by the mega trends of digitalisation and sustainability. Such trends contribute to a revolution in the way innovation in medical technologies is happening, driving the need for a more forward-looking regulatory mentality to allow innovation to thrive.

Legislative activity of the EU in this area has been, rightly, immense – and much more needs to be done to ensure that all the rules-in-development which will impact medical technologies will actually work together to deliver products to patients. The EU’s Digital Strategy, driving regulation on artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and data, including the European Health Data Space and the European Green Deal will legislate tectonic changes, including in the area of product design, are coming with a substantial set of new or updated requirements for medical technologies.

Against this background, substantial legislations are also being revised, such as the ones on Product Liability and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence. It is paramount to include principles that ensure patients across the EU can benefit from a high level of protection and businesses are provided with legal certainty.

These new rules will significantly impact the way and speed in which technologies can be brought to market and accessed by those who need them. Getting medical technology innovations to European patients and healthcare systems in fact can often feel like navigating a complex and ever-shifting maze.

As a result, whether for R&D investment, clinical research, manufacturing or new product launches, Europe slowly losing ground to other geographies on innovation, because the maze seems to be getting harder to navigate. The EU thus has a big task ahead to further its efforts towards driving harmonisation and creating an environment of legal certainty for businesses.

The slowly approaching end of the EU legislative cycle is a unique opportunity to reflect on what has been achieved and what is still to be done. It is not a time to rush to the finish line but to stay level-headed and look for effective solutions to ensure medical technologies reach patients on time. We need to solve existing challenges in a comprehensive, sustainable manner, setting the tone for a future environment that will allow patients to continue benefiting from first-line, quality medical technologies and more equitable access to healthcare, and health systems to build the long-term resilience they need. The medical technology industry in Europe stands ready to contribute and collaborate to make this a reality.

This article was produced in partnership with Medtech Europe. MedTech Europe is the European trade association for the medical technology industry including diagnostics, medical devices and digital health.

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/empowering-patients-through-medical-technologies-for-a-healthier-future

A post-emergency COVID-19 vaccine strategy: WHO’s end of emergency declaration spells out hope but challenges remain

The declaration of the end to COVID-19 as a public emergency is a symbolic signpost, but COVID-19 remains a threat and vaccination can play a key role in addressing it.

The declaration of the end to COVID-19 as a public health emergency is a symbolic signpost of the transition from an emergency to a more sustainable mode of preparedness and reaction. COVID-19 remains a threat though, and vaccination can play a key role in addressing it.

Thirty-eight months into the pandemic, and COVID-19 claims a life every three minutes globally. This leaves no room for complacency.

Instead, we need, to remain vigilant, have a coherent approach on vaccination and continue reducing COVID-19 hospitalisations, severe disease, as well as protecting our healthcare systems.

In this regard, Member States should strive for a better coordination among their national vaccination strategies in order to avoid major differences, with the EU having a stronger role through further harmonisation of some aspects of the vaccine administration in the Member States.

At the same time, while predictable pattern of COVID-19 seasonality has yet to be established, the impact of the disease has been much higher during the period corresponding to the traditional influenza season. Therefore, where possible, COVID-19 and influenza vaccination campaigns need to be combined.

Second, we need to reflect on the use of joint procurement as part of the EU’s vaccine strategy.

The strategy has been one of the milestones of the EU’s response to the pandemic. It demonstrated the unity of the EU as a whole, facilitated access to a broad and diversified portfolio of safe and affordable vaccines, and saved the lives of more than a million Europeans since the end of 2020.

Capitalising on this success, we need to go one-step further and, seriously, consider extending it to treatments of very rare types of cancer, especially paediatrics, as well as some rare diseases.

Nevertheless, increasing public confidence in vaccination is a key prerequisite to reach these strategies’ objectives.

As EPP Coordinator at the COVI Committee, I find the major disparities in vaccination coverage between and within Member States as well as the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases, such as measles, quite concerning. In order to address these, we have to continue tackling misinformation and disinformation, and reduce vaccination hesitancy through science-based communication on the benefits of vaccination.

Last, we should not forget that these challenges are essentially global. The EU played a decisive role in the global response to the COVID-19, by donating hundreds of millions of doses, and billions of aid to assist developing countries.

Building on that, the EU has to continue playing its role in providing support, improving access to vaccines for LMICs, as well as, boost global health research to develop the technologies and countermeasures, which are necessary to improve health.

By Stelios Kympouropoulos

Stelios Kympouropoulos (EL, EPP) is a member of Parliament’s EMPL and PETI Committees, the SANT Subcommittee and the COVI Special Commmittee.