New test could transform diagnosis and treatment of STIs
A new rapid test for sexually transmitted infections could soon transform on-the-spot diagnosis and treatment.
Birmingham-based Linear Diagnostics has secured £1 million in funding to develop the technology, which could deliver results in less than 20 minutes.
The funding comes from the NIHR Invention for Innovation programme and will support a three-year project to finalise the test and prepare it for clinical trials.
Dr Jean-Louis Duprey, head of research and development at Linear Diagnostics, said: "We are developing a near patient device that will overcome this conundrum."
The company is working with the NIHR HealthTech Research Centre and the North East Innovation Lab to deliver the project.
Dr Jana Suklan, senior methodologist at the HRC, said: "The NIHR HRC in Diagnostic and Technology Evaluation is delighted to be collaborating with the North East Innovation Lab to support Linear Diagnostics with their exciting technology.
"Our research involves analysing unmet needs, examining current practice and identifying the most promising point in the patient pathway for implementing the technology."
The test uses Linear's Exponential Amplification (EXPAR) technology, which detects bacterial DNA within minutes.
The company has focused on STIs such as Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis, where rapid diagnosis is essential to prevent further transmission and begin treatment immediately.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Texas to expand psychedelic research with $50M ibogaine investment
AUSTIN (KXAN) — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is holding a bill signing ceremony Tuesday for legislation that invests $50 million into clinical research of ibogaine — a naturally occurring psychedelic substance that could treat post-traumatic stress disorder, opioid use disorder and other mental health conditions. For years, veterans and others suffering from PTSD have sought ibogaine treatment in Mexico, where the substance is not heavily regulated. In the United States, ibogaine is classified as a Schedule 1 drug, the most restrictive drug category. Other drugs classified under Schedule 1 include psilocybin, LSD and heroin. According to the legislative summary of SB 2308, the implications for those with opioid use disorder are lifechanging; a single administration of ibogaine in a controlled setting has been shown to stop withdrawal symptoms and reduce drug cravings long-term. RELATED: Lawmakers hope to expand medical marijuana program as state bans intoxicating hemp products 'Preliminary reports also suggest benefits in cognitive function, mood regulation, and sleep among individuals with [traumatic brain injury] and PTSD—conditions prevalent among U.S. veterans,' the bill text read. The new legislation will create a program within the Texas Health and Human Services Commission to support Texas-based trials of ibogaine through the FDA. Ibogaine is not currently FDA-approved due to its Schedule 1 classification. SB 2308 will fund research through gifts, grants or donations and will require equal matching funds by the recipients, which will include Texas medical facilities 'equipped for cardiac-intensive monitoring' by a supervising physician, among other qualifications. 'By advancing ibogaine research, Texas has the opportunity to lead in neuroscience innovation, address urgent veteran health needs, and shape the future of mental health treatment nationwide,' the bill text reads. While legislation aimed at easing access to ibogaine moves forward, separate legislation to restrict access to another plant has also progressed. Texas lawmakers sent a bill banning non-medical THC products to Abbott for approval late last month. Still, Texas in recent years has become more open-minded to the use of psychedelic substances in treating mental health conditions. 'There's definitely been a shift in the openness and the receptivity of the field to this type of research,' said Greg Fonzo, Ph.D., co-director of the McGill Center for Psychedelic Research & Therapy at Dell Medical School. 'People who do undergo this treatment process, some of them respond well and have a benefit in terms of symptom reductions and feeling better,' Fonzo told KXAN earlier this year. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
New state laws aim to clarify abortion bans. Doctors say it's not so simple.
Almost three years after the fall of Roe v. Wade made way for near-total abortion bans, state lawmakers are weighing whether to offer more specific guidance about when doctors can perform abortions in a medical crisis. Texas, Kentucky and Tennessee all passed laws this year ostensibly clarifying the scope of its abortion bans, a reaction to climbing sepsis rates and harrowing stories of patients who have suffered or died preventable deaths. Since June 2022, lawmakers in at least nine states have introduced such bills. But doctors, attorneys and policy experts say that the laws being enacted will not solve the problems health providers have been forced to navigate since the end of Roe: The risk of being punished has deterred physicians, hospitals and health systems from providing consistent care, even when it is needed. 'The problem with these clarifying laws is they don't expand access under the law, they don't change the definitions, and they don't remove the legislative interference in the practice of medicine,' said Molly Meegan, chief legal officer and general counsel to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In Texas, a bill that awaits Republican Gov. Greg Abbott's signature ostensibly clarifies when the state's near-total abortion ban allows for the procedure, saying explicitly that physicians do not need to wait until a patient is in imminent danger of dying to perform an abortion. The bill also requires training for doctors and lawyers on the state's abortion law. But lawmakers have made clear that the bill, crafted in consultation with Texas-based health professionals and abortion opponents, does not introduce new exceptions; Texas' ban does not allow for abortions in cases of rape, incest or fatal fetal anomaly. And if enacted, it would codify a Texas Supreme Court decision that found that the state's ban still applied even in cases with complications that could threaten a pregnant person's health.. Such was the case for Dallas woman Kate Cox, who experienced amniotic fluid leaking and cramping — which create the risk of bacterial infection — after discovering a likely-fatal fetal anomaly in her pregnancy. Some former abortion patients whose lives were endangered because of delayed or denied care, including several who challenged the Texas abortion ban, said they fear Senate Bill 31 may not address situations like theirs. Amanda Zurawski, who sued the state after being denied an abortion when experiencing a life-threatening condition called preterm premature rupture of membrane, said at a legislative hearing on the bill that it likely doesn't provide the clarity she would have needed. 'It is unclear whether SB 31 would have prevented my trauma and preserved my fertility had it existed in 2022, and I find that problematic,' Zurawski said. She only received care after she developed sepsis. Clarification bills can have mixed support in legislatures. Local physicians might back tweaks to exemption language if they see it as potentially lifesaving for their patients. Some anti-abortion advocates might also favor changes if the legislation can address certain medical emergencies that they believe fall outside of a state's ban, such as ectopic pregnancies or preterm premature rupture of membranes. But not all anti-abortion advocates or Republican lawmakers within these statehouses support even a small clarification. 'I think in all these cases, lawmakers are being pulled in different directions by these different constituencies,' said Mary Ziegler, an abortion law historian at the University of California, Davis. 'The bills themselves are kind of muddy, because they're trying to be different things to different people.' The end result are clarification laws that remain unclear to physicians and their employing hospitals and health systems, who can still face high penalties for violating an abortion ban. 'When the law isn't clear, physicians don't intervene,' Ziegler said. 'You're not going to be willing to gamble your liberty and your medical license on an uncertain interpretation of the law.' In Kentucky, doctors vocally opposed a Republican-backed bill that supporters said would help health professionals understand when they can provide abortions. Like in Texas, the state's ban only allows abortion when it is necessary to save a pregnant person's life. The clarification bill listed specific conditions that would qualify for an exception to the ban — such as sepsis, hemorrhage or ectopic pregnancy — despite concern from doctors that a delineated list wouldn't be able to predict every possible situation where an abortion might save someone's life. Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear vetoed the bill in March, calling gaps in the law 'literally a matter of life and death.' The state's legislature, where the GOP holds a supermajority, voted days later to override him. 'It's hard to create this laundry list of, 'This is OK, this is not OK,' because unfortunately, medicine is something with a bunch of gray areas,' said Dr. Caitlin Thomas, an OB-GYN in Louisville. In Georgia — where pregnant, brain-dead woman Adriana Smith remains on life-support until she can give birth later this summer, and where the death of Amber Thurman was attributed to the confusion created by the state's abortion ban — some lawmakers have asked physicians whether a clarification might allow doctors to provide abortions when the pregnancy threatens a patient's life, possibly by listing specific conditions that qualify for an exception. 'We encouraged them not to, and said that would not be helpful,' said Dr. Neesha Verma, an Atlanta-based OB-GYN. 'The more and more prescriptive you make these laws, the less space there is for clinical judgment.' Following a case filed by seven Tennessee patients who had been denied abortions under the state's ban, lawmakers in that state passed a law this year meant to clarify that, under the state's ban, abortions could be performed in cases of preterm prelabor rupture of membrane or severe preeclampsia, but that the exception did not include mental health emergencies. Mental health conditions including substance use disorder, depression and confirmed or probably suicide are the largest single cause of pregnancy-related deaths in the state, according to a 2022 report. The interest in clarifying bans — including from some lawmakers who oppose abortion — 'is a response to where we know the public is and the fact that we know the public is generally supportive of abortion access and also has been presented with these terrible preventable cases since Dobbs,' said Kimya Forouzan, who tracks state policy for the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit abortion research organization. That ambiguity was on display in a Texas case last year. A state judge held that the state's abortion law exception permitted Cox to have an abortion when her doctors discovered the anomaly in her pregnancy. But the state's attorney general, Ken Paxton, swiftly intervened, threatening legal action against any health care provider that performed an abortion on Cox. Cox ultimately left the state to terminate her pregnancy. Michele Goodwin, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine and author of 'Policing the Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood,' said state officials can do more to ensure health providers know their legal rights. 'It would be credible for states' attorneys generals and the prosecutors who are conservative to immediately issue statements of clarity, saying that they are opposed to these kinds of conditions, that they will not prosecute,' she said. The post New state laws aim to clarify abortion bans. Doctors say it's not so simple. appeared first on The 19th. News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Elekta appoints Jakob Just-Bomholt as CEO
This story was originally published on MedTech Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily MedTech Dive newsletter. Name: Jakob Just-Bomholt New title: CEO, Elekta Previous title: CEO, 3Shape Elekta has appointed Jakob Just-Bomholt as president and CEO. Just-Bomholt will take up the positions on Sept. 1, filling a vacancy created in March when the cancer radiotherapy company's board decided a new leader was needed to improve profitability and growth. Stockholm-based Elekta competes with Siemens Healthineers' Varian in the radiotherapy market. Elekta is looking to its new Evo radiation therapy machine to strengthen its position. However, while the device is on the market in Europe, helping drive 3% global sales growth in the most recent quarter, Elekta has yet to launch Evo in the U.S. The company has said U.S. customers are waiting for Evo, suppressing sales. Just-Bomholt will oversee Elekta's attempt to recover in the U.S. and in China, where sales have been hit by the anti-corruption drive, and build on momentum in Europe. The executive stepped down as CEO of 3Shape, a Danish digital dental scanning firm, earlier this year. The privately held 3Shape said in a statement at the time that Just-Bomholt spent 'five successful years' as CEO. Laurent Leksell, Elekta's founder and chairman, said in a statement that Just-Bomholt is well-suited to his new role. Leksell cited Just-Bomholt's strategic leadership, international experience and ability to drive profitable growth and global expansion as evidence he is the right person for the job. Just-Bomholt is set to begin onboarding in August, working with interim CEO Jonas Bolander to transition into the CEO post on Sept. 1. Bolander has spent his time as interim CEO 'stabilizing and simplifying the business,' the executive said on an earnings call late last month, and oversaw a change in Elekta's plans for bringing Evo to the U.S. market. Elekta withdrew its filing for clearance of Evo, and as of the May 28 earnings call, was in the process of resubmitting its application. Bolander said the change in filing strategy is intended to better align with the Food and Drug Administration's approval process, with a greater focus on cybersecurity. The interim CEO expects the delay to have a 'limited' impact on the overall product launch. Recommended Reading Elekta CEO Gustaf Salford to leave after board sees need for new leader Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
