Join the July 3 2025 Online Course on Sustainable Medical Device Design & Manufacture
Dublin, June 25, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Sustainable Design and Manufacture for Medical Devices Training Course (ONLINE EVENT: July 3, 2025)" has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.
Sustainability in medical technology, as in all industries, is increasingly no longer an option. It's not a question of "if" - it's a question of "how".
This seminar will give you an in depth understanding of what sustainability options exist, what the benefits are, what drives them and how to choose which will work for your company. It will also provide practical advice on how to implement change.
Benefits of attending
Gain an understanding of how sustainability objectives can be made to fit with YOUR organisation and what you should be aiming to achieve
Learn how to assess risk and develop a strategy that delivers worthwhile results in a realistic timeframe
Appreciate where to start, how to manage change and how to justify the investment by measuring improvements
Certifications:
CPD: 6 hours for your records
Certificate of completion
Who Should Attend:
Medical industry leaders
Sustainability leaders
Product owners
Manufacturing managers
Design heads
Business development managers
Anyone interested in sustainable design and manufacture
Course Agenda:
Background
Focus: where does sustainable design and manufacture fit into the overall sustainability picture?
What are the drivers for sustainability in YOUR industry/organisation? What are the barriers?
What has your organisation done so far and why? Did it work? If not, why not?
Understanding how to move forward
Stakeholders in sustainable design and manufacture
Risks - organisational, technical, regulatory and market
Understanding the synergy between design, manufacture and remanufacture
Planning change
Appetite for change - selling the idea, getting stakeholders on board and assessing future market acceptance/demands
Understanding the benefits - how sustainability can add value to your organisation and your products
Sharing the vision and getting commitment/support
Understanding risk - acknowledging that this is new ground and identifying what you don't know you don't know
Planning phased implementation - disruptive change and how to manage it
Feasibility analysis - the answer to the question "should we adopt sustainable manufacture" - might be no!
Implementing change
Where to start - design, manufacture, remanufacture or all three?
How to "do" sustainable design. How have others done it? What can we learn? How suitable is it for medical?
How to implement a recovery and remanufacturing loop. What can we learn from other industries?
What external forces exist and how do we address them?
Where to find support and how to keep the regulators happy
Starting small and working up - balancing risk with manageable rates of progress and measuring success
Scaling up, managing expectations and finding the optimum rate of change
Making the financial case - how does sustainability pay for itself?
Q&A and key takeaways
For more information about this training visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/n5eu4g
About ResearchAndMarkets.comResearchAndMarkets.com is the world's leading source for international market research reports and market data. We provide you with the latest data on international and regional markets, key industries, the top companies, new products and the latest trends.
CONTACT: CONTACT: ResearchAndMarkets.com Laura Wood,Senior Press Manager press@researchandmarkets.com For E.S.T Office Hours Call 1-917-300-0470 For U.S./ CAN Toll Free Call 1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Boys and girls should be taught about periods together in school, academics say
Girls and boys should be taught about periods in mixed-sex groups in school to improve their understanding of menstruation, researchers have said. A study by University College London (UCL) academics has suggested that pupils in schools are being given insufficient information around periods. For many pupils they are given just two lessons about periods in their whole school career – one in primary and one in secondary, researchers have said. They have called for lessons on menstruation in schools to be much 'more comprehensive'. Since September 2020, relationships and sex education has been compulsory in secondary schools in England, while relationships education has been compulsory in primary schools. Professor Joyce Harper, from UCL Institute for Women's Health, said: 'Educating pupils about periods may now be compulsory in schools in England and Wales, but we know that for many of them that still only amounts to two lessons in their entire school career.' The researchers suggested that periods should be taught among mixed-sex groups, as well as single-sex groups, which some schools do not currently do. Prof Harper said: 'Our focus groups were also of the view that boys need to be part of that education. 'It was agreed that classes should not be segregated by gender, believing mixed sessions are crucial for boys' education. 'Although some saw value in single-sex classes to allow students to speak more freely, they still felt mixed sessions were essential to improve overall understanding. 'They suggested this could help boys understand and support their friends and future partners through menopause.' Overall, 55 women took part in the study divided into two groups based on age (18 to 25 and 26 to 40) and five focus groups were conducted for each group. They were recruited via social media, and many of the women were educated before the topic on menstruation became mandatory in English schools. The academics said menstruation is 'highly stigmatised' and a 'lack of education' about difficult periods restricts individuals from seeking help. Co-author Caroline Musulin, from UCL Institute for Women's Health, said: 'Many women endure menstrual problems longer than they should due to the inability to speak openly about uncertainties, fears of being dismissed by healthcare professionals, the view that it's 'just' a painful period or feelings of shame. 'Stigma, secrecy, and the expectation to 'cope' with painful periods contribute to the systemic dismissal of menstrual discomfort.' The latest statutory Government guidance on relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) in schools says pupils should be taught about menstruation in primary and secondary school. The guidance, which was published last month, says pupils should learn the facts about the menstrual cycle, including physical and emotional changes, by the end of primary school to help them understand what to expect. By the end of secondary school, pupils should learn about menstrual and gynaecological health – including period problems such as premenstrual syndrome, heavy menstrual bleeding, endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome – as well as menopause, the guidance adds. The latest Department for Education (DfE) guidance says: 'RSE lessons should ensure that both boys and girls have opportunities to practise respectful communication and understand experiences which are different from their own, including menstruation and menopause.' Schools in England will have to follow the statutory RSHE guidance from September 2026. Sarah Hannafin, head of policy for school leaders' union NAHT, said: 'Teaching about periods is a vital part of health education for all pupils. 'Although many schools may separate classes to create a safe space for discussions on topics like this, mixed-sex groups should also be planned as it is vital that pupils understand others' experiences. 'Schools need freely available high-quality resources to support them to do this. 'Education about periods needs more than a single lesson but the curriculum in both primary and secondary schools is overcrowded and the new RSHE guidance has added a lot of new content without any additional time being created.' Pepe Di'Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: 'We fully support the need for boys and girls to be taught about menstruation in a comprehensive manner which goes beyond biological facts and covers the wider effects on wellbeing. 'It is essential to be able to discuss this topic openly without misinformation or embarrassment. 'While it is covered in the RSHE curriculum we would welcome consideration of how teaching of this topic might be strengthened.' A DfE spokesperson said: 'Understanding menstruation is an important part of growing up, which is why we have brought in a new relationships, sex and health education curriculum to take effect next year, with clear guidance that pupils should be taught about both physical and emotional changes, as well as topics from endometriosis to heavy menstrual bleeding. 'As part of our plan for change, we're providing teachers with new resources to help them run great lessons on these issues, tackle stigma head-on and support every child to achieve and thrive.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Type 2 diabetes patients set for major shake-up in care
People with type 2 diabetes in England are to get the biggest shake up of care in a decade which could see them offered treatments, including jabs that aid weight-loss, sooner. The health service should move from a one-size-fits-all approach of starting everyone on the same medication, to more personalised care that aims to prevent complications like heart failure and heart attacks, according to new draft guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice). This includes making newer type 2 diabetes drugs, known as SGLT-2 inhibitors, a first-line treatment option in a move that could eventually help save tens of thousands of lives. SGLT-2 inhibitors, which include canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and ertugliflozin, are once-a-day tablets that reduce blood sugar levels by helping the kidneys remove glucose, which is passed from the body through urine. However, analysis by Nice found these drugs are under-prescribed. The new guidelines recommend patients who cannot tolerate metformin – the first-choice in type 2 diabetes medication – should start with an SGLT-2 inhibitor on its own. The decision comes after evidence suggested these drugs protect the heart and kidneys as well as controlling blood sugar, Nice said. It is estimated the change could save almost 22,000 lives once uptake reaches 90% of the population. Nice also suggests some groups of patients would also benefit from GLP-1 receptor agonists such as liraglutide or semaglutide sooner, rather than keeping them for the later stages of treatment. Semaglutide, sold under the brand name Ozempic, is licensed in the UK to treat type 2 diabetes, while its other brand – Wegovy – is also used by the NHS to help obese people lose weight. Professor Jonathan Benger, deputy chief executive and chief medical officer at Nice, said: 'This guidance means more people will be offered medicines where it is right to do so to reduce their future risk of ill health. 'This represents a significant evolution in how we approach type 2 diabetes treatment. 'We're moving beyond simply managing blood sugar to taking a holistic view of a person's health, particularly their cardiovascular and kidney health. 'The evidence shows that certain medicines can provide important cardiovascular benefits, and by recommending them as part of initial treatment, we could help prevent heart attacks, strokes and other serious complications before they occur. 'This is particularly important given that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in people with type 2 diabetes.' Around 4.6 million people in the UK are living with diabetes, with nine in 10 of those having type 2. However, it is estimated that a further 1.3 million people may have undiagnosed type 2 diabetes. Nice analysed the records of 590,000 people and found SGLT-2 inhibitors are under-prescribed, particularly to women, older people, and black patients. Prof Benger added: 'The evidence from our analysis is clear. There are prescribing gaps that need to be addressed. 'The guideline update published today will help to increase equitable uptake of SGLT-2 inhibitors, which we know can prevent serious health complications.' Dr Waqaar Shah, chairman of the guideline committee, added: 'We know that SGLT-2 inhibitors are currently under-prescribed, and our health economics analysis shows that people living in the most deprived areas would particularly benefit from universal access to these treatments. 'These recommendations could help reduce health inequalities while providing better outcomes for everyone.' Elsewhere, the draft guidance suggests different treatments for diabetes patients with certain characteristics or health conditions. These include adults with cardiovascular disease, who should be offered a triple therapy including a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Meanwhile, adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes before 40 should be offered dual therapy before a GLP-1 receptor agonist is considered, while patients with chronic kidney disease should have tailored recommendations based on their kidney function. A public consultation on the new Nice guidelines is open until October 2. Douglas Twenefour, head of clinical at Diabetes UK, said: 'This long-awaited announcement propels type 2 diabetes treatment into the 21st century. 'Boosting access to newer treatments will be transformative for people with type 2 diabetes, while ensuring the UK keeps pace with the global momentum in treating the condition. 'The majority of people with type 2 diabetes are not currently taking the most effective medication for them, putting them at risk of devastating diabetes-related complications. 'Diabetes is a leading cause of cardiovascular disease, and tailoring treatment based on individual risk could protect thousands against heart attacks and kidney disease. 'These guidelines could go a long way to easing the burden of living with this relentless condition, as well as helping to address inequities in type 2 diabetes treatments and outcomes.'
Medscape
3 hours ago
- Medscape
Is Red Meat Bad for You? The Proof Is in the Processing
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Is red meat bad for you? On the one hand, meat makes you strong, and it's every American's God-given right to grill a steak on his barbecue during the summer. I believe this came up in a church synod at some point… But on the other hand, the WHO (World Health Organization) has declared red meat a carcinogen, with a hot dog being as bad as cigarette. Yes, that was headline when the report came out. So, how do we reconcile these opposing ideas? Part of the solution is realizing the WHO organization in question is based in France. Maybe they're still angry about the "freedom fries" thing, but actually examining the nuances of the French language will help us understand what's going on. If you don't speak French, don't worry I got you covered. Ce n'est pas si difficile de tout n'inquiétez vous pas. Vous allez voir . Sit back, grab a baguette, and let's find out how dangerous red meat really is. I'm Christopher Labos, and this is Medscape's On Second Thought . Bonjour, tout le monde! Now, meat doesn't seem like it should be a complex topic to study, but it is. Many people around the world eat animals, but we don't all eat the same animals. For example, this is a cow, often used to make hamburger and steak. And this is Tobi, God's perfect angel who gets a more elaborate birthday party than I do each year. He is my son, and I would throw myself in front of a moving car for him. By necessity, when we do medical research on meat, we are lumping together a whole lot of a different human behavior, with people eating different types of animals based on where they live. There's no real alternative, and frankly, you can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Most credible research will at least separate out red meat from white meat. But most people don't really know what the difference is. If you thought pork was white meat, you're wrong. You think that because of a marketing slogan. In 1987, the National Pork Board paid for the marketing campaign "Pork. The Other White Meat." They were basically trying to position pork as an alternative to chicken. People also usually think veal or deer is white meat. They think the difference between white and red meat has something to do the age of the animal, whether its free range, or the color of the meat. But it doesn't. Chefs and restaurants say all kinds of things, but the real definition is simple: Mammals are red meat, and birds are white meat. Now, there's another thing we need to explain. We have red meat, but we also have processed red meat. Processed red meat is when red meat is transformed in some way — and that doesn't mean cooking. If you just take a piece of steak and cook it on your barbecue or in the oven, that's not processed meat. Processing is doing things like salting the meat, smoking it, or curing it. Processed meat includes items like bacon, sausages, hot dogs, salami, corn beef, and smoked meat. So, when we talk about red meat and health risks, we are primarily talking about processed red meat. And the people talking about this are the International Agency for Research in Cancer (IARC). IARC is a WHO organization, and their mandate is to promote international research on cancer — particularly its cause. One of their programs is a monograph program that evaluates the evidence of the carcinogenicity of specific exposures. Here's where a knowledge of French is going to come in handy. IARC likes to look at something called the hazard, rather than the risk. In fact, every time they have a press conference, they spend about 5 minutes explaining the difference to people, which begs the question: Why not just study risk and be done with it? In English, those words seem pretty much like synonyms. And with the way most people use them, they essentially are. But in French, they are slightly different. Le risque et le hasard don't quite mean the same thing in French. To be fair, their definitions are technically different in English, as well — as those of you who read the dictionary for fun already know. A risk is the probability that something harmful will happen. A hazard is a potential source of harm. For example, a grenade is a hazardous thing to have on your desk, but the risk of it exploding is quite low… unless you pull the pin. IARC is researching hazard. They are evaluating whether something is associated with cancer, not how risky that something is. IARC categorizes everything into groups: carcinogenic to humans, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic, or not classifiable. There is technically a "not carcinogenic" group, but there's nothing in there. Well, there was one substance in there for a bit, but they removed it. Comment below if you know what that substance is. Here's a hint: You find it in yoga pants. So, IARC has never found anything that doesn't cause cancer. When they go hunting for heffalumps and woozles, they find heffalumps and woozles. To be fair, which I am under no contractual obligation to be, they are a WHO agency, and they are tasked to review substances that are of interest to world governments. As such, they are not going to review stuff that is clearly unrelated to cancer… but still. They put a lot of stuff in Group 1, the (definitely) carcinogenic group. Tamoxifen is in Group 1, and as most of you know, tamoxifen treats breast cancer. It has saved countless lives. Calling it a carcinogen sounds a bit daft, but it is associated with abnormal uterine bleeding and an increased risk of uterine cancer. And the data is pretty uncontroversial, right? Thus, IARC says, 'We are certain this association is true, therefore it goes in Group 1.' But what's the risk of tamoxifen causing uterine cancer? It's 0.3% on the absolute risk scale. It's basically zero and a heck of a lot lower than the breast cancer risk. Clearly, you should take the drug if you have ER-positive breast cancer. So, this is the problem. IARC is saying how certain they are that something is dangerous, but not how dangerous something is. Conclusive data will land a substance into Group 1: carcinogenic. Strong but not conclusive data goes into Group 2a: probably carcinogenic. If there's only some evidence, contradictory evidence, or maybe just animal data, you get sorted into Group 2b: possibly carcinogenic. And Group 3 is used when there's not much data to work off of. Generally, their system works okay. They put tobacco, asbestos, and gamma radiation in Group 1, which makes sense. But then also put stuff like birth control pills, estrogen, and tamoxifen in Group 1. Sure, there is a small increased risk of breast cancer with birth control pills if you have a family history, but it's a pretty small risk and frankly negligible for the general population — plus, it's largely outweighed by the decrease in ovarian cancer risk that comes with using birth control pills. But IARC isn't doing that type of nuanced calculation. They say, 'Estrogen causes breast cancer. The pill has estrogen. The link is proven. The pill goes into Group 1.' So, it was IARC that reviewed all the data about processed red meat and declared it a Group 1 carcinogen. Fun fact: Unprocessed red meat was only put in Group 2A because the data was less solid. For anybody grilling a steak right now, this doesn't apply to you. But not everybody agreed with IARC. The Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) Consortium was a group of researchers who also reviewed the data on red meat and came to a completely different conclusion. Their analysis was motivated by two things: 1) the funding they received from the beef industry (this is why we can't have nice things), and 2) they dismissed much of the research because it comes from observational cohorts, not randomized controlled trials. In food science, randomized controlled trials are hard to conduct, because telling people what to eat is often met with "make me." Regardless, the NutriRECS Consortium conclusion was, 'Keep eating meat, as the data is uncertain because most of it is observational.' This conclusion is a bit reductionist to me, because we have a lot of observational data pointing toward health risks associated with processed red meat, and I have a hard time believing all the stuff added to processed red meat is doing us any favors. But let's take the IARC assessment at face value. They are convinced by the hazard or the hasard. But what's the risk? The cancer risk is most clear cut for colon cancer, which is pretty logical. Your lifetime risk of colon cancer is about 4%, assuming you're of general risk with no family history or genetic risk factors. It's actually 4.2% for males and 4.0% for females, according to the 2022 Cancer Statistics from the American Cancer Society. But let's say 4% for everyone — just for simplicity. The IARC report estimated that eating an extra 50 g of processed meat per day, every day, increased your risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. Take 4%, multiply it by 1.18, and you get 4.72%. So, let's say 5% if we're rounding. All this to say, if you eat hot dogs every day of your life, your risk of getting colon cancer goes up by 1 percentage point on the absolute scale. Now, on first instinct you might say, "Pfff, that's nothing. Pass the bratwurst." But 1% on the absolute scale is not trivial. That's thousands of cases per year. Millions of cases over the course of your lifetime in a country of 300 million people. It has some important public health implications. Is the risk high enough for us to stop killing and eating Bambi's mother? Hard to say. It's not negligible, but it's not astronomical either. And there are economic and environmental factors to keep in mind — issues that are often forgotten when we talk about medicine. I will stress one point, though. The IARC estimates of 1% absolute risk increase are about daily consumption of processed meat. You don't need to eat jerky every day of your life. For Medscape, I'm Dr Christopher Labos… with Tobi.
