First at-home HPV test approved by FDA, could replace Pap smear
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first at-home screening test for cervical cancer, the product's maker announced on Friday.
The DIY test could serve as an alternative to in-person "Pap smears," which are recommended every three years for women up to age 65.
The self-collection device — the Teal Wand, made by Teal Health in San Francisco — allows women to procure a sample and mail it in for laboratory analysis.
New Cervical Cancer Treatment Approach Could Reduce Risk Of Death By 40%, Trial Results Show
The test is designed to detect human papillomavirus (HPV), the virus that causes almost all cervical cancer cases.
The approval comes after a clinical trial including more than 600 women, in which the Teal Wand had a 96% accuracy rate of detecting cervical precancers.
Read On The Fox News App
In the study, 86% of participants said they'd be more likely to comply with cervical cancer screening recommendations if they could do it at home, Teal Health reported.
Additionally, 94% said they would prefer to self-collect at home as long as the results were accurate.
Cervical Cancer Deaths Could Be Reduced With Home Hpv Testing, Study Finds
"Cervical cancer is largely preventable, yet screening rates in the U.S. continue to lag, and the FDA approval of this at-home Teal Wand self-collection device is a critical step forward," said Dr. Christine Conageski, associate professor, OB-GYN and director of the Complex Dysplasia Clinic at the University of Colorado, who was a principal investigator in the SELF-CERV trial.
"It offers an evidence-based way to expand access without compromising accuracy," she added in a statement.
Approximately 11,500 new cervical cancer diagnoses are made in the U.S. each year, and the disease causes 4,000 annual deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In addition to the cervical cancer risk, some higher-risk incidences of HPV can also cause other types of cancers, according to experts.
Women between the ages of 25 and 65 who are at average risk of cervical cancer will soon be able to order the at-home test at www.getteal.com, according to the company's announcement.
Kits are expected to first become available in California starting in June, with plans to expand across the country "as soon as possible," the company said in its announcement.
Click Here To Sign Up For Our Health Newsletter
"Teal is working with major insurance providers and plans to have flexible payment options, helping to remove financial concerns and ensuring more women have access to this preferred at-home screening if they want it," the company stated.
In addition to the collection kit, the product also includes a telehealth service with support from medical providers throughout the process.
Women who test positive for HPV will be referred for a traditional Pap smear. Those who do not test positive are not considered at risk of cervical cancer and will not need to screen again for three to five years.
"Some women are scared of a traditional Pap smear or find the process uncomfortable — as a result, they put off this vital test," said Ami Vaidya M.D., co-chief of gynecologic oncology at Hackensack University Medical Center's John Theurer Cancer Center, in a press release. (She was not involved in the trial.)
For more Health articles, visit www.foxnews.com/health
"This could be an important tool in getting more women regularly screened, especially those who don't have access to a medical provider. Any type of test that helps detect cervical cancer is a win."Original article source: First at-home HPV test approved by FDA, could replace Pap smear
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
30 minutes ago
- Washington Post
How one meeting in 2020 and a GOP senator helped create RFK Jr.'s vaccine wreck
In more than 20 years of covering policy, I have witnessed some crazy stuff. But one episode towers above the rest in sheer lunacy: the November 2020 meeting of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Sounds boring? Usually, maybe. But that meeting was when the committee's eminent experts, having considered a range of vaccine rollout strategies, selected the plan that was projected to kill the most people and had the least public support. In a survey conducted in August 2020, most Americans said that as soon as health-care workers were inoculated with the coronavirus vaccine, we should have started vaccinating the highest-risk groups in order of their vulnerability: seniors first, then immunocompromised people, then other essential workers. Instead of adopting this sensible plan, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory committee decided to inoculate essential workers ahead of seniors, even though its own modeling suggested this would increase deaths by up to 7 percent. Why did they do this? Social justice. The word 'equity' came up over and over in the discussion — essential workers, you see, were more likely than seniors to come from 'marginalized communities.' Only after a backlash did sanity prevail. I've thought a lot about that meeting as I've watched the havoc Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is wreaking as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services — including, most recently, firing all the members of the ACIP panel and replacing them with advisers more to his liking. That 2020 committee meeting was one of many widely publicized mistakes that turned conservatives against public health authorities. It wasn't the worst such mistake — that honor belongs to the time public health experts issued a special lockdown exemption for George Floyd protesters. And of course, President Donald Trump deserves a 'worst supporting actor' award for turning on his own public health experts. But if you were a conservative convinced that 'public health' was a conspiracy of elites who cared more about progressive ideology than saving lives — well, there was our crack team of vaccine experts, proudly proclaiming that they cared more about progressive ideology than saving lives. This is one of the reasons we now have a health and human services secretary who has devoted much of his life to pushing quack anti-vaccine theories. That's not to say that public health experts deserve all of the blame. They don't even deserve most of the blame, which properly belongs to Trump, who appointed Kennedy to curry favor with Kennedy's supporters, and to the Republican senators who confirmed Kennedy to curry favor with Trump. When Kennedy was being considered for the nomination, I interviewed Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute about what that might mean for HHS. Levin, a former George W. Bush staffer who worked on health-care policy, said that as secretary, Kennedy would have significant power to shape our vaccination policy, thanks to his control over advisory boards such as ACIP. 'In practice, the secretary can more or less remove and add individuals to these advisory boards at his discretion,' Levin told me. I concluded that column by begging senators not to confirm him. For a moment it looked as if they might actually put principle over party. On Feb. 3, our Editorial Board praised Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana) for the probing questions he asked during Kennedy's confirmation hearing, pressing him to admit that there's no good evidence vaccines cause autism. The next day, Cassidy, who is a medical doctor, made one of the clearest and most forthright defenses of vaccination in a speech on the Senate floor: 'Vaccines save lives. They are safe. They do not cause autism. There are multiple studies that show this. They are a crucial part of our nation's public health response.' Alas, he said those things while explaining why he was voting to confirm Kennedy. His excuse was that Kennedy had promised that he was committed to vaccination … including to maintain ACIP 'without changes.' Now Levin's warning has proven prophetic. Kennedy's ACIP moves were entirely predictable to anyone who has read his book 'Vax-Unvax.' If Cassidy believed Kennedy's assurances, he was a fool, and if he didn't, he's a disgrace to his office. Not all the ACIP appointments are terrible, and one could argue that the board is now better positioned to reestablish credibility with vaccine-skeptical conservatives, something Cassidy talked about in his floor speech. But I'm afraid I can't make that argument very convincingly. Two of his appointments, Vicky Pebsworth and Robert Malone, are known for their hostility to vaccines. Most of the rest seem to be experts in fields other than vaccination. Vaccination specialists, of course, tend to have a long paper trail of public disagreement with Kennedy's theories. I'm no believer in blind deference to experts. Science isn't an answer; it's a process, and sometimes that process spits out answers that have to be revised. But I agree with Cassidy that vaccines are one of the greatest public health achievements in humanity's history. The evidence is clear that they protect millions of Americans from diseases that can kill or cripple. So if it's a choice whether to trust my health to experts who might recommend a somewhat suboptimal vaccination schedule to score political points, or to experts selected by a guy who has casually suggested that the polio vaccine has killed more people than polio, well, that's not a hard decision. And it shouldn't have been hard for Republicans to spare us that decision, either. Instead they made the same mistake as that ACIP committee, only more so: They let politics get in the way of the job they'd been given by the American public. Before writing this column, I re-listened to a recording of that 2020 committee meeting. Almost five years on, it remains equal parts enraging and mystifying. During the brief discussion period — the committee had allocated a full 10 minutes for deciding who would live or die — the panel's members didn't seem to have much to say, other than 'equity good.' But each of them said it anyway, commending one another on their high ethical standards before voting to condemn thousands of innocent people to death. The speeches were wholly unnecessary, except as a signal to fellow experts, who were then caught up in the moral fervor of America's racial reckoning. Listening, I wondered whether any of them harbored private qualms at the time, even as they publicly declared their fealty to the politics of the moment. I wonder, too, whether any of them now wake up at night, blushing in shame and humiliation, as they remember what they did, and the pompous, self-congratulatory little speech they gave about it. And that's also the question I'd really like to ask Cassidy.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GoodRx (GDRX) Launches a New Subscription Service for Erectile Dysfunction Treatment
GoodRx Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:GDRX) is one of the 10 Best Small-Cap Growth Stocks to Buy According to Analysts. On June 10, GoodRx Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:GDRX) announced launching a new subscription service focused on erectile dysfunction (ED) treatment. The new service aims to innovate access to ED care by addressing common barriers such as high costs, social stigma, long wait times, and inconvenience. The key features of GoodRx Holdings, Inc.'s (NASDAQ:GDRX) new subscription service include an All-in-One Solution through which customers can book virtual consultations, get access to FDA-approved medicines, and also get discreet home deliveries. The subscription starts as low as $18 per month, with the final cost depending on the prescribed medication. We recognize that many men delay or entirely avoid treatment for ED due to stigma, costs, and the inconvenience of traditional healthcare pathways,' said Katelyn Pelak, VP and Head of Product at GoodRx Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:GDRX). A pharmacist assisting elderly customers with their GoodRX codes at a local pharmacy. Moreover, the company also released its latest study on ED, revealing nearly 1 in 3 men in the United States report difficulties with erections, but fewer than 14% use any treatment, largely due to insurance coverage gaps and social stigma. GoodRx Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:GDRX) is a leading US healthcare company that helps consumers save money on prescription medications by providing free access to drug price comparisons, digital coupons, and discounts at over 70,000 pharmacies nationwide. The company operates through a mobile app and website where users can get medications, access telemedicine services to consult doctors online and receive prescriptions without insurance. It is one of the best small-cap growth stocks to buy according to analysts. While we acknowledge the potential of GDRX as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: The Best and Worst Dow Stocks for the Next 12 Months and 10 Unstoppable Stocks That Could Double Your Money. Disclosure: None. 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
Washington Post
39 minutes ago
- Washington Post
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act : no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program -- would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements.
