Latest news with #NationalInstitutesofHealth-funded
New York Post
8 hours ago
- Health
- New York Post
New blood test can detect cancer 3 years before you start showing symptoms
Want to B-positive about your health? Johns Hopkins researchers have developed a cutting-edge blood test that can detect signs of cancer three years before any symptoms surface. The breakthrough could help doctors diagnose cancer long before today's screening tools allow, giving patients a better shot at beating the disease. Advertisement 3 Blood-based screening could one day compliment existing screening methods. Vadim – 'Three years earlier provides time for intervention,' Dr. Yuxuan Wang, an assistant professor of oncology and lead researcher of the study, said in a statement. 'The tumors are likely to be much less advanced and more likely to be curable,' she added. For the study, Wang and her colleagues analyzed blood samples from 52 people involved in a large National Institutes of Health-funded research project on cardiovascular health. Advertisement Half were later diagnosed with cancer within six months of giving blood. The rest stayed cancer-free. The researchers ran the samples through a multicancer early detection (MCED) test, which uses ultra-sensitive sequencing to hunt for tiny shards of mutated DNA that tumors leak into the bloodstream. It detected signs of cancer in 8 of the 26 future patients. Advertisement 3 Cancerous tumors shed genetic material into the bloodstream. Sebastian Kaulitzki – But here's the kicker: Six of those patients had older blood samples on file — and in four of them, early signs of cancer were already lurking more than three years before their diagnosis. 'This study shows the promise of MCED tests in detecting cancers very early, and sets the benchmark sensitivities required for their success,' said senior author Dr. Bert Vogelstein, a professor of oncology and co-director of the Ludwig Center at Johns Hopkins. Advertisement Right now, no MCED tests are fully approved by the FDA for widespread use, though some are commercially available under looser rules as Laboratory Developed Tests. While MCED tests aren't intended to replace standard screenings, experts say they could play an important role in spotting cancers earlier — especially those, like colon cancer, that are often diagnosed at advanced stages. 3 Several companies are developing MCED blood tests. Alexander Raths – 'Detecting cancers years before their clinical diagnosis could help provide management with a more favourable outcome,' said Nickolas Papadopoulos, a professor of oncology and senior author of the study. 'Of course, we need to determine the appropriate clinical follow-up after a positive test for such cancers,' he added. Among the eight participants whose cancers the MCED test detected months before diagnosis, five died from the disease — underscoring how deadly cancer can be when caught too late. For example, the five-year survival rate for breast cancer is 99% when detected early, but drops to less than 32% once the disease has spread, according to the American Cancer Society. Advertisement Excluding non-melanoma skin cancers, the group estimates more than 2 million new cancer cases will be diagnosed in the US in 2025 — with over 618,000 people expected to die from the disease. That breaks down to roughly 1,700 deaths every single day.
Axios
15 hours ago
- Health
- Axios
NIH ruling is latest blow to RFK Jr.'s agenda
Hundreds of researchers who saw their National Institutes of Health-funded studies halted by the Trump administration could begin working again soon after a federal judge ordered their funding restored Monday. Why it matters: The ruling was the latest blow to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s efforts to reshape the agency, including cutting funding for research and institutions that it says do not support the agency's mission, such as diversity, equity and inclusion studies. If it survives likely appeals, the ruling could allow researchers to restart their work on subjects including cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and HIV. "The Trump administration has tried to impose their own ideological concerns on top of a well-functioning system," Peter Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and a plaintiff in the case, told Axios. "Today they got called out." Driving the news: NIH cut nearly $3.8 billion in grants to U.S. institutions, per estimates from the Association of American Medical Colleges. Attorneys representing researchers in several states said the funding cuts were "arbitrary" and singled out cuts affecting people of color, women and LGBTQ+ people. On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge William Young told the attorneys that the case raises serious concerns about racial discrimination related to health and said some evidence points to potential discrimination against women's health. "I've never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable," Young, a Reagan appointee, said Monday. The other side: The Department of Health and Human Services said it is exploring all legal options, including filing an appeal and moving to stay the order. "HHS stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people," HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a statement. NIH director Jay Bhattacharya told lawmakers last week that he has established an appeals process for terminated grants. Between the lines: Plenty of studies in the case didn't primarily focus on questions of race or sexuality but still had their funding cut because algorithms flagged funding in their grants, Lurie pointed out. The study Lurie was part of that was a subject of the lawsuit was focused on access to HIV drugs, but it had a secondary question about hurdles specific to the LGBTQ+ community, he said. "Time lost is never made up," Lurie said. "There were delays in the accrual of new information, delays in the analysis of existing information, delays in publication eventually, and therefore in sharing whatever information we might have learned for the world." Catch up quick: It's the latest ruling against HHS moves to cut back researchers' work. In April, a District Court judge in Rhode Island issued a temporary restraining order preventing HHS from cutting over $11 billion in public health funding to states. In March, another Massachusetts judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration's planned $4 billion cut to NIH research funding, specifically targeting "indirect cost" grants. In January, a District Court judge in North Carolina issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration's pause on the disbursement of federal grants and loans. Reality check: The ruling only applies to the grants listed in this case, and it only restores the grants while the case makes its way through court. Young didn't officially rule that the directives were unlawful because they were discriminatory. Instead, he asked for evidence supporting or refuting the possibility of racial or gender discrimination.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Pregnant mothers' high blood pressure linked to this increased risk in children
Pregnant mothers experiencing high blood pressure may have to worry about another potential health risk to their children, researchers warned on Monday. The condition, also known as gestational hypertension, has previously been linked to premature births and stillbirths that are tied to a decrease in blood flow through the placenta. Now, researchers at University of Iowa Health Care have found it is also associated with an increased risk for seizure in kids. "The connection between high blood pressure in pregnant moms and seizures in children from these pregnancies had been postulated before, but never examined on a large scale, and never modeled in an animal,' Dr. Baojian Xue, a senior research scientist in pediatrics at the university, commented on the research. 'With these new mouse models and this new connection between gestational hypertension and seizures, we can now perhaps come up with new childhood anti-seizure therapies," he wrote. Xue was the first author of the National Institutes of Health-funded study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. To reach these conclusions, they utilized clinical databases and studies in lab mice, including the records of more than 246 million patients from across the U.S. The study found that children born to mothers with high blood pressure during their pregnancy had significantly higher rates of seizures compared to those with normal blood pressure. In mice, testing confirmed that exposure to gestational hypertension in the womb increased seizure sensitivity and death due to seizures. Of their subjects, male offspring showed greater vulnerability to the medical condition. They also found that brain inflammation played a 'significant role' in the process of disease, saying it may play such a role in human children. Gestational hypertension impacts nearly 16 percent of American pregnancies. Mothers are also at a higher risk of seizures, stroke, temporary kidney failure, and liver and blood clotting problems, according to the Cleveland Clinic. Most people with high blood pressure will deliver healthy babies when the condition is caught early in pregnancy. However, the more severe the condition is, the more at risk mothers are for serious complications, the clinic notes. That can include preeclampsia, when high blood pressure develops after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Eclampsia occurs when a pregnant woman has seizures due to untreated or under-treated preeclampsia. But this study – the first large-scale evidence connecting gestational hypertension to heightened seizure risk in offspring – may offer new pathways for further research. The impact of brain inflammation could be targeted to prevent seizures in children exposed to gestational hypertension. Notably, this research was released the same day as another study from Columbia University that found low levels of arsenic in drinking water were also linked to preterm birth and lower birthweight. "This study is unique because you have an association drawn from analyses of large clinical databases, but then we go on to prove the association with animal models,' Dr. Vinit Mahajan, professor of ophthalmology at Stanford University and a co-author on the study, explained. 'We were even able to reduce seizures in mice offspring with anti-inflammatory drugs based on what we learned from the model.'
Yahoo
27-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
The Trump Administration Just Made Catastrophic Cuts That Will Affect You Or Someone You Know
In a matter of weeks, the research lab that I direct at the University of Michigan has lost six National Institutes of Health-funded grants. I assume more of my federal grants will be terminated, given the work we do in my lab focuses on violence prevention and positive youth development among LGBTQ+ youth and racial and ethnic minority youth — topics labeled as 'DEI' and 'gender ideology' by the Trump administration. I have spent countless hours desperately trying to learn how to start a fundraising campaign to keep our work going and my staff employed, writing appeals to the NIH, and suing the NIH and Department of Health and Human Services to get our grants back. I have also spent a lot of time thinking about how we as researchers should have done a better job at explaining the importance of public health research to the American public. If we had done that, I think there would be more of a public outcry at these actions taken by the current administration to destroy public health research in this country. There is so much goodness, love and care that goes into our work — work that is making homes, schools and communities safer for people across the U.S., perhaps even for you and/or someone you care about — and if it is ended, the effects will be calamitous. Public health research should benefit all Americans, and this requires that some research focus specifically on minority populations. That's because not everyone receives the same care or attention in this country. For example, racial and ethnic minorities and LGTBQ+ youth bear a disproportionate burden of adversities and negative health outcomes. A factor that might increase risk for violence for heterosexual teens may not be the same as what might increase risk for violence for LGTBQ+ teens. Similarly, resources available to one racial/ethnic group experiencing violent victimization might be different from what resources are available to other racial/ethnic groups experiencing violence. By focusing some research on specific groups of people, we have a better opportunity to move closer to health equality in the United States. We must recognize that a 'one size fits all' approach might not be the most impactful or cost-effective approach for addressing major public health problems like violence, mental health issues and substance abuse. Making research spaces feel safe for people with different identities and experiences leads to more inclusiveness in federally funded research. Being inclusive is a good thing — it means everyone in the U.S. is regarded as important in public health research. It also makes research more trustworthy and impactful. Studies like the ones I oversee attempt to close the gap between what majority and minority populations experience with regard to their physical, mental and social health. For example, a young adult in one of our studies (which was terminated on March 12) on sexual assault among sexual minority men said, 'Thank you for making and holding the space for LGBTQIA2S+ men and being explicitly inclusive of trans men/masc-leaning folks. As a trans guy, I occasionally feel overlooked by gender-specific spaces, and hearing that I belong here feels really good and safe.' Public health research should feel safe for everyone, and it should also benefit everyone in the U.S. LGTBQ+ youth (who make up roughly 10% of youth in this nation) and racial and ethnic minority youth (who account for about half of youth in this nation) are much more vulnerable to violence and have a harder time getting help. We desperately need programs tailored specifically to them. If this work is terminated, they will suffer. By dramatically decreasing funding for impactful prevention and intervention efforts available to these youth, I fear that violence, suicide, mental health problems and substance abuse will go up. Terminating these grants also sends a message to these youth that the current administration does not care about them, that their experiences 'no longer effectuates agency priorities' and that research on them does 'nothing to enhance the health of many Americans' (all of which I was told in the termination letters I received from the NIH). Most people in this country know and care about someone who is LGBTQ+, even if you're not aware of it. This could be a kid you teach, a kid you coach on a sports team, a kid who attends your church, a kid who lives next door that you say hi to every day or a kid who rides your bus to school. These kids and their families deserve to have access to high-quality prevention and treatment, too. In one of my NIH-funded projects evaluating the impact of an online mentoring program for trans youth (terminated on March 12), one of the teens said, 'My mentor's encouragement and support helped me feel seen, comforted, and like I'm not alone, which is something I've been needing for a while.' In another NIH study (terminated on March 21) that was providing support to caregivers of LGBTQ+ youth, a caregiver spoke about the positive impact of the program saying, 'It also did make me even more convinced that I'll do whatever I have to do to fight to keep [my LGBTQ youth] safe, and you know, let her live her life authentically.' Having to abruptly stop these research studies is not only dangerous and hurts kids and families, but it is costly too. The lifetime cost per victim of sexual violence is estimated to be over $122,000 per victim (including medical costs, lost work productivity, etc.). By terminating funding for sexual assault research, not only will sexual assaults likely go up, but so will costs to the American public. Communities, homes, schools, universities, places of employment and military units will also likely become less safe, and lives will be lost as sexual assault is a predictor of suicide, among many other devastating short- and long-term outcomes. Beyond the damaging impacts on youth, families and communities, terminating federally funded research is resulting in hard-working Americans losing their jobs. I employ over 50 individuals in my Interpersonal Violence Research Laboratory at the University of Michigan, and they come from all walks of life — young people, elders, people of color, LGBTQ+ people, parents and grandparents, people from diverse religious/cultural backgrounds including Christians and veterans who fought for our country. Many of my staff do this work so that kids do not have to go through what they went through as kids. A Native American elder who works in my lab told me, 'This work is the destiny of our people' — work that is helping Native Americans heal from generations of trauma and helping keep kids safe from sexual violence. As one Native American girl who took our empowerment self-defense class said, 'I learned I am worth defending.' Pending grants that would keep this work going may not be funded because it is likely to be classified as 'DEI' given its focus on Native Americans. Knowing that I will have to let most of my staff go and that our life-saving work will stop if we do not get our grants back or receive a large donation in the near future is agonizing. I have never felt a sense of powerlessness and loss quite like this. This work has never been about grant dollars or publications for me — it's about leaving the world a little better than I found it. Despite the devastation of the past two months, there have been a few silver linings. First, I have seen how deeply my staff love and care for me and one another, which motivates me to keep going. I have also witnessed my parents transform from Trump supporters to Americans outraged at what is happening to this country, and they're heartbroken about what is happening to me, their firstborn child. Their transformation and the actions they are taking (e.g., helping me fundraise, calling their senators/representatives) give me hope that other people can transform, too. The love I have for my wife has also grown stronger. She has held me during sleepless nights when all I can do is cry at such monumental losses and the fear that our same-sex marriage could be in jeopardy, too. Yet, she also reminds me that nothing will ever erase our love for one another. This gives me peace in a storm of chaotic darkness. I hope those being hurt by the erasure of public health research, including LGBTQ+ youth and youth of color, can find motivation to keep going, be hopeful and find moments of peace, too. Still, I am terrified that vulnerable lives will be lost. Even if you do not know it, you likely have been touched in a positive way by public health research, or someone you know likely has been. If you or someone you love has received preventative care or treatment for cancer or mental health conditions, there is a good chance that it was informed directly or indirectly by NIH-funded research. These studies are now in grave danger. I encourage each person reading this essay to visit NIH Reporter. Type in something you or a loved one has struggled with — depression, suicide, cancer, diabetes, drug abuse, alcoholism, trauma — and read about the life-saving work happening across the U.S. Unfortunately, it may have been cancelled or is at risk of being canceled under the current administration. I deeply regret not doing more as a researcher until now to share the goodness, humanity and impact of our work with the American public. I hope it's not too late. I also hope each person reading this will do something to help get public health research back on track in this country. Everyone benefits from it — including you. Dr. Katie Edwards is a professor of social work at the University of Michigan, where she directs the Interpersonal Violence Research Laboratory (IVRL). The IVRL, which employs over 50 staff currently at risk of losing their jobs, studies violence prevention and positive youth development among vulnerable youth, including LGBTQ+ youth and racial/ethnic minority youth. Dr. Edwards has published a number of papers, and her work has been funded by federal agencies and private foundations. Dr. Edwards grew up in Georgia, where much of her family resides today, and she currently lives in Michigan with her wife and their four cats. Do you have a compelling personal story you'd like to see published on HuffPost? Find out what we're looking for here and send us a pitch at pitch@
