By Nikhil Sadavarte I fell to the pillow. I was exhausted. It had been a long day and a long shift at work. My eyes had already begun to drift closed, and my mind had pushed my checklist of remaining tasks off to the next morning. I tucked myself into bed and looked at my alarm clock. 8:42 pm. I had over 10 hours before I had to wake up. For once, when I closed my eyes, I felt nothing across my lower back or leg. No dull ache, no irritating numbness, no flashing pains. I let out a grateful sigh. Maybe tonight was the night I would finally get some rest. I drifted off within seconds. 10:02 pm. I felt the familiar droop below my eyelids and knew that I had woken up too soon. Why had I gotten my hopes up? Frustrated, I pushed my face into the pillow, as if the action could force my mind back into a slumber. It had been years since I got a good night’s sleep. What was truly the chance of tonight being any different? I lay still, waiting for the all-too-familiar pain to start. Just like it did each night, it started with a dull ache in my lower back. I pushed a pillow under my back—most likely a futile effort, but I had hoped to trick my mind into thinking it was as effective as a magic medicine. I was exhausted. My eyes operated without my conscious input, sometimes remaining wide open during bouts of pain, then turning back into drooping jelly just a few moments later. I fell back asleep, only to immediately wake up again. I tossed and turned, trying the many positions my physical therapist had taught me. I knew none of them would work, but I tried anyway. The pain hadn’t left yet. I could still feel it in my lower back. I closed my eyes. How long had it been since I woke up? I looked at the clock. 10:14 pm I sighed. I shouldn’t have looked. I wanted the night to be over. I wanted to get out of bed and face whatever the day brought. But I also wanted to sleep for just a few hours. I began to bargain with my body, knowing well that it had no intention of listening to me. My body was the one producing the pain. Could it not turn it off for just a few hours? I had two projects to do, and my Neurology quiz the next day. I hadn’t slept well the night before. Or the night before that. I needed some rest. 10:16 pm. The ache began to spread. Frustrated, I threw my pillow at the bedside clock. I lay flat on my back, hoping that if I didn’t move, the pain would retreat back to the small area where it had started. After a few minutes of prayers I didn’t really expect to help, I decided to let the pain run its course. I loosened my body and welcomed it. Maybe if I just gave in to it, then I could get just a few minutes of sleep. I wasn’t surprised when it didn’t work. Another night wasted. 6:59 a.m. I silenced my alarm. I didn’t need the beeping sounds; I was already awake. Like most mornings, I watched as sunlight flooded the room. The warm touch of the sun was the sign that I had lost yet another battle against my body. I had slept four hours in total, if that, and had woken up more times than I could count. I took solace in the fact that I was too tired to remember most of the night. I got up and began my day. I stumbled through my morning routine, grabbing whatever snack required the least energy to make and heading out the door. My day went as it usually did: Carefully planned. The closest parking spot. The shortest path between buildings. A place to sit and rest between classes. None of these decisions seemed particularly important on their own. But together, they had become the architecture of my life. I had learned to think of my energy as something finite. Every extra flight of stairs, every unnecessary walk across campus, every few minutes spent standing when I could have been sitting—they all pulled from a reserve that was already drained. That day, there were two projects and a quiz. The next day, as I worked to complete my biology degree, it would be something else. The strange part was how normal it all began to feel. I still went to class. I still managed to study for exams. If someone asked how I felt, they received the same automatic answer I had given countless times before: “Good.” Saying that was easier than describing the exhaustion I felt. It wasn’t just the physical exhaustion, but the exhaustion from plotting each step I took. It was exhaustion from saying no to late-night outings with friends, knowing well that my body wouldn’t last the few hours I wanted it to. I was exhausted from memorizing how many flights of stairs there were in the Physics building. I was exhausted from debating the likelihood that my legs would make it to class in time for the next quiz. I was exhausted from making decisions that in the past, I’d never once had to consider. Tired had once meant something different to me. It meant staying up too late studying for an exam or waking up early for a hike. It was a long day that ended with the promise of crawling underneath the covers and finally getting some rest. I wanted to be that kind of tired. I wanted that promise of rest. Instead, I would eventually finish my projects, take my quiz, make the familiar walk home, and prepare myself for bed. I would be exhausted. I would want nothing more than to sleep. I would have allowed plenty of

By Molly Kamper “Kings depend on lonely hearts to trust their gilded lies.”* How do you get a Lonely Heart? By believing your pain is more_______________________(important, intense, justified)than any other’s. How do you heal a Lonely Heart?   Realize that ALL painIS pain. Make space to hold others’ painand your pain becomes less lonely.   “FREEDOM COMES to thosewho dareto holdeach other’s pain.”* *Lyrics from “Freedom Hymn” by MILCK. Source link

September 11, 2026 2 min read Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Key takeaways: The outbreak is over after more than 2 months and thousands of reported illnesses. It was traced to a farm in central Mexico that provided lettuce to Taylor Farms Federal health officials on Friday declared an end to the largest recorded outbreak of cyclosporiasis in United States history. CDC and FDA websites tracking the outbreak were updated mid-morning to say that it was over after more than 2 months. The largest recorded outbreak of cyclosporiasis in U.S. history was traced to iceberg lettuce sourced from central Mexico. Image: Adobe Stock Although the FDA said it would continue investigating the outbreak, which was traced to iceberg lettuce sourced from central Mexico by Taylor Farms, the agencies noted that there has been a sharp decline in cases, and that stores and restaurants should have cleared their shelves of the contaminated lettuce. “This outbreak has ended,” the CDC page says. In all, the outbreak included 12,883 cases, 570 hospitalizations and two deaths in 21 states, according to the CDC and FDA. The actual count is likely higher. Michigan alone has recorded more than 14,700 cases and 366 hospitalizations, according to the state health department. Cyclosporiasis is caused by Cyclospora, a parasite that spreads to people through food or water that has been contaminated with feces, frequently causing bouts of watery diarrhea. Past outbreaks have been linked to lettuce, raspberries, basil, cilantro and snow peas. The CDC considers cyclosporiasis “season” to be May through August. As of Sept. 8, the agency says there have been 19,595 cases and 1,043 hospitalizations recorded overall in the U.S. since May 1 this year — a more than 16-fold increase over 2025. The CDC emphasized that although the outbreak traced to iceberg lettuce is over, the risk for cyclosporiasis from other sources remains. “At this time, there is no risk of people getting sick with cyclosporiasis from this source,” the agency noted, with emphasis. Below is a timeline of stories related to the outbreak. Foodborne parasite sparks surge in cyclosporiasis outbreak Federal and state health officials announced in July there had been a surge in cases of cyclosporiasis caused by an unknown source. Read more. Worsening diarrhea outbreak raises questions about changes at CDC The outbreak raised questions about whether the partial dismantling of a federal surveillance system for foodborne pathogens negatively impacted the response, but a CDC official said tracking of Cyclospora remained “unchanged.” Read more. Lettuce from Taco Bell is source of diarrhea outbreak, officials confirm Federal health officials announced in mid-July that there was evidence that shredded lettuce served at Taco Bell restaurants in five states was the source of the outbreak. Read more. FDA clears air, says Taylor Farms lettuce still linked to cyclosporiasis outbreak After Taylor Farms announced that the FDA had apologized for a false positive test linking the company’s lettuce to the outbreak, the agency cleared the air, telling reporters that the evidence for the connection was strong. Read more. Cyclosporiasis outbreak expands to nine states The full scope of the outbreak began to emerge in late July as federal health officials began linking illnesses in more states to the contaminated lettuce. Read more. Crypto: The other diarrheal illness that causes summer outbreaks The outbreak got us thinking about another intestinal pathogen with a similar name that also causes outbreaks of diarrhea in the summer. Read more. ‘High degree of suspicion,’ diagnostics key as Cyclospora outbreak expands Experts warned that failure to suspect Cyclospora as a cause of diarrheal illness and order the right diagnostic test may be the biggest obstacles to controlling its spread. Read more. Published by: Sources/Disclosures Source: Website References: Ask a clinical question and tap into Healio AI’s knowledge base. PubMed, enrolling/recruiting trials, guidelines Clinical Guidance, Healio CME, FDA news Healio’s exclusive daily news coverage of clinical data Learn more Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Source link

September 11, 2026 3 min read Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Key takeaways: A blood-based assay reached 81% sensitivity for advanced adenomas and 85% specificity for advanced neoplasia. The test may address the “Achilles’ heel” of blood-based screening: detection of precancerous lesions. Researchers have developed a blood-based assay that could help identify individuals with precursor lesions for colorectal cancer, a known limitation of many blood-based screening tests. The assay, known as DENEB, detected 81% of advanced adenomas, as well as 91% of CRC overall and 92% of stage I to III cancers. Screening rates among adults at average risk for CRC in the U.S. often fall short of the proposed 80% benchmark for population-level impact, according to study background. Blood-based tests have the potential to reach people who would otherwise remain unscreened. However, these tests have an “Achilles’ heel,” according to Ajay Goel, PhD, AGAF. “Several [blood-based] tests out there can find cancers — even stage II cancers — but where they fail is finding precancerous polyps, particularly advanced adenomas,” Goel, professor and founding chair of the department of molecular diagnostics and experimental therapeutics at City of Hope in Duarte, California, told Healio. Existing blood-based tests have generally shown much lower sensitivity for advanced adenomas than for CRC, while colonoscopy remains the most effective preventive tool for detecting and removing precancerous lesions, he said. In a three-stage, multicenter study, Goel and colleagues aimed to address this shortcoming. They investigated a blood-based assay with a multitarget approach that captured microRNA signals from both CRC and advanced adenomas. “Advanced adenomas were treated as a primary biological endpoint from the earliest biomarker discovery phase,” Goel said. Assay development Researchers developed discovery and clinical cohorts in Spain and Japan, and used three external in silico datasets from China, Japan and Spain. Clinical participants had colonoscopy findings from screening or diagnostic colonoscopy, and treatment-naive patients with CRC also were recruited before surgery to enrich for CRC as an outcome. Based on colonoscopy findings and histopathology, individuals were classified as having CRC, advanced adenomas or low-risk adenomas, or as controls. The discovery cohorts included 274 participants from Spain and 307 from Japan, with combined data for both cohorts spanning March 2010 to December 2017. Researchers catalogued microRNA biomarkers that were overexpressed in the blood of patients with CRC or adenomas in the discovery cohorts. The in silico cohorts — comprised of 99 individuals from Japan, 61 from Spain and 107 from China — served as a reproducibility filter for biological validation of biomarkers identified in the discovery cohorts. After discovery and in silico filtering, Goel and colleagues retained a panel of 19 cell-free and 20 exosomal microRNAs associated with CRC and advanced adenomas, which were then measured by reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction in the clinical cohorts. These cohorts were used for model training and independent testing. The first included 535 individuals from participating centers in Spain and Japan, with data gathered between July 2018 and September 2023. A second clinical cohort included 230 individuals from the same sites during that time period and was used for independent testing. Sensitivity for CRC and advanced adenomas, as well as specificity for advanced neoplasia, served as primary endpoints. CRC and adenoma detection The assay had sensitivity of 91% (95% CI, 80%-96%) for any-stage CRC and 92% (95% CI, 80%-97%) for stage I, II or III cancers. Sensitivity for advanced adenomas reached 81% (95% CI, 69%-89%). “I was intrigued by the evidence that advanced adenomas and cancer appear to have related but distinct circulating signatures,” Goel said. “We were able to detect both with high sensitivity while maintaining 85% specificity for advanced neoplasia. “When we plotted the two risk scores, patients with advanced adenomas and cancers clustered separately,” he continued. “That was striking because it suggests we can detect both with high accuracy while also seeing that, biologically, they have distinguishable molecular signatures.” Specificity for advanced neoplasia was 85% (95% CI, 77%-90%) and 83% (95% CI, 72%-91%) for negative colonoscopy. Goel and colleagues acknowledged study limitations, including that the cohorts were comprised primarily of Asian and white individuals; lack of data on potential confounders such as lifestyle factors, comorbidities and medications; and the outcome-enriched study design. “It was not a population-based screening trial,” Goel said. “The results therefore should not be interpreted as showing that DENEB is ready to replace established screening modalities [such as] colonoscopy. But I think the data we have published clearly point us in the right direction. We now have an investigational blood test that showed encouraging sensitivity for advanced adenomas while maintaining strong sensitivity for early-stage CRC.” According to the researchers, the current study established biological validity and diagnostic potential. “The critical next step is a large-scale, prospective phase 4 study in an actual screening population,” Goel said. Goel emphasized that a positive blood-based test must be followed by colonoscopy, which remains the “most effective preventive tool” for CRC. “If DENEB’s performance is confirmed prospectively in future screening studies, I could envision it functioning as a complementary or rescue screening strategy,” he told Healio. For more information: Ajay Goel, PhD, AGAF, is founding director of biotech innovations at Beckman Research Institute and associate director for basic science at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, California. He can be reached at ajgoel@coh.org. Published by: Ask a clinical question and tap into Healio AI’s knowledge base. PubMed, enrolling/recruiting trials, guidelines Clinical Guidance, Healio CME, FDA news Healio’s exclusive daily news coverage of clinical data Learn more Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are

September 10, 2026 3 min read Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Key takeaways: Enrollees in the World Trade Center Health Program have better survival vs. non-enrollees. Health systems can improve disease management by coordinating efforts on research, surveillance and clinical care. Twenty-five years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, long-term follow-up of people exposed to the disaster offers important lessons for managing chronic disease in disaster-exposed populations, according to a review published in JAMA. The review is based on data from the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program, which was launched in 2011 to evaluate the health outcomes of those affected. Enrollees in the World Trade Center Health Program have better survival vs. non-enrollees. Image: Adobe Stock “The WTC Health Program has evolved into a national model for longitudinal care and surveillance of disaster-exposed populations,” John Howard, MD, director of CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, said in a press release. “By linking surveillance, clinical care and research, the program functions as a continuous learning model that informs clinical practice and advances understanding of the long-term effects of 9/11 exposures among an aging population.” Alejandro Azofeifa, PhD, DDS, MPH, MSc, a scientist at the CDC, and colleagues aimed to capture new developments and insights of 9/11 and the WTC Health Program. They found that people directly exposed to 9/11 experience more chronic conditions, “both related and unrelated” to the exposure, and worse quality of life vs. the general population, although those enrolled in the program have greater survival vs. non-enrollees. For example, enrolled responders with cancer have 26% to 64% lower death rates compared with other New York residents “living in the same area across multiple cancer types, including prostate, lung, kidney and colorectal,” the CDC said. The agency added that 54% of enrollees meeting the United States Preventive Services Task Force’s criteria for lung cancer screening underwent testing, which “far exceeds the 7.5% national lung cancer screening benchmark and the 18% actual U.S. national rate in 2022.” Such findings show “the interplay between exposure-related risk and access to care,” the researchers wrote. “One-third of program members have no known 9/11-related health effects, which is a testament to the resilience of this population.” Follow-up studies on these health effects, they noted, has determined they “are persistent rather than time limited.” “Many affected individuals have experienced multimorbidity, including members who developed multiple conditions, listed here in descending order of prevalence within the program: cancer, respiratory disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease and mental disorders,” they wrote. Mental health disorders like anxiety, major depression, PTSD and substance use disorders have remained prevalent in the years following 9/11 “despite program-covered treatment, underscoring the enduring psychological impact of disaster,” Azofeifa and colleagues noted. They added follow-up data indicate “heterogeneous mental health trajectories, ranging from persistent symptoms to posttraumatic growth and improved mental quality of life.” According to the researchers, evidence suggests that integrated health systems combining exposure assessment, surveillance, research and clinical care could improve the chronic disease management of those exposed. Such an approach in the program has led encouraging developments in practice and evidence, they wrote, like “increased clinical recognition of obstructive sleep apnea among WTC-exposed individuals.” Azofeifa and colleagues concluded that 9/11 “offers a moment to reflect on the courage and sacrifice of those selfless responders who answered the call of duty, as well as those who lived, worked or went to school in the New York City disaster. “These observations underscore the importance of sustained surveillance, multidisciplinary clinical care and research to inform responses to future environmental and occupational disasters,” they wrote. Perspective Back to Top I saw the effects of 9/11 immediately in the hospital. I have not suffered any health consequences that I’m aware of, but immediately several of my friends and staff in the hospital developed nuanced asthma, respiratory problems, etc. I saw a 40-year-old orthopedic surgeon who never had a problem suddenly become asthmatic after he was down on Ground Zero. The impact was real and measurable. The density of the smoke was overwhelming, and it and smell coming from the pile lasted for months. It’s important for clinicians to know how much is still being discovered of the effects and to keep their clinical mind open to investigating new syndromes or ways of dealing with that event, which was so unprecedented. There is the psychological aspect, but the physical impact, considering the chemical exposure that was sustained, is undeniable. So, take those patients seriously forever. Antonio M. Dajer, MD NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital Lower Manhattan Hospital Disclosures: Healio could not determine Dajer’s relevant financial disclosures at the time of publication. Ask a clinical question and tap into Healio AI’s knowledge base. PubMed, enrolling/recruiting trials, guidelines Clinical Guidance, Healio CME, FDA news Healio’s exclusive daily news coverage of clinical data Learn more Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Source link

September 10, 2026 5 min read Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Key takeaways: All centers surveyed report shortages of at least one medication, and 22.5% report shortages of at least five agents. Most centers say the impact of drug shortages today is “about the same” as 3 years ago. U.S. cancer centers continue to experience persistent shortages of medications that are foundational components of oncology care, according to survey results. All cancer centers that participated in a late-summer survey administered by National Comprehensive Cancer Network reported current shortages of at least one cancer medication. One in five centers reported shortages of at least five different medications. Although medical societies, policymakers and the press have paid closer attention to the issue in recent years, nearly all centers surveyed indicated the impact of drug shortages is “about the same” today as in 2023. Crystal S. Denlinger, MD “This has really become more of a chronic condition than an acute problem,” Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, CEO of NCCN and a medical oncologist at Fox Chase Cancer Center, told Healio. “It is disappointing that we have not moved the needle as much as we would have liked over the last few years, despite the fact that we have been raising the alarm and there has been increased conversation about this topic.” Preserving the foundation As Healio previously reported, persistent and prolonged drug shortages across the country are affecting delivery of care across more than 100 therapeutic areas. They are lasting longer than ever, with the average duration exceeding 5 years, according to an analysis from United States Pharmacopeia (USP), a scientific nonprofit. Although drug shortages in oncology are not new, NCCN began surveying member institutions about their impact a few years ago amid concerns about a shortage of the generic chemotherapy drugs cisplatin and carboplatin. The organization conducted two surveys in 2023 and another in 2024. NCCN’s most recent survey, administered in August to its member institutions, suggests generic cancer medication shortages continue to have widespread impacts across the country. The survey — to which pharmacy directors and other clinical or administrative leaders from 31 institutions responded — showed: All centers continue to experience a shortage of at least one anti-cancer agent; 87.1% are experiencing shortages of at least two agents, and 22.5% reported shortages of at least five agents; 94% reported a shortage of ifosfamide, an IV chemotherapy medication used to treat bladder and ovarian cancer, sarcomas, leukemia, lymphoma and other malignancies; 71% reported a shortage of carboplatin, comparable to findings of a fall 2023 survey; 51.6% reported shortages of Bacillus Calmette Guérin, used to treat bladder cancer; 16% reported cisplatin shortages, down from 59% in fall 2023; and 39% reported drug shortages have affected clinical trials at their centers. The challenges extend beyond academic medical centers. Three-quarters (77%) of centers surveyed indicate that drug shortages are affecting community practices in their areas. “We have seen tremendous progress in cancer care and that has led to the development of many effective therapies,” Denlinger said. “But that doesn’t mean the contribution of older cytotoxic drugs — the ones that are more often now generic — should be discounted. In fact, a lot of the progress we have made is built on the foundation of those older regimens. Cancer care is built incrementally, and we have to make sure that those foundations remain available.” ‘Agility and resilience’ The survey revealed some silver linings. Nearly all centers (93%) indicated they have been able to continue treating all patients according to intended dose and schedule, although a higher percentage did so with mitigation strategies than without (61% vs. 32%). The most common mitigation strategies include waste management (79%), limiting use of current stock (43%), using the minimum value of a recommended dose range (32%) and using the maximum value of a recommended treatment interval range (21%). A majority of centers (71%) reported having a multidisciplinary committee in place to address issues related to drug shortages. Centers report relying on these committees to notify clinical staff of interim protocols (95%), develop therapeutic substitution protocols or other conservation strategies (91%), track inventory or forecast health system shortages (86%), or create prioritization or allocation criteria when supply must be rationed (82%). This best practice reduces the need for centers to “reinvent the wheel” when new shortages arise, Denlinger said. “It is heartening to see that organizations have been able to respond with agility and resilience,” Denlinger said. “They have created infrastructure that they can rely on when there is a shortage, and they have mitigation strategies that work so they do not have to delay or discontinue treatment.” However, 90% of centers indicated they have been required to re-obtain prior authorization at some point when treatment plans are modified or altered because of drug shortages, and 17% indicated that re-obtaining prior authorization due to shortage-prompted treatment modifications resulted in treatment delays. ‘This isn’t an easy fix’ Despite greater attention placed on drug shortages the past few years, the overall landscape has not improved much, survey results suggest. When asked if national or state policies enacted since 2023 have had an impact on drug shortages, 4% of centers reported seeing improvement, whereas 96% indicated the situation is “about the same.” The USP report released earlier this year pointed to several key drivers of shortages across specialties. Low prices for generic medicines often result in slim margins for manufacturers, reducing their willingness to enter or stay in a market. “Economics are at play here,” Denlinger said. “Generic drugs are not necessarily celebrated as an important component of oncology care, so we have to make sure there

Emily Jamea, Ph.D., is a sex therapist, best-selling author and keynote speaker. You can also find her here, sharing her latest thoughts about sex. When your partner is faced with prostate cancer, the conversation understandably centers on survival, but often, getting to the other side is when another challenge begins — reclaiming sexual intimacy. Prostate cancer treatment can have a profound effect on sexuality. Depending on the type of treatment, men may experience erectile dysfunction, diminished sexual desire, changes in orgasm, loss of ejaculation, changes in penile sensation or length, and urinary leakage during sexual activity. These changes are physical but often have a major emotional and relational impact. Sexual recovery after prostate cancer often requires more than restoring erections. It requires redefining intimacy. I once worked with a couple — Nolan and Jenna — who came to me after Nolan had been treated for prostate cancer. Before cancer, they’d had a satisfying sex life, but everything felt different after treatment. Despite being cancer-free, he struggled to get and maintain an erection and simply didn’t experience desire for sex the way he had before. Jenna assumed he wasn’t initiating because he was embarrassed about his erections. But it was more than that for him. He still loved her and found her attractive, but the internal sexual “pull” he’d always taken for granted just wasn’t there in the same way. On an intellectual level, she empathized with his experience. She knew he’d been through a lot. But on an emotional level, she couldn’t help but take things personally. When they did try to have sex, every encounter felt like a test. Would he get hard? Would the erection last? Would intercourse work this time? Would he actually want it once they got started? He was monitoring his body instead of experiencing pleasure within it. She was monitoring his response for evidence that he still desired her. Neither could relax enough to enjoy what was actually happening between them. On top of that, he became obsessed with the preparation required to get an erection. Erectile rehabilitation is an important part of recovery, and Nolan had done it all – tadalafil, vacuum pumps and injections. He’d had a consultation for a penile implant. He could become semi-erect but couldn’t reliably get hard enough to have penetrative intercourse for very long. He intuited that medical treatment was only one part of sexual rehabilitation. He knew he needed guidance on addressing the psychological component and help navigating a new sexual landscape. While both Nolan and Jenna were open to Nolan getting an implant, he wanted to check all the boxes before having another surgery. I explained that when an erection becomes the goal of every intimate encounter, sex can start to feel like a performance. And performance is almost always the enemy of pleasure. As a therapist, that’s where I come in. We tend to organize heterosexual sex around a predictable script: desire leads to arousal, arousal leads to erection, erection leads to penetration and penetration leads to orgasm. Prostate cancer can disrupt virtually every step in that sequence. The mistake is assuming that when the old script stops working, sex itself is over. It isn’t. Read: Prostate Cancer Taught My Husband and Me What Real Intimacy Is >> One of the most important distinctions I help couples make after prostate cancer is the separation of erection from intimacy and penetration from sex. Pleasure can include kissing, touching, massage, oral sex, mutual stimulation, vibrators and other forms of erotic play. Orgasm for men may still be possible without a fully rigid erection. Couples can also discover forms of pleasure they rarely explored when intercourse was easy and predictable. It isn’t about pretending the loss of a familiar sexual experience doesn’t matter. There can be real grief associated with changes in both sexual function and desire. Men may mourn the spontaneity they once had. Partners may miss feeling pursued. Both people may miss the effortless way sex used to unfold. Giving that loss room to exist is part of healing. I reminded Jenna and Nolan that grieving their old sex life and becoming curious about a new one can happen at the same time. I encouraged them to temporarily take intercourse off the table. Instead, I encouraged them to spend time touching each other without trying to produce an erection or reach orgasm. They agreed that either partner could initiate an intimate experience and that Nolan’s job wasn’t to manufacture desire or an erection. It was simply to notice: Does this feel good? Do I want more? At first, this felt strange for both of them. They had become so accustomed to evaluating whether his body was “working” that simply experiencing sensation felt almost purposeless. But over time, they felt a shift. Touch became pleasurable again rather than diagnostic. Nolan stopped monitoring his erection. Jenna stopped using his erection (or his initiation) as the primary measure of whether he desired her. They laughed more. They experimented. Most importantly, they began to feel like lovers again instead of a patient and a caregiver. It’s important to note that sexual recovery after prostate cancer isn’t only about the person who had cancer. Partners often carry their own fears and losses. Some worry that initiating sex will create pressure. Others are afraid of hurting their partner. Some experience diminished desire themselves after being in a caregiving role. I encouraged both Nolan and Jenna to talk about what they missed, about what scared them and about what still felt good. I worked with them to determine what kind of touch felt comforting versus erotic, and whether they wanted one, the other or both. Cancer has a way of making the body feel medicalized. Suddenly, a part of the body associated with sexuality and pleasure becomes the focus of exams, procedures, medications and fear. Reclaiming sexuality can therefore be deeply emotional. It can be a way of saying, My body is still capable of pleasure and can remind a couple,

September 10, 2026 6 min read Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Key takeaways: Adults with disabilities are significantly less likely to undergo routine cancer screenings. The largest gaps exist for those with self-care disabilities and those with greater disability-related difficulty. U.S. adults with disabilities are considerably less likely than those without them to undergo routine cancer screening, according to an analysis of national survey data. Researchers observed the largest screening gaps among individuals with self-care disabilities, such as difficulty dressing or bathing. Data derived from Mazzitelli N, et al. Cancer. 2026;doi:10.1002/cncr.70557. Screening prevalence also declined as disability-related difficulty levels increased. For example, adults who reported “substantial” difficulties with self-care appeared 37% less likely to undergo cervical cancer screening and 31% less likely to undergo breast cancer screening than adults with no difficulty. Screening also declined with greater difficulty in other disability domains, such as cognition, mobility and vision. Priti Bandi, PhD The findings are “cause for alarm,” according to senior author Priti Bandi, PhD, scientific director for cancer risk factors and screening surveillance research at American Cancer Society. “We know individuals with disabilities tend to have lower access to healthcare, but the magnitude of the disparities we observed — and the consistency with which they showed up across different domains — really surprised me,” Bandi told Healio. “Being able to document this represents a call to action. This needs to be addressed.” ‘A clearer picture’ More than one in four adults in the United States have some type of disability, according to CDC statistics. The most prevalent disabilities are those that affect cognition (13.9%), mobility (12.2%), independent living (7.7%), hearing (6.2%), vision (5.5%) and self-care (3.6%). All-cause mortality risk is more than double among individuals with disabilities than without, and risk for death due to chronic conditions — including cancer — also is higher, according to study background. Prior research showed people with cognitive, mobility or intellectual disabilities are less adherent to cancer screening. This may be due to barriers related to clinic access (eg, lack of transportation or insurance), personal factors (eg, fear of embarrassment or distrust of the medical system) or difficulties completing the physical aspects of screening, Bandi said. However, evidence about how adherence varies based on disability domains and related difficulty is limited. “Having a clearer picture about how disabilities impact receipt of cancer preventive services across disability domains — not just physical, but also the more ‘invisible’ disabilities related to cognition and communication — is critical to help develop interventions that are relevant and effective for these populations,” Bandi said. Bandi and colleagues — including lead author Natalia Mazzitelli, MPH — evaluated self-reported adherence to U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening among adults with disabilities vs. those without, calculating adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) to make the comparisons. The researchers pooled data from the National Health Interview Survey in 2021 and 2023. Each survey collected a broad range of data about health topics from more than 29,000 noninstitutionalized adults. Investigators assessed self-reported screening rates based on six functioning domains — vision, hearing, mobility, communication, cognition and self-care. Because there often is overlap between domains, researchers analyzed the degree of difficulty for each one — using the Washington Group Composite Disability Indicator, a validated tool that classifies severity of functional limitations — to further clarify individuals at greatest risk for screening nonadherence. Key findings The researchers identified survey respondents with disabilities eligible for breast screening (n = 1,712; population weighted, n = 6.02 million), cervical screening (n = 1,147, population weighted, n = 5.1 million) and colorectal screening (n = 3,106; population weighted, n = 11.17 million). Results revealed the following trends by screening type: Breast cancer: Eligible adults with “substantial” difficulties across multiple disability domains had lower screening prevalence than those who reported no difficulties, with the lowest prevalence in the self-care (52% vs. 79%; aPR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.82), vision (62% vs. 79%; aPR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.91) and mobility (68% vs. 79%; aPR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.93) domains. Results showed significantly lower screening prevalence among those with “some” difficulties vs. no difficulty in self-care (71% vs. 79%; aPR = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99), cognition (75% vs. 79%; aPR = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99) and vision (75% vs. 79%; aPR = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99). Cervical cancer: Eligible adults who reported “substantial” difficulties across multiple disability domains had lower screening prevalence than those who reported no difficulties, with the lowest prevalence in the self-care (37% vs. 78%; aPR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.78), vision (64% vs. 78%; aPR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.8-0.98), mobility (65% vs. 78%; aPR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.94) and cognitive (64% vs. 78%; aPR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98) domains. Results showed significantly lower screening prevalence among those with “substantial” communication difficulties (35% vs. 78%; aPR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.82) and “some” communication difficulties (62% vs. 78%; aPR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.95) than those with no difficulty. Colorectal cancer: Eligible adults who reported “substantial” difficulty with self-care had significantly lower prevalence of any screening — colonoscopy or stool testing — than those who reported no difficulty (60% vs. 72%; aPR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.95). “Breast cancer screening is crucial for early detection, but cervical cancer screening and colorectal cancer screening with colonoscopy are preventive,” Bandi said. “Seeing such a significant proportion of eligible individuals with disabilities not being screened according to recommendations translates to a tremendous population burden — in the millions — of cancers that will not be prevented or detected early.” There may be an opportunity for targeted intervention among

September 10, 2026 2 min read Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Key takeaways: The risk for inflammatory bowel disease is heightened among patients with hidradenitis suppurativa. Findings showed that IL-17 inhibitor therapy did not add to that risk. Interleukin-17 therapy for hidradenitis suppurativa was not associated with an increased risk for inflammatory bowel disease, according to a study published in JAMA Dermatology. Of the 2,572 patients with HS who were treated with an IL-17 inhibitor across 10 randomized clinical trials, only six experienced new-onset IBD, according to the researchers. Data derived from Cutrona M, et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2026;doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2026.3373. “In this systematic review and meta-analysis, IBD events during IL-17 inhibitor therapy for HS were uncommon, with higher incidence rates in nonrandomized studies compared with RCTs, although events remained rare overall,” Marley Cutrona, BS, a medical student in the department of dermatology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and colleagues wrote. “Although HS is associated with IBD, an additive risk with IL-17 inhibitor treatment was not observed.” Of the three approved biologics for HS, two are IL-17 inhibitors: secukinumab (Cosentyx, Novartis) and bimekizumab (Bimzelx, UCB). According to the authors, both biologics have demonstrated superior efficacy for the treatment of HS in the respective BE HEARD and SUNRISE clinical trial programs. Despite their overall safety profiles, dermatologists remain concerned about a potential association between IL-17 inhibitor therapy and IBD based on previous findings, according to the researchers. In this study, the researchers evaluated 11 cohort studies, 10 randomized clinical trials and three case series comprising a total of 3,015 patients receiving an IL-17 inhibitor for HS. Results from the analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that new IBD cases occurred in 0.23% of patients receiving an IL-17 inhibitor vs. 0% receiving placebo through week 16. The risk difference between the treatment and placebo groups was .002 (95% CI, 0.003 to 0.007). In the nonrandomized studies, there were seven cases of new-onset IBD among 469 patients who received an IL-17 inhibitor, for a crude incidence rate of 1.49% and a pooled incidence rate of 3.9% (95% CI, 2.3% to 6.5%). Across all trials included in the analysis, researchers observed 17 new-onset IBD cases and four flares. Cases often occurred within the first 6 months of therapy, suggesting that the period of the greatest risk for new-onset IBD among patients with HS is during the first few months of treatment, the researchers wrote. The researchers noted that statistical power was limited due to the small number of IBD events, follow-up across studies was inconsistent and IBD was not a primary endpoint for most studies. However, researchers concluded IL-17 therapy for HS is unlikely to increase the IBD risk. “The findings of our study support a low risk of IBD in patients with HS treated with IL-17 inhibitors,” the researchers wrote. “However, current guidelines recommend avoiding IL-17 inhibitors in patients with concomitant active IBD. For patients with HS without known IBD, a thorough gastrointestinal history should be obtained before treatment with IL-17 inhibitors and patients should be monitored for gastrointestinal symptoms.” Ask a clinical question and tap into Healio AI’s knowledge base. PubMed, enrolling/recruiting trials, guidelines Clinical Guidance, Healio CME, FDA news Healio’s exclusive daily news coverage of clinical data Learn more Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Source link

September 10, 2026 6 min read Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Key takeaways: The 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans emphasize total protein intake and red meat, both of which have been linked to fibrosis risk. Clear, evidence-based guidance on alcohol consumption was omitted. Several dietary elements recommended in the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, including total protein intake and red meat, have been linked to steatotic liver disease and fibrosis, analyses showed. Conversely, other components that were removed from previous guidelines — including increased intake of greens, beans and seafood or plant proteins, as well as clear limitations on alcohol consumption — were deemed protective for liver health. “This message of eating more protein is making a big impact on people’s diet,” Nicholas Dunn, a medical student at University of Missouri-Kansas City, told Healio. “You can even see that some varieties of Doritos have added protein. “We should do our best to spread the message of what kind of protein people should be eating, and how much alcohol they should be consuming, because we want to minimize the risk for liver disease.” As Healio previously reported, the new guidelines continue to recommend that Americans include high-quality protein, healthy fats, whole foods, and fruits and vegetables in their diet, and limit highly processed foods. However, the guidance removed clear, evidence-based alcohol consumption limits — no more than two drinks per day for men and one drink per day for women — and failed to address evidence linking alcohol and cancer. Ashwani K. Singal Dunn worked with Ashwani K. Singal, MD, MS, FACG, FAASLD, a transplant hepatologist at Trager Transplant Center, professor of medicine and director of clinical trials in hepatology at University of Louisville School of Medicine, and other researchers to evaluate the relationship between several of these dietary components and steatotic liver disease, fibrosis and cirrhosis. They analyzed data from 10,944 adults in the 2017-2023 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, for whom vibration-controlled transient elastography and 24-hour dietary recall were available. The researchers calculated Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2020 component scores and energy-adjusted z-scores for food groups featured in the new guidelines. In addition to greens, beans and seafood or plant-based protein, increased consumption of total fruit, whole fruit, vegetables and whole grains was associated with lower odds of steatotic liver disease and fibrosis. Red or processed meats, sodium, total protein, saturated fat and added sugars were linked to greater prevalence of these outcomes. Limited alcohol use was “strongly protective” for all liver outcomes, the researchers wrote. Healio spoke with Dunn and Singal about the guidelines’ messaging on protein and alcohol consumption, and how clinicians can offer dietary counseling for patients with existing liver disease. Healio: What were your expectations going into this analysis? Did anything surprise you, and if so, what? Dunn: We had an open mind going into this, but we thought more protein could potentially mean less fat and carbs, which is a good thing. What surprised us the most was an analysis suggested by a reviewer, who explicitly asked us to break down protein into subsets by source. For the results, we saw a clear hierarchy: Plant-based protein is better than seafood protein, which is better than poultry, with red meat being the worst. Healio: The guidelines put greater emphasis on total protein intake, but your analysis found the type of protein consumed matters. Are we giving patients protein advice that’s too general? Dunn: What we found in our data was that high protein intake was associated with a higher risk for liver disease. It’s not that protein itself was inherently bad; it’s that when people are consuming so much protein, they usually aren’t eating lots of lentils or salmon. They’re eating a lot of red meat, and we found that red meat was associated with liver diseases. Such advice can be overly simplistic. The previous HEI, based on the DGA-2020, is more balanced. It assigned five points toward protein intake and another five points toward plant- and seafood-based protein intake. The current DGA-2025 no longer mentions protein sources. In fact, it implicitly promotes red meat by placing a picture of a very large ribeye steak in the center of the page. Singal: In the context of liver disease, we were pleasantly surprised to see this observation that red meat is more harmful. When we see patients in the clinic with liver disease and cirrhosis, we generally recommend eating more protein. But we advise eating vegetable- or white meat-based protein and avoiding red meat-based protein. That’s because red meat-based protein worsens liver disease, as documented in this study, and for patients with advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, the amino acids in red meat are more ammoniogenic. Healio: For clinicians treating patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated liver disease, should the focus shift from how much protein to eat to where that protein comes from? Dunn: That seems to be a very reasonable recommendation. The level of evidence is not as strong, since it’s all cross-sectional, but most Americans are not at risk of having too little protein. It may seem reasonable to be more selective toward protein sources and to favor pro-plant and seafood options. While I think we should still pay attention to how much protein patients are eating, we certainly should also put the spotlight on what kinds of foods they are eating to get that protein. Singal: This is an area where we could compare vegetable vs. animal sources of protein in a randomized controlled trial of patients with MASLD. This was observational and cross-sectional data — would randomized data show the same findings? In more fibrotic or cirrhotic patients,