Cervical-cancer screening declined in pandemic, UK study finds

A Pap test (Photo by Rabizo, iStock/Getty Images Plus)

By Elizabeth Chapin

University of Kentucky

New research at the University of Kentucky reveals concerning declines in cervical cancer screening rates among women in the U.S. during the Covid-19 pandemic, especially in rural areas.

The study, led by UK Markey Cancer Center researcher Ty Borders, analyzed nationally representative survey data from the National Cancer Institute to examine Pap test screening rates before and during the pandemic. A Pap test (or Pap smear) is a screening method that can detect cervical cancer or cell changes that may lead to cervical cancer, allowing for early detection and treatment.

The analysis showed that the odds of a woman receiving a Pap test in the past year were 30% lower in 2022 compared to 2019, before the pandemic began.
research published in JAMA Network Open 

The substantial decline is concerning, given that cervical cancer is largely preventable with regular screening and early intervention says Borders, a professor in the UK College of Nursing and director of the Rural and Underserved Health Research Center.

The study also found increased disparities in screening rates between rural and urban women. In 2022, only 48.6% of rural women reported receiving a Pap test in the past year, compared to 64% of urban women.

Women from rural areas have historically had higher rates of cervical cancer incidence and mortality, so a widening urban-rural gap in screening during the pandemic is particularly troubling, Borders says.

“The findings point to a need to expand access to cervical cancer screenings among all women, but especially those residing in rural areas, to prevent a possible uptick in future cervical cancer incidence and mortality,” said Borders.

Disruptions to health care services during Covid-19 lockdowns likely contributed to the declines in screening, as many clinics temporarily suspended or scaled back routine procedures like Pap tests.

Based on the results, health care providers may want to consider extra measures to ensure patients are up to date with recommended screenings, including expanding the availability of appointments for cervical cancer screenings and reminding patients of screening due dates.

The research was published in JAMA Network Open, a publication of the American Medical Association. 

FDA OKs menthol e-cigs made by firm Altria recently bought, thus supporting its smoking-cessation claims; health advocates object

By Matthew Parrone
Associated Press

The Food and Drug Administration on Friday authorized the first menthol-flavored electronic cigarettes for adult smokers, acknowledging that vaping flavors can reduce the harms of traditional tobacco smoking.

Njoy menthol product

The FDA said it authorized four menthol e-cigarettes from Njoy, the vaping brand recently acquired by tobacco giant Altria, which also sells Marlboro cigarettes.

The decision lends new credibility to vaping companies’ longstanding claim that their products can help blunt the toll of smoking, which is blamed for 480,000 U.S. deaths annually due to cancer, lung disease and heart disease. E-cigarettes have been sold in the U.S. since 2007 but in recent years their potential benefits for smokers have been overshadowed by their use by adolescents and teens.

Parents and anti-tobacco groups immediately criticized the decision, which follows years of advocacy efforts to keep menthol and other flavors that can appeal to teens off the market.

“This decision could mean we’ll never be able to close the Pandora’s box of the youth vaping epidemic,” said Meredith Berkman, co-founder of Parents Against Vaping E-cigarettes. “FDA has once again failed American families by allowing a predatory industry to source its next generation of lifetime customers — America’s children."

Youth vaping has declined from all-time highs in recent years, with about 10% of high schoolers reporting e-cigarette use last year. Of those who vaped, 90% used flavors, including menthol.

In Kentucky polling in 2021, 45% of high-school students said they had used an electronic vapor product, 22% were current users, 8% were frequent users, and 7% used the products daily. Among Kentucky middle-school students, 24% said they had used an electronic vapor product, 11% said they were current users, nearly 3% said they were frequent users, and 2% said they used daily.

All the e-cigarettes previously authorized by the FDA have been tobacco, which isn't widely used by young people who vape.

Njoy is one of only three companies that previously received FDA's OK for vaping products. Two of the four FDA-approved products are "sealed, pre-filled, non-refillable pods that are used with a previously authorized Njoy device, and two are disposable e-cigarettes with a prefilled, non-refillable e-liquid reservoir," reports Jessica Karins reports of Inside Health Policy.

Njoy’s products accounted for less than 3% of U.S. e-cigarette sales in the past year, according to Nielsen. Vuse, owned by Reynolds American, and Juul control about 60% of the market, while hundreds of disposable brands account for the rest.

Most teens who vape use disposable e-cigarettes, including brands like Elf Bar, which come in flavors such as watermelon and blueberry ice.

Altria's data showed Njoy e-cigarettes helped smokers reduce their exposure to the harmful chemicals in traditional cigarettes, the FDA said. The agency stressed the products are neither safe nor “FDA approved,” and that people who don’t smoke shouldn’t use them.

Friday’s action is part of a sweeping FDA review intended to bring scientific scrutiny to the multibillion-dollar vaping market after years of regulatory delays. The U.S. market includes thousands of fruit- and candy-flavored vapes that are technically illegal but are widely available in convenience stores, gas stations and vape shops.

The FDA faced a self-imposed court deadline at the end of this month to wrap up its yearslong review of major vaping brands, including Juul and Vuse.

Those brands have been sold in the U.S. for years, awaiting FDA action on their scientific applications. To stay on the market, companies must show that their e-cigarettes provide an overall health benefit for smokers, without significantly appealing to kids.

“Based upon our rigorous scientific review, in this instance, the strength of evidence of benefits to adult smokers from completely switching to a less harmful product was sufficient to outweigh the risks to youth,” said Matthew Farrelly of FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products.

Richmond-based Altria previously took a $13 billion stake in Juul in 2018, when the brand controlled most of the U.S. vaping market. But Juul's value plummeted after it was hit with lawsuits and investigations over its role in sparking a national spike in underage vaping.

Several longtime health-advocacy groups criticized the decision.

American Lung Association CEO Harold Wimmer wrote, “The tobacco industry has been using menthol and other flavors to attract kids for decades - this opens up a legal pathway for Njoy to market their highly addictive products.”

Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, noted that the move comes less than two months after the Biden adminisration announced an indefinite delay in FDA’s proposed rule to ban menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars, which had bene pending for two years.

"FDA has been more closely scrutinized by Congress over its e-cigarette regulation approach in recent months," Karins notes. "Lawmakers in both parties agree FDA isn’t doing enough to combat illegally imported e-cigarettes, but a partisan divide is emerging on whether the agency should respond by approving more domestic products. Some Republicans have suggested the agency should approve more applications for American companies’ products while Democrats largely want those products off the market as well."

In its announcement, "FDA appeared to respond to criticisms," Karins writes. Center for Tobacco Products Director Brian King said, “This action is further reinforcement that authorization of an e-cigarette product is possible when sufficient scientific evidence has been submitted to the agency to justify it.” 

King said Njoy submitted evidence "showing a benefit to adult smokers relative to the company’s previous tobacco-flavored products that is sufficient to outweigh risks of the products, including potential appeal to youth."

Karins notes, "FDA’s statement says authorization of the products does not mean they are safe, adding that people who do not use nicotine products shouldn’t start. It also says the agency remains concerned about youth vaping. It will monitor the marketing of the Njoy products levels of use of the products among youth and former smokers, and the number of smokers who are able to completely switch to the products."

Under the FDA rule, Njoy may not "use most advertising methods," and ads "cannot include cartoon images, images of food or fruit, or depictions of people who appear to be younger than 45," Karins reports. "Retailers must place Njoy products only in non-self-service areas of stores."

Deaths from colorectal cancer in Appalachian Kentucky have declined, but far less than in the rest of the nation, UK study says

County rates per 100,000 are seen in five ranges or quintiles.(Map adapted by Kentucky Health News)

Kentucky Health News

Deaths from colorectal cancer in Appalachian Kentucky declined from 1999 to 2020, but far less than the rate of decline in the rest of the nation.

That's the upshot of a University of Kentucky study analyzing death data.

It found that in the 54 Kentucky counties served by the Appalachian Regional Commission, the mortality rate fell from 31.24 deaths per 100,000 residents in 1999 to 24.46 per 100,000 in 2020. But the national rate dropped by almost half, from 27 deaths per 100,000 Americans in 1999 to 14.81 in 2020. In non-Appalachian Kentucky, the rate dropped from 27.6 to 17.1.

During the entire 21 years covered by the study, the colorectal-cancer death rate in Appalachian Kentucky was 25.8 per 100,000 residents. In the 66 non-Appalachian counties, the rate was about 22 per 100,000. The national rate was 19.43 deaths per 100,000. Kentucky has the fourth highest death rate. 

The Kentucky county with the highest age-adjusted rate from 1999 through 2020 was Fleming, at 39.6 deaths per 100,000 residents. The next highest were Harlan, 34.4; Bath, 33.2; Pike, 32.1; Breckinridge, 31.6; Henry, 31.5; Todd, 31.1; Carter, 30.7; Lewis, 30.7; Cumberland, 30.6; Mason, 30.5; Lawrence, 30.4; Morgan, 30.4; Clay, 30.2; Letcher, 29.7; Washington, 29.4; Nicholas, 28.6; Breathitt, 28.5; Perry, 28.5; Floyd, 28.3; Monroe, 28.3; Powell, 28.2; and Nelson, 27.9 (all in dark blue on the map).

The counties with the 10 lowesr rates were Lyon, 14.9 per 100,000; Trimble, 16.97; McCracken, 17.7; Jessamine, 18.2; Shelby, 18.3; Madison, 18.4; Bullitt, 18.7; Trigg, 18.8; and Owen, 18.8.  Rates for Hickman and Robertson counties were not reported due to small case numbers.

The study, in the journal Gastroenterology, used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the causes of death for Americans 15 or older. Its lead author is Dr. Syed Hassan, a research coordinator and clinical research scientist in UK's Department of Internal Medicine.

Hassan "said efforts to enhance screening rates should be improved and more education on colorectal cancer is needed," according to a UK news release.

He noted that In Appalachian Kentucky, nearly 41% of the colorectal cancer deaths occurred at home, suggesting that many victims might not have been seen by a doctor until the cancer had significantly advanced.

“That’s concerning, in my opinion,” Hassan said. “Access to health care, lifestyle related modifiable risk factors and education are important factors we should further work upon.”

Hassan also said anxiety about colonoscopies and other cancer screenings, and lack of education about the disease, may also play a role: “Many of these patients might’ve believed that they probably wouldn’t be able to afford as much care due to their socioeconomic status.”

Screening for colon cancer is recomended to start at age 45, because cancers of the colon and rectum tend to occur after age 40, but recent studies have shown increases in younger people, especially those with risk factors.

These cancers tend to run in families; studies show that if a close relative has had colorectal cancer, you can be predisposed to polyps — pre-cancerous lesions that can lead to the development of the cancer,

Other risk factors include age and lifestyle factors such as smoking, sedentary living, obesity, a diet rich in red meat, salt and saturated fats or a low-fiber diet.

The science of sunscreens: Sorting out advice and rumors

Slip on a shirt, slop on sunscreen, slap on a hat, seek shelter, slide on sunglasses. (YLE illustration)

By Katelyn Jetelina
Your Local Epidemiologist

Summer is here! While sunscreen may seem like an easy health decision, many people, especially younger and health-conscious ones, have doubts. Sunscreen health advice and rumors are everywhere on social media, and we’re seeing it reflected in national surveys:

• 1 in 7 younger adults think daily sunscreen use is more harmful than direct sun.
• 1 in 4 believe drinking water prevents sunburn.

So, what’s going on with sunscreen? With the help of many people, including Dr. Michelle Wong, an Australian cosmetic chemist, I went down a rabbit hole. Ultimately, it comes down to a general lack of scientific nuance in sunscreen discussions and differing risk tolerance.

Here’s what we know about sunscreen, what we don’t know, and what it may (or may not) mean to you.

First, skin cancer is bad. It is the fifth most common cancer in the U.S. While rates have steadily increased over the past few decades, recent years may suggest rates are plateauing. We don’t know why, but some have attributed it to a new awareness of sun protection, including reducing tanning-bed use.

New cases and deaths from melanoma of the skin over time (National Cancer Insitute, annotated by YLE)

Is sunscreen effective against skin cancer? Yes. But this is hard to study.

Theoretically and at a microscopic level, sunscreen makes sense. It stops burns and prevents microscopic changes from accumulating over time that eventually cause cancer.

When we look at “real world” studies among humans, though, there is mixed evidence of sunscreen’s effectiveness against cancer. Two recent meta-analyses that pooled all these studies found no effect. However, sunscreen use is notoriously hard to measure—many other things could explain the link (i.e., confounders), it takes time to see an impact on cancer, and there is variability in how people use sunscreen.

Australian study of sunscreen effect on skin cancer (Graph from YLE; study discussed below)

If we pull out the most rigorous studies (randomized controlled trials, or RCTs) that followed people over a long period of time, there is a consistent positive effect:

• A well-conducted RCT of adult Australians was followed for more than 15 years and found a 40% lower incidence (876 vs. 996 per 100,000) of cancer among participants randomized to daily sunscreen compared with participants assigned to use sunscreen on a discretionary basis.
• Some populations are at higher risk of skin cancer, mainly because the medications they take make them more susceptible. Among organ transplant recipients—some of the highest-risk people for skin cancer—studies have found sunscreen prevented cancer.

Is sunscreen effective against photoaging? This is a clear yes. Evidence from many studies and different populations, including a large RCT, shows that sunscreen prevents signs of photo-aging, including wrinkles and pigmentation.

 
Do-it-yourself sunscreens don’t work for two reasons:

• Sunscreen developers use special grades of zinc oxide with very small particles, which absorb more UV and can cover a larger area. These powders are also often coated to improve dispersion, while DIY recipes usually specify “uncoated” powders.
• Even with the right ingredients and equipment, sunscreen formulators must optimize the formula extensively to achieve consistently high SPF—sunscreens are considered one of the hardest products to create!

What about the safety of ingredients? Safety is always important; we must ensure benefits continue to outweigh the risks on a population level. A lot has happened regarding sunscreen ingredients in the past few years:

• FDA studies. In 2019, FDA conducted safety studies on four specific ingredients. Public concern escalated after 2019 and 2020 randomized controlled studies confirmed that common sunscreen ingredients, like oxybenzone, were found in the bloodstream. In 2021, the FDA stated two out of 16 ingredients (zinc oxide and titanium dioxide) were considered safe, two were unsafe (thankfully, these aren’t included in U.S. market sunscreens), and the rest needed more data.
• Sunscreen contaminants caused a recall. In 2021 and 2022, a private lab found traces of benzene—a chemical that causes cancer—in some sunscreens. Importantly, benzene was a contaminant, not a sunscreen ingredient.
• Continued research on sunscreen ingredients. Some independent studies have found links between chemical sunscreen ingredients and hormone and reproductive function.

Are these safety signals enough to change population-level behavior? The scientific consensus is “no” given three reasons:

• Most are lab or animal studies. Petri dishes (bacteria, cells, yeast) and animal studies (rats, fish, etc.) differ from ours, so these studies must be interpreted cautiously.
• Dose determines the poison. Animal studies often use very high doses, administered orally. With the right dosage and route of exposure, anything can be a poison, even water.
• Human studies suggest correlation vs. causation. One human study, for example, linked sunscreen ingredients to hormone disrupters in children, but the link was correlational—even the authors stated that many other things could explain the relationship. Another study found more than 96% of people had oxybenzone in their urine. However, fewer than 96% of people use sunscreen, suggesting other environmental sources contribute to levels. Multiple systematic reviews of human studies have concluded there is no support for sunscreen causing infertility, differing hormone levels, body fat, kids’ growth, or cancer.

In other words, just because we can measure something doesn’t necessarily mean it’s harmful. It does suggest that more studies should be done.

The FDA has requested manufacturers test the 12 ingredients with “insufficient evidence,” but there’s a problem: The FDA’s requirements would violate animal-testing bans. So, these older sunscreens may be removed from the US market, even though they are widely used and considered safe in other regions like the European Union, Australia, Japan, and Korea, alongside newer sunscreen ingredients unavailable to Americans (more on the complex regulatory situation here).

In the EU, as a precaution, they have lowered the allowed percentages of a few ingredients, particularly homosalate and oxybenzone. “Unsafe” in the EU means there isn't a 100-fold margin of safety with daily full-body application. These regulatory changes are small shifts to improve the safety of already safe products on a population level.

 
The health policy in the U.S. holds strong: Sunscreen’s known benefits outweigh the unclear risks. Will this change over time? It's possible, but it’s worth noting that the oldest chemical sunscreen ingredients have been used extensively worldwide for over 40 years without clear health risks emerging.

Population-level consensus can be different from individual-level decision-making, though. I still use sunscreen every morning and grab whatever I can for my family while rushing to the beach. Of all the risks we face every day, sunscreen is a very small one to me.

But everyone’s risk tolerance is different. For those who are more hesitant, the good news is that there are options:

• Concerned about effectiveness? Whether you're using sunscreen or not, layers are the name of the game. The Covid-19 Swiss cheese model applies to sun protection.
• Concerned about unclear risks? Check the ingredient list—luckily, many different sunscreen formulas are available.
• Concerned with sunscreen being white cast or heavy? There are two types of sunscreens. A “chemical sunscreen” is likely more suitable for you.
• Concerned with skin sensitivity or oiliness? A “mineral sunscreen” is more suitable.

Overall, keep in mind:

• “Broad spectrum” sunscreen is best. The SPF rating on American sunscreen bottles mostly denotes a sunscreen’s ability to block UVB rays. Importantly, these are the most damaging type—they cause burning, skin cancer, and premature skin aging. Some sunscreens in the U.S. don’t cover UVA rays well. Sunscreens labeled "broad spectrum" have a better UVA/UVB protection balance.
• Higher SPF gives higher protection. You may have seen that SPF 50 blocks 98% of UV while SPF 30 blocks 97%, so there's only a 1% difference. However, this is only true if you apply the correct amount perfectly evenly, which is impossible. If the same amount is applied, SPF 30 will always let 1.67 times more UV than SPF 50.
• Vitamin D can still reach the skin. High SPF sunscreens are designed to filter out UVB rays, the exact type of rays needed to produce vitamin D in our bodies. However, sunscreen doesn’t filter out all of these rays, and sunscreen application is uneven because humans are humans. Many studies show that people who use sunscreen daily can maintain their vitamin D levels. We also get Vitamin D from food sources.

Bottom line: Sunscreen can help fight skin cancer and prevent photo-aging. Given how difficult sunscreen is to study, there are some unclear risks. Uncertainty can be uncomfortable, so it’s unsurprising that there is much contradicting information about sunscreen (and really anything in health). The good news is that options exist, and the best type of sunscreen is one that you will use.

Korean study finds former smokers who use e-cigarettes or vapes have higher risk for lung cancer than ex-smokers who don't

Photo by Steve Helber, The Associated Press

Kentucky Health News

Former cigarette smokers who use electronic cigarettes or vaping devices may be at higher risk for lung cancer than former smokers who don’t vape, according to new research in South Korea.

“This is the first large population-based study to demonstrate the increased risk of lung cancer in e-cigarette users after smoking cessation,” said Dr. Yeon Wook Kim of Seoul National University, corresponding author of the study published at the 2024 international conference of the American Thoracic Society (ATS).

E-cigarettes are promoted as an aid to smoking cessation, but "There is little knowledge about the long-term consequences of vaping, and epidemiological evidence for the association between e-cigarette use and lung cancer is lacking," said an ATS news release.

"Biological studies suggest the possible dangers of e-cigarettes, including pulmonary toxicity and lung cancer. E-cigarettes and heating elements have been shown to contain carbonyl compounds (such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein and diacetyl) and toxic metals (such as chromium, nickel and lead), which are known to be carcinogenic. These toxins are also present in conventional cigarettes."

Kim said, “Our results indicate that when integrating smoking cessation interventions to reduce lung cancer risk, the potential harms of using e-cigarettes as an alternative to smoking must be considered.”

To determine the risk to former smokers, the researchers looked at the records of more than 4.3 million Koreans with a history of conventional smoking who participated in the Republic of Korea’s National Health Screening Program in 2012-14 and 2018. They conducted follow-up in December 2021.

"They found that 53,354 individuals had developed lung cancer," or 1.24%, and 6,351 died from it, or 0.147%, the release says. "Ex-cigarette smokers who had quit five years or more and used e-cigarettes were at greater risk of lung cancer-related death than ex-smokers who had quit five years or more and hadn’t used e-cigarettes. For smokers who had quit less than five years, those who used e-cigarettes were found to have both a higher risk of both lung cancer and lung cancer mortality than non-e-cigarette users."

The researchers also looked at people aged 50 to 80 with a smoking history of 20 or more pack-years , because in the U.S. they would be likely be referred for lung cancer screening under American guidelines. "Ex-smokers in this group who had quit smoking for five years or more and used e-cigarettes reported a higher risk of both lung cancer and lung cancer-related death than those who didn’t use e-cigarettes," the release says. "In addition, ex-smokers who used e-cigarettes and had quit smoking less than five years before had a higher comparative risk of lung cancer.

The authors conclude, “Clinicians must highlight the potential harmful effects of alternative e-cigarettes use when integrating smoking-cessation interventions, to reduce lung-cancer risk.”

May is Bladder Cancer Awareness Month, and Kentucky ranks high; UK doctor explains it, and how to detect and manage it

Illustration by irkus Creative, iStock/Getty Images Plus

By Dr. Zin W. Myint

University of Kentucky

Kentucky has one of the highest rates of new cancers in the U.S., with bladder cancer in the top 10 list of new diagnoses. Understanding the signs, risk factors and preventive measures is important for early detection and management.

What are the symptoms and signs? The most common symptom of bladder cancer is the presence of painless blood in urine. If you notice blood in your urine, don't ignore it and go to your doctor right away. Other signs to look out for are more frequent urination and an increased urge to urinate, especially accompanied by pain or discomfort. Persistent pain in the lower back or pelvic region that only gets worse over time is also a symptom.

What can increase the risk of developing bladder cancer?

• Smoking is the biggest risk factor. Tobacco smoke contains many harmful chemicals that can damage the bladder lining, increasing the risk of developing cancer.
• Exposure to certain industrial chemicals such as paint, dye, metal processing and petroleum products.
• Family history and genetics. If your family has a history of bladder cancer, you should be tested if you notice any of the symptoms above.
• Some chemotherapy drugs and medications are linked to bladder cancer increased because they can irritate the bladder.
• Environmental factors, including drinking water contaminated with arsenic.
• Chronic urinary tract infections may contribute to bladder cancer development as chronic inflammation causes damage to the protective layer of cells lining the bladder.
• A personal history of bladder cancer is also a risk factor, due to its high recurrence rate.
• Other risk factors include chronic indwelling urinary catheter or history of radiation to the pelvic area.

Is there a screening for bladder cancer? We do not screen for bladder cancer in the general population because current studies do not show sufficient benefit.

How can you reduce risks? Reducing the risk of bladder cancer stars with adopting healthy lifestyle choices and minimizing exposure to known risk factors:

• Quitting smoking is one of the most effective ways to reduce the risk of bladder cancer, creating a healthy bladder lining. We highly advocate for smoking cessation, and individuals who smoke should be actively encouraged to pursue cessation treatments, which may include medication and counseling. It is advisable to engage in discussions with your healthcare provider to explore effective methods for quitting smoking and receive personalized support tailored to your needs.
• Minimize or avoid chemical exposure and take safety precautions when working with chemicals that are known to be harmful. For instance, remember to wear gloves while using potent cleaning agents at home as numerous chemicals can permeate the skin. If you’re employed in a refinery setting, prioritize the use of protective gear. Similarly, if you’re a painter, ensure to work within well-ventilated areas to minimize exposure to potentially harmful substances.
• Stay hydrated. Drinking plenty of water throughout the day is vital for maintaining bladder health, reducing the risk of urinary tract infections, and facilitating the swift elimination of toxins from your system.

Zin W. Myint, M.D., is a medical oncologist at UK Markey Cancer Center.

Stomach cancer: How to recognize the signs and reduce your risk

Illustration by peterschreiber.media via iStock/Getty Images Plus

By Dr. Joseph Kim

University of Kentucky

While stomach cancer was in the headlines not long ago with the sudden death of musician Toby Keith, the diagnosis is relatively rare. Stomach cancer now accounts for 1.4% of new cancer cases in the U.S., down from nearly 10% from 30 years ago.

With an average age at diagnosis of 68, stomach cancer is more common among older individuals. But it can happen to anyone, so it’s important to understand its symptoms, risk factors and steps you can take to lower your risk.

What are the signs and symptoms of stomach cancer? Early stage stomach cancer often has no symptoms. As the cancer progresses, patients may experience abdominal pain or discomfort, feeling bloated or full after eating small amounts, nausea or vomiting, unexplained weight loss, blood in the stool and difficulty swallowing.

What causes stomach cancer? There are not always clear risk factors for developing stomach cancer, but some factors tend to be associated with the onset of the disease. These include:

• Heavy consumption of smoked, salted and processed meats
• A diet low in fruits, vegetables and fiber rich foods
• Smoking tobacco
• Being overweight or obese

Other risk factors include gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a family history of stomach cancer, Epstein-Barr virus and H. pylori bacterial infection.

What can I do to reduce my risk? While there is no guaranteed way to prevent stomach cancer, you can lower your risk by:

• Eating a balanced diet with plenty of fruits, vegetables and whole grains. Limit processed meats and smoked or salty foods.
• Maintaining a healthy weight through diet and exercise
• Quitting smoking and limiting alcohol consumption

Can I get screened for stomach cancer? Routine screening isn't currently recommended for everyone. But if you have certain risk factors, like H. pylori infection or a family history of stomach cancer, talk to your doctor about screening options like upper endoscopy or blood tests.

While treatments have progressed in recent years, the five-year relative survival rate for stomach cancer is 35.7%. Early detection can make all the difference for better treatment outcomes, so don't hesitate to reach out to your health care provider if you experience any symptoms or have risk factors that warrant screening.

Joseph Kim, M.D., is a surgeon at the UK Markey Cancer Center.

Fact Check: Contrary to social-media posts, there is still no evidence that Covid-19 vaccines increase your risk of cancer

By Catalina Jaramillo
FactCheck.org

It has not been shown that Covid-19 vaccines cause or accelerate cancer. Yet opponents of the vaccines say a new review article “has found that Covid-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development.” That statement is based mainly on misinterpretation of a study on mRNA cancer vaccines in mice.

Clinical trials, involving thousands of people, and multiple studies have shown that the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are safe. Hundreds of millions of doses have been administered under close monitoring systems that have found serious side effects are rare. Studies have also shown that the vaccines work very well in preventing severe Covid-19 disease and death, saving millions of lives across the globe.

 
There is no evidence to support a link between Covid-19 vaccines and cancer, as we’ve reported. Both the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society have stated there’s no information that suggests COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer, make it more aggressive or lead to recurrence of cancer.

Yet, vaccine opponents falsely claim a review article published in April proves the contrary.

“A review in the International Journal of Biological Macromolecules has found that Covid-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development,” reads an April 16 Facebook post by America’s Frontline Doctors, a group that has repeatedly spread misinformation about the pandemic -- and whose founder was sentenced to 60 days in prison for entering the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot. Other posts made similar, baseless claims.

Messenger RNA, or mRNA, vaccines work by instructing a small number of a person’s cells to make specific proteins, which then prompt the body to mount an immune response. They use N1-methylpseudouridine, a modification naturally found in some RNA molecules, to allow the mRNA to deliver its message to the cell without being destroyed by an innate immune response.

The review paper being cited is based on other published articles and does not contain original research. Experts told us that it misleads by misinterpreting several studies and the role of N1-methylpseudouridine in vaccines. The authors also refer to an unreliable review article, written by authors known for spreading misinformation, that falsely claimed the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines impair the immune system and increase the risk of cancer, as we have explained.

One of the most important misrepresentations, and one that the authors heavily rely on, is based on the findings of a study on mRNA cancer vaccines in mice. The study looked at the efficacy of mRNA cancer vaccines with different degrees of N1-methylpseudouridine modification in a mouse melanoma model. According to the review, the study found that “adding 100% of N1-methyl-pseudouridine (m1Ψ) to the mRNA vaccine in a melanoma model stimulated cancer growth and metastasis, while non-modified mRNA vaccines induced opposite results, thus suggesting that Covic-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development.”

But that’s not what the study found.

“Our results did not show, suggest or indicate that modified mRNA promotes tumor growth/metastasis,” Tanapat Palaga, professor of microbiology at the Chulalongkorn University in Thailand and the corresponding author of that study, told us in an email.

What the study actually showed is that both unmodified mRNA and modified mRNA induced immune responses against the tumor antigens, but only the unmodified mRNA reduced cancer growth and metastasis, while the modified mRNA didn’t. The study was published in 2022 and co-authored by Drew Weissman, who won the 2023 Nobel Prize with Katalin Karikó for discovering this mRNA modification that eventually led to the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines.

Dr. James A. Hoxie, an emeritus professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and co-director of the Penn Institute of RNA Innovation (directed by Weissman), told us those findings are relevant for scientists who are studying ways in which mRNA cancer vaccines can elicit immune responses needed to prevent or delay cancer progression. (See “Social Media Posts Misinterpret Biden on mRNA Cancer Vaccines” for more information about mRNA cancer vaccines.)

“But that is a far cry from saying that the vaccine that was used to prevent Covid-19 disease causes cancer,” he said. Implying that by regulating the innate immune system, which is something scientists working in immunotherapies are trying to understand, “you’re leaving yourself open for cancer risk — that is ludicrous.”

Palaga told us, “I believe that the authors of this review article intentionally or [unintentionally] misinterpret our results and tried to twist the conclusion to support their agenda.”

There are no studies supporting a link between N1-methylpseudouridine and cancer in animals or mice, experts told us.

There is also no evidence mRNA Covid-19 vaccines impair, much less suppress, the immune system, as we’ve reported. In fact, the vaccines enhance immunity by teaching the immune system how to identify and fight the coronavirus.

N1-methylpseudouridine and its role in mRNA vaccines

To understand the role of N1-methylpseudouridine we have to look back at the history of mRNA vaccines.

Normally, when a cell encounters a foreign RNA, a molecule present in most living organisms and viruses, it activates a strong innate immune response against the molecule.

This was a problem for scientists trying to use mRNA as a therapeutic, since the goal was for the cell to receive the instructions carried by the mRNA and produce certain proteins. Until the mid-2000s, Karikó, Weissman and others observed that if they attached certain chemical modifications found in some kinds of natural RNA molecules, such as pseudouridine, into one of the four bases of mRNA, they could blunt that innate immune response and, at the same time, increase the mRNA’s capacity to translate its code for the cell to make the desired proteins.

Later, scientists found N1-methylpseudouridine, another modification naturally found in some kinds of RNA molecules, worked better than pseudouridine.

The modification is not “suppressing” the immune system, Hoxie told us — it just allows for certain parts of the immune system not to activate temporarily “in order to get the desired effect.”

Jordan L. Meier, senior investigator at the National Cancer Institute who has studied the role of N1-methylpseudouridine in Covid-19 vaccines, told us the authors of the review paper misrepresent what N1-methylpseudouridine, which is abbreviated as m1Ψ, does.

The review “incorrectly” confuses “m1Ψ’s ability to hide from the immune system with an ability to weaken or disable it,” he told us in an email.

To explain it, Meier compared the mRNA modification to a spy using a disguise in order to pass security guards.

“The authors are essentially suggesting that the disguise somehow makes the guards less able to do their jobs going forward,” he wrote. “In reality, once the disguised person is through, the guards remain just as vigilant and capable as before.”

The review, he added, doesn’t provide evidence that N1-methylpseudouridine “leaves the immune system any worse off for future threats.”

 
Misrepresented studies in the review paper

Similarly, the review misleads by cherry-picking or misrepresenting figures and tables of this and other papers.

For example, in the study by Palaga, Weissman and others using a mouse melanoma model (in which malignant cells from a tumor are given to a mouse), scientists found that relative to mice that received no vaccine (and instead received a saline solution) no increase in tumor growth or decrease in survival occurred when animals were vaccinated with a modified mRNA vaccine.

However, when animals received a vaccine containing unmodified mRNA, the study showed a decrease in tumor growth and an increase in survival compared with the control group that received the saline solution. In other words, the study found that the unmodified mRNA generated immune responses that decreased tumor growth and improved survival, while, similar to the control group, the modified mRNA had no effect on the tumor.

Table 1 of the review, however, incorrectly says the study found that the modified mRNA vaccine “increases tumor growth” and “decreases survival.”

Hoxie said, “This is simply not true and is a gross misrepresentation of the data that paper actually shows. The modified RNA had no effect on the tumor, and results using that vaccine were the same as using a saline solution.”

The tumor growth in mice receiving the modified mRNA was “increased relative to the unmodified vaccine, but it was identical to when there was no intervention,” Hoxie said. “Animals that received the modified mRNA vaccine died at the same rate and with the same amount of tumor as did animals that received the saline solution. The fact tumor progression in this model was reduced with the unmodified mRNA vaccine is the key point of this paper and indicated that in this model immune responses to unmodified mRNA may have anti-tumor activity, an important finding for the cancer immunotherapy field.”

The review also refers to a study that has been extensively misinterpreted to falsely claim that the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA Covid-19 vaccine causes what vaccine opponents called “turbo cancer.” The study describes one mouse that died from a lymphoma after 14 mice were given a high dose of the vaccine. The review paper reproduces images from the study that show dissected mice and compares the organs of the mouse that died with one with a normal anatomy.

As we explained, and as the authors of that paper noted in an addendum, there is no such thing as “turbo cancer,” and, more importantly, the case report does not demonstrate a causal relationship between the lymphoma and the vaccine.

Meier told us the review also wrongly refers to a study published in 2016 to support its thesis that modified mRNA vaccines turn off an immune sensor known as RIG-I.

“In reality, this study only showed m1Y mRNAs are unable to activate RIG-I and did not test inhibition. In other words, what was shown was that m1Y is a strong camouflage, not that it is an immune suppressor,” he wrote.

FactCheck.org is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization at the University of Pennsylvania that monitors the factual accuracy of public statements.

New official recommendation: Women should start every-other-year mammograms at age 40; some groups favor annual scans

Photo illustration from Medical News Today

By Carla K. Johnson
Associated Press

Regular mammograms to screen for breast cancer should start younger, at age 40, according to an influential U.S. task force. Women ages 40 to 74 should get screened every other year, the group said.

Previously, the task force had said women could choose to start breast cancer screening as young as 40, with a stronger recommendation that they get the exams every two years from age 50 through 74.

Tuesday's announcement by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force makes official a draft recommendation announced last year. It was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

“It’s a win that they are now recognizing the benefits of screening women in their 40s,” said Dr. Therese Bevers of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. She was not involved in the guidance.

Other medical groups, including the American College of Radiology and the American Cancer Society, suggest mammograms every year — instead of every other year — starting at age 40 or 45, which may cause confusion, Bevers said, but “now the starting age will align with what many other organizations are saying.”

Breast-cancer death rates have fallen as treatment continues to improve. But breast cancer is still the second most common cause of cancer death for U.S. women. About 240,000 cases are diagnosed annually and nearly 43,000 women die from breast cancer.

The nudge toward earlier screening is meant to address two vexing issues: the increasing incidence of breast cancer among women in their 40s — it’s risen 2% annually since 2015 — and the higher breast cancer death rate among Black women compared to white women, said task force vice chair Dr. John Wong of Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

“Sadly, we know all too well that Black women are 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than white women,” Wong said. Modeling studies predict that earlier screening may help all women, and have “even more benefit for women who are Black,” he said.

Here are more details on what’s changed, why it’s important and who should pay attention.

When should I get my first mammogram? Age 40 is when mammograms should start for women, transgender men and nonbinary people at average risk. They should have the X-ray exam every other year, according to the new guidance. Other groups recommend annual mammograms, starting at 40 or 45.

The advice does not apply to women who’ve had breast cancer or those at very high risk of breast cancer because of genetic markers. It also does not apply to women who had high-dose radiation therapy to the chest when they were young, or to women who’ve had a lesion on previous biopsies.

What about women 75 and older? It’s not clear whether older women should continue getting regular mammograms. Studies rarely include women 75 and older, so the task force is calling for more research.

Bevers suggests that older women talk with their doctors about the benefits of screening, as well as harms like false alarms and unnecessary biopsies.

What about women with dense breasts? Mammograms don’t work as well for women with dense breasts, but they should still get the exams.

The task force would like to see more evidence about additional tests such as ultrasounds or MRIs for women with dense breasts. It’s not yet clear whether those types of tests would help detect cancer at an earlier, more treatable stage, Wong said.

Does this affect insurance coverage? Congress already passed legislation requiring insurers to pay for mammograms for women 40 and older without copays or deductibles. In addition, the Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover task-force recommendations with an “A” or “B” letter grade. The mammography recommendation has a “B” grade, meaning it has moderate net benefit.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Biden administration indefinitely postpones ban on menthol cigarettes amid election-year pushback from Black voters, others

Menthol cigarettes and other tobacco products are displayed at a store in San Francisco on May 17, 2018. For the second time in recent months, President Joe Biden’s administration has delayed a plan to ban menthol cigarettes, a decision that is certain to infuriate anti-smoking advocates but could avoid angering Black voters ahead of November elections. (Associated Press file photo by Jeff Chiu)

By Matthew Perrone and Zeke Miller

Associated Press

President Joe Biden’s administration is indefinitely delaying a long-awaited menthol cigarette ban, a decision that infuriated anti-smoking advocates but could avoid a political backlash from Black voters in November.

In a statement Friday, Biden’s top health official gave no timeline for issuing the rule, saying only that the administration would take more time to consider feedback, including from civil rights groups.

“It’s clear that there are still more conversations to have, and that will take significantly more time,” Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

The White House has held dozens of meetings in recent months with groups opposing the ban, including civil-rights organizers, law-enforcement officials and small business owners. Most of the groups have financial ties to cigarette companies.

The announcement is another setback for Food and Drug Administration officials, who drafted the ban and predicted it would prevent hundreds of thousands of smoking-related deaths over 40 years. The agency has worked toward banning menthol across multiple administrations without finalizing a rule.

“This decision prioritizes politics over lives, especially Black lives,” said Yolonda Richardson of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, in an emailed statement. “It is especially disturbing to see the administration parrot the false claims of the tobacco industry about support from the civil rights community.”

Richardson noted that the ban is supported by groups including the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus.

Previous FDA efforts on menthol have been derailed by tobacco industry pushback or competing political priorities. With both Biden and former President Donald Trump vying for the support of Black voters, the ban’s potential impact has been scrutinized by Republicans and Democrats heading into the fall election.

Anti-smoking advocates have been pushing the FDA to eliminate the flavor since the agency gained authority to regulate certain tobacco ingredients in 2009. Menthol is the only cigarette flavor that wasn’t banned under that law, a carveout negotiated by industry allies in Congress. But the law instructed the FDA to continue studying the issue.

More than 11% of U.S. adults smoke, with rates roughly even between white and Black people, but about 80% of Black smokers smoke menthol, which the FDA says masks the harshness of smoke, making it easier to start and harder to quit. Also, most teenagers who smoke cigarettes prefer menthols.

For decades, cigarette companies focused menthol advertising and promotions in Black communities, sponsoring music festivals and neighborhood events. Industry documents released in litigation show companies viewed menthol cigarettes as a good “starter product” because they were more palatable to teens.

The FDA released its draft of the proposed ban in 2022. Officials under Biden initially targeted last August to finalize the rule. Late last year, White House officials said they would take until March to review the measure. When that deadline passed last month, several anti-smoking groups filed a lawsuit to force its release.

“We are disappointed with the action of the Biden administration, which has caved in to the scare tactics of the tobacco industry,” said Dr. Mark Mitchell of the National Medical Association, an African American physician group that is suing the administration.

Separately, Rev. Al Sharpton and other civil rights leaders have warned that a menthol ban would create an illegal market for the cigarettes in Black communities and invite more confrontations with police.

The FDA and health advocates have long rejected such concerns, noting FDA’s enforcement of the rule would only apply to companies that make or sell cigarettes, not to individuals.

An FDA spokesperson said Friday the agency is still committed to banning menthol cigarettes. “As we’ve made clear, these product standards remain at the top of our priorities,” Jim McKinney said in a statement.

Smoking can cause cancer, strokes and heart attacks and is blamed for 480,000 deaths each year in the U.S., including 45,000 among Black Americans.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

UK hosts national meeting to raise immunization rate for vaccine against cervical and other HPV cancers, in which Ky. leads U.S.

Kentucky Department for Public Health illustration

By Melissa Patrick

Kentucky Health News

Kentucky leads the nation in the rate of cases of and deaths from cervical cancer, a disease that is largely preventable by a vaccine.

The vaccine targets the human papillomavirus, which can cause cancers of the cervix, genitals, anus, neck and head. Kentucky also leads the nation in cancers caused by the HPV.

"The good news is that the HPV vaccine can prevent the vast majority of those cancers, but not everybody knows about it," said Pamela Hull, associate director of population science and community impact for the University of Kentucky's Markey Cancer Center. 

Between the HPV vaccine and cervical screening, cervical cancer could be virtually eliminated, Hull said. The combination wouldn't prevent all cases, she said, but "Within the next few decades, we can eliminate cervical cancer as a public-health threat in this country." 

Cervical cancer screening is done through a pap smear, which looks for cancerous cells on the cervix, which connects the uterus and vagina. It can also find precancerous changes that have not yet developed into cancer. Screenings usually begin at age 21 or three years after the first sexual intercourse.

The HPV vaccine protects against six cancers: cervical, anal, penile, vaginal, vulvar and head or neck. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it can prevent over 90% of sexually transmitted cancers caused by the HPV from ever developing, 

Hull said these cancers cause 36,000 new cancer cases every year in the U.S. in men and women, but only about half of Kentucky teenagers have received it because state law does not require it.

The vaccine's greatest obstacle appears to be that that it is associated with a sexually transmitted disease. Researchers have said improving the vaccination rate depands on changing the perception that the vaccine is something that prevents STDs to the knowledge that it primarily prevents cancer.

Conference discusses anti-HPV strategies

Raising awareness about the importance of HPV vaccination was the focus of a national conference held in Lexington on April 16-17 by the Markey center and the National Cancer Institute. 

Hull, who spke with reporters before the conference, said researchers all over the country are collectively working to answer this question: "How can we work with health-care providers and community organizations and parents to make sure more and more kids get vaccinated to protect them from cancer as they grow older?" 

A "social organization" program called "Operation WIPE OUT Cervical Cancer Alabama" aims to do just that through a program that involves a number of community partners, Isabel Scarinci of the University of Alabama at Birmingham told attendees at the conference in Lexington. 

Scarinci said the program first engaged the support of the Rotary Club of Birmingham and the state health department. Together, they launched a program to increase HPV vaccination rates in the Alabama county that had the highest rates of cervical cancer in the state.

She said through the involvement of groups in the county and the local school superintendent, they started an education program in the school system that resulted in the students organizing an HPV vaccination campaign, which has become part of an official plan for the state. 

Scarinci said there is no official funding for the program because they "want this to belong to everybody." Thus, funding comes from a number of sources. 

According to a post on the Alabama health department website, the program offers free HPV immunizations for children and adults; provides free cervical cancer screenings for low-income and uninsured women; and provides follow-up tests for those who need it. All services are offered through county health departments.   

HPV vaccines and Kentucky

While the HPV vaccine is not required in Kentucky, it is given around the time students enter middle school and are required to get an initial vaccine for meningitis and a booster for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (more commonly known as whooping cough), collecitvely called TDaP.

The timing of the two required vaccines and the HPV vaccine create a good opportunity to include it in the children's immunizations. "Even though it's not required," Hull said, "we really, really strongly encourage it because it's one tool that parents can use to prevent cancer for their children."  

Two doses of the HPV vaccine are recommended for all 11- and 12-year-olds, but the series can begin at 9. It is also recommended for those 13 to 26 if unvaccinated; three doses are recommended for people who get their first dose at 15 or later, and for people with certain conditions that weaken immunity.

In addition, it is also recommended that anyone between 27 and 45 who is not vaccinated should talk to their health-care provider about their risk of infection and the benefits of getting vaccinated.

Asked why boys and girls as young as 9 should get the vaccine, Hull said they have a better immune response than older chuildren. As a person gets older, she said, they need an extra dose of the vaccine for protection against the cancers because it takes more of the vaccine to build up their immunity.

"We really want to see our rates of HPV vaccination go up in Kentucky," Hull said. "Right now, just over half of teenagers have gotten the vaccine, all the doses of the vaccine, and we really want to get that up to, closer to, 80% or even higher." 

In 2022, Kentucky ranked 44th in HPV vaccination, with only 55% of teens 13-17 having received all recommended doses, according to America's Health Rankings. That was a decline from the 57% reported in 2021 and well below the national average of 63%.

"What I like to explain to a parent is . . . you're not going to put your seatbelt on after you get in a car accident, you have to have it on before," Hull  said. "So age for the vaccine is really important to get it early, build up the body's defenses so then one day when the body is exposed to the virus, it is ready to fight it." 

Hull said there is an emphasis on getting more people vaccinated in rural areas because HPV vaccination rates are lower in rural areas, and they have higher rates of HPV cancers.

Bills to become law on vaping, pharmacy reform, vaccinations, drugs, at-home blood testing, coverage of cancer screening, more

Kentucky State Capitol (Photo via Wikipedia)

By Melissa Patrick
Kentucky Health News

In its 2024 session the Kentucky General Assembly has passed dozens of health-related bills that address a range of topics. With one day left in the session, here are some of them: 

Vaping: House Bill 11 limits legal sale of vaping products to those approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It also creates a database of retailers that sell the products and sets fines for retailers, manufacturers and wholesalers who violate the law.

HB 142 requires school districts to adopt specific policies that penalize students for possession of "alternative nicotine products, tobacco products or vapor products" and report nicotine-related incidents to the state Department of Education. Changes in the Senate, accepted by the House, allow schools and their governing bodies to apply for grants related to nicotine usage and remove the mandate that schools suspend students with a third possession violation. 

Pharmacy reform: Senate Bill 188 changes laws governing commercial pharmacy benefit managers, with requirements aimed at saving the state's independent pharmacies from closing.  It provides for dispensing fees, bans PBMs from forcing patients to get their drugs through mail order, and keeps them from steering patients to pharmacies that they own.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Max Wise, R-Campbellsville, also prohibits a PBM from reimbursing a pharmacy that it owns at a higher rate than a community pharmacy, or from keeping a community pharmacy from filling a 90-day prescription for a maintenance drug. And a PBM will not be able to penalize a community pharmacy from sharing information with a patient on the cheapest option to pay for their medications.

Reducing barriers to screening

Cancer detection: HB 52 will require health-insurance plans to cover all preventive cancer screenings and tests that are consistent with nationally recognized clinical practice guidelines without requiring patients to pay any cost-sharing requirements, including a deductible charge for the services.

The sponsor, Rep. Deanna Frazier Gordon, a Republican from Richmond, told Kentucky Health News in February that the cost for screenings is often a barrier for people who often don't get screened because they don't have symptoms.

HB 115 will eliminate co-payments and cost-sharing requirements for high-risk individuals who need follow-up diagnostic imaging to rule out breast cancer. Currently, screening mammograms are covered by insurance, but follow-up exams are often not. 

“Thousands of Kentuckians require diagnostic and supplemental breast imaging every year, yet many forgo them due to out-of-pocket costs. Not any more,"  Molly Guthrie, vice president of policy and advocacy at the breast-cancer foundation Susan G. Komen, said in a news release. "This life-saving legislation means they will now receive the breast imaging they require, leading to an earlier breast cancer diagnosis and often better health outcomes."

Vaccines and drugs  

Vaccinations: HB 274 will allow Kentucky pharmacists to order and administer vaccinations to children as young as 5. The state's routine vaccination rates for kindergarteners remain below pre-pandemic levels.

Pseudoephedrine: HB 386 will raise the annual purchase limits on pseudoephedrine to help people with chronic allergies legally obtain enough of the medication to meet their needs. The bill changes the current 24-gram annual limit to an 86.4 grams, and remove the limit on the number of packages per transaction, said sponsor Robert Duvall, R-Bowling Green.

Kratom: HB 293 will regulate kratom, a natural herbal supplement that is not currently regulated. It is often used for anxiety, pain, PTSD and opioid withdrawal. The bill defines kratom, prohibits sales to people under 21, puts it behind the counter and provides guidelines for manufacturing and labeling. It also says federal law supersedes state law on the matter. 

Blood thinners: HB 31 allows Medicaid patients in Kentucky who are on blood thinners to use at-home machines to test their blood. Patients on some blood thinners, like warfarin, now require a weekly trip to the doctor's office for blood work that looks at how fast their blood clots.

Amanda Crabtree, a registered nurse at University of Kentucky Chandler Hospital, told WKYT-TV that she hopes that other states will follow Kentucky's example in this legislation. Crabtree said she expects that Medicaid patients could receive their at-home machines as soon as this summer.

Health-care business issues

Provider liability: HB 159 will protect health-care providers from criminal liability when a medical error harms a patient unless the harm results from gross negligence or wanton, willful, malicious or intentional misconduct. 

This effort was led by the Kentucky Nurses Association, which said the bill "will prevent health-care professionals from being charged criminally for making a medical error; that makes it good for nurses and nursing, and puts Kentucky at the forefront of developing laws to protect health-care workers." 

Workplace violence: HB 194 extends to contract workers, such as travel nurses, the law that makes violence against health-care workers a third-degree assault. It also extends this protection, now limited to hospitals, to contract employees at health clinics, doctor offices, dental offices and long-term care facilities. 

Sepsis: HB 477 establishes diagnostic criteria for sepsis allow hospitals to preserve current rules used for reimbursement of sepsis care, which allow payment when it is detected early, instead of only allowing reimbursement after organ failure occurs. 

"We know that if sepsis is caught early, the likelihood of survival is great," Jim Musser, vice president for policy with the Kentucky Hospital Association, told Kentucky Health News in March. "But for every hour that we wait, the chance of mortality increases by 7 percent." In sepsis, "The body responds improperly to an infection," says the Mayo Clinic. "Sepsis may progress to septic shock . . . When the damage is severe, it can lead to death."

Other health bills that passed

Youth medical records: HB 174 allows parents have access to their child’s medical records until they turn 18. Right now, children 13 and older must sign a waiver for parents to have access to them. HB 174 also updates the state's Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment form, which defines a person's end-of-life wishes.

Veteran suicide prevention: HB 30 calls on the state Department of Veterans Affairs to create a suicide prevention program for service members, veterans and their families.

Stuttering: SB 111 eliminates some insurance coverage limits on speech therapy for stuttering. It was promoted by former UK basketball star Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, who has overcome stuttering.

Medicaid: SB 71 is designed to keep people from coming to Kentucky to establish residence so that they can sign up for drug treatment to be paid for by Medicaid. One challenge resulting from this practice, according to Rep. Shane Baker, R-Somerset, is that when they leave the program, they are often homeless. 

SB 280 will allow Level II trauma centers that partner with a  university to get the university-hospital rate for services delivered as part of that residency program.