MRI scans are strong diagnostics with high-definition images of what lies inside a body. Strong magnetic fields require precaution, as brought out by an instance where a young woman suffered very serious injuries due to an oversight in a metallic core within a silicone sex toy that she happened to have before the MRI scan. This makes a stark reminder about the potentially deadly consequences of missing metal objects when such procedures are being performed. In April 2023, a 23-year-old woman went into an MRI with a silicone plug containing a metal core that was not known.

She thought that the item is made entirely out of silicone according to the advertising. However, the strong magnetic field of the MRI machine interacted with the hidden metal, dragging the object through her body and causing excruciating pain. According to reports from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the scene was harrowing, with the woman screaming in agony and requiring immediate hospitalization. Despite pre-scan screenings, which are routine prior to a scan, the patient did not inform the facility that the object existed because he presumed it was purely non-metallic. This caused serious injuries that led to the patient's law suit against the manufacturer for deceitful misrepresentations of material content.

MRI machines employ magnets between 0.5 to 3 Tesla (T). This is thousands of times stronger than the Earth's magnetic field. The tremendous force causes ferromagnetic materials, like iron and nickel, to be magnetized quickly and become strongly attracted toward the magnet. Objects as small as hairpins or paper clips will accelerate at 40 miles per hour inside the magnetic field.

The force can lead to catastrophic injuries in items lodged within the body, such as metallic implants or foreign objects. Metallic cores within devices, like pacemakers or intrauterine devices, must be disclosed to radiologists to prevent such complications.

How Metal Objects Interact with MRI Fields?

On these claims, Dr. Adam Taylor, a specialist in human anatomy, weighed his words in a international health website and added that the distance away and mass of this object would increase its velocity towards that of sound, "The acceleration would be phenomenal, but with a metallic core, it can't go anywhere near supersonic speeds. As for the size, the magnetic acceleration to the internal soft tissues would ensure that there could be severe intracranial trauma."

The injuries inflicted in this case likely involved damage to major blood vessels, nerves, or organs, highlighting the devastating impact of even minor oversight during an MRI scan.

This is not an isolated case. There are documented cases of metallic objects causing serious damage during MRI scans with a 65-year-old man with schizophrenia swallowed metal objects, including sockets and a hinge pin. The powerful magnetic field during an MRI scan caused the objects to rupture his stomach, resulting in serious injuries.

A toddler who ingested 11 small magnets perforated his bowel while undergoing a scan, making his case unique. In another deadly but extremely rare incident, there have been people who hide a firearm on themselves during MRI procedures. Magnetic attraction can trigger a discharge in a weapon and has led to some fatal injuries.

These cases emphasize the very strong need for adequate screening and patient education prior to an MRI.

Preventing MRI-Related Incidents

Medical professionals have been trained to avoid risks. This is by properly screening a patient for metallic objects. In general, most pre-scan protocols include:

• Patients are interrogated about implants, recent surgery or exposures at work related to metals.
• Radiologists sometimes use handheld metal detectors to search for hidden items.
• People who work with metal, like welders or machinists, will need additional testing to detect microscopic metal fragments within soft tissues or eyes.

The case emphasizes the importance of product labeling by manufacturers, especially those products that are likely to unintentionally cause harm to health. The patient's assumption that her device was 100% silicone points to a larger problem in consumer markets with misinformation.

It also reminds the patients to report any possible dangers to the medical professionals, no matter how the objects look non-metallic. In sensitive cases, patients can request private discussions with healthcare providers to ensure safety without discomfort.

In the end, it is a joint effort from manufacturers, healthcare professionals, and patients that can prevent such tragedies. Manufacturers must ensure truthful marketing, while healthcare providers should educate patients about the dangers of metal objects in MRI settings. For patients, understanding the risks and actively participating in pre-scan disclosures can be lifesaving.

This young woman's experience is a sobering example of the unforeseen dangers posed by MRI machines when precautions are overlooked. It serves as a wake-up call to address gaps in patient awareness, medical protocols, and product transparency. By learning from this incident, the medical community and the public can work together to ensure MRI scans remain a safe and effective diagnostic tool.

High levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), commonly called "bad" cholesterol, continue to be a leading modifiable risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) worldwide. While statins and other cholesterol-lowering medications have significantly improved treatment, many patients still do not reach the LDL-C targets recommended by guidelines.

However, a new potential solution has emerged. The experimental daily oral drug called enlicitide, part of the PCSK9 inhibitor class, demonstrated in a key Phase 3 study (CORALreef Lipids) a reduction in LDL-C of about 55.8% at 24 weeks, with post-hoc analysis suggesting reductions up to 59.7% compared to a placebo.

Statins Vs Enlicitide

Statins are the standard first-line treatment for high LDL-C and have strong evidence for lowering the risk of cardiovascular events. Yet, many patients either cannot tolerate high doses or still have elevated cholesterol levels. Injectable PCSK9 inhibitors, which are monoclonal antibodies, address this gap and can lower LDL-C by up to 70% but are expensive, require injections, and have limited uptake.

Introducing an oral PCSK9 inhibitor could make powerful LDL-C reduction more accessible. According to trial data, enlicitide may achieve reductions similar to injectable options while being more convenient and potentially more widely available.

Enlicitide: A Potential Breakthrough for "Bad" Cholesterol

The CORALreef Lipids Phase 3 study involved 2,912 adults at risk of or with established ASCVD who were either already on lipid-lowering therapy or unable to take statins. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a daily 20 mg dose of oral enlicitide or a placebo. At 24 weeks, the main analysis showed an average LDL-C reduction of 55.8%, with a post-hoc reanalysis estimating 59.7%. The drug’s safety profile was similar to placebo, with no major safety concerns reported and low rates of discontinuation due to adverse effects.

Enlicitide Implications: What Does This Mean Clinically?

These reductions are substantial, suggesting oral enlicitide could:

• Improve adherence since it eliminates the need for injections
• Increase access, particularly in resource-limited areas
• Provide an alternative for patients intolerant or resistant to statins

In India, where ASCVD prevalence is high and expensive therapies are less accessible, this pill could provide a practical, scalable option alongside diet, exercise, and current statin or ezetimibe treatments.

Enlicitide Caveats: Unanswered Questions To Be Mindful Of

Despite the promising LDL-C reductions, several key issues remain:

• Cardiovascular outcomes: It is not yet confirmed whether enlicitide lowers heart attacks, strokes, or mortality. Current data focus on cholesterol reduction, not clinical endpoints.
• Long-term safety: Data beyond 24 weeks and one year is limited.
• Approval and cost: Enlicitide is still investigational and not available for regular use. Regulatory approvals, like FDA evaluation, will review full data. Its real-world adoption in India will depend on cost and accessibility.
• Patient selection and combination therapy: How enlicitide will be integrated with existing statins, ezetimibe, and lifestyle interventions is still under review. Guidelines may require updating.
• Sub-group efficacy: Will results apply across different ethnicities, comorbidities, and specifically the Indian population? Local data will be important.

The investigational oral pill enlicitide could represent a major advance in cholesterol management. For patients whose LDL-C remains high despite statins, or who cannot tolerate injections, it offers a potent and convenient alternative. Yet, medicine requires caution.

Disclaimer: This content is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Always consult a doctor or specialist before starting or changing any medication

According to NHS advice, people who use gabapentin may face rare emergencies linked to the medicine. Although it is not officially classed as a painkiller, doctors often prescribe it for nerve pain that follows an injury. It is also used for discomfort caused by shingles or diabetes. The medicine works by interrupting pain signals that move between the brain and spinal cord. Gabapentin is also a common treatment for epilepsy and falls under the group of anticonvulsant drugs. Most people take it as capsules, tablets, or a liquid, usually three times a day.

NHS information notes that the majority of users do not face any side effects. Those who do usually notice only mild and short-lived symptoms.

What Is Gabapentin?

Gabapentin is a prescription drug that belongs to a group of medicines called anticonvulsants. Doctors usually give it to people who have nerve pain or to help manage certain types of seizures in epilepsy. It is sold under names like Neurontin, Gralise, and Horizant, along with widely used generic versions.

What Is Gabapentin Approved For?

Gabapentin is prescribed for a few main purposes:

• It helps prevent and control partial seizures. Adults and children aged three and older who experience partial seizures can take it as part of their treatment plan.
• It also eases nerve pain that can appear after a bout of shingles in adults. Shingles develops years after a person has had chickenpox. The chickenpox virus stays quiet in the dorsal root ganglion, a section of the spinal nerve. In some people, usually during times of heightened stress, the dormant virus becomes active again and causes the painful shingles rash. When the rash settles but the nerve pain remains, the condition is known as postherpetic neuralgia.
• Gabapentin is also approved for people who have moderate to severe primary restless legs syndrome.
• Neurontin and Gralise, the branded forms of gabapentin, are licensed for treating partial seizures and postherpetic neuralgia. Horizant, another branded version called gabapentin enacarbil, is approved for restless legs syndrome and postherpetic neuralgia.

Side Effects Of Gabapentin

There are times when gabapentin may lead to serious reactions that need emergency attention. Mild effects can include an upset stomach, dry mouth, weight gain, or slight memory troubles.

More concerning reactions may involve thoughts of self-harm, unusual muscle pain or weakness, or seeing or hearing things that are not there. Even then, NHS guidance states that these usually require an urgent call to a doctor or 111 rather than ambulance help.

When You Should Call 999 While Taking Gabapentin

Like many medicines, gabapentin can trigger a severe allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis. This can cause several symptoms, such as swelling in the throat or difficulty breathing. The NHS advises calling 999 if you are taking gabapentin and experience any of the following:

• Sudden swelling of the lips, mouth, tongue, or throat
• Fainting and the person cannot be woken
• Lips, skin, or tongue turning blue, pale, or grey
• Trouble breathing or unusually fast breathing
• A tight sensation in the throat or difficulty swallowing

Prostate Cancer Screening: A panel of government health experts in the UK has advised that routine prostate cancer screening should not be made available to most men, a decision that has drawn disappointment from several charities and campaigners.

The UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC) instead recommends targeted screening for men who carry a confirmed BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation. These gene variants are linked to a higher risk of aggressive prostate cancers at a younger age. Men in this high-risk group could undergo screening every two years between ages 45 and 61.

The committee concluded that offering prostate cancer screening to all men—or even those with a family history—would do more harm than good. While it might slightly reduce the number of deaths from prostate cancer, it could result in extensive overdiagnosis.

Screening for black men, who are known to have a higher risk of developing prostate cancer, was not recommended due to insufficient and uncertain evidence.

Prostate Cancer Screening: Why UK Advisers Oppose Nationwide Screening

A major hurdle is the lack of strong evidence showing that mass prostate cancer screening significantly reduces deaths. The UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC) has determined that, at present, the potential harms of widespread testing outweigh the benefits, and therefore, a nationwide screening programme is not justified.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting said he would carefully review the draft recommendation, which will now undergo a 12-week consultation period before a final decision is presented to the government in March.

Prostate cancer remains the most common cancer among men, affecting one in eight, with around 55,300 new cases and 12,200 deaths each year in the UK. Despite being the second most common cancer overall after breast cancer, there is no routine screening program, partly because the PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test is not entirely reliable.

Prostate Cancer Targeted Screening Only for BRCA Gene Carriers

BRCA1 and BRCA2 are faulty genes that increase the risk of several cancers, including breast, pancreatic, ovarian, and prostate cancer. Around one in 300–400 people carries these mutations, and many are unaware of their status. Individuals with Jewish ancestry are at higher risk, with one in 40 Ashkenazi Jews and one in 140 Sephardi Jews carrying the faulty genes.

Men with a strong family history of cancer are encouraged to discuss blood or saliva testing with their GP. The proposed screening would likely only apply to a few thousand men due to the rarity of these gene mutations.

The UKNSC noted that screening black men or men with a family history of prostate cancer could result in significant overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Their modeling suggested that annual screening for black men aged 55–60 could lead to 44% of detected prostate cancers being overdiagnosed. Many of these cancers grow slowly and might never need treatment, but intervention could cause unnecessary anxiety and lifelong side effects, such as incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and bladder problems.

Chris Hoy Expresses Disappointment Over Screening Decision

Six-time Olympic gold medallist Sir Chris Hoy has shared his “disappointment and sadness” after learning that the UKNSC has not recommended population-level prostate cancer screening. Despite this setback, Hoy remains committed to using his platform to advocate for earlier detection of the disease.

Since his own diagnosis, Hoy has actively campaigned for better screening measures to catch prostate cancer sooner. Today’s decision by the UKNSC, however, has temporarily delayed those efforts.

Prostate Cancer Screening: Backlash From Charities and Public Figures

The committee’s decision has been met with mixed reactions. Cancer Research UK supported the cautious, evidence-based approach, noting that PSA testing can miss dangerous cancers and detect ones that do not require treatment. Prof Kamila Hawthorne, chair of the Royal College of GPs, also backed the committee’s decision, emphasizing that whole-population screening is not supported by current evidence.

However, charities like Prostate Cancer UK and Prostate Cancer Research, along with public figures including Stephen Fry and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, expressed deep disappointment. They warned that excluding high-risk groups could lead to late diagnoses and preventable deaths.

Prostate Cancer Research criticized the exclusion of black men and those with family histories, calling it a “serious error” that could worsen health inequalities. Stephen Fry and Rishi Sunak both echoed disappointment, calling for broader screening. Former Prime Minister David Cameron also expressed concern, emphasizing the need for early detection to protect men and their families.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting reaffirmed that he wants evidence-backed screening and is committed to improving early detection and treatment for the most common cancers in men. He stated that progress is being made in reducing cancer waiting times, with 193,000 more patients diagnosed on time in the past year.