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.
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.
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:
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.
Credit: AI generated image
While the devastating COVID-19 pandemic has significantly increased awareness about zoonotic diseases, the world remains inadequately prepared for another outbreak, which is "very likely," according to Dr Mario Raviglione, consultant to a HPV project at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), World Health Organization, on the occasion of World Zoonoses Day.
Observed every year on July 6, World Zoonoses Day aims to raise awareness about zoonotic diseases—infections that spread between animals and humans. This year's theme, "One World, One Health: Prevent Zoonoses," underscores the close link between human, animal and environmental health, according to the International Society for Infectious Diseases (ISID).
In an exclusive interview with HealthandMe, Dr Mario said the world has learned important lessons from COVID-19, but preparedness for the next zoonotic outbreak remains inadequate.
"The biggest lessons learned in my view are the understanding... that indeed we are in an era where pandemics could happen on a daily basis essentially," he said, noting that around three-quarters of emerging and re-emerging infections now originate in the animal world.
However, despite greater awareness among politicians, policymakers and health ministries, he said there is still no full understanding of the level of preparedness needed to confront future threats.
According to Dr Mario, the factors driving zoonotic spillovers are becoming more intense rather than diminishing. He pointed to:
"All of this put together tells us that the risk is high, that the risk is increasing, that the pandemic potential is definitely on an increase and, as a result, preparedness becomes really at this point an imperative," he said.
While acknowledging that many countries, particularly in Europe, now have pandemic preparedness plans, Dr Mario said these are often not backed by adequate financial commitments.
He said many countries continue to face shortages of trained human resources, laboratory capacity and disease surveillance systems. There are also insufficient links between human medicine, veterinary public health and environmental monitoring.
According to him, these shortcomings remain significant obstacles to effective preparedness and response during future epidemics, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.
Dr Mario, also a consultant for a tuberculosis project with the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), stressed that countries need stronger surveillance systems not only for human diseases but also for animals and the environment.
He also highlighted the need for improved laboratory capacity to identify emerging pathogens, stronger genomic surveillance, adequate facilities and trained personnel, and the ability to rapidly produce vaccines when needed.
"The environmental health is the one that is weaker... in terms of capacity to monitor," he said, describing it as the weakest component of the One Health triad.
Dr Mario said zoonotic diseases emerge from interactions between humans, animals and the environment, making the One Health approach fundamental to future pandemic preparedness.
He described One Health as "an approach that unites human health, animal health and environmental health," recognizing that all three are interconnected.
He said practical implementation should include:
Despite the increased awareness following COVID-19, Dr Mario said preparedness ultimately depends on governments translating commitments into action through sustained investment.
He said countries need solid preparedness plans, practical implementation and adequate financing to build resilient systems capable of responding to future threats.
"If you think prevention is expensive, try the disease then," he said, underscoring the importance of investing in prevention.
Credit: AI
Women who are conflicted while choosing between an injectable contraceptive, a copper intrauterine device (IUD) or a hormonal implant may not need to worry about its impact on human papillomavirus (HPV).
HPV is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections worldwide. While many HPV infections go away on their own without causing problems, some high-risk types can persist and increase the risk of cervical cancer in the long run.
Also Read: Vagus Nerve Implant Shows Promise for Lasting Relief in Treatment-Resistant Depression: Study
Before this study, scientists debated whether hormonal contraceptives could affect a woman's immune response, making it easier to contract HPV or harder for the body to clear the infection.
According to a new study published in The Lancet Regional Health – Africa, your choice of contraception may not have an impact on the risk of contracting HPV.
Researchers found that women using a commonly used injectable contraceptive known as depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM), copper IUDs, and levonorgestrel implants had similar chances of contracting HPV and clearing existing infections.
Also read: You Can Still Get HPV If You're Not Sexually Active
The researchers examined data from women who participated in the large ECHO (Evidence for Contraceptive Options and HIV Outcomes) clinical trial. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three contraceptive methods:
They then compared how often women acquired HPV during the study and how often those who already had HPV were able to clear the infection naturally. The analysis found no meaningful differences between the three contraceptive methods.
Women using the injectable contraceptive were no more likely to acquire HPV than those using a copper IUD or a hormonal implant. Similarly, women across all three groups cleared HPV infections at comparable rates.
Also read: Teplizumab: UK NHS To Roll Out World-First Drug To Delay Onset Of Type 1 Diabetes
Earlier studies finding the link between hormonal contraceptives and HPV have reported mixed results. Some suggested that hormonal birth control might increase the risk of HPV infection or make infections last longer, while others found no clear outcomes.
This new research provides stronger evidence because it is based on a randomized clinical trial. The findings suggest that the type of contraceptive a woman chooses is unlikely to have an impact on her risk of getting HPV or her body's ability to clear the infection.
The study allows women to choose between these commonly used contraceptive methods based on factors such as effectiveness, convenience, side effects, and personal preference, rather than concerns about HPV risk.
However, experts stress that no contraceptive method protects against sexually transmitted infections, including HPV. Using condoms can help reduce the risk of HPV and other STIs.
The human papillomavirus causes more than 200 known infections. While some types lead to benign skin warts, others are responsible for severe health threats, such as cervical, throat, anal, and penile cancers. The HPV vaccine provides strong protection against the most lethal strains, avoiding long-term health complications.
The HPV vaccine helps the immune system recognize and fight off high-risk strains of the virus before they cause harm. It protects against:
Experts also stress that HPV vaccination and regular cervical cancer screening remain the most effective ways to prevent cervical cancer and detect abnormal changes early.
Credit: www.wegovy.com
People in the UK can, from today, access the Wegovy weight loss pill through pharmacies with a doctor's prescription. It is the first oral glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) medicine approved in the UK for weight loss.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approved the tablet on June 11, marking the first oral GLP-1 treatment available in the country for obesity management.
"Having met the MHRA's rigorous standards of safety, quality and effectiveness, the semaglutide tablet has been approved in the UK for weight loss and weight management," Julian Beach, Executive Director of Healthcare Quality and Access at the MHRA, said in a statement.
"As with all GLP-1 receptor agonists, this is a prescription-only medication," Beach added.
Novo Nordisk called it an "important milestone for obesity care in the UK".
"For the first time, people living with obesity have access to a GLP-1 treatment in a daily pill, allowing them the choice and flexibility of oral treatment to support their long-term weight management," said Sebnem Avsar Tuna, General Manager at Novo Nordisk UK.
Also read: US Medicare Set To Cover GLP-1 Drugs For Weight Loss: All You Should Know About Eligibility, Costs
The semaglutide (Wegovy) tablet can be prescribed alongside a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity for adults who:
Patients must begin with the lowest dose of 1.5 mg once daily, which can be gradually increased to:
People currently taking 2.4 mg weekly semaglutide injections privately can switch directly to 25 mg semaglutide tablets once daily.
Read More: This 45-Minute Weight-Loss Procedure May Work Better Than Semaglutide Pills, Study Claims
According to the MHRA, the tablet should be:
Patients are advised to carefully follow the instructions in the Patient Information Leaflet.
Semaglutide is a GLP-1 receptor agonist that mimics the action of the naturally occurring GLP-1 hormone released after eating.
It acts on areas of the brain that regulate appetite by:
Not yet. Although the medicine has received MHRA approval, it is not currently available through the NHS.
The MHRA said NHS availability will depend on the usual evaluation process by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).
NICE said Novo Nordisk has not yet formally approached it, but that it is in active discussions with the company, BBC reported.
The most commonly reported side effects are gastrointestinal and include:
The MHRA said it will continue to monitor the medicine's safety and effectiveness. Anyone experiencing side effects should speak to their doctor, pharmacist, or nurse and report them through the MHRA Yellow Card scheme.
Community pharmacies say they are preparing for a surge in demand following the launch. The National Pharmacy Association (NPA) urged patients to obtain the medicine only from regulated pharmacies following a proper clinical consultation.
© 2024 Bennett, Coleman & Company Limited