Christina Szalinski

An ancient Chinese remedy for malaria could offer new hope to the 10% of reproductive-age women living with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), a poorly understood endocrine disorder that can cause hormonal imbalances, irregular periods, and cysts in the ovaries.

“PCOS is among the most common disorders of reproductive-age women,” said endocrinologist Andrea Dunaif, MD, a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who studies diabetes and women’s health. “It is a major risk factor for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease.” It’s also a leading cause of infertility.

Yet despite how common it is, PCOS has no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments, though a few early-stage clinical trials are underway. Many women end up taking off-label medications such as oral contraceptives, insulin-sensitizing agents, and antiandrogens to help manage symptoms. Surgery can also be used to treat fertility problems associated with PCOS, though it may not work for everyone.

In a new study, a derivative of artemisinin — a molecule that comes from Artemisia plants, which have been used as far back as 1596 to treat malaria in China — helped relieve PCOS symptoms in rats and a small group of women.

Previously, the study’s lead researcher Qi-qun Tang, MD, PhD, had found that this derivative, called artemether, can increase thermogenesis, boosting metabolism. Dr. Tang and his team at Fudan University, Shanghai, China, wanted to see if it would help with PCOS, which is associated with metabolic problems such as insulin resistance.
 

What the Researchers Did

To simulate PCOS in rats, the team treated the rodents with insulin and human chorionic gonadotropin. Then, they tested artemether on the rats and found that it lowered androgen production in the ovaries.

“A common feature [of PCOS] is that the ovaries, and often the adrenal glands, make increased male hormones, nowhere near what a man makes but slightly above what a normal woman makes,” said Dr. Dunaif, who was not involved in the study.

Artemether “inhibits one of the steroidogenic enzymes, CYP11A1, which is important in the production of male hormones,” Dr. Tang said. It does this by increasing the enzyme’s interaction with a protein called LONP1, triggering the enzyme’s breakdown. Increased levels of LONP1 also appeared to suppress androgen production in the ovaries.

In a pilot clinical study of 19 women with PCOS, taking dihydroartemisinin — an approved drug used to treat malaria that contains active artemisinin derivatives — for 12 weeks substantially reduced serum testosterone and anti-Müllerian hormone levels (which are higher in women with PCOS). Using ultrasound, the researchers found that the antral follicle count (also higher than normal with PCOS) had been reduced. All participants had regular menstrual cycles during treatment. And no one reported significant side effects.

“Regular menstrual cycles suggest that there is ovulation, which can result in conception,” Dr. Dunaif said. Still, testing would be needed to confirm that cycles are ovulatory.

Lowering androgen levels “could improve a substantial portion of the symptoms of PCOS,” said Dr. Dunaif. But the research didn’t see an improvement in insulin sensitivity among the women, suggesting that targeting androgens may not help the metabolic symptoms.
 

What’s Next? 

A larger, placebo-controlled trial would still be needed to assess the drug’s efficacy, said Dr. Dunaif, pointing out that the human study did not have a placebo arm.

And unanswered questions remain. Are there any adrenal effects of the compound? “The enzymes that produce androgens are shared between the ovary and the adrenal [gland],” Dr. Dunaif said, but she pointed out that the study doesn’t address whether there is an adrenal benefit. It’s something to look at in future research.

Still, because artemisinin is an established drug, it may come to market faster than a new molecule would, she said. However, a pharmaceutical company would need to be willing to take on the drug. (Dr. Tang said several companies have already expressed interest.)

And while you can buy artemisinin on the Internet, Dr. Dunaif warned not to start taking it if you have PCOS. “I don’t think we’re at that point,” Dr. Dunaif said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An ancient Chinese remedy for malaria could offer new hope to the 10% of reproductive-age women living with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), a poorly understood endocrine disorder that can cause hormonal imbalances, irregular periods, and cysts in the ovaries.

“PCOS is among the most common disorders of reproductive-age women,” said endocrinologist Andrea Dunaif, MD, a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who studies diabetes and women’s health. “It is a major risk factor for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease.” It’s also a leading cause of infertility.

Yet despite how common it is, PCOS has no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments, though a few early-stage clinical trials are underway. Many women end up taking off-label medications such as oral contraceptives, insulin-sensitizing agents, and antiandrogens to help manage symptoms. Surgery can also be used to treat fertility problems associated with PCOS, though it may not work for everyone.

In a new study, a derivative of artemisinin — a molecule that comes from Artemisia plants, which have been used as far back as 1596 to treat malaria in China — helped relieve PCOS symptoms in rats and a small group of women.

Previously, the study’s lead researcher Qi-qun Tang, MD, PhD, had found that this derivative, called artemether, can increase thermogenesis, boosting metabolism. Dr. Tang and his team at Fudan University, Shanghai, China, wanted to see if it would help with PCOS, which is associated with metabolic problems such as insulin resistance.
 

What the Researchers Did

To simulate PCOS in rats, the team treated the rodents with insulin and human chorionic gonadotropin. Then, they tested artemether on the rats and found that it lowered androgen production in the ovaries.

“A common feature [of PCOS] is that the ovaries, and often the adrenal glands, make increased male hormones, nowhere near what a man makes but slightly above what a normal woman makes,” said Dr. Dunaif, who was not involved in the study.

Artemether “inhibits one of the steroidogenic enzymes, CYP11A1, which is important in the production of male hormones,” Dr. Tang said. It does this by increasing the enzyme’s interaction with a protein called LONP1, triggering the enzyme’s breakdown. Increased levels of LONP1 also appeared to suppress androgen production in the ovaries.

In a pilot clinical study of 19 women with PCOS, taking dihydroartemisinin — an approved drug used to treat malaria that contains active artemisinin derivatives — for 12 weeks substantially reduced serum testosterone and anti-Müllerian hormone levels (which are higher in women with PCOS). Using ultrasound, the researchers found that the antral follicle count (also higher than normal with PCOS) had been reduced. All participants had regular menstrual cycles during treatment. And no one reported significant side effects.

“Regular menstrual cycles suggest that there is ovulation, which can result in conception,” Dr. Dunaif said. Still, testing would be needed to confirm that cycles are ovulatory.

Lowering androgen levels “could improve a substantial portion of the symptoms of PCOS,” said Dr. Dunaif. But the research didn’t see an improvement in insulin sensitivity among the women, suggesting that targeting androgens may not help the metabolic symptoms.
 

What’s Next? 

A larger, placebo-controlled trial would still be needed to assess the drug’s efficacy, said Dr. Dunaif, pointing out that the human study did not have a placebo arm.

And unanswered questions remain. Are there any adrenal effects of the compound? “The enzymes that produce androgens are shared between the ovary and the adrenal [gland],” Dr. Dunaif said, but she pointed out that the study doesn’t address whether there is an adrenal benefit. It’s something to look at in future research.

Still, because artemisinin is an established drug, it may come to market faster than a new molecule would, she said. However, a pharmaceutical company would need to be willing to take on the drug. (Dr. Tang said several companies have already expressed interest.)

And while you can buy artemisinin on the Internet, Dr. Dunaif warned not to start taking it if you have PCOS. “I don’t think we’re at that point,” Dr. Dunaif said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An ancient Chinese remedy for malaria could offer new hope to the 10% of reproductive-age women living with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), a poorly understood endocrine disorder that can cause hormonal imbalances, irregular periods, and cysts in the ovaries.

“PCOS is among the most common disorders of reproductive-age women,” said endocrinologist Andrea Dunaif, MD, a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, who studies diabetes and women’s health. “It is a major risk factor for obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease.” It’s also a leading cause of infertility.

Yet despite how common it is, PCOS has no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments, though a few early-stage clinical trials are underway. Many women end up taking off-label medications such as oral contraceptives, insulin-sensitizing agents, and antiandrogens to help manage symptoms. Surgery can also be used to treat fertility problems associated with PCOS, though it may not work for everyone.

In a new study, a derivative of artemisinin — a molecule that comes from Artemisia plants, which have been used as far back as 1596 to treat malaria in China — helped relieve PCOS symptoms in rats and a small group of women.

Previously, the study’s lead researcher Qi-qun Tang, MD, PhD, had found that this derivative, called artemether, can increase thermogenesis, boosting metabolism. Dr. Tang and his team at Fudan University, Shanghai, China, wanted to see if it would help with PCOS, which is associated with metabolic problems such as insulin resistance.
 

What the Researchers Did

To simulate PCOS in rats, the team treated the rodents with insulin and human chorionic gonadotropin. Then, they tested artemether on the rats and found that it lowered androgen production in the ovaries.

“A common feature [of PCOS] is that the ovaries, and often the adrenal glands, make increased male hormones, nowhere near what a man makes but slightly above what a normal woman makes,” said Dr. Dunaif, who was not involved in the study.

Artemether “inhibits one of the steroidogenic enzymes, CYP11A1, which is important in the production of male hormones,” Dr. Tang said. It does this by increasing the enzyme’s interaction with a protein called LONP1, triggering the enzyme’s breakdown. Increased levels of LONP1 also appeared to suppress androgen production in the ovaries.

In a pilot clinical study of 19 women with PCOS, taking dihydroartemisinin — an approved drug used to treat malaria that contains active artemisinin derivatives — for 12 weeks substantially reduced serum testosterone and anti-Müllerian hormone levels (which are higher in women with PCOS). Using ultrasound, the researchers found that the antral follicle count (also higher than normal with PCOS) had been reduced. All participants had regular menstrual cycles during treatment. And no one reported significant side effects.

“Regular menstrual cycles suggest that there is ovulation, which can result in conception,” Dr. Dunaif said. Still, testing would be needed to confirm that cycles are ovulatory.

Lowering androgen levels “could improve a substantial portion of the symptoms of PCOS,” said Dr. Dunaif. But the research didn’t see an improvement in insulin sensitivity among the women, suggesting that targeting androgens may not help the metabolic symptoms.
 

What’s Next? 

A larger, placebo-controlled trial would still be needed to assess the drug’s efficacy, said Dr. Dunaif, pointing out that the human study did not have a placebo arm.

And unanswered questions remain. Are there any adrenal effects of the compound? “The enzymes that produce androgens are shared between the ovary and the adrenal [gland],” Dr. Dunaif said, but she pointed out that the study doesn’t address whether there is an adrenal benefit. It’s something to look at in future research.

Still, because artemisinin is an established drug, it may come to market faster than a new molecule would, she said. However, a pharmaceutical company would need to be willing to take on the drug. (Dr. Tang said several companies have already expressed interest.)

And while you can buy artemisinin on the Internet, Dr. Dunaif warned not to start taking it if you have PCOS. “I don’t think we’re at that point,” Dr. Dunaif said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Here’s a new direction for smartphones in healthcare. 

Researchers from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Boulder, Colorado, say a smartphone compass could be used to analyze biomarkers in body fluids — blood, sweat, urine, or saliva — to monitor or diagnose disease.

“We’re just at this point demonstrating this new way of sensing that we hope [will be] very accessible and very portable,” said Gary Zabow, PhD, a group leader in the applied physics division at NIST who supervised the research. 

In a proof-of-concept study, the researchers measured glucose levels in sangria, pinot grigio, and champagne. The detection limit reached micromolar concentrations — on par with or better than some widely used glucose sensors, such as continuous glucose monitors. They also accurately measured the pH levels of coffee, orange juice, and root beer.

More tests are needed to confirm the method works in biological fluids, so it could be a while before it’s available for clinical or commercial use. 

Still, the prospect is “exciting,” said Aydogan Ozcan, PhD, a bioengineering professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study. “It might enable new capabilities for advanced sensing applications in field settings or even at home.”

The advance builds on growing research using smartphones to put powerful medical devices in patients’ hands. A new AI-powered app can use a smartphone camera to detect skin cancer, while other apps administer cognitive tests to detect dementia. Smartphone cameras can even be harnessed for “advanced optical microscopes and sensors to the level where we could even see and detect individual DNA molecules with inexpensive optical attachments,” Dr. Ozcan said. More than six billion people worldwide own a smartphone.

The compass inside smartphones is a magnetometer — it measures magnetic fields. Normally it detects the earth’s magnetic fields, but it can also detect small, nearby magnets and changes in those magnets’ positions. 

The researchers embedded a small magnet inside a strip of “smart hydrogel — a piece of material that expands or contracts” when immersed in a solution, said Dr. Zabow.

As the hydrogel gets bigger or smaller, it moves the magnet, Dr. Zabow explained. For example, if the hydrogel is designed to expand when the solution is acidic or contract when it’s basic, it can move the magnet closer or farther from the phone’s magnetometer, providing an indicator of pH. For glucose, the hydrogel expands or contracts depending on the concentration of sugar in the liquid.

With some calibration and coding to translate that reading into a number, “you can effectively read out glucose or pH,” Dr. Zabow said.

Only a small strip of hydrogel is needed, “like a pH test strip that you use for a pool,” said first study author Mark Ferris, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at NIST. 

Like a pool pH test strip, this test is meant to be “easy to use, and at that kind of price,” Dr. Ferris said. “It’s supposed to be something that’s cheap and disposable.” Each pH hydrogel strip is about 3 cents, and glucose strips are 16 cents, Dr. Ferris estimated. In bulk, those prices could go down.

Next the team plans to test the strips with biological fluids. But complex fluids like blood could pose a challenge, as other molecules present could react with the strip and affect the results. “It may be that you need to tweak the chemistry of the hydrogel to make sure it is really specific to one biomolecule and there is no interference from other biomolecules,” Dr. Zabow said.

The technique could be adapted to detect other biomarkers or molecules, the researchers said. It could also be used to check for chemical contaminants in tap, lake, or stream water. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Here’s a new direction for smartphones in healthcare. 

Researchers from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Boulder, Colorado, say a smartphone compass could be used to analyze biomarkers in body fluids — blood, sweat, urine, or saliva — to monitor or diagnose disease.

“We’re just at this point demonstrating this new way of sensing that we hope [will be] very accessible and very portable,” said Gary Zabow, PhD, a group leader in the applied physics division at NIST who supervised the research. 

In a proof-of-concept study, the researchers measured glucose levels in sangria, pinot grigio, and champagne. The detection limit reached micromolar concentrations — on par with or better than some widely used glucose sensors, such as continuous glucose monitors. They also accurately measured the pH levels of coffee, orange juice, and root beer.

More tests are needed to confirm the method works in biological fluids, so it could be a while before it’s available for clinical or commercial use. 

Still, the prospect is “exciting,” said Aydogan Ozcan, PhD, a bioengineering professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study. “It might enable new capabilities for advanced sensing applications in field settings or even at home.”

The advance builds on growing research using smartphones to put powerful medical devices in patients’ hands. A new AI-powered app can use a smartphone camera to detect skin cancer, while other apps administer cognitive tests to detect dementia. Smartphone cameras can even be harnessed for “advanced optical microscopes and sensors to the level where we could even see and detect individual DNA molecules with inexpensive optical attachments,” Dr. Ozcan said. More than six billion people worldwide own a smartphone.

The compass inside smartphones is a magnetometer — it measures magnetic fields. Normally it detects the earth’s magnetic fields, but it can also detect small, nearby magnets and changes in those magnets’ positions. 

The researchers embedded a small magnet inside a strip of “smart hydrogel — a piece of material that expands or contracts” when immersed in a solution, said Dr. Zabow.

As the hydrogel gets bigger or smaller, it moves the magnet, Dr. Zabow explained. For example, if the hydrogel is designed to expand when the solution is acidic or contract when it’s basic, it can move the magnet closer or farther from the phone’s magnetometer, providing an indicator of pH. For glucose, the hydrogel expands or contracts depending on the concentration of sugar in the liquid.

With some calibration and coding to translate that reading into a number, “you can effectively read out glucose or pH,” Dr. Zabow said.

Only a small strip of hydrogel is needed, “like a pH test strip that you use for a pool,” said first study author Mark Ferris, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at NIST. 

Like a pool pH test strip, this test is meant to be “easy to use, and at that kind of price,” Dr. Ferris said. “It’s supposed to be something that’s cheap and disposable.” Each pH hydrogel strip is about 3 cents, and glucose strips are 16 cents, Dr. Ferris estimated. In bulk, those prices could go down.

Next the team plans to test the strips with biological fluids. But complex fluids like blood could pose a challenge, as other molecules present could react with the strip and affect the results. “It may be that you need to tweak the chemistry of the hydrogel to make sure it is really specific to one biomolecule and there is no interference from other biomolecules,” Dr. Zabow said.

The technique could be adapted to detect other biomarkers or molecules, the researchers said. It could also be used to check for chemical contaminants in tap, lake, or stream water. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Here’s a new direction for smartphones in healthcare. 

Researchers from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Boulder, Colorado, say a smartphone compass could be used to analyze biomarkers in body fluids — blood, sweat, urine, or saliva — to monitor or diagnose disease.

“We’re just at this point demonstrating this new way of sensing that we hope [will be] very accessible and very portable,” said Gary Zabow, PhD, a group leader in the applied physics division at NIST who supervised the research. 

In a proof-of-concept study, the researchers measured glucose levels in sangria, pinot grigio, and champagne. The detection limit reached micromolar concentrations — on par with or better than some widely used glucose sensors, such as continuous glucose monitors. They also accurately measured the pH levels of coffee, orange juice, and root beer.

More tests are needed to confirm the method works in biological fluids, so it could be a while before it’s available for clinical or commercial use. 

Still, the prospect is “exciting,” said Aydogan Ozcan, PhD, a bioengineering professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the study. “It might enable new capabilities for advanced sensing applications in field settings or even at home.”

The advance builds on growing research using smartphones to put powerful medical devices in patients’ hands. A new AI-powered app can use a smartphone camera to detect skin cancer, while other apps administer cognitive tests to detect dementia. Smartphone cameras can even be harnessed for “advanced optical microscopes and sensors to the level where we could even see and detect individual DNA molecules with inexpensive optical attachments,” Dr. Ozcan said. More than six billion people worldwide own a smartphone.

The compass inside smartphones is a magnetometer — it measures magnetic fields. Normally it detects the earth’s magnetic fields, but it can also detect small, nearby magnets and changes in those magnets’ positions. 

The researchers embedded a small magnet inside a strip of “smart hydrogel — a piece of material that expands or contracts” when immersed in a solution, said Dr. Zabow.

As the hydrogel gets bigger or smaller, it moves the magnet, Dr. Zabow explained. For example, if the hydrogel is designed to expand when the solution is acidic or contract when it’s basic, it can move the magnet closer or farther from the phone’s magnetometer, providing an indicator of pH. For glucose, the hydrogel expands or contracts depending on the concentration of sugar in the liquid.

With some calibration and coding to translate that reading into a number, “you can effectively read out glucose or pH,” Dr. Zabow said.

Only a small strip of hydrogel is needed, “like a pH test strip that you use for a pool,” said first study author Mark Ferris, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at NIST. 

Like a pool pH test strip, this test is meant to be “easy to use, and at that kind of price,” Dr. Ferris said. “It’s supposed to be something that’s cheap and disposable.” Each pH hydrogel strip is about 3 cents, and glucose strips are 16 cents, Dr. Ferris estimated. In bulk, those prices could go down.

Next the team plans to test the strips with biological fluids. But complex fluids like blood could pose a challenge, as other molecules present could react with the strip and affect the results. “It may be that you need to tweak the chemistry of the hydrogel to make sure it is really specific to one biomolecule and there is no interference from other biomolecules,” Dr. Zabow said.

The technique could be adapted to detect other biomarkers or molecules, the researchers said. It could also be used to check for chemical contaminants in tap, lake, or stream water. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer in the world, largely because so many patients are diagnosed late.

Screening more patients could help, yet screening rates remain critically low. In the United States, only about 6% of eligible people get screened , according to the American Lung Association. Contrast that with screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, which all top 70%.

But what if lung cancer detection was as simple as taking a puff on an inhaler and following up with a urine test?

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts, have developed nanosensors that target lung cancer proteins and can be delivered via inhaler or nebulizer, according to research published this month in Science Advances. If the sensors spot these proteins, they produce a signal in the urine that can be detected with a paper test strip.

“It’s a more complex version of a pregnancy test, but it’s very simple to use,” said Qian Zhong, PhD, an MIT researcher and co-lead author of the study.

Currently, the only recommended screening test for lung cancer is low-dose CT. But not everyone has easy access to screening facilities, said the other co-lead author Edward Tan, PhD, a former MIT postdoc and currently a scientist at the biotech company Prime Medicine, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“Our focus is to provide an alternative for the early detection of lung cancer that does not rely on resource-intensive infrastructure,” said Dr. Tan. “Most developing countries don’t have such resources” — and residents in some parts of the United States don’t have easy access, either, he said.
 

How It Works

The sensors are polymer nanoparticles coated in DNA barcodes, short DNA sequences that are unique and easy to identify. The researchers engineered the particles to be targeted by protease enzymes linked to stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Upon contact, the proteases cleave off the barcodes, which make their way into the bloodstream and are excreted in urine. A test strip can detect them, revealing results about 20 minutes from the time it’s dipped.

The researchers tested this system in mice genetically engineered to develop human-like lung tumors. Using aerosol nebulizers, they delivered 20 sensors to mice with the equivalent of stage I or II cancer. Using a machine learning algorithm, they identified the four most accurate sensors. With 100% specificity, those four sensors exhibited sensitivity of 84.6%.

“One advantage of using inhalation is that it’s noninvasive, and another advantage is that it distributes across the lung quite homogeneously,” said Dr. Tan. The time from inhalation to detection is also relatively fast — in mice, the whole process took about 2 hours, and Dr. Zhong speculated that it would not be much longer in humans.
 

Other Applications and Challenges

An injectable version of this technology, also developed at MIT, has already been tested in a phase 1 clinical trial for diagnosing liver cancer and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The injection also works in tandem with a urine test, the researchers showed in 2021. According to Tan, his research group (led by  Sangeeta Bhatia, MD, PhD) was the first to describe this type of technology to screen for diseases.

The lab is also working toward using inhalable sensors to distinguish between viral, bacterial, and fungal pneumonia. And the technology could also be used to diagnose other lung conditions like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Tan said.

The tech is certainly “innovative,” remarked Gaetano Rocco, MD, a thoracic surgeon and lung cancer researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, who was not involved in the study.

Still, challenges may arise when applying it to people. Many factors are involved in regulating fluid volume, potentially interfering with the ability to detect the compounds in the urine, Rocco said. Diet, hydration, drug interference, renal function, and some chronic diseases could all limit effectiveness.

Another challenge: Human cancer can be more heterogeneous (containing different kinds of cancer cells), so four sensors may not be enough, Zhong said. He and colleagues are beginning to analyze human biopsy samples to see whether the same sensors that worked in mice would also work in humans. If all goes well, they hope to do studies on humans or nonhuman primates.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer in the world, largely because so many patients are diagnosed late.

Screening more patients could help, yet screening rates remain critically low. In the United States, only about 6% of eligible people get screened , according to the American Lung Association. Contrast that with screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, which all top 70%.

But what if lung cancer detection was as simple as taking a puff on an inhaler and following up with a urine test?

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts, have developed nanosensors that target lung cancer proteins and can be delivered via inhaler or nebulizer, according to research published this month in Science Advances. If the sensors spot these proteins, they produce a signal in the urine that can be detected with a paper test strip.

“It’s a more complex version of a pregnancy test, but it’s very simple to use,” said Qian Zhong, PhD, an MIT researcher and co-lead author of the study.

Currently, the only recommended screening test for lung cancer is low-dose CT. But not everyone has easy access to screening facilities, said the other co-lead author Edward Tan, PhD, a former MIT postdoc and currently a scientist at the biotech company Prime Medicine, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“Our focus is to provide an alternative for the early detection of lung cancer that does not rely on resource-intensive infrastructure,” said Dr. Tan. “Most developing countries don’t have such resources” — and residents in some parts of the United States don’t have easy access, either, he said.
 

How It Works

The sensors are polymer nanoparticles coated in DNA barcodes, short DNA sequences that are unique and easy to identify. The researchers engineered the particles to be targeted by protease enzymes linked to stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Upon contact, the proteases cleave off the barcodes, which make their way into the bloodstream and are excreted in urine. A test strip can detect them, revealing results about 20 minutes from the time it’s dipped.

The researchers tested this system in mice genetically engineered to develop human-like lung tumors. Using aerosol nebulizers, they delivered 20 sensors to mice with the equivalent of stage I or II cancer. Using a machine learning algorithm, they identified the four most accurate sensors. With 100% specificity, those four sensors exhibited sensitivity of 84.6%.

“One advantage of using inhalation is that it’s noninvasive, and another advantage is that it distributes across the lung quite homogeneously,” said Dr. Tan. The time from inhalation to detection is also relatively fast — in mice, the whole process took about 2 hours, and Dr. Zhong speculated that it would not be much longer in humans.
 

Other Applications and Challenges

An injectable version of this technology, also developed at MIT, has already been tested in a phase 1 clinical trial for diagnosing liver cancer and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The injection also works in tandem with a urine test, the researchers showed in 2021. According to Tan, his research group (led by  Sangeeta Bhatia, MD, PhD) was the first to describe this type of technology to screen for diseases.

The lab is also working toward using inhalable sensors to distinguish between viral, bacterial, and fungal pneumonia. And the technology could also be used to diagnose other lung conditions like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Tan said.

The tech is certainly “innovative,” remarked Gaetano Rocco, MD, a thoracic surgeon and lung cancer researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, who was not involved in the study.

Still, challenges may arise when applying it to people. Many factors are involved in regulating fluid volume, potentially interfering with the ability to detect the compounds in the urine, Rocco said. Diet, hydration, drug interference, renal function, and some chronic diseases could all limit effectiveness.

Another challenge: Human cancer can be more heterogeneous (containing different kinds of cancer cells), so four sensors may not be enough, Zhong said. He and colleagues are beginning to analyze human biopsy samples to see whether the same sensors that worked in mice would also work in humans. If all goes well, they hope to do studies on humans or nonhuman primates.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer in the world, largely because so many patients are diagnosed late.

Screening more patients could help, yet screening rates remain critically low. In the United States, only about 6% of eligible people get screened , according to the American Lung Association. Contrast that with screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, which all top 70%.

But what if lung cancer detection was as simple as taking a puff on an inhaler and following up with a urine test?

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts, have developed nanosensors that target lung cancer proteins and can be delivered via inhaler or nebulizer, according to research published this month in Science Advances. If the sensors spot these proteins, they produce a signal in the urine that can be detected with a paper test strip.

“It’s a more complex version of a pregnancy test, but it’s very simple to use,” said Qian Zhong, PhD, an MIT researcher and co-lead author of the study.

Currently, the only recommended screening test for lung cancer is low-dose CT. But not everyone has easy access to screening facilities, said the other co-lead author Edward Tan, PhD, a former MIT postdoc and currently a scientist at the biotech company Prime Medicine, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“Our focus is to provide an alternative for the early detection of lung cancer that does not rely on resource-intensive infrastructure,” said Dr. Tan. “Most developing countries don’t have such resources” — and residents in some parts of the United States don’t have easy access, either, he said.
 

How It Works

The sensors are polymer nanoparticles coated in DNA barcodes, short DNA sequences that are unique and easy to identify. The researchers engineered the particles to be targeted by protease enzymes linked to stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Upon contact, the proteases cleave off the barcodes, which make their way into the bloodstream and are excreted in urine. A test strip can detect them, revealing results about 20 minutes from the time it’s dipped.

The researchers tested this system in mice genetically engineered to develop human-like lung tumors. Using aerosol nebulizers, they delivered 20 sensors to mice with the equivalent of stage I or II cancer. Using a machine learning algorithm, they identified the four most accurate sensors. With 100% specificity, those four sensors exhibited sensitivity of 84.6%.

“One advantage of using inhalation is that it’s noninvasive, and another advantage is that it distributes across the lung quite homogeneously,” said Dr. Tan. The time from inhalation to detection is also relatively fast — in mice, the whole process took about 2 hours, and Dr. Zhong speculated that it would not be much longer in humans.
 

Other Applications and Challenges

An injectable version of this technology, also developed at MIT, has already been tested in a phase 1 clinical trial for diagnosing liver cancer and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The injection also works in tandem with a urine test, the researchers showed in 2021. According to Tan, his research group (led by  Sangeeta Bhatia, MD, PhD) was the first to describe this type of technology to screen for diseases.

The lab is also working toward using inhalable sensors to distinguish between viral, bacterial, and fungal pneumonia. And the technology could also be used to diagnose other lung conditions like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Tan said.

The tech is certainly “innovative,” remarked Gaetano Rocco, MD, a thoracic surgeon and lung cancer researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, who was not involved in the study.

Still, challenges may arise when applying it to people. Many factors are involved in regulating fluid volume, potentially interfering with the ability to detect the compounds in the urine, Rocco said. Diet, hydration, drug interference, renal function, and some chronic diseases could all limit effectiveness.

Another challenge: Human cancer can be more heterogeneous (containing different kinds of cancer cells), so four sensors may not be enough, Zhong said. He and colleagues are beginning to analyze human biopsy samples to see whether the same sensors that worked in mice would also work in humans. If all goes well, they hope to do studies on humans or nonhuman primates.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Formulas for toddlers are a burgeoning business in the United States: Sales of the drinks more than doubled in recent years as companies convinced parents that their little ones needed the liquid boost. But many experts warn that these products, designed for children ages 1-3, fill no nutritional needs beyond what is available in a typical toddler diet, are subject to less regulation than infant formula, and are expensive.

In addition, some parents feed the toddler versions to infants even though they do not meet federal standards for infant formula and may not provide babies with adequate nutrients to sustain their growth.

Pediatricians and federal health officials say that when most children turn 1, they can begin drinking cow milk or an unsweetened plant-based milk substitute. In a 2019 “consensus” statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other health and nutrition organizations recommended against using toddler formulas, saying “they offer no unique nutritional value beyond what could be obtained with healthy foods; furthermore, they may contribute added sugars to the diet.” The toddler formulas often contain sweeteners and fats that add calories.

Some of the same companies that produce infant formula – including Enfamil, Gerber, and Similac – also make toddler formulas, as do some smaller, boutique brands that advertise that they have organic or other special qualities. Toddler formulas are available nearly everywhere infant formulas are sold and are marketed as providing extra nutrients to help children’s brain, immune system, and eye development, among other benefits. They are different from medical formulas prescribed for children with specific needs.

A 2020 study found that sales of toddler formula in the United States rose to $92 million in 2015 from $39 million in 2006.

Parents are often confused by the marketing for the formulas, according to a study led by Jennifer Harris, PhD, a marketing and public health researcher at the University of Connecticut, Hartford. She found that 60% of caregivers falsely believed toddler formulas have nutrients that toddlers can’t get from other foods.

Anthony Porto, MD, MPH, a pediatric gastroenterologist and pediatrics professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said he is concerned these products could be giving toddlers more nutrients and calories than they need. Unlike what’s designed for infants, toddler formula has no nutritional regulations: Experts say standardizing a supplement to toddlers’ diets is impossible because no two children are alike.

In focus groups, Dr. Harris said, parents report feeding their children toddler formula to fill nutritional gaps when a child isn’t eating enough, a common concern among parents.

“Infants are often voracious eaters,” said Stephen Daniels, MD, chair of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. But at around a year of age, children’s growth plateaus, he said, and “they’re suddenly not hungry in the way they used to be anymore.” That can worry parents, he added, but “it’s a completely normal phenomenon.”

If parents have concerns about their children’s diet, Dr. Daniels said, they should consult a pediatrician or family doctor.

Blanche Lincoln, president of the Infant Nutrition Council of America, which represents the makers of Enfamil, Gerber, Similac, and store brands, said in an email that the toddler formulas can be helpful because they can fill “nutritional gaps during this period of transition to table foods.” Ms. Lincoln, a former U.S. senator from Arkansas, said the drinks “help contribute to the specific nutritional needs of toddlers by providing energy and important nutrients, as well as essential vitamins and minerals during this important period of growth and development.”

But toddler formula isn’t being ingested by toddlers alone – it’s also being fed to infants. In a recent study, Dr. Porto and colleagues found that 5% of infants’ parents reported giving their babies drinks marketed for the older age group. And Dr. Harris’ research indicated that 22% of parents of infants older than 6 months had fed their babies toddler formula in the previous month. Both studies were conducted before the recent infant formula shortage, which may have exacerbated the problem.

“Infant formulas and toddler formulas tend to be next to each other in the supermarket,” Dr. Harris said. “They look similar, but the toddler formulas are cheaper than the infant formulas. So people confuse them, and they grab the wrong one. Or they think: ‘Oh, this one is less expensive. I’ll get this one instead.’ ”

According to an email from Food and Drug Administration spokesperson Lindsay Haake, toddler drinks do not meet the definition of infant formula, so they are not subject to the same requirements. That means they do not have to undergo the clinical trials and pathogen safety testing that the infant versions do. “Unlike infant formulas, toddler formulas are not necessary to meet the nutritional needs of their intended consumers,” Ms. Haake said.

In a statement to KHN, the Infant Nutrition Council of America said: “Toddler drinks have a distinctive use and nutritional makeup from infant formula; the two are not interchangeable. The labeling of toddler nutritional drinks explicitly identifies the product as a toddler drink intended for children 12 months and older on the front of the package label.”

However, several expensive toddler formula brands made by smaller companies – often advertised as being made from goat milk, A2 whole milk (which lacks one common milk protein), or vegan ingredients that aren’t soy – do meet nutritional requirements for infants, and some advertise that.

Dr. Harris argued that this confuses parents, too, and shouldn’t be allowed. Just because a toddler formula has the nutritional ingredients required by the FDA for infant formula doesn’t mean it has met the other tests required of infant formula.

Federal regulators have not forced any of the companies to withdraw those products. In an email, FDA spokesperson Marianna Naum said: “The FDA does not comment on potential compliance actions.”

One company, Nature’s One, whose toddler formulas are named “Baby’s Only,” received warning letters a decade ago from the FDA about marketing them for infants. That case was closed in 2016. The company’s website says that Baby’s Only formula “meets nutrient requirements for infant” and that “Baby’s Only Organic® can be served up to 3 years of age.” Critics say that language implies the formula is fine for babies younger than 1. The company’s website and its Instagram account feature customer testimonials from parents who report feeding the formula to their infants, as well as pictures of infants drinking it.

Jay Highman, CEO and president of Nature’s One, said that Baby’s Only is clearly labeled as a toddler formula and that the back of the can states that “Baby’s Only is intended for a toddler 1 year of age or older OR when directed by a health care professional.” He also said that since the company launched in 1999, its formulas have met all the nutritional, manufacturing, and safety standards required of infant formula even though they don’t have to. “We behaved like we are an infant formula, but we were selling it as a toddler formula.”

He said that the clinical trials required by the FDA are a huge barrier to bringing a new infant formula to market and that many other countries don’t require a clinical trial. Baby’s Only recently completed a clinical trial, and the company expects to be able to sell it as an infant formula soon.

Yet pediatricians and nutritional experts continue to caution parents about using the toddler drinks. “There’s no question that infant formula is very important in the first year of life,” Dr. Daniels said. But he doesn’t recommend the toddler version “because it’s not that useful, because it’s confusing, because it’s expensive.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Formulas for toddlers are a burgeoning business in the United States: Sales of the drinks more than doubled in recent years as companies convinced parents that their little ones needed the liquid boost. But many experts warn that these products, designed for children ages 1-3, fill no nutritional needs beyond what is available in a typical toddler diet, are subject to less regulation than infant formula, and are expensive.

In addition, some parents feed the toddler versions to infants even though they do not meet federal standards for infant formula and may not provide babies with adequate nutrients to sustain their growth.

Pediatricians and federal health officials say that when most children turn 1, they can begin drinking cow milk or an unsweetened plant-based milk substitute. In a 2019 “consensus” statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other health and nutrition organizations recommended against using toddler formulas, saying “they offer no unique nutritional value beyond what could be obtained with healthy foods; furthermore, they may contribute added sugars to the diet.” The toddler formulas often contain sweeteners and fats that add calories.

Some of the same companies that produce infant formula – including Enfamil, Gerber, and Similac – also make toddler formulas, as do some smaller, boutique brands that advertise that they have organic or other special qualities. Toddler formulas are available nearly everywhere infant formulas are sold and are marketed as providing extra nutrients to help children’s brain, immune system, and eye development, among other benefits. They are different from medical formulas prescribed for children with specific needs.

A 2020 study found that sales of toddler formula in the United States rose to $92 million in 2015 from $39 million in 2006.

Parents are often confused by the marketing for the formulas, according to a study led by Jennifer Harris, PhD, a marketing and public health researcher at the University of Connecticut, Hartford. She found that 60% of caregivers falsely believed toddler formulas have nutrients that toddlers can’t get from other foods.

Anthony Porto, MD, MPH, a pediatric gastroenterologist and pediatrics professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said he is concerned these products could be giving toddlers more nutrients and calories than they need. Unlike what’s designed for infants, toddler formula has no nutritional regulations: Experts say standardizing a supplement to toddlers’ diets is impossible because no two children are alike.

In focus groups, Dr. Harris said, parents report feeding their children toddler formula to fill nutritional gaps when a child isn’t eating enough, a common concern among parents.

“Infants are often voracious eaters,” said Stephen Daniels, MD, chair of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. But at around a year of age, children’s growth plateaus, he said, and “they’re suddenly not hungry in the way they used to be anymore.” That can worry parents, he added, but “it’s a completely normal phenomenon.”

If parents have concerns about their children’s diet, Dr. Daniels said, they should consult a pediatrician or family doctor.

Blanche Lincoln, president of the Infant Nutrition Council of America, which represents the makers of Enfamil, Gerber, Similac, and store brands, said in an email that the toddler formulas can be helpful because they can fill “nutritional gaps during this period of transition to table foods.” Ms. Lincoln, a former U.S. senator from Arkansas, said the drinks “help contribute to the specific nutritional needs of toddlers by providing energy and important nutrients, as well as essential vitamins and minerals during this important period of growth and development.”

But toddler formula isn’t being ingested by toddlers alone – it’s also being fed to infants. In a recent study, Dr. Porto and colleagues found that 5% of infants’ parents reported giving their babies drinks marketed for the older age group. And Dr. Harris’ research indicated that 22% of parents of infants older than 6 months had fed their babies toddler formula in the previous month. Both studies were conducted before the recent infant formula shortage, which may have exacerbated the problem.

“Infant formulas and toddler formulas tend to be next to each other in the supermarket,” Dr. Harris said. “They look similar, but the toddler formulas are cheaper than the infant formulas. So people confuse them, and they grab the wrong one. Or they think: ‘Oh, this one is less expensive. I’ll get this one instead.’ ”

According to an email from Food and Drug Administration spokesperson Lindsay Haake, toddler drinks do not meet the definition of infant formula, so they are not subject to the same requirements. That means they do not have to undergo the clinical trials and pathogen safety testing that the infant versions do. “Unlike infant formulas, toddler formulas are not necessary to meet the nutritional needs of their intended consumers,” Ms. Haake said.

In a statement to KHN, the Infant Nutrition Council of America said: “Toddler drinks have a distinctive use and nutritional makeup from infant formula; the two are not interchangeable. The labeling of toddler nutritional drinks explicitly identifies the product as a toddler drink intended for children 12 months and older on the front of the package label.”

However, several expensive toddler formula brands made by smaller companies – often advertised as being made from goat milk, A2 whole milk (which lacks one common milk protein), or vegan ingredients that aren’t soy – do meet nutritional requirements for infants, and some advertise that.

Dr. Harris argued that this confuses parents, too, and shouldn’t be allowed. Just because a toddler formula has the nutritional ingredients required by the FDA for infant formula doesn’t mean it has met the other tests required of infant formula.

Federal regulators have not forced any of the companies to withdraw those products. In an email, FDA spokesperson Marianna Naum said: “The FDA does not comment on potential compliance actions.”

One company, Nature’s One, whose toddler formulas are named “Baby’s Only,” received warning letters a decade ago from the FDA about marketing them for infants. That case was closed in 2016. The company’s website says that Baby’s Only formula “meets nutrient requirements for infant” and that “Baby’s Only Organic® can be served up to 3 years of age.” Critics say that language implies the formula is fine for babies younger than 1. The company’s website and its Instagram account feature customer testimonials from parents who report feeding the formula to their infants, as well as pictures of infants drinking it.

Jay Highman, CEO and president of Nature’s One, said that Baby’s Only is clearly labeled as a toddler formula and that the back of the can states that “Baby’s Only is intended for a toddler 1 year of age or older OR when directed by a health care professional.” He also said that since the company launched in 1999, its formulas have met all the nutritional, manufacturing, and safety standards required of infant formula even though they don’t have to. “We behaved like we are an infant formula, but we were selling it as a toddler formula.”

He said that the clinical trials required by the FDA are a huge barrier to bringing a new infant formula to market and that many other countries don’t require a clinical trial. Baby’s Only recently completed a clinical trial, and the company expects to be able to sell it as an infant formula soon.

Yet pediatricians and nutritional experts continue to caution parents about using the toddler drinks. “There’s no question that infant formula is very important in the first year of life,” Dr. Daniels said. But he doesn’t recommend the toddler version “because it’s not that useful, because it’s confusing, because it’s expensive.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Formulas for toddlers are a burgeoning business in the United States: Sales of the drinks more than doubled in recent years as companies convinced parents that their little ones needed the liquid boost. But many experts warn that these products, designed for children ages 1-3, fill no nutritional needs beyond what is available in a typical toddler diet, are subject to less regulation than infant formula, and are expensive.

In addition, some parents feed the toddler versions to infants even though they do not meet federal standards for infant formula and may not provide babies with adequate nutrients to sustain their growth.

Pediatricians and federal health officials say that when most children turn 1, they can begin drinking cow milk or an unsweetened plant-based milk substitute. In a 2019 “consensus” statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other health and nutrition organizations recommended against using toddler formulas, saying “they offer no unique nutritional value beyond what could be obtained with healthy foods; furthermore, they may contribute added sugars to the diet.” The toddler formulas often contain sweeteners and fats that add calories.

Some of the same companies that produce infant formula – including Enfamil, Gerber, and Similac – also make toddler formulas, as do some smaller, boutique brands that advertise that they have organic or other special qualities. Toddler formulas are available nearly everywhere infant formulas are sold and are marketed as providing extra nutrients to help children’s brain, immune system, and eye development, among other benefits. They are different from medical formulas prescribed for children with specific needs.

A 2020 study found that sales of toddler formula in the United States rose to $92 million in 2015 from $39 million in 2006.

Parents are often confused by the marketing for the formulas, according to a study led by Jennifer Harris, PhD, a marketing and public health researcher at the University of Connecticut, Hartford. She found that 60% of caregivers falsely believed toddler formulas have nutrients that toddlers can’t get from other foods.

Anthony Porto, MD, MPH, a pediatric gastroenterologist and pediatrics professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said he is concerned these products could be giving toddlers more nutrients and calories than they need. Unlike what’s designed for infants, toddler formula has no nutritional regulations: Experts say standardizing a supplement to toddlers’ diets is impossible because no two children are alike.

In focus groups, Dr. Harris said, parents report feeding their children toddler formula to fill nutritional gaps when a child isn’t eating enough, a common concern among parents.

“Infants are often voracious eaters,” said Stephen Daniels, MD, chair of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. But at around a year of age, children’s growth plateaus, he said, and “they’re suddenly not hungry in the way they used to be anymore.” That can worry parents, he added, but “it’s a completely normal phenomenon.”

If parents have concerns about their children’s diet, Dr. Daniels said, they should consult a pediatrician or family doctor.

Blanche Lincoln, president of the Infant Nutrition Council of America, which represents the makers of Enfamil, Gerber, Similac, and store brands, said in an email that the toddler formulas can be helpful because they can fill “nutritional gaps during this period of transition to table foods.” Ms. Lincoln, a former U.S. senator from Arkansas, said the drinks “help contribute to the specific nutritional needs of toddlers by providing energy and important nutrients, as well as essential vitamins and minerals during this important period of growth and development.”

But toddler formula isn’t being ingested by toddlers alone – it’s also being fed to infants. In a recent study, Dr. Porto and colleagues found that 5% of infants’ parents reported giving their babies drinks marketed for the older age group. And Dr. Harris’ research indicated that 22% of parents of infants older than 6 months had fed their babies toddler formula in the previous month. Both studies were conducted before the recent infant formula shortage, which may have exacerbated the problem.

“Infant formulas and toddler formulas tend to be next to each other in the supermarket,” Dr. Harris said. “They look similar, but the toddler formulas are cheaper than the infant formulas. So people confuse them, and they grab the wrong one. Or they think: ‘Oh, this one is less expensive. I’ll get this one instead.’ ”

According to an email from Food and Drug Administration spokesperson Lindsay Haake, toddler drinks do not meet the definition of infant formula, so they are not subject to the same requirements. That means they do not have to undergo the clinical trials and pathogen safety testing that the infant versions do. “Unlike infant formulas, toddler formulas are not necessary to meet the nutritional needs of their intended consumers,” Ms. Haake said.

In a statement to KHN, the Infant Nutrition Council of America said: “Toddler drinks have a distinctive use and nutritional makeup from infant formula; the two are not interchangeable. The labeling of toddler nutritional drinks explicitly identifies the product as a toddler drink intended for children 12 months and older on the front of the package label.”

However, several expensive toddler formula brands made by smaller companies – often advertised as being made from goat milk, A2 whole milk (which lacks one common milk protein), or vegan ingredients that aren’t soy – do meet nutritional requirements for infants, and some advertise that.

Dr. Harris argued that this confuses parents, too, and shouldn’t be allowed. Just because a toddler formula has the nutritional ingredients required by the FDA for infant formula doesn’t mean it has met the other tests required of infant formula.

Federal regulators have not forced any of the companies to withdraw those products. In an email, FDA spokesperson Marianna Naum said: “The FDA does not comment on potential compliance actions.”

One company, Nature’s One, whose toddler formulas are named “Baby’s Only,” received warning letters a decade ago from the FDA about marketing them for infants. That case was closed in 2016. The company’s website says that Baby’s Only formula “meets nutrient requirements for infant” and that “Baby’s Only Organic® can be served up to 3 years of age.” Critics say that language implies the formula is fine for babies younger than 1. The company’s website and its Instagram account feature customer testimonials from parents who report feeding the formula to their infants, as well as pictures of infants drinking it.

Jay Highman, CEO and president of Nature’s One, said that Baby’s Only is clearly labeled as a toddler formula and that the back of the can states that “Baby’s Only is intended for a toddler 1 year of age or older OR when directed by a health care professional.” He also said that since the company launched in 1999, its formulas have met all the nutritional, manufacturing, and safety standards required of infant formula even though they don’t have to. “We behaved like we are an infant formula, but we were selling it as a toddler formula.”

He said that the clinical trials required by the FDA are a huge barrier to bringing a new infant formula to market and that many other countries don’t require a clinical trial. Baby’s Only recently completed a clinical trial, and the company expects to be able to sell it as an infant formula soon.

Yet pediatricians and nutritional experts continue to caution parents about using the toddler drinks. “There’s no question that infant formula is very important in the first year of life,” Dr. Daniels said. But he doesn’t recommend the toddler version “because it’s not that useful, because it’s confusing, because it’s expensive.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.