A recent independent review suggests that staff who help doctors in hospitals and GP offices, who are called Physician Associates (PAs) and Anaesthesia Associates (AAs), should be renamed "assistants." The review that has been in work since the past year has finally presented its findings and results. The Leng review has been looking into the various aspects of AAs and PAs to understand where there are shortcomings and why must there be changes.

One of the biggest issues that people have with PAs and AAs is confusing them with doctors. The review also recommends that these assistants wear specific uniforms and badges to clearly tell them apart from doctors. Crucially, it states that these assistants should not be the ones to diagnose patients' illnesses.

The UK Department of Health & Social Care called for this review last year due to ongoing debates about the exact roles and duties of these healthcare professionals. When PAs and AAs were first brought into the NHS in the early 2000s, there wasn't a clear plan for how they would fit into existing medical teams. This led to a lot of confusion about what they were supposed to do. Sometimes, when there weren't enough doctors, PAs filled in, even without the extensive training doctors receive, and without proper guidance from supervisors.

The report gives a full picture of the role of Medical Associate Professionals (MAPs) in UK healthcare.

Tragic Cases Highlight Confusion

The review heard from families who lost loved ones after they were treated by PAs, mistakenly believing they were qualified doctors. For example, a young woman died from a blood clot after being seen twice by a Physician Associate who thought her calf pain was just a sprain.

Another family shared how their elderly mother died from an infection after a PA treated her in hospital. While these families do not blame the assistants, they stress the need for much clearer identification and roles. They believe that in stressful hospital situations, patients and families might not fully grasp who is treating them.

Scrutiny And Problems Faced By MAPs

However, the College of Medical Associate Professionals also present the value of MAPs and how the public views them needs to get better. News and social media have sometimes created misunderstandings about what MAPs do and how they fit into healthcare teams. Patients sometimes get confused, thinking a PA is a doctor, even when efforts are made to explain the role. There's a need for clear public education campaigns to help people understand and accept MAPs in the NHS.

The report also highlights that MAPs are facing significant stress and negative feelings because of the current environment, which many call an "anti-MAP campaign." This negativity affects their mental health both at work and at home. They point to media stories, social media attacks, and strict new rules as major causes of distress.

Worryingly, bullying and harassment at work are common. Over a third of qualified MAPs reported being bullied, and many experienced online harassments. A large number of student MAPs also faced bullying during their training. These experiences have led many MAPs to consider leaving their jobs or actually leaving. Women MAPs and those from minority ethnic backgrounds were more affected, making up a larger share of those who left their jobs despite being a smaller group overall in the workforce.

The British Medical Association responds to the review highlighted that the report reveals how NHS England allowed these new roles to grow without properly checking if they were safe. They point to a lack of strong national leadership, no clear accountability, and a failure to listen to concerns raised by doctors, patients, and even coroners (who investigate deaths).

The BMA argues that allowing the roles of doctors and non-doctors to become unclear, even with the help of the General Medical Council (GMC), has been a serious problem. Many doctors, they say, will feel that their earlier warnings were justified.

Key Steps Taken to Improve Medical Assistant Roles

While the proposed name change is a positive step, many in the medical community believe more needs to be done to clearly define what these assistants can and cannot do to ensure safe teamwork in the NHS.

This report makes several important recommendations for Medical Associate Professionals (MAPs), like Physician Associates (PAs) and Anaesthesia Associates (AAs), to make their roles clearer and more effective.

Clearer Rules and More Power

The report strongly suggests creating official rules and standards for MAPs. This will help make sure they are held accountable and that the public trusts them more. Since new rules are already being put in place, this should bring more trust and stability to their roles.

It also recommends giving MAPs the ability to prescribe medicine and order certain X-rays. This change would allow them to do their jobs more efficiently and use their skills better. There should also be national standards for their training after they qualify and for how they can move up in their careers. This will ensure that MAPs across the country receive consistent training and development.

Better Teamwork and Support

The report advises putting more money into planning the healthcare workforce. This will allow for the smart growth of MAP roles, making sure there are enough of them to meet the needs of the NHS. MAPs can actually help improve the training of junior doctors, rather than hindering it.

Better teamwork and strong leadership will help MAPs fit in well, creating a unified healthcare team that benefits both medical staff and patients. The report also suggests doing regular checks using anonymous feedback from patients to keep track of how MAPs are performing and their overall impact.

Supporting MAPs' Well-being

Finally, the report highlights that the well-being of MAPs is a widespread issue within the healthcare system, not just about individual toughness. The rules set by medical groups must be made with the input of MAP leaders and checked carefully to ensure they don't unfairly exclude anyone. Feeling respected and safe at work is extremely important for keeping staff, ensuring patients are safe, and providing good care.

In a significant move to safeguard public health, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued warning letters to seven companies accused of illegally marketing products containing a powerful compound found in kratom, known as 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH). These companies have been selling concentrated versions of the substance in forms like tablets, gummies, drink mixes, and energy shots—many of which are available online and in everyday retail outlets such as smoke shops, gas stations, and convenience stores.

What Is 7-OH and Why Is It a Concern?

7-hydroxymitragynine is a chemical compound that naturally occurs in very small quantities in the kratom plant. However, in these commercial products, it is either added in high concentrations or manipulated to raise the levels well beyond natural amounts. The problem? 7-OH is not approved by the FDA for use in any dietary supplement, conventional food, or pharmaceutical drug.

According to the agency, not only does this make these products illegal, but it also raises serious health and safety concerns. The FDA emphasized that the compound has not been proven safe or effective for treating any health condition and warned that consumers using these products are putting themselves at risk.

Illegal and Unsubstantiated Claims

The companies receiving the warning letters were accused of marketing their 7-OH products with unproven claims about treating pain, anxiety, and other medical conditions. Some of these products are being sold as dietary supplements or even regular food items, despite not meeting the legal or scientific safety standards required for such classifications.

The FDA’s main concern lies in how these products are being presented to the public—as safe, natural remedies—when in fact they may be both unsafe and illegal. “People using these products are exposing themselves to substances that have not been proven safe or effective for any use,” the FDA warned in a statement.

The Companies Named

The seven companies that have been sent official warning letters include:

• Shaman Botanicals LLC
• My Smoke Wholesale
• Relax Relief Rejuvenate Trading LLC (also known as RRR Trading or EDP Kratom)
• Thang Botanicals Inc. (doing business as 7ΩHMZ, 7-OHMZ, or 7OHMZ)
• Royal Diamond Imports Inc. (operating Roxytabs.com)
• Hydroxie LLC
• 7Tabz Retail LLC

All seven companies have been given 15 business days to respond to the FDA’s concerns. They are required to outline what actions they will take to correct the violations. Failure to respond or take corrective measures could lead to further enforcement actions, including product seizures or legal injunctions.

FDA Urges Caution

This latest crackdown reflects the FDA’s ongoing concerns around kratom and its derivatives, particularly products containing high concentrations of 7-OH. Consumers are urged to avoid such products and consult healthcare professionals before using any substance marketed as a pain or anxiety remedy.

The agency continues to monitor the market and has signaled it will take further steps if necessary to protect the public from unsafe, misbranded, or illegally marketed products.

For anyone who's been following the meteoric rise of weight-loss injections like Ozempic and Wegovy, one thing is certain: these medications are effective but not for everyone. Now, a new, in-depth study might know why.

Appearing in the journal Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, this new research has identified key determinants of who is most likely to thrive on GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), a drug class that includes semaglutide (Ozempic/Wegovy). Ranging from use duration to body composition, and from metabolic rate to diabetic status, the results yield a finer set of directions for individualized obesity treatment—and may potentially minimize the guesswork that too often vexes patients and clinicians alike.

GLP-1RAs are drugs initially made to treat type 2 diabetes but have produced miraculous outcomes for the treatment of obesity. They function by duplicating a hormone that occurs naturally in the body, which suppresses hunger and controls the blood sugar levels. Semaglutide, the drug behind Ozempic and Wegovy, has assisted individuals in losing an average of 15–21% of their body weight when combined with diet and lifestyle modifications.

Even with all the news-grabbing changes and social media hype, results are all over the place. Some patients lose weight rapidly, others plateau, and some develop side effects such as nausea that cause them to quit cold turkey. The new research, performed at Peking University People's Hospital, sheds some light on why.

Scientists monitored 679 overweight or obese patients who initiated GLP-1RA treatment between November 2022 and October 2024 at an obesity clinic in Beijing. For 12 months, they monitored a range of physical and metabolic factors to determine what characteristics were associated with improved outcomes.

Patients taking GLP-1RAs for extended periods, particularly semaglutide, had higher odds of significant weight loss. But more than how long the patient was on the drug, study authors determined that individual traits mattered substantially in effectiveness.

In particular, individuals who did not have diabetes, had a higher percentage of body fat, larger amounts of skeletal muscle, and a higher rate of basal metabolism were found to be more likely to succeed. Also, higher serum creatinine levels (a marker for muscle mass and kidney function) were associated with improved success.

Role of Muscle Mass and Metabolism

GLP-1s are effective devices, but they need to be combined with muscle-sparing measures. Most patients inadvertently lose lean muscle mass, which can lower metabolism and undermine long-term weight control.

That is, the scale may fall, but what you lose is important. Retaining muscle mass is essential to long-term health and success. Because of this, experts suggest a two-prong approach: savvy, high-protein eating and regular strength training to help maintain lean tissue throughout treatment.

5 Body Traits That Predict If You'll Actually Lose Weight on GLP-1 Drugs

New research is showing that not everyone responds the same way to GLP-1 receptor agonists—and your body’s makeup may be the key to understanding why. Here are five physical traits that strongly predict whether you’ll shed pounds successfully while on these weight-loss medications:

1. Higher Body Fat Percentage

Individuals with excess body fat at the beginning of treatment respond to GLP-1 drugs more favorably. Why? They attack hunger and fat storage, so people with more to lose are more likely to see faster and more dramatic results.

2. Increased Skeletal Muscle Mass

Muscle is not only for power—it burns calories even at rest. Individuals with greater skeletal muscle mass (particularly in the arms, legs, and abdomen) tend to have a quicker metabolism, which can strengthen the actions of weight-loss drugs.

3. Increased Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR)

A greater BMR indicates that your body expends more energy on a daily basis. Individuals with naturally quicker metabolisms are more apt to experience efficient and long-lasting weight loss when taking GLP-1RAs such as semaglutide.

4. Greater Serum Creatinine Levels

This marker is most commonly associated with muscle mass and kidney function. Individuals with slightly elevated (but normal) levels of creatinine—usually an indicator of greater lean body mass—tended to respond more favorably to these drugs.

5. No Diagnosis of Diabetes

Against expectation, individuals with no diabetes experienced more success than those with diabetes. This could be explained by improved insulin sensitivity, reduced metabolic resistance, or fewer pre-existing complications that would interfere with weight reduction.

How Your Diabetes Status Is Important?

The research demonstrated that those without diabetes had considerably higher chances of being successful with weight loss compared to those with prediabetes or diabetes. This could be because of deep-rooted metabolic distinctions or that GLP-1RAs react differently in states of insulin resistance.

Lead researcher Dr. Linong Ji described, "This study highlights the value of metabolic state-matched strategies. Individuals with diabetes can benefit from a different or more combined regimen."

Consistency is key, patients who remained on the drug for a longer period were more likely to lose weight. Those who dropped out early because of side effects, lack of response, or lifestyle interference were far less successful.

This accords with demands from doctors for improved support for adherence. Greater follow-up frequencies, tailored coaching, and symptom control can avert early dropouts.

"Adherence to medication is neglected but equally important as the medicine itself," the authors stated. "Physicians must assist patients in staying on track, especially for the first months or so."

Side Effects of GLP-1 Drugs

Side effects, particularly gastrointestinal such as nausea, constipation, or vomiting, are still the number one reasons individuals drop out of GLP-1RAs. That's where tailoring treatment comes into play even more so.

Take, for instance, individuals who have less skeletal muscle mass. These individuals are likely to be more susceptible to fatigue and muscle wasting, enhancing dropout risk. Tweaking dose schedules, incorporating physical therapy, or emphasizing diet quality can all help mitigate these problems.

The global rise of drugs like Wegovy isn’t just hype. These medications are proving to be some of the most effective tools we’ve ever had in the fight against obesity, a condition affecting over 650 million people worldwide but what this new study makes clear is that weight loss is not one-size-fits-all, even with powerful drugs. Body composition, muscle mass, metabolic health, and individual biology all play a role.

For doctors, that equates to taking a precision medicine approach—tailoring treatments based on an individual's profile, instead of simply dosing all patients the same.

And for patients? It's a reminder that medications such as Ozempic and Wegovy can be remarkably powerful but only as part of an integrated, personalized plan that values the complexity of your body.

GLP-1 medications are revolutionizing weight control, but as this study reveals, success is not arbitrary success is individual. Understanding what influences results can enable more individuals to achieve potential through progress.

Breast cancer is one of the most treatable cancers when caught early. Yet, a significant number of women remain unclear about one of the most crucial tools for early detection: the mammogram. A new survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) reveals just how persistent and widespread the confusion is over when women should start getting screened. Despite updated national guidelines recommending mammograms beginning at age 40, nearly half of the adults surveyed in the US are either misinformed or confused.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a revised recommendation in April 2024, advising that women at average risk of breast cancer begin screening mammograms every other year starting at age 40. This update rolled back an earlier guideline that suggested beginning at age 50, a shift that aligns more closely with what other medical bodies have long recommended.

The American Cancer Society, for instance, has consistently recommended that women aged 40 to 44 have the option to begin annual screening, with stronger guidance to start annually from age 45. By age 55, women can shift to screenings every other year.

But with a history of back-and-forth on these guidelines, public understanding hasn’t caught up.

"Confusion can arise when medical guidance about detection or treatment changes," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the APPC. “Our data suggest that the recommendation that such screening ordinarily start at 40 years old is not yet widely enough known.”

The APPC’s April 2024 survey sampled over 1,600 U.S. adults. The results were telling:

• Only 49% correctly identified age 40 as the right age to begin biennial mammograms for women at average risk.
• A notable 10% said screenings should begin at age 20, while 21% selected age 30. 8% said 50, and 11% admitted they were unsure.

Even more telling: this level of awareness remained unchanged from a previous survey conducted before the updated guidelines were published. So while the medical advice evolved, public understanding stood still.

Is Misinformation Creating Confusion?

Women aged 40–49 were the most informed demographic in the survey—72% of them knew screenings should begin at 40. But awareness dropped significantly among younger groups. Only 37% of women aged 18–29 knew the correct age to begin mammograms and a concerning 27% of that group mistakenly thought the correct age was 30, while 16% didn’t know at all.

This gap in understanding matters because younger women especially those with family history or genetic predisposition, may need to start even earlier.

What Are Mammograms?

A mammogram is a low-dose X-ray that captures detailed images of breast tissue, capable of identifying cancers before any physical symptoms appear.

In women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation who are referred to as "high risk" or with a history of radiation to the chest between ages 10 and 30, screening may start as early as age 30 and include annual breast MRIs alongside mammograms.

Modern technology has made the process quicker and less painful. Better compression paddles, 3D mammograms, and AI-assisted readings now reduce both discomfort and the chance of error.

Despite technological improvements, mammograms are not infallible. Their accuracy ranges between 85–90%, and performance can dip in women with dense breast tissue.

Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is another newer innovation helping radiologists identify tricky cases. The integration of artificial intelligence is also streamlining diagnostic accuracy.

Does 'Abnormal' Mammogram Mean Cancer?

An abnormal mammogram result doesn’t necessarily mean breast cancer. It simply means something unusual has been spotted and warrants further testing, which could include a breast ultrasound, MRI, or even a biopsy.

In the US, follow-up care is typically swift, with guidelines in place to ensure patients are informed and supported. However, disparities in healthcare access especially for uninsured or not populations still persist.

The APPC survey’s findings highlight a deeper issue, how public health communication is struggling to keep up with shifting medical guidelines. When official recommendations change, the burden of clarity shouldn’t fall solely on the individual. It requires coordinated messaging across healthcare providers, public health agencies, insurers, and the media.

While mammograms are widely available in the U.S., access isn’t always equitable. Low-income communities and communities of color often face hurdles ranging from cost and insurance barriers to logistical challenges like transportation or time off work.

Breast cancer remains one of the leading causes of cancer death among women. Early detection significantly improves outcomes, but only if women are aware and empowered to begin screening at the appropriate time.

If you're approaching 40, talk to your doctor about when to begin screening especially if you have additional risk factors. Don’t wait for symptoms to show up.