Skip to content

ReportWire

  • News
    • Breaking NewsBreaking News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • Bazaar NewsBazaar News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • Fact CheckingFact Checking | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • GovernmentGovernment News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • PoliticsPolitics u0026#038; Political News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • US NewsUS News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
      • Local NewsLocal News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • New York, New York Local NewsNew York, New York Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Los Angeles, California Local NewsLos Angeles, California Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Chicago, Illinois Local NewsChicago, Illinois Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Local NewsPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Dallas, Texas Local NewsDallas, Texas Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Atlanta, Georgia Local NewsAtlanta, Georgia Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Houston, Texas Local NewsHouston, Texas Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Washington DC Local NewsWashington DC Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Boston, Massachusetts Local NewsBoston, Massachusetts Local News| ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • San Francisco, California Local NewsSan Francisco, California Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Phoenix, Arizona Local NewsPhoenix, Arizona Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Seattle, Washington Local NewsSeattle, Washington Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Tampa Bay, Florida Local NewsTampa Bay, Florida Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Detroit, Michigan Local NewsDetroit, Michigan Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Minneapolis, Minnesota Local NewsMinneapolis, Minnesota Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Denver, Colorado Local NewsDenver, Colorado Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Orlando, Florida Local NewsOrlando, Florida Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Miami, Florida Local NewsMiami, Florida Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Cleveland, Ohio Local NewsCleveland, Ohio Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Sacramento, California Local NewsSacramento, California Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Charlotte, North Carolina Local NewsCharlotte, North Carolina Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Portland, Oregon Local NewsPortland, Oregon Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina Local NewsRaleigh-Durham, North Carolina Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • St. Louis, Missouri Local NewsSt. Louis, Missouri Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Indianapolis, Indiana Local NewsIndianapolis, Indiana Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Pittsburg, Pennsylvania Local NewsPittsburg, Pennsylvania Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Nashville, Tennessee Local NewsNashville, Tennessee Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Baltimore, Maryland Local NewsBaltimore, Maryland Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Salt Lake City, Utah Local NewsSalt Lake City, Utah Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • San Diego, California Local NewsSan Diego, California Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • San Antonio, Texas Local NewsSan Antonio, Texas Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Columbus, Ohio Local NewsColumbus, Ohio Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Kansas City, Missouri Local NewsKansas City, Missouri Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Hartford, Connecticut Local NewsHartford, Connecticut Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Austin, Texas Local NewsAustin, Texas Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Cincinnati, Ohio Local NewsCincinnati, Ohio Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Greenville, South Carolina Local NewsGreenville, South Carolina Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
        • Milwaukee, Wisconsin Local NewsMilwaukee, Wisconsin Local News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • World NewsWorld News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
  • SportsSports News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
  • EntertainmentEntertainment News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • FashionFashion | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • GamingGaming | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • Movie u0026amp; TV TrailersMovie u0026#038; TV Trailers | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • MusicMusic | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • Video GamingVideo Gaming | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
  • LifestyleLifestyle | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • CookingCooking | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • Dating u0026amp; LoveDating u0026#038; Love | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • EducationEducation | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • Family u0026amp; ParentingFamily u0026#038; Parenting | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • Home u0026amp; GardenHome u0026#038; Garden | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • PetsPets | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • Pop CulturePop Culture | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
      • Royals NewsRoyals News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • Real EstateReal Estate | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • Self HelpSelf Help | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • TravelTravel | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
  • BusinessBusiness News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • BankingBanking | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • CreditCredit | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • CryptocurrencyCryptocurrency | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • FinanceFinancial News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
  • HealthHealth | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • CannabisCannabis | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • NutritionNutrition | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
  • HumorHumor | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
  • TechnologyTechnology News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
    • GadgetsGadgets | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.
  • Advertise With Us

Tag: immune system

  • What you need to know about the new RSV shot for babies

    What you need to know about the new RSV shot for babies

    Ahead of the winter respiratory virus season, many parents were relieved the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a shot to combat respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, for infants and toddlers this summer.

    But the shot is hard to come by.

    RSV is a common respiratory virus that usually causes mild, cold-like symptoms in most adults who recover in a week or two, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But that’s not the case for infants and toddlers, who are at higher risk of the virus becoming severe or life-threatening.

    The first vaccine for RSV was approved in May and was targeted for older adults.

    Two months later, federal regulators approved the first long-lasting shot for infants younger than 8 months who are entering their first RSV season. According to the CDC, Nirsevimab, which is made by AstraZeneca and sold under the brand name Beyfortus, reduces the risk of severe RSV by 80%. One dose lasts about five months, the length of the average RSV season.

    The shot does not activate the immune system the way a vaccine would, but instead introduces antibodies to protect against RSV. Health officials with the CDC say once the antibodies are out of a baby’s system, the immunity is also gone.

    Amid the peak of RSV season, there has been unprecedented demand for the shot and not enough supplies to go around.

    The CDC recently announced the release of more than 77,000 additional doses to be distributed immediately to physicians and hospitals through the Vaccines for Children Program. The CDC and FDA are working with drug manufacturers to ensure availability through early next year.

    What preventive measures can parents can take?

    Children at high risk include those 6 months and younger, infants born prematurely, those younger than 2 with congenital heart disease and those with weakened immune systems who have neuromuscular disorders, according to the American Lung Assn.

    Previously, the only immunization against severe RSV for babies was a shot women could get during weeks 32 through 36 of pregnancy. That shot is still available and recommended September through January.

    There also are everyday preventive measures to help reduce the spread of RSV and other respiratory illnesses, according to health agencies such as the CDC, American Lung Assn. and the California Department of Public Health:

    • Stay home if you’re feeling sick.
    • If you need to leave your home, consider wearing a mask in crowded or indoor areas.
    • Wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds.
    • Avoid touching your face with unwashed hands.
    • Cover your mouth and nose when you cough and sneeze.
    • Avoid close contact with others, such as kissing, shaking hands and sharing cups and utensils.
    • Clean frequently touched surfaces, including doorknobs and mobile devices.

    What are the signs of RSV?

    RSV affects both the upper respiratory system, which includes the nose and throat, and the lower respiratory system, which includes the lungs.

    The virus is highly transmissible. You can catch it if the droplets from an infected person’s cough or sneeze get in your eyes, nose or mouth; if you touch a surface (such as a doorknob) that has the virus on it and then touch your face before washing your hands; or if you have direct contact with the virus (for example, by kissing the face of a child with RSV). Being in crowded places with people who may be infected or having exposure to other children or siblings who may be infected are common ways to pick up the virus.

    RSV can survive for many hours on hard surfaces such as tables and crib rails; it has a shorter life span on softer surfaces such as tissues and hands.

    A person infected with RSV is usually contagious for three to eight days. However, some infants and people with weakened immune systems can continue to spread the virus for as long as four weeks, even after their symptoms go away, according to the CDC.

    Virtually all children get an RSV infection by the time they are 2, but the virus can cause complications, the CDC said.

    Health agencies recommend parents reach out to their healthcare provider if their child is showing signs of infection.

    According to health officials at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, the most common symptoms are runny nose; fever; cough; short periods without breathing; trouble eating, drinking or swallowing; wheezing, flaring of nostrils or straining of the chest or stomach while breathing; breathing faster than usual or trouble breathing; and turning blue around the lips and fingers.

    These symptoms can seem like other health conditions, so the hospital advises parents to have their child see a healthcare provider for a diagnosis.

    Karen Garcia

    Source link

    November 22, 2023
  • What If There’s a Secret Benefit to Getting Asian Glow?

    What If There’s a Secret Benefit to Getting Asian Glow?

    At every party, no matter the occasion, my drink of choice is soda water with lime. I have never, not once, been drunk—or even finished a full serving of alcohol. The single time I came close to doing so (thanks to half a serving of mulled wine), my heart rate soared, the room spun, and my face turned stop-sign red … all before I collapsed in front of a college professor at an academic event.

    The blame for my alcohol aversion falls fully on my genetics: Like an estimated 500 million other people, most of them of East Asian descent, I carry a genetic mutation called ALDH2*2 that causes me to produce broken versions of an enzyme called aldehyde dehydrogenase 2, preventing my body from properly breaking down the toxic components of alcohol. And so, whenever I drink, all sorts of poisons known as aldehydes build up in my body—a predicament that my face announces to everyone around me.

    By one line of evolutionary logic, I and the other sufferers of so-called alcohol flush (also known as Asian glow) shouldn’t exist. Alcohol isn’t the only source of aldehydes in the body. Our own cells also naturally produce the compounds, and they can wreak all sorts of havoc on our DNA and proteins if they aren’t promptly cleared. So even at baseline, flushers are toting around extra toxins, leaving them at higher risk for a host of health issues, including esophageal cancer and heart disease. And yet, somehow, our cohort of people, with its intense genetic baggage, has grown to half a billion people in potentially as little as 2,000 years.

    The reason might hew to a different line of evolutionary logic—one driven not by the dangers of aldehydes to us but by the dangers of aldehydes to some of our smallest enemies, according to Heran Darwin, a microbiologist at New York University. As Darwin and her colleagues reported at a conference last week, people with the ALDH2*2 mutation might be especially good at fighting off certain pathogens—among them the bug that causes tuberculosis, or TB, one of the greatest infectious killers in recent history.

    The research, currently under review for publication at the journal Science, hasn’t yet been fully vetted by other scientists. And truly nailing TB, or any other pathogen, as the evolutionary catalyst for the rise of ALDH2*2 will likely be tough. But if infectious disease can even partly explain the staggering size of the flushing cohort—as several experts told me is likely the case—the mystery of one of the most common mutations in the human population will be one step closer to being solved.

    Read: Tuberculosis got to South America through … seals?

    Scientists have long been aware of aldehydes’ nasty effects on DNA and proteins; the compounds are carcinogens that literally “damage the fabric of life,” says Ketan J. Patel, a molecular biologist at the University of Oxford who studies the ALDH2*2 mutation and is reviewing the new research for publication in Science. For years, though, many researchers dismissed the chemicals as the annoying refuse of the body’s daily chores. Our bodies produce them as part of run-of-the-mill metabolism; the compounds also build up during infection or inflammation, as byproducts of some of the noxious chemicals we churn out. But then aldehydes are generally swept away by our molecular cleanup systems like so much microscopic trash.

    Darwin and her colleagues are now convinced that the chemicals deserve more credit. Dosed into laboratory cultures, aldehydes can kill TB within days. In previous research, Darwin’s team also found that aldehydes—including ones produced by the bacteria themselves—can make TB ultra sensitive to nitric oxide, a defensive compound that humans produce during infections, as well as copper, a metal that destroys many microbes on contact. (For what it’s worth, the aldehydes found in our bodies after we consume alcohol don’t seem to much bother TB, Darwin told me. Drinking has actually been linked to worse outcomes with the disease.)

    The team is still tabulating the many ways in which aldehydes are exerting their antimicrobial effects. But Darwin suspects that the bugs that are vulnerable to the chemicals are dying “a death by a thousand cuts,” she told me at the conference. Which makes aldehydes more than worthless waste. Maybe our ancestors’ bodies wised up to the molecules’ universally destructive powers—and began to purposefully deploy them in their defensive arsenal. “It’s the immune system capitalizing on the toxicity,” says Joshua Woodward, a microbiologist at the University of Washington who has been studying the antibacterial effects of aldehydes.

    Specific cells show hints that they’ve caught on to aldehydes’ potency. Sarah Stanley, a microbiologist and an immunologist at UC Berkeley, who has been co-leading the research with Darwin, has found that when immune cells receive certain chemical signals signifying infection, they’ll ramp up some of the metabolic pathways that produce aldehydes. Those same signals, the researchers recently found, can also prompt immune cells to tamp down their levels of aldehyde dehydrogenase 2—the very aldehyde-detoxifying enzyme that the mutant gene in people like me fails to make.

    If holstering that enzyme is a way for cells to up their supply of toxins and brace for inevitable attack, that could be good news for ALDH2*2 carriers, who already struggle to make enough of it. When, in an extreme imitation of human flushers, the researchers purged the ALDH2 gene from a strain of mice, then infected them with TB, they found that the rodents accumulated fewer bacteria in their lungs.

    The buildup of aldehydes in the mutant mice wasn’t enough to, say, render them totally immune to TB. But even a small defensive bump can make for a massive advantage when combating such a deadly disease, Russell Vance, an immunologist at UC Berkeley who’s been collaborating with Darwin and Stanley on the project, told me. Darwin is now curious as to whether TB’s distaste for aldehyde could be leveraged during infections, she told me—by, for instance, supplementing antibiotic regimens with a side of Antabuse, a medication that blocks aldehyde dehydrogenase, mimicking the effects of ALDH2*2.

    Tying those results to the existence of ALDH2*2 in half a billion people is a larger leap, several experts told me. There are clues of a relationship: Darwin and Stanley’s team found, for instance, that in a cohort from Vietnam and Singapore, people carrying the mutation were less likely to have active cases of TB—echoing patterns documented by at least one other study from Korea. But Daniela Brites, an evolutionary geneticist at the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, told me that the connection still feels a little shaky. Other studies that have searched for genetic predispositions to TB, or resistance to it, she pointed out, haven’t hit on ALDH2*2—a sign that any link might be weak.

    The team’s general idea could still pan out. “They are definitely on the right track,” Patel told me. Throughout most of human history, infectious diseases have been among the most dramatic influences over who lives and who dies—a pressure so immense that it’s left obvious scars on the human genome. A mutation that can cause sickle cell anemia has become very common in parts of the African continent because it helps guard people against malaria.

    Read: A history of humanity in which humans are secondary

    The story with ALDH2*2 is probably similar, Patel said. He’s confident that some infectious agent—perhaps several of them—has played a major role in keeping the mutation around. TB, with its devastating track record, could be among the candidates, but it wouldn’t have to be. A few years ago, work from Woodward’s lab showed that aldehydes can also do a number on the bacterial pathogens Staphylococcus aureus and Francisella novicida. (Darwin and Stanley’s team have now shown that mice lacking ALDH2 also fare better against the closely related Francisella tularensis.) Che-Hong Chen, a geneticist at Stanford who’s been studying ALDH2*2 for years, suspects that the culprit might not be a bacterium at all. He favors the idea that it’s, once again, malaria, acting on a different part of our genome, in a different region of the world.

    Other tiny perks of ALDH2*2 may have helped the mutation proliferate. As Chen points out, it’s a pretty big disincentive to drink—and people who abstain (which, of course, isn’t all of us) do spare themselves a lot of potential liver problems. Which is another way in which the consequences of my genetic anomaly might not be so bad, even if at first flush it seems more trouble than it’s worth.

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

    October 25, 2023
  • Stop Falling for These 5 Immunity-Boosting Myths

    Stop Falling for These 5 Immunity-Boosting Myths

    </div></div>”],”filter”:{“nextExceptions”:”img, blockquote, div”,”nextContainsExceptions”:”img, blockquote, a.btn, a.o-button”},”renderIntial”:true,”wordCount”:350}”>

    This article was originally published on Clean Eating.

    If you don’t want an aching throat, stuffed-up sinuses or any of the other hallmark symptoms of cold and flu season, you’ve got to get your immune system in shape. There are plenty of tips, tricks and even over-the-counter remedies that promise to give you better immunity – but that doesn’t mean you should use them. It might surprise you, but some of the best-known immunity-boosting advice is nothing more than a myth.

    We’re busting some of the most common immunity myths. Get the facts on how you should eat, fine-tune supplements and adjust your lifestyle to help keep colds, flus and other illnesses at bay.

    1. Your first step when getting sick is to load up on vitamin C

    One of the most prevalent immunity myths out there? Taking a whole bunch of vitamin C will kick a cold before it even begins, or shorten the cold’s lifespan if you’re already sick.

    While vitamin C is a great natural immunity booster, it isn’t exactly the cure-all it’s often advertised as. This nutrient does play an important role in immune function, and taking vitamin C supplements can be beneficial. But you don’t want to overdo it, especially if you’re planning to dramatically up your vitamin C intake.

    More isn’t always better when it comes to vitamin C. Your body can only absorb so much – and the rest just goes to waste. Stick to the daily recommended dose for adults, which is 60 to 95 milligrams, and don’t go above the upper limit of 2,000 milligrams per day. Getting too much vitamin C can cause problems of its own like nausea, headaches and vomiting.

    Plus, research has shown that taking huge doses of vitamin C supplements doesn’t actually help you fight off illness. While this nutrient can be beneficial for immune health overall, it doesn’t have any apparent advantage when you’re trying to keep colds at bay.

    2. You should take a whole lot of zinc while you’re sick

    (Photo: Akaradech Pramoonsin, Getty)

    Here’s a myth that’s often found alongside the previous: You’ve got to take more zinc if you want to shorten a cold.

    Zinc, like vitamin C, can have a positive effect on your immune system. It can help with everything from wound healing to immune cell function. And it’s often touted as one of the best minerals for slashing a cold’s typical lifespan to help you feel better faster.

    However, zinc isn’t exactly the cold-curing powerhouse you might think it is. While a research study from 1984 did show that zinc supplements may be able to reduce a cold’s severity, more recent results are mixed. As the Mayo Clinic explains, an analysis of multiple studies found that taking zinc supplements within 24 hours of the first signs of cold may reduce the length of your illness by one day. But all of the studies reviewed were limited – they featured too few participants, used different dosages and forms of zinc, and supplemented zinc for varying amounts of time.

    So, there’s no truly conclusive proof that zinc will zap your cold in its tracks. It isn’t a bad idea to take zinc – but there’s no reason to go overboard. Large amounts of zinc can be toxic to the body, so make sure you stick with the daily recommended amount for adults to be safe and get what your immune system needs. 8 milligrams for women and 11 milligrams for men daily is just right.

    There’s one more must-remember tip about taking zinc. You don’t want to take this supplement on an empty stomach. Doing so can cause nausea – an added symptom you definitely don’t need if you’re already suffering from a cold or the flu.

    3. Citrus fruits are the only immunity-boosting superfoods

    Citrus fruits are rich in vitamin C, which we know is a much-beloved immunity-boosting nutrient. But just like you learned above, vitamin C isn’t the be-all, end-all for your health and your immune system’s strength. And it’s certainly no cure-all for colds and flus.

    Many people turn to citrus fruit in an effort to increase their vitamin C intake naturally. But while the citrus family does offer a lot of vitamin C, it isn’t the only immunity-boosting powerhouse. There are plenty of other immunity superfoods that can deliver the nutrients you need to stay healthy even during cold and flu season.

    Citrus fruits contain plenty of vitamin C – a 100-gram serving of lemon, for example, provides 53 mg while a 100-gram serving of oranges offers 71 mg. But there are other foods, including meat and veggies, that can offer just as much of this key immunity nutrient. Here’s a sample of some other awesome options rich in vitamin C:

    • Yellow bell peppers, which offer 342 mg per pepper
    • Red bell peppers, which offer 152 mg per pepper
    • Guavas, which offer 376 mg per 1 cup serving
    • Strawberries, which offer 97.6 mg per 1 cup serving
    • Kale, which offers 93.4 mg per 100 gram serving

    Plus, don’t forget that no fruit, veggie or any other food is a cure-all. While vitamin C is a good nutrient to look for, you can also find immunity helpers in foods like chicken (which is rich in zinc as well as vitamin B6), carrots (which contain vitamin A) and even bone broth. It’s a good idea to eat a balanced diet so your immune system gets every one of the nutrients you need for great overall health.

    4. Food or supplements alone will improve your immunity

    Your diet definitely plays a role in your immune system’s health and function. But believing that you can simply eat a ton of immunity-boosting foods – or take a bunch of immunity-strengthening supplements – to stay healthy, that’s a myth.

    While a diet rich in immunity-friendly nutrients is crucially important for keeping your immune system strong, there are a whole bunch of lifestyle factors that can impact your health. And if your lifestyle isn’t also supporting your immune system, you could wind up canceling out all the good that food and supplements can offer.

    Sleep and stress are two of the biggest lifestyle factors to pay attention to. If you aren’t getting enough sleep, you’re weakening your immune system, potentially causing inflammation and stressing yourself out. Try our tips to get a better night’s sleep every time you head to bed. And when it comes to stress, missing out on sleep can lead to increased cortisol (the stress hormone). So if you’re already feeling stressed out by work, your busy schedule or your social life, you’ll also weaken your immune system and up your odds of getting sick. Try creating a calming, relaxing ritual at home with essential oils, meditation or other stress-soothing activities you enjoy.

    Additionally, it’s another myth that exercising isn’t good for your immune system. Exercise is actually one of the best ways to boost your immunity – working out helps combat stress and benefits your overall health. Try to fit in regular exercise so you’re getting your heart pumping each and every day, even if you’re taking walks or sticking with short bursts of intense activity.

    5. Only fresh fruits and veggies can give your immune system a boost

    Fresh fruits and veggies
    (Photo: Tanja Ivanova, Getty)

    Sure, fresh fruits and vegetables are fantastic for delivering the nutrients you need, whether you’re targeting your immune system or other health needs. But that doesn’t mean you should only consume fresh produce – there are other forms that can offer just as many essential nutrients, and they won’t spoil as quickly.

    It’s tough to get your hands on quality fresh produce in the colder months. But you shouldn’t worry about reaching for canned veggies or frozen fruit. It’s a common immunity myth that only fresh produce will do. Both canned and frozen fruits and vegetables are great sources of nutrients, and they can help you ensure you’re getting plenty of healthy variety into your diet.

    Plus, as Tufts University explains, frozen can be even better than fresh in some cases. Research has discovered that frozen produce of all different varieties have almost identical nutritional value compared to their fresh counterparts. And while fresh produce can lose vitamins after just 5 days inside your fridge, frozen fruits and veggies maintain their freshness and won’t lose any nutrients. In tests, frozen fruits and vegetables were found to have higher levels of vitamin C – a key immunity booster – along with more antioxidant compounds, lutein and beta-carotene than fresh produce after refrigeration.

    Canned fruits and vegetables are similar to frozen varieties. The produce is picked at just the right ripeness, and the nutrients are essentially “locked in” during the canning process when the fruits and vegetables are preserved. This leads canned foods to keep their high nutrient levels regardless of their time on your shelf. Some research has even suggested that eating a good amount of canned fruits and veggies in addition to your usual fresh produce can deliver higher levels of essential nutrients than opting for fresh alone.

    Just make sure you’re choosing canned fruits and vegetables that don’t contain additives so you’re getting the nutrients you need without anything else. Look for canned produce in its simplest form, with no additives included in the mix. And don’t forget about BPA. While some canned food manufacturers have begun phasing BPA linings out of their canned goods, it’s still possible to pick up canned produce that includes BPA – so take a close look for a Proposition 65 warning label that can indicate the presence of this harmful substance.

    So, while fresh is usually best, it isn’t the only option for a healthy immune system. If you want to stock up while you’re at the store, canned and frozen produce are both solid choices. Or, if you aren’t going to eat your fresh produce ASAP, opt for frozen or canned so you can lock in nutrients without worrying about freshness.

    Mallory Arnold

    Source link

    October 17, 2023
  • Newest Treatments for RRMM

    Newest Treatments for RRMM




    Newest Treatments for Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

































    091e9c5e820faac4091e9c5e820faac4FED-Footermodule_FED-Footer_091e9c5e820faac4.xmlwbmd_pb_templatemodule0144002/02/2021 01:57:340HTML















    Source link

    September 29, 2023
  • We Can Finally Do Something About the Third ‘Tripledemic’ Virus

    We Can Finally Do Something About the Third ‘Tripledemic’ Virus

    Every fall, when the air turns chilly and the leaves red, pediatric ICUs begin preparing for the onslaught of the virus known as RSV. Not flu, not COVID, but RSV, or respiratory syncytial virus, is the No. 1 reason babies are hospitalized, year after year. Their tiny airways can become inflamed, and the sickest ones struggle to breathe. RSV is deadly on the other end of the age spectrum too, killing 6,000 to 10,000 elderly Americans every year.

    For decades though, there was no way to stop the virus’s seasonal tide. The quest for a vaccine always came up short. And then suddenly, the vaccines started working.

    This year, doctors have not just one but multiple new shots to prevent RSV. Three gained FDA approval in rapid succession in recent months: an antibody shot for infants called nirsevimab, a form of passive immunization for babies too young to get proper vaccines; a vaccine from Pfizer for both adults over 60 and pregnant mothers, who can pass the immunity on to their babies; and finally, a vaccine from GlaxoSmithKline also aimed at adults older than 60. Together, these herald a new era for RSV.

    That these three new RSV shots are coming out at once is no coincidence. They succeed where others failed because they all target a specific weak spot in the virus, first identified in 2013. This strategy of finding a virus’s most vulnerable points applies to other pathogens too, and experts say it can revolutionize the design of vaccines for other diseases. In fact, it was quietly used to make the COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. Scientists had originally perfected the idea with RSV, only to repurpose it for the COVID vaccine, which raced ahead, given the urgency of the pandemic. This year, though, the shots are coming for RSV.

    “We’re in a really good position, finally, after more than 65 years,” says Asunción Mejías, an infectious-diseases doctor at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital.


    The first attempts to make an RSV vaccine began not long after the virus’s discovery, in 1956, but an early trial ended so catastrophically that it had a chilling effect for decades.

    It had started off with promise. The early vaccine was modeled after a successful one for polio, in which the virus is inactivated with a chemical called formalin. But when infants given the early RSV vaccine later caught the virus, a whopping 80 percent had to be hospitalized—compared with only 5 percent in the control group. Two of the babies died, their lungs ravaged. The vaccine did worse than offer no protection; it made the disease more severe. “It was such a disaster,” says Ann Falsey, an infectious-diseases doctor at the University of Rochester. Scientists spent years piecing together why—the vaccine riled up the wrong part of the immune system in very young babies—but they got no closer to making a vaccine that worked. The field was stuck.

    Then, in 2008, a serendipitous meeting led to an eventual breakthrough. A young, freshly minted Ph.D. named Jason McLellan, who studies the structure of proteins, began a new job at the National Institutes of Health to work on HIV vaccines. The lab he had joined, on the fourth floor, had run out of room, though, so he got put in another, on the second. There, he ran into Barney Graham, a virologist who had been trying to solve the puzzle of RSV since the 1980s. He convinced McLellan that this virus was worth a look too.

    By then, scientists had at least homed in on a plausible vaccine target. Much as COVID uses spike protein to infect cells, RSV uses a protein—called F for “fusion”—to physically fuse the virus particle to a human cell. F comes in two forms, though: an extremely unstable prefusion state and a far more stable postfusion state. And once it switches to the postfusion state—which can also happen spontaneously— “it can’t come back,” McLellan told me.

    When RSV vaccines are manufactured, all the F protein eventually switches to the postfusion state. But the antibodies against postfusion F weren’t very effective. McLellan soon figured out why. He found that extremely potent neutralizing antibodies bind to a specific site—the very tip of the prefusion F—that is lost when the protein rearranges into its postfusion form. With that, Graham told me, “you lose ten- to 1,000-fold potency.” An effective RSV vaccine would need to target the prefusion F.

    The team knew what to do, but had a practical dilemma: How to stabilize F in its prefusion form, so the team could put it in a vaccine? McLellan rejiggered the protein slightly, adding molecular “staples” and filling a hole in the protein structure. These changes froze F in its prefusion shape. When the team tested this version of the vaccine in mice, the results could not have been clearer. The vaccine induced the highest levels of neutralizing antibodies Graham had ever seen in his three decades of studying RSV. “This is it,” McLellan remembers thinking.

    Soon, pharmaceutical companies came calling, and the race was on. (The experts in this article—like nearly everyone who works on RSV vaccines—have all received research grants, consulted for, or worked in some other way with one or more of the companies developing shots for RSV.) Today, Pfizer’s and GlaxoSmithKline’s newly approved RSV vaccines target the prefusion F protein, as does nirsevimab, the antibody shot for infants from AstraZeneca and Sanofi. Both the vaccines and the antibody shot trigger immunity against RSV: Vaccines stimulate the immune system to make its own antibodies, and nirsevimab is a direct infusion of antibodies.

    Trials for all three shots were already under way when the coronavirus pandemic hit. But because RSV nearly disappeared during social distancing, the trials got delayed. Meanwhile, McLellan and Graham devised a similar molecular trick to stabilize COVID’s spike protein, which Pfizer and Moderna later used in their vaccines. (The stabilization wasn’t make-or-break for COVID, as it was for RSV, though—AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine was effective despite not having this modification.) But unstable fusion proteins are found in many different classes of viruses beyond RSV. McLellan, now at the University of Texas at Austin, is working on shots against the prefusion structure of other stubborn viruses such as cytomegalovirus and Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever. (Graham is now a professor at Morehouse School of Medicine.) This approach—called structure-based vaccine design—could unlock new ways of targeting once-elusive viruses.


    For RSV, this fall and winter will be a test of how well the shots fare in the real world. As the adage goes, vaccines don’t save lives; vaccinations do. Falsey, the University of Rochester doctor, specializes in studying RSV in the elderly, and she worries that too few Americans over 60 will get the new vaccines this year. A CDC advisory panel decided that elderly Americans can get the vaccines through “shared clinical decision-making” with their doctors but did not go as far as to fully recommend vaccination, which would have triggered private insurers to cover the shots under the Affordable Care Act. Out of pocket, they can cost more than $300. The vaccine for pregnant women, meanwhile, has FDA approval, but the same CDC panel is voting today on whether to recommend it. The panel will likely scrutinize a possible link to premature births, which has shown up before with RSV vaccines.

    Nirsevimab, the antibody shot for infants, has gotten a full-throated endorsement, though, and it’s poised to have the biggest impact this season. It replaces an existing RSV-antibody shot called palivizumab, which is not widely used. Palivizumab targets a less potent site that is on both the pre- and postfusion F, and it needs to be administered up to five times a season (compared with once for nirsevimab), at a cost of some $1,500 a dose. For these reasons, it’s been reserved for the highest-risk babies, such as preemies with underdeveloped lungs. But most babies who end up hospitalized were healthy to begin with, says St. Jude’s Mejías, so the older shot didn’t put much of a dent in overall hospitalizations.

    Nirsevimab is meant to be more widely used: The shot is approved for all infants in their first RSV season. “It’s going to change the way we manage and treat RSV,” Mejías told me. It should be available for babies starting in October. And if all goes according to plan, pediatric ICUs could be a little quieter this winter.

    Sarah Zhang

    Source link

    September 22, 2023
  • Doctors Suddenly Got Way Better at Treating Eczema

    Doctors Suddenly Got Way Better at Treating Eczema

    Up until a few years ago, Heather Sullivan’s 14-year-old son, Sawyer, had struggled with eczema his entire life. When he was just a baby, most of his body would be covered in intensely itchy rashes that bled and oozed when he couldn’t help but scratch. His family tried steroid creams, wet wraps, bleach baths, and all of the lotions. They tore up their carpet and replaced their sheetrock in hopes of eliminating triggers. At 15 months, he went on cyclosporine, a powerful immunosuppressant usually given to organ-transplant patients. It cleared him up, but the drug comes with potentially dangerous side effects over time. Doctors, Sullivan recalls, were “just appalled that my child would be on this amount of medicine at this age”—but his eczema came roaring back as soon as he went off it.

    When a new eczema drug called Dupixent finally became available to Sawyer a few years ago, his turnaround was fast and dramatic. Within a week, his itchiness and redness started calming down. He felt and looked better. The condition that had dominated their lives began to fade into the background.

    Doctors who treat severe eczema now speak of pre- and post-Dupixent eras: “It changed the landscape of having eczema forever,” says Brett King, a dermatologist at Yale. Today, a half dozen novel treatments are available for the skin condition, all of which work by quieting the same biological pathway in eczema; dozens more are in clinical trials. Unlike older drugs, these new ones are precisely targeted and in many cases startlingly effective.

    Eczema, also known as atopic dermatitis, is characterized by red, itchy, and inflamed skin. It’s a very common condition, estimated to affect 10 percent of Americans. Of those, a large minority suffer from moderate to severe eczema that seeps into everyday life. “Just imagine scratching endlessly,” King says. “You wake up from sleep scratching. Your sheets are bloody in the morning.” The most basic eczema advice is to moisturize, and moisturize often, to protect the barrier of the skin. But scientists now know that eczema’s cause is not in the skin alone. Many patients also have “an over-reactive or overzealous immune system,” says Dawn Davis, a dermatologist at the Mayo Clinic. Their immune cells release chemicals that irritate nerves, causing itch, and even degrade the skin itself.

    Topical steroids, such as over-the-counter hydrocortisone cream, can tamp down the immune reaction that flares in eczema. If these fail, doctors have resorted to more powerful oral steroids, such as prednisone, or other oral immunosuppressants, such as the aforementioned cyclosporine. The drugs can calm eczema, but because they suppress the overall immune system, they also do much more. Prednisone, for example, makes you more prone to infections as well as bone fractures, high blood pressure, and glaucoma when taken in the long term. Of course, for many people, eczema is a chronic condition that requires long-term treatment. “Prednisone is kind of like carpet bombing,” says Peter Lio, a dermatologist at Northwestern University. It blasts eczema away, but at a cost.

    In contrast, the newer drugs, Lio says, are more like shotguns that target specific parts of the immune system—with less collateral damage. They fall into two broad classes. Monoclonal antibodies, such as Dupixent, intercept the immune-signaling molecules that trigger itch and skin inflammation. And then JAK inhibitors, which include pills such as Rinvoq and the topical cream Opzelura, scramble the signal after cells have received it. The development of these drugs came after years of research zeroed in on some of the key immune molecules dysregulated in eczema. But serendipity played a role too: The first such drugs were originally developed for other conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis—only to be repurposed when researchers realized that they targeted the very pathways involved in eczema. The breakthroughs in eczema treatment, in fact, are part of a broader revolution in treating inflammatory disorders; both classes of new drugs are now used to tune the immune system in a whole host of different conditions.

    The monoclonal antibodies and oral JAK inhibitors may have their own serious side effects, such as blood clots, which, Lio says, give some doctors unfamiliar with the new drugs—especially the latter type—pause. But the traditional drugs are not great either. “I’m frustrated that a lot of clinicians are very cavalier about prednisone and cyclosporine … They’re like, ‘Oh, they’re our old friends,’” he told me. “Then they get nervous about JAK inhibitors.” In his mind, the new drugs are simply the better option in terms of safety and efficacy.

    Jonathan Silverberg, a dermatologist at George Washington University who specializes in eczema, says he now rarely uses the old oral steroids and immunosuppressants. When he does revert to them, it’s not for medical reasons: He ends up prescribing older (that is, generic and therefore cheaper) drugs for uninsured patients who can’t afford the new ones, or for patients who have insurance but are nevertheless denied coverage. “Insurance says, ‘Can it be fixed with a $10 medicine? Or does it really need the $1,000 tube?’” King told me. Getting patients these newer drugs can mean a lot of time fighting with insurance.

    For now, these drugs have most dramatically improved the lives of patients with moderate to severe eczema—at least those patients who can access them. But doctors told me that topical JAK inhibitors, which are safer than the oral version, could one day be first-line treatments for mild eczema as well. “In a perfect world, I would love it if I never had to prescribe a topical steroid again,” Silverberg said, citing the side effects that come with long-term use. Topical steroids can thin the skin, causing stretch marks, fragility, and poor healing. But at the moment, steroids are also cheap and easily available. They’re not going anywhere as long as the new treatments still come with hefty price tags.

    Sarah Zhang

    Source link

    August 4, 2023
  • Ticks’ Secret Weapon

    Ticks’ Secret Weapon

    In the three-plus decades I’ve been alive, I have never been bitten by a tick. Actually, that may be a lie, and I have no way of knowing for sure. Because even though ticks have harpoonlike mouthparts, even though certain species can latch on for up to two weeks, even though some guzzle enough blood to swell 100 times in weight, their bites are disturbingly discreet. “As a kid, I would have hundreds of ticks on me,” at least several of which would bite, says Adela Oliva Chavez, a tick researcher at Texas A&M University. And yet she would never notice until her aunt would pick them off her skin.

    The secret behind tick stealth is tick saliva—a strange, slippery, and multifaceted fluid with no biological peer. It keeps the pests’ bites bizarrely itch- and pain-free, and allows them to feed unimpeded by their hosts’ immunity. As climate change remodels the world, spit is also what’s helping ticks enter new habitats and hosts—bringing with them the many deadly viruses, bacteria, and parasites they so often import.

    For all their dependency on blood, ticks almost never eat. In their sometimes-multiyear life span, they may feed only once in each stage: larva, nymph, and adult. Which means, as my colleague Sarah Zhang once wrote, each meal must count for an awful lot. Unlike mosquitoes and other bloodsucking bugs that can get away with a dine and dash, ticks must linger on flesh for days or even weeks—an extended feast that requires them to essentially graft onto the host’s body like a temporary limb.

    For the entirety of that process, saliva is key. When a tick first bites, its spit lines the wound with a gluelike substance that cements its mouth in place. Once secure, the tick deploys a fleet of spit-borne compounds that dilate its host’s vessels, while simultaneously battling the bodily compounds that would normally prompt the injury to clot, heal, or tingle with pain or itch. Under most circumstances, such an onslaught of foreign molecules would instantly marshal the body’s immune cavalry. But ticks have workarounds for that too. Their saliva is an anti-inflammatory and an analgesic; it can disable the alarms that cells send to one another, preventing them from coordinating an attack. Spit can even reprogram immune cells so that they never complete their development or receive the cues they need to gather at the scene.

    Read: Climate change enters its blood-sucking phase

    All of these strategies can also ease the way for bacteria, viruses, and parasites that the tick swallows from one host, then deposits into the next. With tick saliva breaching the skin barrier and keeping the immune system in check, all the pathogens have to do is come along for the ride. “Tick saliva is like a luxury vehicle that delivers them to the site of infection and rolls out the red carpet,” says Seemay Chou, the CEO of the biotech start-up Arcadia Science. Studies have shown that multiple pathogens get an infectious boost when chauffeured by spit, spilling more efficiently into the skin of newly bitten hosts. Borrelia burgdorferi, the bacterium that causes Lyme disease, will even slather parts of tick saliva onto itself like a cloak, essentially rendering itself invisible to bodily defense. Ticks’ infectious cargo may even egg each other on: Saravanan Thangamani, at Upstate Medical University, in New York, has found evidence that ticks simultaneously carrying Borrelia and Powassan virus may end up injecting more of the latter into fresh wounds.

    Already, ticks spread more pathogens to humans and their livestock than any other insect or arachnid. And the risks ticks pose may only be growing, as warming temperatures and human meddling with wildlife allow them to expand their geographic range and infiltrate new hosts. In North America, lone-star ticks and black-legged ticks have been orchestrating a concerted march north into Canada. At the same time, the percentage of ticks carrying infections is also increasing, Thangamani told me, and for decades now, case counts of Lyme disease and tick-borne encephalitis in several parts of the world have been on a steady rise. As cold seasons shrink, the periods of the year when ticks bite—usually, the warmest months—are expanding too. “Many, many places are getting filled up with ticks,” says Jean Tsao, an entomologist at Michigan State University. “And they’re going to get more.”

    It helps that many ticks aren’t picky about whom they carry or bite. Some species, as they push into new places, have picked up new pathogens in the past few years—Bourbon virus, heartland virus—that pose additional threats to us. Many tick species are also relatively indiscriminate about their hosts: Within its lifetime, a single deer tick may “feed very happily on reptiles, avians, and birds,” says Pat Nuttall, a virologist and tick researcher at the University of Oxford. Their spit is intricate enough that it can be tailored to counteract the defenses of each species in turn. Transfer a tick from a rabbit to a human or a dog, Oliva Chavez told me, and it will take notice—and adjust its saliva, quite literally to taste.

    Vaccines to combat Lyme and other tick-borne diseases have long been in development. But many researchers think the more efficient tactic is going after the tick itself—a strategy that could, at best, “stop the transmission of several pathogens at once,” says Girish Neelakanta, a tick biologist at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville. Anti-tick immunity is possible: Studies have documented guinea pigs, cattle, rabbits, goats, and dogs developing sustained defenses against the arachnids after they’ve been bitten over and over again—even reactions that can help the animals detect a bite immediately, and sweep the pest away.

    But spit is a slippery target for bodily defenses to hit. The substance doesn’t just shut down immune responses. It also reformulates itself constantly so that it can keep evading the host’s defenses—as often as every few hours, faster than most of the immune system can keep track. By the time the body has prepped an assault on one salivary ingredient, the tick has almost certainly swapped it out for the next. “It’s a game that the tick is playing, a catch-me-if-you-can kind of thing,” says Sukanya Narasimhan, a tick researcher at Yale. To outcompete the tick’s tricks, Narasimhan thinks it will be key to develop a vaccine that triggers the body to respond to tick bites fast, “as soon as a tick attaches,” she said, ideally by targeting the saliva’s first ingredients.

    As ticks continue their takeover, it’s hard not to develop at least some grudging respect for their pluck. Some scientists even think that studying, or perhaps mimicking, their saliva could lead to other breakthroughs. Copycatting the spit’s immunosuppressive tendencies could be useful for the treatment of asthma, or for drugs that assist in organ transplants; imitating its anticoagulant properties could help keep life-threatening clots at bay. Some tick-saliva ingredients have even prompted investigations into their potential as cancer therapy. Ticks, after all, have been studying mammalian bodies for millions of years, all in hopes of subterfuge; under their tutelage, Chou, the Arcadia Science CEO, hopes to learn more about the molecular pathways that drive the urge to itch.

    Ticks aren’t invincible, though, and some of the same global changes now easing their entry into new habitats could eventually hinder their progress. Already, they are fleeing parts of the planet that have grown too hot, too humid, too flooded, too razed with wildfires for them or their preferred hosts to survive, including certain inhospitable pockets of the American South. A tick decline could be good for us. But it would also be a symptom of a planetary scourge that has grown worse. Ticks, undoubtedly, “will continue to adapt,” Thangamani told me. And yet they, too, have their limits—further, but not that much further, beyond our own.

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

    July 24, 2023
  • The Pregnancy Risk That Doctors Won’t Mention

    The Pregnancy Risk That Doctors Won’t Mention

    The nonexhaustive list of things women are told to avoid while pregnant includes cat litter, alfalfa sprouts, deli meat, runny egg yolks, pet hamsters, sushi, herbal teas, gardening, brie cheeses, aspirin, meat with even a hint of pink, hot tubs. The chance that any of these will harm the baby is small, but why risk it?

    Yet few doctors in the U.S. tell pregnant women about the risk of catching a ubiquitous virus called cytomegalovirus, or CMV. The name might be obscure, but CMV is the leading infectious cause of birth defects in America—far ahead of toxoplasmosis from cat litter or microbes from hamsters. Bafflingly, the majority of babies infected in the womb are unaffected, but an estimated 400 born with CMV die every year. Thousands more end up with hearing and vision loss, epilepsy, developmental delays, or microcephaly, in which the head and brain are unusually small. Exactly why the virus so dramatically affects some babies but not others is unknown. There is no cure and no vaccine.

    Amanda Devereaux’s younger child, Pippa, was born with CMV, which caused damage to her brain. Pippa is prone to seizures. She could not walk until she was 2 and a half, and she is nonverbal at age 7. “I was just flabbergasted that no one told me about CMV,” says Devereaux, who is now the program director for the National CMV Foundation, which raises awareness of the virus. The nonprofit was founded by parents of children with congenital CMV. “Every single one of them says, ‘Why didn’t I hear about this?’” Devereaux told me.

    One reason that doctors have hesitated to spread the word is that the most obvious way to avoid this virus is to avoid infected toddlers. Symptoms from CMV are usually mild to nonexistent in healthy adults and children. Toddlers, who frequently pick up CMV at day care, can continue shedding the virus in their bodily fluids for months and even years while totally healthy. “I’ve encountered a classroom of 2-year-olds where every single child was shedding CMV,” Robert Pass, a retired pediatrician and longtime CMV researcher at the University of Alabama, told me when we spoke in 2021. (He recently died, at age 81.)

    This creates a common scenario for congenital CMV: A toddler in day care brings CMV home and infects Mom, who is pregnant with a younger sibling. One recent study found that congenital CMV is nearly twice as common in second-born children than in firstborns. Devereaux’s toddler son was in day care when she was pregnant. “I was sharing food with him because he would not finish his breakfast,” she told me. She had no idea that his half-eaten muffin could end up harming her unborn daughter. In hindsight, she says, “I wish I had spent less time worrying about not eating deli meat and more time focused on, Hey I’ve got this toddler at day care. I’m at risk for CMV.”

    CMV is such a tricky virus because few things about it are absolute. A mother cannot avoid her toddler categorically. Most pregnant women infected with CMV do not pass it to their babies. Most infected babies end up just fine. Doctors warn patients against many risks in pregnancy—see the list above—but in this case thousands of parents every year are blindsided by a very common virus. No one has a perfect answer for how to stop it.


    Day cares have been known as hot spots for CMV since at least the 1980s, when Pass, in Alabama, and other researchers in Virginia first began tracking congenital cases back to child-care centers. The virus is rampant in day cares for the same reason that other viruses are rampant in day cares: Young children are born with no immunity, and they aren’t very diligent about avoiding one another’s saliva, urine, snot, and tears, all of which harbor CMV. Of mothers with infected toddlers in day care, a third who have never had the virus catch it within a year. And getting CMV for the first time while pregnant is the riskiest scenario; these so-called primary infections are most likely to result in serious complications for the fetus. But recent research has found that reinfections and reactivations of the virus can lead to congenital CMV too. (CMV remains inside the body forever after the first infection, much like chickenpox, which is caused by a related virus.)

    So eliminating the risk of congenital CMV entirely is impossible. But some CMV experts advocate giving women a short list of actions to reduce their risk during the nine months of pregnancy: Avoid sharing food or utensils with toddlers in day care; kiss them on the top of the head instead of on the mouth; wash your hands frequently, especially after diaper changes; and clean surfaces that come in contact with saliva or urine. A study in Italy found that pregnant women who were taught these measures cut their risk of catching CMV by sixfold. A study in France found that it lowered risk too.

    In the U.S., patients are unlikely to hear this advice from their obstetricians, though. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists doesn’t recommend telling patients about ways to reduce CMV risk. According to ACOG, the evidence that behavioral changes can make a difference—from just a handful of studies—is not strong enough, and the organization sees downsides to the approach. Advice such as not kissing babies and toddlers could harm “a mother’s ability to bond with her children,” and these hygiene recommendations could “falsely reassure patients” about their risk of CMV, Christopher Zahn, ACOG’s interim CEO, said in a statement to The Atlantic.

    The CMV community disagrees. “I think they’re being a bit paternalistic,” says Gail Demmler-Harrison, a pediatric-infectious-diseases doctor at Texas Children’s Hospital. A group of international CMV experts, including Demmler-Harrison, endorsed patient education in a set of consensus recommendations in 2017. Devereaux, with the CMV Foundation, frames it as a matter of choice. It shouldn’t be “somebody else is saying, ‘You can’t handle this information; I’m not going to share that with you,” she told me. Without knowing about CMV, women can’t decide what kind of risk they’re comfortable with or what kind of hygiene changes are too burdensome. “It’s your choice whether you make them or not,” she says. “Having that choice is important.”

    More data on how well these behavioral changes work might be coming soon: Karen Fowler, an epidemiologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, is enrolling hundreds of pregnant women in a clinical trial. Only 8 percent of participants had heard of CMV before joining the study, she says. Patients get a short information session about CMV and then 12 weeks of text-message reminders. Importantly, she says, “we’re keeping our message very simple”: Reduce saliva sharing: no eating leftover food, no sharing utensils, and no cleaning a pacifier in your mouth. This simple rule cuts off the most probable routes of transmission. Sure, CMV is also shed in urine, tears, and other bodily fluids—but mothers aren’t routinely putting any of those in their mouth.

    Prevention of CMV ends up the focus of so much attention because once a fetus is infected, the treatment options are not particularly good. The best antiviral against CMV is not considered safe to use during pregnancy, and another antiviral, although safer, is not that potent. After infected babies are born, antiviral therapy can help preserve hearing in those with other moderate to severe symptoms from CMV, but it can’t reverse damage in the brain. And it’s unclear how much antivirals help those with only mild symptoms. When does benefit outweigh risk? “There’s a big gray area,” says Laura Gibson, a pediatric-infectious-diseases doctor at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School. For these reasons, policies of whether to screen all newborns vary state to state, even hospital to hospital. Knowledge can be power—but with a virus as confusing as CMV, knowledge of an infection doesn’t always point to an obvious best choice.


    In an ideal world, all of this could be made obsolete with a CMV vaccine. But such a vaccine has proved elusive despite a lot of interest. In the U.S., the Institute of Medicine deemed a CMV vaccine the highest priority around the turn of the millennium, and about two dozen vaccine candidates have been or are being studied. All of the completed clinical trials, though, have failed. “The immunity may look robust in the first month or year, but then it wanes,” Demmler-Harrison says. And even vaccines that elicit some immune response are not necessarily able to elicit one strong enough to protect against CMV infection entirely.

    CMV is such a challenging virus to vaccinate against because it knows our immune system’s tricks. “It’s evolved with humans for millions of years,” Gibson says. “It knows how to get around and live with our immune system.” Our immune system is never able to eliminate the virus, which emerges occasionally from our cells to replicate and try to find another host. And so a vaccine that completely protects against CMV would need to prompt our immune system to do something it cannot naturally do. It would need to be better than our immune system. “As time goes on, I think fewer and fewer people are thinking that might work,” Gibson says. But a vaccine doesn’t have to protect against all infections to be useful. Because first infections are the riskiest for fetuses, being vaccinated could still reduce risk of congenital CMV.

    Whom to vaccinate is another complicated question to answer for CMV. We could vaccinate all toddlers, as we do against rubella, which is also most dangerous when passed from mother to fetus. This has the potential advantage of promoting widespread immunity that tamps down circulation of CMV, period. But the virus doesn’t actually harm toddlers much, and immunity could wane by the time they grow up to childbearing age. Or we could vaccinate teenagers, as we do against meningococcal disease, but teens are more likely to miss vaccines and again, immunity could wane too soon. So what about all pregnant women? By the time someone shows up at the doctor pregnant, it’s probably too late to protect during CMV’s highest risk period, in the first trimester. A better understanding of CMV immunity and spread could help scientists decide on the best strategy. Gibson is conducting a study (funded by Moderna, which is testing a CMV-vaccine candidate) on how the virus spreads and what kinds of immune responses are correlated with shedding.

    Until a vaccine is developed—should it happen at all—the only way to prevent CMV infection is the very old-tech method of avoiding bodily fluids. It’s imperfect. Its exact effectiveness is hard to quantify. Some people might not find it worthwhile, given the small absolute risk of CMV in any single pregnancy. There are, after all, already so many things to worry about when expecting a baby. Yet another one? Or, you might think of it, what’s one more?

    Sarah Zhang

    Source link

    June 13, 2023
  • What Should Go Into This Year’s COVID Vaccine?

    What Should Go Into This Year’s COVID Vaccine?

    This fall, millions of Americans might be lining up for yet another kind of COVID vaccine:  their first-ever dose that lacks the strain that ignited the pandemic more than three and a half years ago. Unlike the current, bivalent vaccine, which guards against two variants at once, the next one could, like the first version of the shot, have only one main ingredient—the spike protein of the XBB.1 lineage of the Omicron variant, the globe’s current dominant clade.

    That plan isn’t yet set. The FDA still has to convene a panel of experts, then is expected to make a final call on autumn’s recipe next month. But several experts told me they hope the agency follows the recent recommendation of a World Health Organization advisory group and focuses the next vaccine only on the strains now circulating.

    The switch in strategy—from two variants to one, from original SARS-CoV-2 plus Omicron to XBB.1 alone—would be momentous but wise, experts told me, reflecting the world’s updated understanding of the virus’s evolution and the immune system’s quirks. “It just makes a lot of sense,” said Melanie Ott, the director of the Gladstone Institute of Virology, in San Francisco. XBB.1 is the main coronavirus group circulating today; neither the original variant nor BA.5, the two coronavirus flavors in the bivalent shot, is meaningfully around anymore. And an XBB.1-focused vaccine may give the global population a particularly good shot at broadening immunity.

    At the same time, COVID vaccines are still in a sort of beta-testing stage. In the past three-plus years, the virus has spawned countless iterations, many of which have been extremely good at outsmarting us; we humans, meanwhile, are only on our third-ish attempt at designing a vaccine that can keep pace with the pathogen’s evolutionary sprints. And we’re very much still learning about the coronavirus’s capacity for flexibility and change, says Rafi Ahmed, an immunologist at Emory University. By now, it’s long been clear that vaccines are essential for preventing severe disease and death, and that some cadence of boosting is probably necessary to keep the shots’ effectiveness high. But when the virus alters its evolutionary tactics, our vaccination strategy must follow—and experts are still puzzling out how to account for those changes as they select the shots for each year.

    In the spring and summer of 2022, the last time the U.S. was mulling on a new vaccine formula, Omicron was still relatively new, and the coronavirus’s evolution seemed very much in flux. The pathogen had spent more than two years erratically slingshotting out Greek-letter variants without an obvious succession plan. Instead of accumulating genetic changes within a single lineage—a more iterative form of evolution, roughly akin to what flu strains do—the coronavirus produced a bunch of distantly related variants that jockeyed for control. Delta was not a direct descendant of Alpha; Omicron was not a Delta offshoot; no one could say with any certainty what would arise next, or when. “We didn’t understand the trajectory,” says Kanta Subbarao, the head of the WHO advisory group convened to make recommendations on COVID vaccines.

    And so the experts played it safe. Including an Omicron variant in the shot felt essential, because of how much the virus had changed. But going all in on Omicron seemed too risky—some experts worried that “the virus would flip back,” Subbarao told me, to a variant more similar to Alpha or Delta or something else. As a compromise, several countries, including the United States, went with a combination: half original, half Omicron, in an attempt to reinvigorate OG immunity while laying down new defenses against the circulating strains du jour.

    And those shots did bolster preexisting immunity, as boosters should. But they didn’t rouse a fresh set of responses against Omicron to the degree that some experts had hoped they would, Ott told me. Already trained on the ancestral version of the virus, people’s bodies seemed to have gotten a bit myopic—repeatedly reawakening defenses against past variants, at the expense of new ones that might have more potently attacked Omicron. The outcome was never thought to be damaging, Subbarao told me: The bivalent, for instance, still broadened people’s immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 compared with, say, another dose of the original-recipe shot, and was effective at tamping down hospitalization rates. But Ahmed told me that, in retrospect, he thinks an Omicron-only boost might have further revved that already powerful effect.

    Going full bore on XBB.1 now could keep the world from falling into that same trap twice. People who get an updated shot with that strain alone would receive only the new, unfamiliar ingredient, allowing the immune system to focus on the fresh material and potentially break out of an ancestral-strain rut. XBB.1’s spike protein also would not be diluted with one from an older variant—a concern Ahmed has with the current bivalent shot. When researchers added Omicron to their vaccine recipes, they didn’t double the total amount of spike protein; they subbed out half of what was there before. That left vaccine recipients with just half the Omicron-focused mRNA they might have gotten had the shot been monovalent, and probably a more lackluster antibody response.

    Recent work from the lab of Vineet Menachery, a virologist at the University of Texas Medical Branch, suggests another reason the Omicron half of the shot didn’t pack enough of an immunizing punch. Subvariants from this lineage, including BA.5 and XBB.1, carry at least one mutation that makes their spike protein unstable—to the point where it seems less likely than other versions of the spike protein to stick around for long enough to sufficiently school immune cells. In a bivalent vaccine, in particular, the immune response could end up biased toward non-Omicron ingredients, exacerbating the tendencies of already immunized people to focus their energy on the ancestral strain. For the same reason, a monovalent XBB.1, too, might not deliver the anticipated immunizing dose, Menachery told me. But if people take it (still a big if), and hospitalizations remain low among those up-to-date on their shots, a once-a-year total-strain switch-out might be the choice for next year’s vaccine too.

    Dropping the ancestral strain from the vaccine isn’t without risk. The virus could still produce a variant totally different from XBB.1, though that does, at this point, seem unlikely. For a year and a half now, Omicron has endured, and it now has the longest tenure of a single Greek-letter variant since the pandemic’s start. Even the subvariants within the Omicron family seem to be sprouting off each other more predictably; after a long stint of inconsistency, the virus’s shape-shifting now seems “less jumpy,” says Leo Poon, a virologist at the University of Hong Kong. It may be a sign that humans and the virus have reached a détente now that the population is blanketed in a relatively stable layer of immunity. Plus, even if a stray Alpha or Delta descendant were to rise up, the world wouldn’t be caught entirely off guard: So many people have banked protection against those and other past variants that they’d probably still be well buffered against COVID’s worst acute outcomes. (That reassurance doesn’t hold, though, for people who still need primary-series shots, including the kids being born into the world every day. An XBB.1 boost might be a great option for people with preexisting immunity. But a bivalent that can offer more breadth might still be the more risk-averse choice for someone whose immunological slate is blank.)

    More vaccination-strategy shifts will undoubtedly come. SARS-CoV-2 is still new to us; so are our shots. But the virus’s evolution, as of late, has been getting a shade more flu-like, and its transmission patterns a touch more seasonal. Regulators in the U.S. have already announced that COVID vaccines will probably be offered each year in the fall—as annual flu shots are. The viruses aren’t at all the same. But as the years progress, the comparison between COVID and flu shots could get more apt still—if, say, the coronavirus also starts to produce multiple, genetically distinct strains that simultaneously circulate. In that case, vaccinating against multiple versions of the virus at once might be the most effective defense.

    Flu shots could be a useful template in another way: Although those shots have followed roughly the same guidelines for many years, with experts meeting twice a year to decide whether and how to update each autumn’s vaccine ingredients, they, too, have needed some flexibility. Until 2012, the vaccines were trivalent, containing ingredients that would immunize people against three separate strains at once; now many, including all of the U.S.’s, are quadrivalent—and soon, based on new evidence, researchers may push for those to return to a three-strain recipe. At the same time, flu and COVID vaccines share a major drawback. Our shots’ ingredients are still selected months ahead of when the injections actually reach us—leaving immune systems lagging behind a virus that has, in the interim, sprinted ahead. Until the world has something more universal, our vaccination strategies will have to be reactive, scrambling to play catch-up with these pathogens’ evolutionary whims.

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

    May 26, 2023
  • A Vaccine for Birth Control?

    A Vaccine for Birth Control?

    For half a century, Gursaran Pran Talwar has been developing what he hopes will be the next big thing in birth control. A nonagenarian who was once the director of India’s National Institute of Immunology, Talwar envisions bringing to market a new form of contraception that could block pregnancy without the usual trade-offs—an intervention that’s long-acting but reversible; cheap, discreet, and easy to administer; less invasive than an intrauterine device and more convenient than a daily pill. It would skip messy, sometimes dangerous side effects, such as weight gain, mood swings, and rare but risky blood clots and strokes. It would embody the sort of “set it and forget it” model that’s become a gold standard for health—and, in his words, be “accepted by the world over.”

    Talwar’s invention is now in early-stage clinical trials. If all goes well, it could become humanity’s first contraceptive vaccine—one that would prevent pregnancies in a way distinct from any birth control ever cleared for human use. Whether they’re packaged as pills, patches, implants, or shots, most common medical contraceptives work by flooding the body with hormones to put a pause on ovulation. Talwar’s vaccine would do something different: It leaves the menstrual cycle unaltered, instead leveraging the powers of the immune system to keep unwanted pregnancies at bay.

    But temporarily vaccinating against pregnancy is both brilliant in concept and devilishly difficult in execution, both scientifically and socially. Making a contraceptive vaccine effectively means “trying to immunize an animal against itself,” says Julie Levy, a feline-infectious-disease expert at the University of Florida who has worked on immunocontraceptives in animals. Which runs counter to the prime directive of immune systems, evolved over countless millennia to distinguish the foreign from the familiar and to leave the body’s most vital tissues alone. Solve that problem, and researchers will still be left with another: persuading people to take a fertility-hampering shot in an era of widespread vaccine hesitancy—while the specter of contraception’s problematic past still looms.

    For many decades, the most stubborn barriers in contraception have been not about science, but about access and acceptance. Talwar remembers those issues crystallizing sharply for him in the 1970s, he told me, when he encountered several groups of women in the holy city of Varanasi, who told him they were struggling to feed their large families.  Yet the women’s husbands weren’t eager to use condoms and they themselves weren’t satisfied with the pills and IUDs available at the time, which sometimes interfered with normal menstruation and ovulation, and triggered headaches and mood swings. “I wanted to make something free of all these problems,” Talwar told me.

    Read: The different stakes of male and female birth control

    Within a few years, he had cooked up a solution: a vaccine against hCG, a hormone exclusive to pregnancy that’s necessary for fertilized eggs to implant. Taught to neutralize hCG, Talwar reasoned, the immune system could stop a pregnancy from ever truly starting, without attacking other tissues. His hunch so far appears to have panned out. By the mid-1990s, his team had shown in small, early-stage clinical trials that most women receiving the shots could produce enough antibodies to prevent pregnancy for several months, in some cases more than a year. Of the 119 women in the trial whose antibody levels reached what Talwar deems a protective threshold, only one became pregnant over a period of almost two years. Several participants also went on to conceive after opting out of boosters, a sign that the shot’s effects were reversible.

    Almost immediately, though, drawbacks appeared. Immune responses are infamously variable across individuals—a major reason that the effectiveness of many shots designed against pathogens tops out around 60 to 80 percent. About a fifth of the women who received the hCG vaccine didn’t produce enough antibodies to meet the protective threshold. Those stats would still be enough to slow the transmission of, say, a deadly respiratory virus. But the expectations for a contraceptive “have to be different,” says Neel Shah, the chief medical officer of Maven Clinic, a virtual clinic for women’s and family health. The top IUDs on the market prevent more than 99 percent of pregnancies, require one appointment to insert, and last for up to a decade.

    For now, the hCG vaccine is more cumbersome than that. In its current iteration—a revamp of the successful ’90s recipe—it requires an initial series of at least three doses, spaced out over several weeks. It’s still unclear how people would figure out when, and how often, to boost without regular antibody tests. The answer will likely differ from person to person; that uncertainty alone could make these shots a tough sell, says Diana Blithe, a contraception expert at the National Institutes of Health. And although halting hormonal contraceptives can reset fertility back to baseline within days or weeks, some people with especially enthusiastic immune responses could end up waiting far longer for the hCG vaccine’s effects to wear off, says Aaron Hsueh, a reproductive biologist at Stanford. For that reason and more, Hsueh has said for years that he’s “not enthusiastic” about Talwar’s experimental shot.

    There is some reason to think these issues aren’t insurmountable. Immunocontraceptives have been used for decades by wildlife scientists to prevent pregnancies in all sorts of mammals—among them deer, horses, elephants, pigs, and seals—as a more humane alternative to culling. And in that context, at least, researchers have found a way to circumvent the need for frequent boosts. Certain animals can be dosed with nanoparticles that slowly release the vaccine’s ingredients over months and years, repeatedly tickling the immune system without any additional jabs, says Derek Rosenfield, a veterinarian and wildlife biologist at the University of São Paulo. Work in wild creatures, though, has also shown how hard it is to persuade the body to target its own hormones. To get their shots to work, veterinarians have needed to include powerful adjuvants, or vaccine ingredients meant to rile up the immune system—“some of the most potent ones ever developed,” Levy told me. Which exacts a tax for the shots’ potency: In some animals, such as cats, the vaccines can cause worrying side effects, including injection-site reactions.

    In humans, where safety standards must be stricter and effectiveness better, Talwar’s hCG vaccine has encountered some issues with tolerability, too. The shots so far do seem to be skirting the side effects of pills and IUDs. But some of the women in his team’s ongoing trials are developing painless but prominent nodules—a likely sign that the new recipe’s adjuvants are riling up the immune system a tad too much. To deliver on a discreet, low-maintenance contraceptive—something with, as Talwar puts it, “zero side effects”—they’ll need to tinker with dosing or ingredients.

    Gaps in the contraceptive market do need to be filled. Technology has come a long way since Talwar first spoke with the women in Varanasi, but “we need more options,” says Debanjana Choudhuri, the director of programs and partnerships at India’s Foundation for Reproductive Health Services. Nearly half the world’s pregnancies are unplanned, and access to existing contraception is inconsistent, inequitable, and still stymied by stigma and misinformation; even in places where availability isn’t an issue, some people hesitate over the trade-offs. A temporary contraception, packaged into a super-safe vaccine, could offer convenience and privacy, with potential appeal for young urbanites, who have already been enthusiastic about injectable contraceptives and might not mind getting boosts, Choudhuri told me. Most important, adding a vaccine to the repertoire gives people “another choice.”

    But for all its unique perks, a contraceptive vaccine could also come with social drawbacks. The history of contraception is riddled with abuses, often concentrated among poor populations, people struggling with mental-health issues, and communities of color. Vaccines’ primary purpose for centuries has been to fight infectious disease, and “pregnancy is not a disease,” Sanghamitra Singh, the policy-and-programs lead at the Population Foundation of India, told me. Implying—even unintentionally—that the condition is a problem to be eradicated could stigmatize the shot.

    Deploying the vaccine primarily in under-resourced populations could also raise the specter of the eradication of fertility in society’s most vulnerable subsects. Lisa Campo-Engelstein, a reproductive bioethicist at the University of Texas Medical Branch, worries that even the vaccine’s ease of administration—an ostensible benefit—could be viewed as a downside: Administering a shot without a patient’s full understanding or consent is easier than coercively inserting an IUD or forcing a daily pill. And in this pandemic era, a contraceptive vaccine will likely be met with pushback from people already disinclined toward shots—especially amid false accusations that other immunizations compromise fertility. On top of all that, a shot that goes after hCG can prevent only implantation, not fertilization, a guaranteed sticking point for people who believe that life begins at conception, and may argue that the vaccine triggers abortion.

    In part, the timing is just bad luck. Shortly after his original clinical trial results were published, in the ’90s, Talwar, already late into his 60s, was asked to retire from the National Institute of Immunology, he told me, and had to leave his vaccine behind. After he managed to revive his efforts with the help of independent funders, Indian regulators took nearly a decade to green-light a new recipe for clinical trials—just in time for the coronavirus pandemic to begin. Régine Sitruk-Ware, a reproductive endocrinologist at the Population Council’s Center for Biomedical Research, in New York, remembers the initial buzz around the human hCG vaccine when Talwar’s clinical-trial results were published. But in the absence of more progress, she and other researchers have moved on, she told me. Many now have their sights set on long-acting reversible male birth control, several new forms of which are now close to being publicly available, and could offer safe complements to female methods and make family planning more equitable.

    Read: Block that sperm!

    Still, Talwar, who will turn 97 in October, hasn’t lost hope; to him, the nodules represent one of the last major hurdles, and should be resolved soon. As his 100th birthday ticks closer, he’s even thinking of how he can expand his approach—repurposing the hCG shot, for instance, into immunotherapy against certain cancers that aberrantly produce the hormone. “I am healthy and hearty,” he told me. “I just hope and pray,” he said, that his invention might clear its final hurdles “before I call it a day.”

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

    May 2, 2023
  • A Major Breed of Flu Has Gone Missing

    A Major Breed of Flu Has Gone Missing

    In March 2020, Yamagata’s trail went cold.

    The pathogen, one of the four main groups of flu viruses targeted by seasonal vaccines, had spent the first part of the year flitting across the Northern Hemisphere, as it typically did. As the seasons turned, scientists were preparing, as they typically did, for the virus to make its annual trek across the equator and seed new outbreaks in the globe’s southern half.

    That migration never came to pass. As the new coronavirus spread, pandemic-mitigation measures started to squash flu-transmission rates to record lows. The drop-off was so sharp that several flu lineages may have gone extinct, among them Yamagata, which hasn’t been definitively detected in more than three years despite virologists’ best efforts to root it out.

    Read: The pandemic broke the flu

    Yamagata’s disappearance could still be temporary. “Right now, we’re all just kind of holding our breath,” says Adam Lauring, a virologist at the University of Michigan Medical School. The virus might be biding its time in an isolated population, escaping the notice of tests. But the search has stretched on so fruitlessly that some experts are ready to declare it officially done. “It’s been missing for this long,” says Vijaykrishna Dhanasekaran, a virologist at Hong Kong University. “At this point, I would really think it’s gone.”

    If Yamagata remains AWOL indefinitely, its absence would have at least one relatively straightforward consequence: Researchers might no longer need to account for the lineage in annual vaccines. But its vanishing act could have a more head-spinning implication. Flu viruses, which have been plaguing human populations for centuries, are some of the most well-known and well-studied threats to our health. They have prompted the creation of annual shots, potent antivirals, and internationally funded surveillance programs. And yet, scientists still have some basic questions about why they behave as they do—especially about Yamagata and its closest kin.


    Yamagata, in many ways, has long been an underdog among underdogs. The lineage is one of two in a group called influenza B viruses, and it’s slower to evolve and transmit, and is thus sometimes considered less troublesome, than its close cousin Victoria. As a pair, the B’s are also commonly regarded as the wimpier versions of flu.

    To be fair, the competition is stiff. Flu B’s are constantly being compared with influenza A viruses—the group that contains every flu subtype that has caused a pandemic in our recent past, including the extraordinarily deadly outbreak of 1918. Seasonal flu epidemics, too, tend to be heavily dominated by flu A’s, especially H3N2 and H1N1, two notably tough-to-target strains that feature prominently in each year’s vaccine. Even H5N1, the flavor of avian influenza that’s been devastating North America’s wildlife, is a member of the pathogen’s A team.

    Read: Eagles Are Falling, Bears Are Going Blind

    B viruses, meanwhile, don’t have a particularly daunting résumé. “To our knowledge, there has never been a B pandemic,” says John Paget, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research. Only once every seven seasons or so does a B virus dominate. And although A and B viruses sometimes tag-team the winter, causing twin outbreaks spaced out by a few weeks, these seasons often open with a major flu A banger and then close out with a more muted B coda.

    The reasons underlying these differences are still pretty murky, though scientists do have some hints. Whereas flu A viruses are known as especially speedy shape-shifters, constantly spawning genetic offshoots that vie to outcompete one another, flu B’s evolve at oddly plodding rates. Their sluggish approach makes it easier for our immune system to recognize the viruses when they reappear, resulting in longer-lasting protection, more effective vaccines, and fewer reinfections than are typical with the A’s. Those molecular differences also seem to drive differences in how and when the viruses spread. The A’s tend to trouble people repeatedly from birth to death, and are great at globe-trotting. But B’s, perhaps because immunity against them is easier to come by, more often concentrate among kids, many of whom have never encountered the viruses before—and who are usually more resilient to respiratory viruses and travel less than adults, keeping outbreaks mostly regional. That might also help explain why B epidemics so frequently lag behind A’s: Slower pathogen evolution facing off with more durable host immunity add up to less rapid B spread, while their A colleagues rush ahead. Our bodies also seem to mount rather fiery defenses against A viruses, steeling them against other infections in the weeks that follow and deepening the disadvantage against any B’s trailing behind. All of that means flu B has a hard time catching humans off guard.

    The virus’s host preferences, too, make flu A viruses more dangerous. Those lineages are great at hopscotching among a whole menagerie of species—most infamously, pigs and wild, water-loving birds—sometimes undergoing rapid bursts of evolution as they go. But flu B’s seem to almost exclusively infect humans, igniting only the rare and fast-resolving outbreak in a limited number of other species—a few seals here, a handful of pigs there. Spillovers from wild creatures into humans are the roots of global outbreaks. And so, with its zoonotic bent, “influenza A will always be the main focus” of concern, says Carolien van de Sandt, a virologist at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, in Melbourne. Even among some scientists, Yamagata and Victoria register as little more than literal B-list blips.

    Plenty of other experts, though, think flu B’s relative obscurity is misguided—perhaps even a bit dangerous. Flu B’s account for roughly a quarter of annual flu cases, many of which lead to hospitalization and death; they seem hardier than their A cousins against certain antiviral drugs. And scientists simply know a lot less about flu B’s: how, precisely, they interact with the immune system; what factors influence their sluggish evolutionary rate; the nuances of their person-to-person spread; their oddball animal-host range. And that lack of intel on what has for decades been a formidable infectious foe creates a risk all on its own.


    Flu lineages have dipped into relative obscurity before only to come roaring back. After the end of the H2N2 pandemic of the late 1950s, H1N1 appeared to flame out—only to reemerge nearly two decades later to greet a population full of young people whose immune systems hadn’t glimpsed it before. And as recently as the 1990s, the B lineage Victoria underwent a years-long ebb in most parts of the world, before ricocheting back to prominence in the early 2000s.

    As far as researchers can tell, Victoria is alive and well; during the globe’s most recent winter seasons, the lineage appears to have ignited late-arriving outbreaks in several countries, including in South Africa, Malaysia, and various parts of Europe. But based on the viral sequences that researchers have isolated from people sick with flu, Yamagata is still nowhere to be found, says Saverio Caini, a virologist at the cancer research center ISPRO, in Italy.

    The lineage was already teetering on a precipice before the pandemic began, van de Sandt told me. Yamagata and Victoria, which splintered apart in the early 1980s, are still closely related enough that they often compete for the same hosts. And just prior to 2020, Victoria, the more diverse and fleet-footed of the two B lineages, had been reliably edging out its cousin, pushing Yamagata’s prevalence down, down, down. That trend, coupled with several years of use of a well-matched Yamagata strain in the seasonal flu vaccine, meant that Yamagata “had already decreased in incidence and circulation,” van de Sandt said. With the odds so steeply stacked, the addition of pandemic mitigations may have been the final factor that snuffed the lineage out.

    Recently, a few countries—including China, Pakistan, and Belize—have tentatively reported possible Yamagata infections. But there’s been no conclusive genetic proof, several experts told me. Several parts of the world, including the United States, regularly use flu vaccines containing active flu viruses that can trip the same viral tests that the wild, disease-causing pathogens do. “So the reports could be contaminations,” van de Sandt said. Scientists would need to scour the virus’s genetic sequences to distinguish infection from injection; those data, however, haven’t emerged.

    Should the Yamagata dry spell continue, researchers may want to start considering snipping the lineage out of vaccines altogether, perhaps as early as the middle or end of this year. Doing so would punt the world back to the early 2010s, when flu shots were trivalent—designed to protect people against two A viruses, H3N2 and H1N1, plus either Victoria or Yamagata, depending on which lineage researchers forecasted would surge more. (They were often wrong.) Or maybe the space once used for Yamagata could feasibly be filled with another flavor of H3N2, the fastest mutator of the bunch.

    But purging Yamagata from the vaccine would be a gamble. If Yamagata is not gone for good, van de Sandt worries that booting it from the vaccine would leave the world vulnerable to a massive and deadly outbreak. Even Dhanasekaran, who is among the researchers who are fairly confident that we’ve seen the last of Yamagata, told me he doesn’t want to rule out the possibility that the virus is cloistering in an immunocompromised person with a chronic infection, and it’s unclear if it could reemerge from such a hiding place. The only thing scientists can do for now is be patient, says Jayna Raghwani, a computational biologist at the University of Oxford. “If we don’t see it in successive seasons for another two to three years, that will be more convincing,” she told me.

    If Yamagata’s death knell has actually rung, though, it will have reverberating effects. There’s no telling, for instance, how other flu lineages might be affected by their colleague’s supposed retirement. Perhaps Victoria, which can swap genetic material with Yamagata, will evolve more slowly without its partner. At the same time, Victoria may have an easier time infecting people now that it no longer needs to compete as often for hosts.

    If Yamagata has gone to pasture, “there won’t be a ceremony declaring the world Yamagata free,” Lauring told me. And it’s easy, he points out, to forget things we don’t see. But even if Yamagata seems gone for now, the effects of its demise will be significant enough that it can’t be forgotten—not just yet.

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

    April 7, 2023
  • What People Who Have IBD Wish You Knew

    What People Who Have IBD Wish You Knew

    Anyone living with a chronic illness like inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) will tell you that it’s challenging. The condition, which includes Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis (UC), ­impacts every corner of your life, from your daily routines to the basic relationship you have with your own body. What can make it more complicated is the way others, both family and strangers, might treat you when they learn that you have IBD.

    A Confusing Diagnosis

    The thing is, IBD symptoms are sensitive subjects and uncomfortable to talk about. And all of the misconceptions and assumptions about the disease can make things more uneasy. Sometimes, even those living with IBD can be confused about what the disease is and what it isn’t

    “I thought it was an ‘old man thing,’ ” says Stefan Thomas, a U.K.-based author and speaker. Diagnosed with UC at the age of 27, Thomas had never heard of the disease beyond a few older relatives in his family having what he said was politely called “stomach problems.”

    For Ijmal Haider,  the owner of a creative and architectural design firm in Calgary, Alberta, who was diagnosed with UC in his late 20s, it was the chronic part of the illness that didn’t compute at first. He thought he could cure his condition simply by taking the right combination of medications.

    The first 2 years of UC were a roller-coaster ride, Haider says, because he started to realize there was no magic pill or quick fix for his illness. And some of the medications he was taking to manage it had major side effects. “Certain steroids can take a big toll on your body and emotional well-being.”   

    Don’t Ignore Mental Health Aspects

    The impact IBD can have on your mental health is another thing that needs to be discussed more, says Jenna Farmer, creator of A Balanced Belly, a blog about life with Crohn’s disease, based in the U.K. “I don’t think anybody realizes just how much anxiety living with a chronic condition can cause, along with the stigma of bowel issues,” she says.

    Thomas remembers the early years of managing his UC as distressing and depressing. “I was very anxious on trips out, always making sure that I was within reach of a toilet, no matter where I was, which in itself is quite upsetting, disabling, and makes you think, ‘Will I ever return to normal life?’ ”

    Thomas says the one misconception he finds most frustrating is when people mistake IBD for IBS (irritable bowel syndrome). “It happens all the time,” he says. “I can understand why someone might get confused.” But the infuriating part, he says, is the way people downplay how serious and severe IBD is by chalking it up to having a “funny tummy” that can be easily remedied by cutting out dairy. “I’m not diminishing the impact of IBS, but IBD and IBS are completely different.”

    Open Dialogue

    The best way to clear up many of these false impressions about IBD is by having more open and respectful conversations with people living with the disease. But just because it’s the best way doesn’t mean it’s easy. As Kate Petty, a Baltimore-based writer, sees it, it’s in our nature to avoid talking about things that scare us.

     “I think human beings in general tend to minimize pain in other people, because we’re all afraid of illness and injury, and so we want to push it away,” says Petty, who was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease at 16 but has been in full remission for more than 14 years.

    Instead of asking someone with IBD questions that could come across as prying, Haider suggests a better way. “One of the most powerful questions that I get asked by people who don’t have IBD is, ‘How can I support you?’ ” he says. “It’s a dynamic question that allows us – people dealing with the illness – to dictate exactly how others can help, because the support I need changes in each given moment.”

    Once you get past some of the shyness around the traditionally “embarrassing” symptoms, most people with IBD are comfortable talking about their experience, Petty says. “Ask open-ended questions about the condition, like how a person is managing it, and how they’re feeling on any given day.” 

    Learn All You Can

    Educating yourself is also key, Farmer says. “Taking just a few minutes to research my condition and the medication I’m taking is a massive help.” It shows that you care about understanding what it’s like living with IBD.

    The more folks living with IBD started to talk about it, the more it helped people like Thomas. “I realized that it wasn’t just me, and that the other people were managing their condition and just getting on with their lives.”

    Source link

    April 6, 2023
  • Scientists Get Closer to Understanding ‘Hidden’ HIV

    Scientists Get Closer to Understanding ‘Hidden’ HIV

    By Dennis Thompson 

    HealthDay Reporter

    WEDNESDAY, March 29, 2023 (HealthDay News) — Researchers are closing in on another immune system “hideout” that HIV uses to persist in the human body for years.

    A subset of white blood cells called myeloid cells can harbor HIV in people who’ve been virally suppressed for years, according to a new small-scale study funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    The researchers showed that HIV in specific myeloid cells can be reactivated, with the virus going on to infect new cells. These specific cells include short-lived monocytes and longer-lived monocyte-derived macrophages.

    The results suggest that myeloid cells contribute to a long-lived reservoir of HIV in those infected, researchers said.

    In that case, the white blood cells would be an important but overlooked target in efforts to eradicate HIV.

    “Our findings challenge the prevailing narrative that monocytes are too short-lived to be important in cure efforts,” said study author Rebecca Veenhuis, an assistant professor of molecular and comparative pathobiology and of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore.

    “Yes, the cells are short-lived, but our follow-up data show that HIV can persist in monocytes over several years in people who are virally suppressed,” Veenhuis said in an NIH news release. “The fact that we can detect HIV in these cells over such a long period suggests something is keeping the myeloid reservoir going.”

    Antiretroviral drugs are effective in suppressing HIV, by preventing the virus from infecting new cells and multiplying.

    However, HIV already present in cells can remain dormant, creating an HIV reservoir that awaits the chance to spring back into action.

    CD4 T-cells, another type of white blood cell, are the most well-studied HIV reservoir, but researchers suspect others exist.

    Monocytes circulate in the blood for about three days before traveling to different tissues in the body, where they can mature into macrophages, researchers said. Up to now, it’s not been clear whether latent HIV in these cells can reactivate and infect other cells.

    “What’s really important in the long run is understanding how monocytes contribute to the tissue macrophage reservoir,” said senior study author Janice Clements, a professor of molecular and comparative pathobiology at Hopkins School of Medicine. “If monocytes can carry virus to the brain, or lung, or another part of the body and infect resident macrophages that are self-renewing and live almost indefinitely, that’s a real problem.”

    In the study, researchers measured HIV DNA in myeloid cells belonging to 30 patients infected with HIV, all of whom had been on antiretroviral therapy for at least five years.

    The team found detectable levels of HIV genetic material in monocytes and macrophages, although the levels were much lower than has been observed in CD4 T-cells.

    In some patients, the HIV genetic material found in monocytes was intact, suggesting it could reactivate and infect new cells.

    The researchers then used a new quantitative method to directly measure the viral spread of HIV found in myeloid cells.

    They isolated monocytes from the blood of 10 patients, and nurtured the cells in cultures that contained antiretroviral drugs, just like the patients.

    After the monocytes developed into macrophages, researchers introduced an agent that activates the immune system and then added fresh white blood cells to the cultures — giving the HIV a potential new target.

    Cultures of five of the 10 participants had detectable HIV genetic material in their macrophages that could be reactivated to infect other cells and replicate, researchers reported. Those patients also had higher overall levels of HIV DNA material.

    Follow-up data from three patients showed this reservoir can harbor latent HIV for up to several years. The reservoirs were stable and could be reactivated over time, indicating that monocyte-derived macrophages could contribute to HIV viral rebound if antiretroviral therapy is interrupted.

    The researchers called for larger studies with more diverse participant pools, to gain a better idea of how many people might carry latent HIV in myeloid cells and figure out how the monocyte HIV reservoir replenishes itself over time.

    The study was published March 27 in the journal Nature Microbiology.

    More information

    The U.S. National Institutes of Health has more about the latent HIV reservoir.

     

    SOURCE: U.S. National Institutes of Health, news release, March 27, 2023

    Source link

    March 29, 2023
  • So Are Nonstick Pans Safe or What?

    So Are Nonstick Pans Safe or What?

    I grew up in a nonstick-pan home. No matter what was on the menu, my dad would reach for the Teflon-coated pan first: nonstick for stir-fried vegetables, for reheating takeout, for the sunny-side-up eggs, garlic fried rice, and crisped Spam slices that constituted breakfast. Nowadays, I’m a much fussier cook: A stainless-steel pan is my kitchen workhorse. Still, when I’m looking to make something delicate, such as a golden pancake or a classic omelet, I can’t help but turn back to that time-tested fave.

    And what a dream it is to use. Nonstick surfaces are so frictionless that fragile crepes and scallops practically lift themselves off the pan; cleaning up sticky foods, such as oozing grilled-cheese sandwiches, becomes no more strenuous than rinsing a plate. No wonder 70 percent of skillets sold in the U.S. are nonstick. Who can afford to mangle a dainty snapper fillet or spend time scrubbing away crisped rice?

    All of this convenience, however, comes with a cost: the unsettling feeling that cooking with a nonstick pan is somehow bad for you. My dad had a rule that we could only use a soft, silicon-edged spatula with the pan, born of his hazy intuition that any scratches on the coating would cause it to leach into our food and make us sick. Many home cooks have lived with these fears since at least the early 2000s, when we first began to hear about problems with Teflon, the substance that makes pans nonstick. Teflon is produced from chemicals that are part of an enormous family of chemicals known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroakyl substances, or PFAS, and research has linked exposure to them to many health conditions, including certain cancers, reproductive issues, and high cholesterol. And that is about all we know: In kitchens over the past two decades, the same questions around safety have lingered unanswered amid the aromas of sizzling foods and, perhaps, invisible clouds of Teflon fumes.

    It is objectively ridiculous that the safety of one of the most common household items in America remains such a mystery. But the reality is that it is nearly impossible to measure the risks of PFAS from nonstick cookware—and more important, it’s probably pointless to try. That’s because PFAS have for many decades imparted a valuable stain- and water-resistance to many types of surfaces, including carpets, car seats, and raincoats.

    At this point, the chemicals are also ubiquitous in the environment, particularly in the water supply. Last June, the Environmental Protection Agency established new safety guidelines for the level of certain PFAS in drinking water; a study published around the same time showed that millions of deaths are correlated with PFAS exposure. By the Environmental Working Group’s latest count, PFAS have contaminated more than 2,850 sites in 50 states and two territories—an “alarming” level of pervasiveness, researchers wrote in a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report last year. But something about nonstick pans has generated the biggest freak-out. This is not surprising, given their exposure to food and open flames. After all, people do not heat up and consume raincoats (as far as I know).

    Since research into their health effects began, certain types of PFAS have been flagged as more dangerous than others. Two of them, PFOA and PFOS, were voluntarily phased out by manufacturers for several reasons, including the fact that they were deemed dangerous to the immune system; now many nonstick pans specify that their coatings are PFOA free. (If you’re confused by all the acronyms, you aren’t the only one.) But other types of PFAS are still used in these coatings, and their risks to humans aren’t clear. Teflon claims that any flakes of nonstick coating you might ingest are inert, but public studies backing up that claim are difficult to find.

    In the absence of relevant data, everyone seems to have a different take on nonstick pans. The FDA, for example, allows PFAS to be used in nonstick cookware, but the EPA says that exposure to them can lead to adverse health effects, and last year proposed labeling certain members of the group as “hazardous substances.” According to the CDC, the health effects of low exposure to these chemicals are “uncertain.” Food experts are similarly undecided on nonstick pans: A writer for the culinary site Serious Eats said he “wouldn’t assume they’re totally safe,” whereas a Wirecutter review said they “seem to be safe”—if used correctly.

    That’s about the firmest answer you’re going to get regarding the safety of nonstick cookware. “In no study has it been shown that people who use nonstick pans have higher levels” of PFAS, says Jane Hoppin, a North Carolina State University epidemiologist and a member of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee to study PFAS. But she also told me that, with regard to the broader research on PFAS-related health risks, “I haven’t seen anybody say it’s safe to use.”

    Certainly, more research could be done on PFAS, given the lack of relevant studies. There is no research, for example, showing that people who use nonstick pans are more likely to get sick. The one study on exposure from nonstick pans mentioned in the report that Hoppin and others published last year found inconclusive results after measuring gaseous PFAS released from heated nonstick pans, though the researchers tested only a few pans. Another study in which scientists used nonstick pans to cook beef and pork—and an assortment of more glamorous meats including chicken nuggets—and then measured the PFAS levels likewise failed to reach a conclusion, because too few meat samples were used.

    More scientists could probably be convinced to pursue rigorous research in this field if PFAS exposure came only from nonstick pans. Investigating the risks would be tough, perhaps impossible: Designing a rigorous study to test the risks of PFAS exposure would likely involve forcing unwitting test subjects to breathe in PFAS fumes or eat from flaking pans. But given that we are exposed to PFAS in so many other ways—drinking water being chief among them—what would be the point? “They’re in dental floss, and they’re in your Gore-Tex jacket, and they’re in your shoes,” Hoppin said. “The relative contribution of any one of those things is minor.”

    As long as PFAS keep proliferating in the environment, we might never fully know exactly what nonstick pans are doing to us. The best we can do for now is decide what level of risk we’re willing to accept in exchange for a slippery pan, based on the information available. And that information is frustratingly vague: Most nonstick products come with a disclosure of the types of PFAS they contain and the types they do not. Sometimes they also include instructions to avoid high heat, especially above 500 degrees Fahrenheit. Hoppin recommends throwing nonstick pans away once they start flaking; in general, it seems worth it to use the pans only when essential. There is likewise a dearth of guidance on breathing in the fumes from an overheated pan, though breathing in PFAS fumes in industrial settings has been known to cause flulike symptoms. If you’re concerned, Hoppin said, you could use any of the growing number of nonstick alternatives, including ceramic and carbon-steel cookware. (Her preference is well-seasoned cast iron.)

    Still, perhaps it’s time to accept that exposure to PFAS is inevitable, much like exposure to microplastics and other carcinogens. At this point, so many harmful substances are all around us that there doesn’t seem to be any point in trying to limit them in individual products, though such efforts are underway for raincoats and period underwear. “What we really need to do is remove these chemicals from production,” Hoppin said. The hope is that doing so would broadly reduce our exposure to PFAS, and there’s evidence that it would work: After PFOS was phased out in the early 2000s, its levels in human blood declined significantly. But until PFAS are more tightly regulated, we’ll continue our endless slide through nonstick limbo, with our grasp of the cookware’s safety remaining slippery at best.

    I’ve tried to cut down on my nonstick-pan use for sheer peace of mind. Many professional chefs reject nonstick pans as unnecessary if you know the proper technique; French chefs, after all, were flipping omelets long before the first Teflon pan was invented—by a French engineer—in 1954. Fancying myself a purist, I recently attempted to cook an omelet using All-Clad stainless steel, following a set of demanding instructions involving ungodly amounts of butter and a moderate amount of heat. Unlike my resolve to avoid nonstick pans, the eggs stuck.

    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link

    February 6, 2023
  • Inflammation and Immunity Troubles Top Long COVID Suspect List

    Inflammation and Immunity Troubles Top Long COVID Suspect List

    SOURCES:

    Alexander Truong, MD, pulmonologist, assistant professor, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta.

    Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, lead principal investigator, RECOVER adult cohort, associate professor of psychiatry, genetics and genomic sciences, neuroscience, and neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

    Michael Peluso, MD, assistant professor of medicine, infectious diseases doctor, University of California, San Francisco.

    Rainu Kaushal, MD, senior associate dean for clinical research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

    The Lancet eClinicalMedicine: “Characterizing long COVID in an international cohort: 7 months of symptoms and their impact.”

    Nature Reviews Microbiology: “Long COVID: major findings, mechanisms and recommendations.”

    Immunity, Inflammation and Disease: “COVID-19 associated EBV reactivation and effects of ganciclovir treatment.”

    Clinical Infectious Diseases: “Persistent Circulating Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Spike Is Associated With Post-acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 Sequelae.”

    Cell Reports Medicine: “The IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF cytokine triad is associated with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19.”

    Nature Medicine: “Data-driven identification of post-acute SARS-CoV-2 infection subphenotypes,” “Molecular states during acute COVID-19 reveal distinct etiologies of long-term sequelae.”

    Nature Immunology: “Immunological dysfunction persists for 8 months following initial mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

    Science Translational Medicine: “Persistent post–COVID-19 smell loss is associated with immune cell infiltration and altered gene expression in olfactory epithelium.”

    European Respiratory Journal: “Circulating anti-nuclear autoantibodies in COVID-19 survivors predict long COVID symptoms.”

    Journal of Medical Virology: “Persistence of neutrophil extracellular traps and anticardiolipin auto-antibodies in post-acute phase COVID-19 patients.”

    Johns Hopkins Medicine: “What are common symptoms of autoimmune disease?”

    Source link

    February 1, 2023
  • Trying to Stop Long COVID Before It Even Starts

    Trying to Stop Long COVID Before It Even Starts

    Three years into the global fight against SARS-CoV-2, the arsenal to combat long COVID remains depressingly bare. Being vaccinated seems to reduce people’s chances of developing the condition, but the only surefire option for avoiding long COVID is to avoid catching the coronavirus at all—a proposition that feels ever more improbable. For anyone who is newly infected, “we don’t have any interventions that are known to work,” says Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist and long-COVID researcher at Yale.

    Some researchers are hopeful that the forecast might shift soon. A pair of recent preprint studies, both now under review for publication in scientific journals, hint that two long-COVID-preventing pills might already be on our pharmacy shelves: the antiviral Paxlovid and metformin, an affordable drug commonly used for treating type 2 diabetes. When taken early in infection, each seems to at least modestly trim the chance of developing long COVID—by 42 percent, in the case of metformin. Neither set of results is a slam dunk. The Paxlovid findings did not come out of a clinical trial, and were focused on patients at high risk of developing severe, acute COVID; the metformin data did come out of a clinical trial, but the study was small. When I called more than half a dozen infectious-disease experts to discuss them, all used hopeful, but guarded, language: The results are “promising,” “intriguing”; they “warrant further investigation.”

    At this point, though, any advance at all feels momentous. Long COVID remains the pandemic’s biggest unknown: Researchers still can’t even agree on its prevalence or the features that define it. What is clear is that millions of people in the United States alone, and countless more worldwide, have experienced some form of it, and more are expected to join them. “We’ve already seen early data, and we’ll continue to see data, that that will emphasize the impact that long COVID has on our society, on quality of life, on productivity, on our health system and medical expenditures,” says Susanna Naggie, an infectious-disease physician and COVID-drug researcher at Duke University. “This needs to be a high priority,” she told me. Researchers have to trim long COVID incidence as much as possible, as soon as possible, with whatever safe, effective options they can.

    By now, news of the inertia around preventive long-COVID therapies may not come as much of a shock. Interventions that stop disease from developing are, on the whole, a neglected group; big, blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trials—the industry gold standard—usually look to investigate potential treatments, rather than drugs that might keep future illness at bay. It’s a bias that makes research easier and faster; it’s a core part of the American medical culture’s reactive approach to health.

    Read: Long COVID has forced a reckoning for one of medicine’s most neglected diseases

    For long COVID, the terrain is even rougher. Researchers are best able to address prevention when they understand a disease’s triggers, the source of its symptoms, and who’s most at risk. That intel provides a road map, pointing them toward specific bodily systems and interventions. The potential causes of COVID, though, remain murky, says Adrian Hernandez, a cardiologist and clinical researcher at Duke. Years of research have shown that the condition is quite likely to comprise a cluster of diverse syndromes with different triggers and prognoses, more like a category (e.g., “cancer”) than a singular disease. If that’s the case, then a single preventive treatment shouldn’t be expected to cut its rates for everyone. Without a universal way to define and diagnose the condition, researchers can’t easily design trials, either. Endpoints such as hospitalization and death tend to be binary and countable. Long COVID operates in shades of gray.

    Still, some scientists might be making headway with vetted antiviral drugs, already known to slash the risk of developing severe COVID-19. A subset of long-COVID cases could be caused by bits of virus that linger in the body, prompting the immune system to wage an extended war; a drug that clears the microbe more quickly might lower the chances that any part of the invader sticks around. Paxlovid, which interferes with SARS-CoV-2’s ability to copy itself inside of our cells, fits that bill. “The idea here is really nipping it in the bud,” says Ziyad Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist and long-COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, who led the recent Paxlovid work.

    Paxlovid has yet to hit the scientific jackpot: proof from a big clinical trial that shows it can prevent long COVID in newly infected people. But Al-Aly’s study, which pored over the electronic medical records of more than 56,000 high-risk patients, offers some early optimism. People who took the pills, he and his colleagues found, were 26 percent less likely to report lingering symptoms three months after their symptoms began than those who didn’t.

    Read: Inside the mind of an anti-Paxxer

    The pills’ main benefit remains the prevention of severe, acute disease. (In the recent study, Paxlovid-takers were also 30 percent less likely to be hospitalized and 48 percent less likely to die.) Al-Aly expects that the drug’s effectiveness at preventing long COVID—if it’s confirmed in other populations—will be “modest, not huge.” Though the two functions could yet be linked: Some long-COVID cases may result from severe infections that damage tissues so badly that the body struggles to recover. And should Paxlovid’s potential pan out, it could help build the case for testing other SARS-CoV-2 antivirals. Al-Aly and his colleagues are currently working on a similar study into molnupiravir. “The early results are encouraging,” he told me, though “not as robust as Paxlovid.” (Another study, run by other researchers, that followed hospitalized COVID patients found those who took remdesivir were less likely to get long COVID, but a later randomized clinical trial didn’t bear that out.)

    A clinical trial testing Paxlovid’s preventive potency against long COVID is still needed. Kit Longley, a spokesperson for Pfizer, told me in an email that the company doesn’t currently have one planned, though it is “continuing to monitor data from our clinical studies and real-world evidence.” (The company is collaborating with a research group at Stanford to study Paxlovid in new clinical contexts, but they’re looking at whether the pills  might treat long COVID that’s already developed. The RECOVER trial, a large NIH-funded study on long COVID, is also focusing its current studies on treatment.) But given the meager uptake rates for Paxlovid even among those in high-risk groups, Al-Aly thinks his new data could already serve a useful purpose: providing people with extra motivation to take the drug.

    The case for adding metformin to the anti-COVID tool kit might be a bit muddier. The drug isn’t the most intuitive medication to deploy against a respiratory virus, and despite its widespread use among diabetics, its exact effects on the body remain nebulous, says Stacey Schultz-Cherry, a virologist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. But there are many reasons to believe it might be useful. Some research has shown that metformin can mess with the manufacture of viral proteins inside of human cells, Bramante told me, which may impede the ability of SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens to reproduce. The drug also appears to rev up the disease-dueling powers of certain immune cells, and to stave off inflammation. Studies have shown that metformin can improve responses to certain vaccinations in humans and rodents, and researchers have found that people taking the drug seem less likely to get seriously sick from influenza. Even the diabetes-coronavirus connection may not be so tenuous: Metabolic disease is a risk factor for severe COVID; infection itself can put blood-sugar levels on the fritz. It’s certainly plausible that having a metabolically altered body, Schultz-Cherry told me, could make infections worse.

    Read: The promising treatment we’re not even trying for long COVID

    But the evidence that metformin helps prevent long COVID remains sparse. Carolyn Bramante, the scientist who led the metformin study, told me that when her team first set out in 2020 to investigate the drug’s effects on SARS-CoV-2 infections in a randomized, clinical trial, long COVID wasn’t really on their radar. Like many others in their field, they were hoping to repurpose established medicines to keep infected people out of the hospital; early studies of metformin—as well as the two other drugs in their trial, the antidepressant fluvoxamine and the antiparasitic ivermectin—hinted that they’d work. Ironically, two years later, their story flipped around. A large analysis, published last summer, showed that none of the three drugs were stellar at preventing severe COVID in the short term—a disappointing result (though Bramante contends that their data still indicate that metformin does some good). Then, when Bramante and her colleagues examined their data again, they found that study participants that had taken metformin for two weeks around the start of their illness were 42 percent less likely to have a long-COVID diagnosis from their doctor nearly a year down the road. David Boulware, an infectious-disease physician who helped lead the work, considers that degree of reduction pretty decent: “Is it 100 percent? No,” he told me. “But it’s better than zero.”

    Metformin may well prove to prevent long COVID but not acute, severe COVID (or vice versa). Plenty of people who never spend time in the hospital can still end up developing chronic symptoms. And Iwasaki points out that the demographics of long-haulers and people who get severe COVID don’t really overlap; the latter skew older and male. In the future, early-infection regimens may be multipronged: antivirals, partnered with metabolic drugs, in the hopes of keeping symptoms both mild and short-lived.

    But researchers are still a long way off from delivering that reality. It’s not yet clear, for instance, whether the drugs work additively when combined, Boulware told me. Nor is it a given that they’ll work across different demographics—age, vaccination status, risk factors, and more. Bramante and Boulware’s study cast a decently wide net: Although everyone enrolled in the trial was overweight or obese, many were young and healthy; a few were even pregnant. The study was not enormous, though—about 1,000 people. It also relied on patients’ individual doctors to deliver long-COVID diagnoses, likely leading to some inconsistencies, so other studies that follow up in the future could find different results. For now, this isn’t enough to “mean we should run out and use metformin,” Schultz-Cherry, who has been battling long COVID herself, told me.

    Other medications could still fill the long-COVID gaps. Hernandez, the Duke cardiologist, is hopeful that one of his ongoing clinical trials, ACTIV-6, might provide answers soon. He and his team are testing whether any of several drugs—including ivermectin, fluvoxamine, the steroid fluticasone, and, as a new addition, the anti-inflammatory montelukast—might cut down on severe, short-term COVID. But Hernandez and his colleagues, Naggie among them, appended a check-in at the 90-day mark, when they’ll be asking their patients whether they’re experiencing a dozen or so symptoms that could hint at a chronic syndrome.

    That check-in questionnaire won’t capture the full list of long-COVID symptoms, now more than 200 strong. Still, the three-month benchmark could give them a sense of where to keep looking, and for how long. Hernandez, Naggie, and their colleagues are considering whether to extend their follow-up period to six months, maybe farther. The need for long-COVID prevention, after all, will only grow as the total infection count does. “We’re not going to get rid of long COVID anytime soon,” Iwasaki told me. “The more we can prevent onset, the better off we are.”

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

    January 19, 2023
  • Is COVID Immunity Hung Up on Old Variants?

    Is COVID Immunity Hung Up on Old Variants?

    In the two-plus years that COVID vaccines have been available in America, the basic recipe has changed just once. The virus, meanwhile, has belched out five variants concerning enough to earn their own Greek-letter names, followed by a menagerie of weirdly monikered Omicron subvariants, each seeming to spread faster than the last. Vaccines, which take months to reformulate, just can’t keep up with a virus that seems to reinvent itself by the week.

    But SARS-CoV-2’s evolutionary sprint might not be the only reason that immunity can get bogged down in the past. The body seems to fixate on the first version of the virus that it encountered, either through injection or infection—a preoccupation with the past that researchers call “original antigenic sin,” and that may leave us with defenses that are poorly tailored to circulating variants. In recent months, some experts have begun to worry that this “sin” might now be undermining updated vaccines. At an extreme, the thinking goes, people may not get much protection from a COVID shot that is a perfect match for the viral variant du jour.

    Recent data hint at this possibility. Past brushes with the virus or the original vaccine seem to mold, or even muffle, people’s reactions to bivalent shots—“I have no doubt about that,” Jenna Guthmiller, an immunologist at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, told me. The immune system just doesn’t make Omicron-focused antibodies in the quantity or quality it probably would have had it seen the updated jabs first. But there’s also an upside to this stubbornness that we could not live without, says Katelyn Gostic, an immunologist and infectious-disease modeler who has studied the phenomenon with flu. Original antigenic sin is the reason repeat infections, on average, get milder over time, and the oomph that enables vaccines to work as well as they do. “It’s a fundamental part,” Gostic told me, “of being able to create immunological memory.”

    This is not just basic biology. The body’s powerful first impressions of this coronavirus can and should influence how, when, and how often we revaccinate against it, and with what. Better understanding of the degree to which these impressions linger could also help scientists figure out why people are (or are not) fighting off the latest variants—and how their defenses will fare against the virus as it continues to change.


    The worst thing about “original antigenic sin” is its name. The blame for that technically lies with Thomas Francis Jr., the immunologist who coined the phrase more than six decades ago after noticing that the initial flu infections people weathered in childhood could bias how they fared against subsequent strains. “Basically, the flu you get first in life is the one you respond to most avidly for the long term,” says Gabriel Victora, an immunologist at Rockefeller University. That can become somewhat of an issue when a very different-looking strain comes knocking.

    In scenarios like these, original antigenic sin may sound like the molecular equivalent of a lovesick teen pining over an ex, or a student who never graduates out of immunological grade school. But from the immune system’s point of view, never forgetting your first is logically sound. New encounters with a pathogen catch the body off guard—and tend to be the most severe. A deep-rooted defensive reaction, then, is practical: It ups the chances that the next time the same invader shows up, it will be swiftly identified and dispatched. “Having good memory and being able to boost it very quickly is sometimes a very good thing,” Victora told me. It’s the body’s way of ensuring that it won’t get fooled twice.

    Read: Annual COVID shots mean we can stop counting

    These old grudges come with clear advantages even when microbes morph into new forms, as flu viruses and coronaviruses often do. Pathogens don’t remake themselves all at once, so immune cells that home in on familiar snippets of a virus can still in many cases snuff out enough invaders to prevent an infection’s worst effects. That’s why even flu shots that aren’t perfectly matched to the season’s most prominent strains are usually still quite good at keeping people out of hospitals and morgues. “There’s a lot of leniency in how much the virus can change before we really lose protection,” Guthmiller told me. The wiggle room should be even bigger, she said, with SARS-CoV-2, whose subvariants tend to be far more similar to one another than, say, different flu strains are.

    With all the positives that immune memory can offer, many immunologists tend to roll their eyes at the negative and bizarrely moralizing implications of the phrase original antigenic sin. “I really, really hate that term,” says Deepta Bhattacharya, an immunologist at the University of Arizona. Instead, Bhattacharya and others prefer to use more neutral words such as imprinting, evocative of a duckling latching onto the first maternal figure it spots. “This is not some strange immunological phenomenon,” says Rafi Ahmed, an immunologist at Emory University. It’s more a textbook example of what an adaptable, high-functioning immune system does, and one that can have positive or negative effects, depending on context. Recent flu outbreaks have showcased a little bit of each: During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, many elderly people, normally more susceptible to flu viruses, fared better than expected against the late-aughts strain, because they’d banked exposures to a similar-looking H1N1—a derivative of the culprit behind the 1918 pandemic—in their youth. But in some seasons that followed, H1N1 disproportionately sickened middle-aged adults whose early-life flu indoctrinations may have tilted them away from a protective response.

    Read: COVID science is moving backwards

    The backward-gazing immune systems of those adults may have done more than preferentially amplify defensive responses to a less relevant viral strain. They might have also actively suppressed the formation of a response to the new one. Part of that is sheer kinetics: Veteran immune cells, trained up on past variants and strains, tend to be quicker on the draw than fresh recruits, says Scott Hensley, an immunologist at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. And the greater the number of experienced soldiers, the more likely they are to crowd out rookie fighters—depriving them of battlefield experience they might otherwise accrue. Should the newer viral strain eventually return for a repeat infection, those less experienced immune cells may not be adequately prepared—leaving people more vulnerable, perhaps, than they might otherwise have been.

    Some researchers think that form of imprinting might now be playing out with the bivalent COVID vaccines. Several studies have found that the BA.5-focused shots are, at best, moderately more effective at producing an Omicron-targeted antibody response than the original-recipe jab—not the knockout results that some might have hoped for. Recent work in mice from Victora’s lab backs up that idea: B cells, the manufacturers of antibodies, do seem to have trouble moving past the impressions of SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein that they got from first exposure. But the findings don’t really trouble Victora, who gladly received his own bivalent COVID shot. (He’ll take the next update, too, whenever it’s ready.) A blunted response to a new vaccine, he told me, is not a nonexistent one—and the more foreign a second shot recipe is compared with the first, the more novice fighters should be expected to participate in the fight. “You’re still adding new responses,” he said, that will rev back up when they become relevant. The coronavirus is a fast evolver. But the immune system also adapts. Which means that people who receive the bivalent shot can still expect to be better protected against Omicron variants than those who don’t.

    Historical flu data support this idea. Many of the middle-aged adults slammed by recent H1N1 infections may not have mounted perfect attacks on the unfamiliar virus, but as immune cells continued to tussle with the pathogen, the body “pretty quickly filled in the gaps,” Gostic told me. Although it’s tempting to view imprinting as a form of destiny, “that’s just not how the immune system works,” Guthmiller told me. Preferences can be overwritten; biases can be undone.


    Original antigenic sin might not be a crisis, but its existence does suggest ways to optimize our vaccination strategies with past biases in mind. Sometimes, those preferences might need to be avoided; in other instances, they should be actively embraced.

    For that to happen, though, immunologists would need to fill in some holes in their knowledge of imprinting: how often it occurs, the rules by which it operates, what can entrench or alleviate it. Even among flu viruses, where the pattern has been best-studied, plenty of murkiness remains. It’s not clear whether imprinting is stronger, for instance, when the first exposure comes via infection or vaccination. Scientists can’t yet say whether children, with their fiery yet impressionable immune systems, might be more or less prone to getting stuck on their very first flu strain. Researchers don’t even know for certain whether repetition of a first exposure—say, through multiple doses of the same vaccine, or reinfections with the same variant—will more deeply embed a particular imprint.

    It does seem intuitive that multiple doses of a vaccine could exacerbate an early bias, Ahmed told me. But if that’s the case, then the same principle might also work the other way: Maybe multiple exposures to a new version of the virus could help break an old habit, and nudge the immune system to move on. Recent evidence has hinted that people previously infected with an early Omicron subvariant responded more enthusiastically to a bivalent BA.1-focused vaccine—available in the United Kingdom—than those who’d never encountered the lineage before. Hensley, at the University of Pennsylvania, is now trying to figure out if the same is true for Americans who got the BA.5-based bivalent shot after getting sick with one of the many Omicron subvariants.

    Ahmed thinks that giving people two updated shots—a safer approach, he points out, than adding an infection to the mix—could untether the body from old imprints too. A few years ago, he and his colleagues showed that a second dose of a particular flu vaccine could help shift the ratio of people’s immune responses. A second dose of the fall’s bivalent vaccine might not be practical or palatable for most people, especially now that BA.5 is on its way out. But if next autumn’s recipe overlaps with BA.5 in ways that it doesn’t with the original variant—as it likely will to at least some degree, given the Omicron lineage’s continuing reign—a later, slightly different shot could still be a boon.

    Keeping vaccine doses relatively spaced out—on an annual basis, say, à la flu shots—will likely help too, Bhattacharya said. His recent studies, not yet published, hint that the body might “forget” old variants, as it were, if it’s simply given more time: As antibodies raised against prior infections and injections fall away, vaccine ingredients could linger in the body rather than be destroyed by prior immunity on sight. That slightly extended stay might offer the junior members of the immune system—lesser in number, and slower on the uptake—more of an opportunity to cook up an Omicron-specific response.

    In an ideal world, researchers might someday know enough about imprinting to account for its finickiness whenever they select and roll out new shots. Flu shots, for instance, could be personalized to account for which strains babies were first exposed to, based on birth year; combinations of COVID vaccine doses and infections could dictate the timing and composition of a next jab. But the world is not yet living that reality, Gostic told me. And after three years of an ever-changing coronavirus and a fluctuating approach to public health, it’s clear that there won’t be a single vaccine recipe that’s ideal for everyone at once.

    Even Thomas Francis Jr. did not consider original antigenic sin to be a total negative, Hensley told me. According to Francis, the true issue with the “sin” was that humans were missing out on the chance to imprint on multiple strains at once in childhood, when the immune system is still a blank slate—something that modern researchers could soon accomplish with the development of universal vaccines. Our reliance on first impressions can be a drawback. But the same phenomenon can be an opportunity to acquaint the body with diversity early on—to give it a richer narrative, and memories of many threats to come.

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

    January 11, 2023
  • How Worried Should We Be About XBB.1.5?

    How Worried Should We Be About XBB.1.5?

    After months and months of SARS-CoV-2 subvariant soup, one ingredient has emerged in the United States with a flavor pungent enough to overwhelm the rest: XBB.1.5, an Omicron offshoot that now accounts for an estimated 75 percent of cases in the Northeast. A crafty dodger of antibodies that is able to grip extra tightly onto the surface of our cells, XBB.1.5 is now officially the country’s fastest-spreading coronavirus subvariant. In the last week of December alone, it zoomed from 20 percent of estimated infections nationwide to 40 percent; soon, it’s expected to be all that’s left, or at least very close. “That’s the big thing everybody looks for—how quickly it takes over from existing variants,” says Shaun Truelove, an infectious-disease modeler at Johns Hopkins University. “And that’s a really quick rise.”

    All of this raises familiar worries: more illness, more long COVID, more hospitalizations, more health-care system strain. With holiday cheer and chilly temperatures crowding people indoors, and the uptake of bivalent vaccines at an abysmal low, a winter wave was already brewing in the U.S. The impending dominance of an especially speedy, immune-evasive variant, Truelove told me, could ratchet up that swell.

    But the American public has heard that warning many, many, many times before—and by and large, the situation has not changed. The world has come a long way since early 2020, when it lacked vaccines and drugs to combat the coronavirus; now, with immunity from shots and past infections slathered across the planet—porous and uneven though that layer may be—the population is no longer nearly so vulnerable to COVID’s worst effects. Nor is XBB.1.5 a doomsday-caliber threat. So far, no evidence suggests that the subvariant is inherently more severe than its predecessors. When its close sibling, XBB, swamped Singapore a few months ago, pushing case counts up, hospitalizations didn’t undergo a disproportionately massive spike (though XBB.1.5 is more transmissible, and the U.S. is less well vaccinated). Compared with the original Omicron surge that pummeled the nation this time last year, “I think there’s less to be worried about,” especially for people who are up to date on their vaccines, says Mehul Suthar, a viral immunologist at Emory University who’s been studying how the immune system reacts to new variants. “My previous exposures are probably going to help against any XBB infection I have.”

    SARS-CoV-2’s evolution is still worth tracking closely through genomic surveillance—which is only getting harder as testing efforts continue to be pared back. But “variants mean something a little different now for most of the world than they did earlier in the pandemic,” says Emma Hodcroft, a molecular epidemiologist at the University of Bern, in Switzerland, who’s been tracking the proportions of SARS-Cov-2 variants around the world. Versions of the virus that can elude a subset of our immune defenses are, after all, going to keep on coming, for as long as SARS-CoV-2 is with us—likely forever, as my colleague Sarah Zhang has written. It’s the classic host-pathogen arms race: Viruses infect us; our bodies, hoping to avoid a similarly severe reinfection, build up defenses, goading the invader into modifying its features so it can infiltrate us anew.

    Read: How long can the coronavirus keep infecting us?

    But the virus is not evolving toward the point where it’s unstoppable; it’s only switching up its fencing stance to sidestep our latest parries as we do the same for it. A version of the virus that succeeds in one place may flop in another, depending on the context: local vaccination and infection histories, for instance, or how many elderly and immunocompromised individuals are around, and the degree to which everyone avoids trading public air. With the world’s immune landscape now so uneven, “it’s getting harder for the virus to do that synchronized wave that Omicron did this time last year,” says Verity Hill, an evolutionary virologist at Yale. It will keep trying to creep around our defenses, says Pavitra Roychoudhury, who’s monitoring SARS-CoV-2 variants at the University of Washington, but “I don’t think we need to have alarm-bell emojis for every variant that comes out.”

    Read: The coronavirus’s next move

    Some particularly worrying variants and subvariants will continue to arise, with telltale signs, Roychoudhury told me: a steep increase in wastewater surveillance, followed by a catastrophic climb in hospitalizations; a superfast takeover that kicks other coronavirus strains off the stage in a matter of days or weeks. Omens such as these hint at a variant that’s probably so good at circumventing existing immune defenses that it will easily sicken just about everyone again—and cause enough illness overall that a large number of cases turn severe. Also possible is a future variant that is inherently more virulent, adding risk to every new case. In extreme versions of these scenarios, tests, treatments, and masks might need to come back into mass use; researchers may need to concoct a new vaccine recipe  at an accelerated pace. But that’s a threshold that most variations of SARS-CoV-2 will not clear—including, it seems so far, XBB.1.5. Right now, Hodcroft told me, “it’s hard to imagine that anything we’ve been seeing in the last few months would really cause a rush to do a vaccine update,” or anything else similarly extreme. “We don’t make a new flu vaccine every time we see a new variant, and we see those all through the year.” Our current crop of BA.5-focused shots is not a great match for XBB.1.5, as Suthar and his colleagues have found, at least on the antibody front. But antibodies aren’t the only defenses at play—and Suthar told me it’s still far better to have the new vaccine than not.

    In the U.S., wastewater counts and hospitalizations are ticking upward, and XBB.1.5 is quickly elbowing out its peers. But the estimated infection rise doesn’t seem nearly as steep as the ascension of the original Omicron variant, BA.1 (though our tracking is now poorer). XBB.1.5 also isn’t dominating equally in different parts of the country—and Truelove points out that it doesn’t yet seem tightly linked to hospitalizations in the places where it’s gained traction so far. As tempting as it may be to blame any rise in cases and hospitalizations on the latest subvariant, our own behaviors are at least as important. Drop-offs in vaccine uptake or big jumps in mitigation-free mingling can drive spikes in illness on their own. “We were expecting a wave already, this time of year,” Hill told me. Travel is up, masking is down. And just 15 percent of Americans over the age of 5 have received a bivalent shot.

    The pace at which new SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants take over could eventually slow, but the experts I spoke with weren’t sure this would happen. Immunity across the globe remains patchy; only a subset of countries have access to updated bivalent vaccines, while some countries are still struggling to get first doses into millions of arms. And with nearly all COVID-dampening mitigations “pretty much gone” on a global scale, Hodcroft told me, it’s gotten awfully easy for the coronavirus to keep experimenting with new ways to stump our immune defenses. XBB.1.5 is both the product and the catalyst of unfettered spread—and should that continue, the virus will take advantage again.

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

    January 5, 2023
  • Please Stop Kissing Strangers’ Babies

    Please Stop Kissing Strangers’ Babies

    Barack Obama did it. Donald Trump did it. Joe Biden, of course, has done it too. But each of them was wrong: Kissing another person’s baby is just not a good idea.

    That rule of lip, experts told me, should be a top priority during the brisk fall and winter months, when flu, RSV, and other respiratory viruses tend to go hog wild (as they are doing right this very moment). “But actually, this is year-round advice,” says Tina Tan, a pediatrician at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. Rain, wind, or shine, outside of an infant’s nuclear family, people should just keep their mouths to themselves. Leave those soft, pillowy cheeks alone!

    A moratorium on infant smooching might feel like a bit of a downer—even counterintuitive, given how essential it is for infants and caregivers to touch. But kissing isn’t the only way to show affection to a newborn, and the rationale for cutting back on it specifically is one that most can get behind: keeping those same wee bebes safe. An infant’s immune system is still fragile and unlearned; it struggles to identify infectious threats and can’t marshal much of a defense even when it does. Annette Cameron, a pediatrician at Yale, told me she usually advises parents to avoid public places—church, buses, stores—until their baby is about six weeks old, and able to receive their first big round of immunizations. (And even then, shots take a couple of weeks to kick in.)

    The situation grows far less perilous once kids’ vaccine cards start to get more full; past, say, six months of age or so, they’re in much better shape. But risk remains a spectrum, especially when lips get involved. The mouth, I am sorry to tell you, is a weird and gross place, chock-full of saliva, half-chewed flecks of food, and microbes galore; all that schmutz is apt to drool and dribble onto whatever surfaces we drag our faces across. Flu, RSV, rhinovirus, SARS-CoV-2, and the coronaviruses that lead to common colds are among the many respiratory pathogens that hang out in and around our mouth. Although these viruses don’t usually make adults very sick, they can clobber young, unvaccinated kids, whose airways are still small. Health-care workers are seeing a lot of those illnesses now: Cameron recently treated a two-week-old who’d caught rhinovirus and ended up in the ICU.

    Also on the list of smoochable threats is herpes simplex 1, the virus responsible for cold sores. “That’s the one I worry about the most,” says Annabelle de St. Maurice, a pediatric-infectious-disease specialist at UCLA and the mother of a 1-year-old daughter. Most American adults harbor chronic HSV-1 infections in their mouth with no symptoms at all, save for maybe the occasional lesion. But the super-transmissible virus can spread throughout the body of an infant, triggering high fevers and seizures bad enough to require a visit to the hospital. For the first few weeks of a baby’s life, anyone with an active cold sore—blood relative, presidential candidate, or both—would do well to keep away. (Even a history of cold sores might warrant extra caution.)

    The lip-restraining guidance is most pertinent to people outside an infant’s household, experts told me, which can include extended family. Ideally, even grandparents “should not be kissing on the baby for at least the first few months,” Tan told me. Within a home, siblings attending day care and school—where it’s easy to pick up germs—might also want to sheathe their smackeroos at first. Years ago, Cameron’s own son had to be admitted to the hospital with RSV when he was six weeks old after catching the virus from his 4-year-old sister. Lakshmi Ganapathi, a pediatric-infectious-disease specialist at Boston Children’s Hospital, told me that she didn’t kiss her own two sons on the face before they hit the six-week mark—though experts told me that they don’t expect most parents to get this puritanical about puckering up.

    Read: The worst pediatric-care crisis in decades

    Baby-kissing—especially outside families and tight-knit social circles—isn’t a universal impulse: A few of my friends were rather shocked to hear that such a PSA was even necessary. But people’s threshold for instigating a loving lunge is far lower when it comes to babies than to older kids or adults. One colleague told me that strangers have reached into his daughter’s stroller to stroke her hair; another mentioned that randos have swooped in to tickle his son’s feet. When de St. Maurice takes strolls around her neighborhood with her daughter, she’s surprised by how often casual acquaintances will try to dive-bomb her baby with pursed lips.

    Then again, there is perhaps no lure more powerful than a tiny human. Babies snare us visually, with their wide eyes, round cheeks, and button noses; their scent wafts toward us like the heady perfume of a fresh cream scone. (One colleague with kids told me that inhaling that particular odor was, for him, “like huffing glue.”) Among primates, human infants are born especially vulnerable, in desperate need of help, and so we go into overdrive providing it, even to others’ babies, who—at least in our social species—might benefit from communal care. “It’s programmed into us,” Oriana Aragón, a social psychologist at the University of Cincinnati, told me. “I’m able to get really strong reactions out of people with just a photograph.” Even the urge to plant a wet one on someone else’s baby may have adaptive roots in kiss feeding, the practice of delivering pre-chewed meals to an infant lip to lip, says Shelly Volsche, an anthropologist at Boise State University. Kiss-feeding isn’t very popular in the United States today, but it’s still practiced by many groups around the globe.

    Read: Pregnancy is a war; birth is a cease-fire

    But as important as these acts are for babies, they can also be at odds with an infant’s health when a bunch of respiratory viruses are swirling about. Those costs aren’t always top of mind when a stranger locks eyes with a tiny human across the way, and it can be “a really awkward conversation,” de St. Maurice told me, to deter someone who just wants to shower affection on your child. Cameron recommends being frank: “I’m just trying to protect my baby.” Physical deterrents can help, too. “Put them in the stroller, put the canopy up, buckle the baby in, make it as difficult as possible,” she said. That’s a lot of barriers for even the most dedicated baby kissers to surmount. De St. Maurice also likes to point out that her little infant, as adorable as she is, “could also potentially transmit something to you.” Plus, by the time they’re six months old, babies may be experiencing their first whiffs of stranger danger and react negatively to unfamiliar hands and mouths. “That’s not particularly good for the baby, and the stranger wouldn’t get anything out of it either,” says Ann Bigelow, a developmental psychologist at St. Francis Xavier University, in Canada.

    Again, this advice isn’t meant to starve infants of tactile stimulation. Kids need to be exposed to the outside world and all of its good-germiness. More than that, they need a lot of physical touch. “The skin is our largest sense organ,” Bigelow told me. Skin-to-skin contact stimulates the release of oxytocin, and cements the bond between a caregiver and an infant. Kissing doesn’t have to be the means for giving that affection, though it certainly can be. “Heck, when I’m a grandparent, I’m going to be kissing my grandchild,” Cameron told me. “Just try and stop me.”

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

    December 20, 2022
  • Is COVID a Common Cold Yet?

    Is COVID a Common Cold Yet?

    At the start of the coronavirus pandemic, one of the worst things about SARS-CoV-2 was that it was so new: The world lacked immunity, treatments, and vaccines. Tests were hard to come by too, making diagnosis a pain—except when it wasn’t. Sometimes, the symptoms of COVID got so odd, so off-book, that telling SARS-CoV-2 from other viruses became “kind of a slam dunk,” says Summer Chavez, an emergency physician at the University of Houston. Patients would turn up with the standard-issue signs of respiratory illness—fever, coughing, and the like—but also less expected ones, such as rashes, diarrhea, shortness of breath, and loss of taste or smell. A strange new virus was colliding with people’s bodies in such unusual ways that it couldn’t help but stand out.

    Now, nearly three years into the crisis, the virus is more familiar, and its symptoms are too. Put three sick people in the same room this winter—one with COVID, another with a common cold, and the third with the flu—and “it’s way harder to tell the difference,” Chavez told me. Today’s most common COVID symptoms are mundane: sore throat, runny nose, congestion, sneezing, coughing, headache. And several of the wonkier ones that once hogged headlines have become rare. More people are weathering their infections with their taste and smell intact; many can no longer remember when they last considered the scourge of “COVID toes.” Even fever, a former COVID classic, no longer cracks the top-20 list from the ZOE Health Study, a long-standing symptom-tracking project based in the United Kingdom, according to Tim Spector, an epidemiologist at King’s College London who heads the project. Longer, weirder, more serious illness still manifests, but for most people, SARS-CoV-2’s symptoms are getting “pretty close to other viruses’, and I think that’s reassuring,” Spector told me. “We are moving toward a cold-like illness.”

    That trajectory has been forecast by many experts since the pandemic’s early days. Growing immunity against the coronavirus, repeatedly reinforced by vaccines and infections, could eventually tame COVID into a sickness as trifling as the common cold or, at worst, one on par with the seasonal flu. The severity of COVID will continue to be tempered by widespread immunity, or so this thinking goes, like a curve bending toward an asymptote of mildness. A glance at the landscape of American immunity suggests that such a plateau could be near: Hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. have been vaccinated multiple times, some even quite recently with a bivalent shot; many have now logged second, third, and fourth infections with the virus. Maybe, just maybe, we’re nearing the level of cumulative exposure at which COVID gets permanently more chill. Then again? Maybe not—and maybe never.

    Read: What does it mean to care about COVID anymore?

    The recent trajectory of COVID, at least, has been peppered with positive signs. On average, symptoms have migrated higher up the airway, sparing several vulnerable organs below; disease has gotten shorter and milder, and rates of long COVID seem to be falling a bit. Many of these changes roughly coincided with the arrival of Omicron in the fall of 2021, and part of the shift is likely attributable to the virus itself: On the whole, Omicron and its offshoots seem to prefer infecting cells in the nose and throat over those in the lungs. But experts told me the accumulation of immune defenses that preceded and then accompanied that variant’s spread are almost certainly doing more of the work. Vaccination and prior infection can both lay down protections that help corral the virus near the nose and mouth, preventing it from spreading to tissues elsewhere. “Disease is really going to differ based on the compartment that’s primarily infected,” says Stacey Schultz-Cherry, a virologist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. As SARS-CoV-2 has found a tighter anatomical niche, our bodies have become better at cornering it.

    With the virus largely getting relegated to smaller portions of the body, the pathogen is also purged from the airway faster and may be less likely to be passed to someone else. On the individual level, a sickness that might have once unfurled into pneumonia now gets subdued into barely perceptible sniffles and presents less risk to others; on the population scale, rates of infection, hospitalization, and death go down.

    This is how things usually go with respiratory viruses. Repeat tussles with RSV tend to get progressively milder; post-vaccination flu is usually less severe. The few people who catch measles after getting their shots are less likely to transmit the virus, and they tend to experience such a trivial course of sickness that their disease is referred to by a different name, “modified” measles, says Diane Griffin, a virologist and an immunologist at Johns Hopkins University.

    It’s good news that the median case of COVID diminished in severity and duration around the turn of 2022, but it’s a bit more sobering to consider that there hasn’t been a comparably major softening of symptoms in the months since. The full range of disease outcomes—from silent infection all the way to long-term disability, serious disease, and death—remains in play as well, for now and the foreseeable future, Schultz-Cherry told me. Vaccination history and immunocompromising conditions can influence where someone falls on that spectrum. So too can age as well as other factors such as sex, genetics, underlying medical conditions, and even the dose of incoming virus, says Patricia García, a global-health expert at the University of Washington.

    New antibody-dodging viral variants could still show up to cause more severe disease even among the young and healthy, as occasionally happens with the flu. The BA.2 subvariant of Omicron, which is more immune-evasive than its predecessor BA.1, seemed to accumulate more quickly in the airway, and it sparked more numerous and somewhat gnarlier symptoms. Data on more recent Omicron subvariants are still being gathered, but Shruti Mehta, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins, says she’s seen some hints that certain gastrointestinal symptoms, such as vomiting, might be making a small comeback.

    Read: Will we get Omicron’d again?

    All of this leaves the road ahead rather muddy. If COVID will be tamed one day into a common cold, that future definitely hasn’t been realized yet, says Yonatan Grad, an epidemiologist at Harvard’s School of Public Health. SARS-CoV-2 still seems to spread more efficiently and more quickly than a cold, and it’s more likely to trigger severe disease or long-term illness. Still, previous pandemics could contain clues about what happens next. Each of the past century’s flu pandemics led to a surge in mortality that wobbled back to baseline after about two to seven years, Aubree Gordon, an epidemiologist at the University of Michigan, told me. But SARS-CoV-2 isn’t a flu virus; it won’t necessarily play by the same epidemiological rules or hew to a comparable timeline. Even with flu, there’s no magic number of shots or past infections that’s known to mollify disease—“and I think we know even less about how you build up immunity to coronaviruses,” Gordon said.

    The timing of when and how those defenses manifest could matter too. Almost everyone has been infected by the flu or at least gotten a flu shot by the time they reach grade school; SARS-CoV-2 and COVID vaccines, meanwhile, arrived so recently that most of the world’s population met them in adulthood, when the immune system might be less malleable. These later-in-life encounters could make it tougher for the global population to reach its severity asymptote. If that’s the case, we’ll be in COVID limbo for another generation or two, until most living humans are those who grew up with this coronavirus in their midst.

    COVID may yet stabilize at something worse than a nuisance. “I had really thought previously it would be closer to common-cold coronaviruses,” Gordon told me. But severity hasn’t declined quite as dramatically as she’d initially hoped. In Nicaragua, where Gordon has been running studies for years, vaccinated cohorts of people have endured second and third infections with SARS-CoV-2 that have been, to her disappointment, “still more severe than influenza,” she told me. Even if that eventually flips, should the coronavirus continue to transmit this aggressively year-round, it could still end up taking more lives than the flu does—as is the case now.

    Wherever, whenever a severity plateau is reached, Gordon told me that our arrival to it can be confirmed only in hindsight, “once we look back and say, ‘Oh, yeah, it’s been about the same for the last five years.’” But the data necessary to make that call are getting harder to collect as public interest in the virus craters and research efforts to monitor COVID’s shifting symptoms hit roadblocks. The ZOE Health Study lost its government funding earlier this year, and its COVID-symptom app, which engaged some 2.4 million regular users at its peak, now has just 400,000—some of whom may have signed up to take advantage of newer features for tracking diet, sleep, exercise, and mood. “I think people just said, ‘I need to move on,’” Spector told me.

    Mehta, the Johns Hopkins epidemiologist, has encountered similar hurdles in her COVID research. At the height of the Omicron wave, when Mehta and her colleagues were trying to find people for their community studies, their rosters would immediately fill up past capacity. “Now we’re out there for weeks” and still not hitting the mark, she told me. Even weekly enrollment for their long-COVID study has declined. Sign-ups do increase when cases rise—but they drop off especially quickly as waves ebb. Perhaps, in the view of some potential study volunteers, COVID has, ironically, become like a common cold, and is thus no longer worth their time.

    For now, researchers don’t know whether we’re nearing the COVID-severity plateau, and they’re worried it will get only more difficult to tell. Maybe it’s for the best if the mildness asymptote is a ways off. In the U.S. and elsewhere, subvariants are still swirling, bivalent-shot uptake is still stalling, and hospitalizations are once more creeping upward as SARS-CoV-2 plays human musical chairs with RSV and flu. Abroad, inequities in vaccine access and quality—and a zero-COVID policy in China that stuck around too long—have left gaping immunity gaps. To settle into symptom stasis with this many daily deaths, this many off-season waves, this much long COVID, and this pace of viral evolution would be grim. “I don’t think we’re quite there yet,” Gordon told me. “I hope we’re not there yet.”

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

    December 15, 2022
←Previous Page
1 2 3
Next Page→

ReportWire

Breaking News & Top Current Stories – Latest US News and News from Around the World

  • Blog
  • About
  • FAQs
  • Authors
  • Events
  • Shop
  • Patterns
  • Themes

Twenty Twenty-Five

Designed with WordPress