Connect with us

Science

Should you get the new COVID booster? The CDC is about to decide

Published

on

Should you get the new COVID booster? The CDC is about to decide

A small percentage of Americans got the most recent COVID-19 booster shot, and even fewer probably realize the federal government is preparing to recommend yet another shot as early as Tuesday.

Until a week or two ago, Dr. William Schaffner read that indifference as a sign the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should advocate vaccinating only those most at risk from the virus.

But then Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, changed his mind.

Members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices won him over to the argument that the vaccine be recommended for all Americans above 6 months of age, he said in an interview. The committee, which sets U.S. vaccination policy and helps determine insurance coverage for vaccines, will vote on the question Tuesday after it weighs the benefits of updated vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax.

Not all vaccine experts see it quite as Schaffner, a nonvoting liaison representative to the ACIP, does.

Advertisement

“I don’t plan to get it myself,” said Dr. Paul Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. He’s had two boosters and got COVID-19 last year. Another vaccine might increase his protection against mild infection for a few months, but like most Americans’ immune systems, his is already familiar enough with the virus to protect him from serious disease, Offit believes.

Some of Schaffner’s scientific colleagues argue the government should be recommending the shot only for frail, older, sick and immunocompromised people. Over 95% of the U.S. population has some immunity to COVID-19 through vaccination, infection or both, and the risks of serious illness for healthy younger people are not great.

Schaffner doesn’t disagree. But lots of not-necessarily-vulnerable Americans do want the shot for themselves and their children, and, without a CDC recommendation, insurance companies wouldn’t have to pay for the vaccine.

It’s “pretty awful” that Pfizer and Moderna, the two main COVID-19 vaccine producers, have decided to charge up to $130 a shot, compared with $30 last year for the booster, which was produced under government contract, said Dr. Kathryn Edwards, a professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt and a member of an ACIP working group on COVID-19. (Pfizer spokesperson Amy Rose said the price was “consistent with the value delivered” and reflected higher expenses to provide the shots commercially.)

But a partial recommendation could leave the very groups who suffered most during the pandemic — minorities and other disadvantaged groups — unable to get vaccinated if they want but can’t afford to.

Advertisement

“The last thing we need are financial barriers that would enhance disparities,” Schaffner said.

A 1993 law requires the federal government to pay for childhood vaccines recommended by the ACIP, and more recent legislation requires coverage of adult vaccines within 15 days of an ACIP recommendation.

Pfizer and Moderna continue to make billions of dollars in sales of COVID-19 vaccines, although they are producing fewer doses. Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel told investors in August that the company expected its global COVID-19 vaccine sales to be $6 billion to $8 billion this year, depending on uptake in the U.S. Pfizer expects about $14 billion this year.

Within a few years, both companies expect to be producing combination vaccines protecting against influenza, COVID-19 and possibly respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. About 170 million flu vaccines were distributed last flu season in the U.S., so a combination product could lock in a large market for COVID-19 vaccines as well.

Despite broad recommendations for the updated COVID-19 booster shot released last fall, only 17% of the U.S. population got it, including about 43% of those over 65. How many will get the vaccine this season is uncertain, as is the benefit of the shot.

Advertisement

A preliminary study of the new Moderna vaccine showed that while it increased antibodies to various coronavirus strains, it provided roughly the same protection against them as last year’s booster shot, which was given again to the control group.

Christopher Ridley, a Moderna spokesperson, said the updated vaccine was well matched to current viral strains.

But John Moore, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medical College, said the new vaccine is “not remotely a game changer.”

For healthier adults and children, “it’s a boost in protection for a few months,” Moore said. Who exactly will benefit most is impossible to predict because the U.S. is “not a cookie-cutter population.” Its people have by now been exposed to a bewildering combination of vaccines, boosters and different strains of the virus.

Fearmongering has distorted the threat of the virus, Moore said. He is skeptical of the significance of the recent uptick in COVID-19 hospitalizations, and criticized social media posters who have raised fears about new viral strains that don’t seem to pose any fundamental challenge to the new vaccines.

Advertisement

“Editorial FOMO drove summer surge worries,” Moore said, using an acronym for “fear of missing out.” Despite worrying comments and tweets by physicians such as Dr. Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, about a new coronavirus variant called BA.2.86, “it turned out to be a real nothingburger,” Moore said.

Even Dr. Ashish Jha, who coordinated the Biden administration’s COVID-19 response before returning to his post as dean of the Brown University School of Public Health this year, agrees there is some ambiguity in the issue. While he recommends that 20-year-olds get the booster, “a reasonable person” could disagree.

Unfortunately, such discussions in the current environment are clouded by “nonsense and bad information” that causes confusion and hurts people, he said in a recent podcast interview.

Whether truly needed or not, the vaccines, proponents say, are safe enough that even the small benefit of taking them will outweigh the risks. The major, though rare, serious side effect of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — myocarditis, which particularly affected men in their teens and 20s — appears mainly to have occurred during the first two-shot series.

Paradoxically, those who most need protection from COVID-19 are often likely to have weakened immune systems that fail to generate the hoped-for response to vaccination.

Advertisement

So the vaccine is arguably most relevant for healthy people who come in frequent contact with vulnerable individuals. With that in mind, England has announced the new booster would be offered only to people who are 65 or older, in nursing homes, or immunologically vulnerable — or who work or live with members of those groups.

“Any efforts to promote the new boosters should focus squarely on those at high risk,” said Dr. Norman Hearst, a family physician in San Francisco. While recommending the vaccine for older patients, he said he wouldn’t advise a booster for young males because of the rare risk of myocarditis and the negligible benefit. “The question is all the other people in between.”

In a commentary last November, Dr. Shira Doron and Dr. Monica Gandhi said vaccination campaigns should be radically honest about the limited value of vaccines for long-term protection against infection. Such a campaign might advocate vaccinating children because even though it won’t protect durably, “it might prevent the rare case of severe disease,” the infectious disease doctors wrote.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Science

Live poultry markets may be source of bird flu virus in San Francisco wastewater

Published

on

Live poultry markets may be source of bird flu virus in San Francisco wastewater

Federal officials suspect that live bird markets in San Francisco may be the source of bird flu virus in area wastewater samples.

Days after health monitors reported the discovery of suspected avian flu viral particles in wastewater treatment plants, federal officials announced that they were looking at poultry markets near the treatment facilities.

Last month, San Francisco Public Health Department officials reported that state investigators had detected H5N1 — the avian flu subtype making its way through U.S. cattle, domestic poultry and wild birds — in two chickens at a live market in May. They also noted they had discovered the virus in city wastewater samples collected during that period.

Two new “hits” of the virus were recorded from wastewater samples collected June 18 and June 26 by WastewaterSCAN, an infectious-disease monitoring network run by researchers at Stanford, Emory University and Verily, Alphabet Inc.’s life sciences organization.

Nirav Shah, principal deputy director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said that although the source of the virus in those samples has not been determined, live poultry markets were a potential culprit.

Advertisement

Hits of the virus were also discovered in wastewater samples from the Bay Area cities of Palo Alto and Richmond. It is unclear if those cities host live bird markets, stores where customers can take a live bird home or have it processed on-site for food.

Steve Lyle, a spokesman for the state’s Department of Food and Agriculture, said live bird markets undergo regular testing for avian influenza.

He said that aside from the May 9 detection in San Francisco, there have been no “other positives in Live Bird Markets throughout the state during this present outbreak of highly-pathogenic avian flu.”

San Francisco’s health department referred all questions to the state.

Even if the state or city had missed a few infected birds, John Korslund, a retired U.S. Department of Agriculture veterinarian epidemiologist, seemed incredulous that a few birds could cause a positive hit in the city’s wastewater.

Advertisement

“Unless you’ve got huge amounts of infected birds — in which case you ought to have some dead birds, too — it’d take a lot of bird poop” to become detectable in a city’s wastewater system, he said.

“But the question still remains: Has anyone done sequencing?” he said. “It makes me want to tear my hair out.”

He said genetic sequencing would help health officials determine the origin of viral particles — whether they came from dairy milk, or from wild birds. Some epidemiologists have voiced concerns about the spread of H5N1 among dairy cows, because the animals could act as a vessel in which bird and human viruses could interact.

However, Alexandria Boehm, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and principal investigator and program director for WastewaterSCAN, said her organization is not yet “able to reliably sequence H5 influenza in wastewater. We are working on it, but the methods are not good enough for prime time yet.”

A review of businesses around San Francisco’s southeast wastewater treatment facility indicates a dairy processing plant as well as a warehouse store for a “member-supported community of people that feed raw or cooked fresh food diets to their pets.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

Be grateful for what you have. It may help you live longer

Published

on

Be grateful for what you have. It may help you live longer

Death may be inevitable, but that hasn’t stopped health researchers from looking for ways to put it off as long as possible. Their newest candidate is something that’s free, painless, doesn’t taste bad and won’t force you to break a sweat: Gratitude.

A new study of nearly 50,000 older women found that the stronger their feelings of gratitude, the lower their chances of dying over the next three years.

The results are sure to be appreciated by those who are naturally inclined toward giving thanks. Those who aren’t may be grateful to learn that with practice, they might be able to enhance their feelings of gratitude and reap the longevity benefits as well.

“It’s an exciting study,” said Joel Wong, a professor of counseling psychology at the University of Indiana who researches gratitude interventions and practices and wasn’t involved in the new work.

Mounting evidence has linked gratitude with a host of benefits for mental and physical health. People who score higher on measures of gratitude have been found to have better biomarkers for cardiovascular function, immune system inflammation and cholesterol. They are more likely to take their medications, get regular exercise, have healthy sleep habits and follow a balanced diet.

Advertisement

Gratitude is also associated with a lower risk of depression, better social support and having a greater purpose in life, all of which are linked with longevity.

However, this is the first time researchers have directly linked gratitude to a lower risk of earlier death, Wong and others said.

“It’s not surprising, but it’s always good to see empirical research supporting the idea that gratitude is not only good for your mental health but also for living a longer life,” Wong said.

Study leader Ying Chen, an empirical research scientist with the Human Flourishing Program at Harvard University, said she was amazed by the dearth of studies on gratitude and mortality. So she and her colleagues turned to data from the Nurses Health Study, which has been tracking the health and habits of thousands of American women since 1976.

In 2016, those efforts included a test to measure the nurses’ feelings of gratitude. The women were asked to use a seven-point scale to indicate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with six statements, including “I have so much in life to be thankful for” and “If I had to list everything I felt grateful for, it would be a very long list.”

Advertisement

A total of 49,275 women responded, and the researchers divided them into three roughly equal groups based on their gratitude scores. Compared with the women with the lowest scores, those with the highest scores tended to be younger, more likely to have a spouse or partner, more involved in social and religious groups, and in generally better health, among other differences.

The average age of nurses who answered the gratitude questions was 79, and by the end of 2019, 4,068 of them had died. After accounting for a variety of factors such as the median household income in their census tract, their retirement status, and their involvement in a religious community, Chen and her colleagues found that the nurses with the most gratitude were 29% less likely to have died than the nurses with the least gratitude.

Then they dug deeper by controlling for a range of health issues, including a history of heart disease, stroke, cancer and diabetes. The risk of death for the most grateful women was still 27% lower than for their least grateful counterparts.

When the researchers considered the effects of smoking, drinking, exercise, body mass index and diet quality, the risk of death for the nurses with the most gratitude remained lower, by 21%.

Finally, Chen and her colleagues added in measures of cognitive function, mental health and psychological well-being. Even after accounting for those variables, the mortality risk was 9% lower for nurses with the highest gratitude scores.

Advertisement

The findings were published Wednesday in JAMA Psychiatry.

Although the study shows a clear link between gratitude and longevity, it doesn’t prove that one caused the other. While it’s plausible that gratitude helps people live longer, it’s also possible that being in good health inspires people to feel grateful, or that both are influenced by a third factor that wasn’t accounted for in the study data.

Sonja Lyubomirsky, an experimental social psychologist at UC Riverside who studies gratitude and was not involved in the study, said she suspects all three things are at work.

Another limitation is that all of the study participants were older women, and 97% of them were white. Whether the findings would extend to a more diverse population is unknown, Wong said, “but drawing on theory and research, I don’t see a reason why it wouldn’t.”

There can be downsides to gratitude, the Harvard team noted: If it’s tied to feelings of indebtedness, it can undermine one’s sense of autonomy or accentuate a hierarchical relationship. Lyubomirsky added that it can make people feel like they’re a burden to others, which is particularly dangerous for someone with depression who is feeling suicidal.

Advertisement

But in most cases, gratitude is an emotion worth cultivating, Lyubomirsky said. Clinical trials have shown that gratitude can be enhanced through simple interventions, such as keeping a gratitude journal or writing a thank-you letter and delivering it by hand.

“Gratitude is a skill that you can build,” she said.

And like diet and exercise, it appears to be a modifiable risk factor for better health.

Lyubomirsky has found that teenagers who were randomly assigned to compose letters of gratitude to their parents, teachers or coaches took it upon themselves to eat more fruits and vegetables and cut back on junk food and fast food — a behavior not shared by classmates in a control group. Perhaps after reflecting on the time, money and other resources invested in them, the teens were inspired to protect that investment, she said.

More research will be needed to see whether interventions like these can extend people’s lives, but Chen is optimistic.

Advertisement

“As the evidence accumulates, we’ll have a better understanding of how to effectively enhance gratitude and whether it can meaningfully improve people’s long-term health and well-being,” she said.

Continue Reading

Science

Drug can amplify naloxone's effect and reduce opioid withdrawals, study shows

Published

on

Drug can amplify naloxone's effect and reduce opioid withdrawals, study shows

Naloxone has long been hailed as a life-saving drug in the face of the opioid epidemic. But its capacity to save someone from an overdose can be limited by the potency of the opioid — a person revived by naloxone can still overdose once it wears off.

Stanford researchers have found a companion drug that can enhance naloxone’s effect — and reduce withdrawal symptoms. Their research on mice, led by Stanford University postdoctoral scholar Evan O’Brien, was published today in Nature.

Typically, overdose deaths occur when opioids bind to the part of the brain that controls breathing, slowing it to a stop. Naloxone reverses overdoses by kicking opioids off pain receptors and allowing normal breathing to resume.

However, it is only able to occupy pain receptors for 30 to 90 minutes. For more potent opioids, such as fentanyl, that may not be long enough.

Advertisement

To determine how the naloxone companion drug, which researchers are calling compound 368, might boost naloxone’s effectiveness, researchers conducted an experiment on pain tolerance in mice, said Jay McLaughlin, a professor of pharmacology at the University of Florida. How quickly would mice pull their tails out of hot water, depending on which combination of opioids and treatments they were given?

Mice that were injected with only morphine did not respond to the hot water — given their dulled pain receptors. Mice given morphine and naloxone pulled their tails out within seconds. No surprises yet.

When the dosage of naloxone was reduced and compound 368 was added, the compound was found to amplify naloxone’s effects, as if a regular dose was used. When used on its own, the compound had no effect, indicating that it is only helpful in increasing the potency of naloxone.

What researchers did not expect, however, was that the compound reduced withdrawal symptoms.

McLaughlin said withdrawal is one reason that people who have become physically dependent on opioids may avoid naloxone.

Advertisement

“Opioid withdrawal will not kill you, but I have talked to a number of people who have gone through it, and they have all said the same thing: … ‘I wished I was dead,’” McLaughlin said. “It has a massive range of nasty, horrible effects.”

The idea that the compound could amplify naloxone’s effect at a lower dosage, while limiting withdrawal symptoms, indicates that it may be a “new therapeutic approach” to overdose response, McLaughlin said.

The research team said their next step is to tweak the compound and dosage so that the effects of naloxone last long enough to reverse overdoses of more potent drugs.

Though the compound is not yet ready for human trials, the researchers chose to release their findings in the hope that their peers can double check and improve upon their work, said Susruta Majumdar, another senior author and a professor of anesthesiology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

“We may not be able to get that drug into the clinic, but somebody else may,” Majumdar said. He added: “Let them win the race.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending