This article has been reviewed according to ScienceX's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:
fact-checked
trusted source
proofread
close
Investigators in the Department of Computational Biomedicine at Cedars-Sinai wanted to find out which factors influenced susceptibility to COVID-19 infection and disease severity the most. Was it genetics? Or was it home environment, meaning the germs circulating throughout your everyday life?
Their findings, published in the journal Nature Communications, suggest that more was in play than either factor alone.
"Our results suggest that initially, differences in shared home environment influenced who was infected with COVID-19 more than genetic differences," said Katie LaRow Brown, MA, first author of the study and a Ph.D. candidate at Columbia University who collaborated with Cedars-Sinai on this study.
"Over time, however, the importance of these differences in shared home environment decreasedand the importance of genetics increasedeventually eclipsing shared home environment."
COVID-19 has infected more than 340 million people in the U.S., underscoring the urgency in conducting therapeutic research and uncovering potential treatments. However, until this study, little was known about how an individual's environment and genetic background impacted their experience with the virus.
Using electronic health records from New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, investigators identified 12,764 patients who received conclusive resultseither positive or negativefrom a PCR test for COVID-19. These patients belonged to 5,676 families with an average of 2.5 family members who had a bout of COVID-19. The time frame studied was Feb. 21, 2020, to Oct. 24, 2021.
The investigators' analysis found that at the start of the pandemic, genetics accounted for 33% of variation in susceptibility. By the second half of the research study, however, genetics accounted for 70% of variation in susceptibility.
When measuring patients' severity of COVID-19, investigators also found that a patient's genetics were more of a factor than his or her home environment. Disease severity was defined by length of hospital stay. Genetics explained 41% of variation while shared environment explained 33%.
"We were especially surprised by the percentages of susceptibility," said Nicholas Tatonetti, Ph.D., senior and corresponding author of the study, vice chair of Operations in the Department of Computational Biomedicine and an associate director of Computational Oncology at Cedars-Sinai Cancer. "Since this is an infectious disease, we assumed that home environment differences would explain most variation for the entirety of the study."
While Tatonetti says his team of investigators cannot know for certain, they suspect that over time, discrepancies between people's home environments changed in important ways.
"This work also suggests that the specific genetic factors influencing susceptibility and severity have not been fully identified," said Tatonetti. "This is very important in terms of directing resources and defining future research goals."
Jason Moore, Ph.D., chair of the Department of Computational Biomedicine and a professor of Medicine, said the study provides critical information and insights for future pandemics.
"The age-old debate of what matters mostgenetics or your environmentcontinues through the work of this important study," said Moore.
More information: Kathleen LaRow Brown et al, Estimating the heritability of SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility and COVID-19 severity, Nature Communications (2024). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-44250-7
Understanding the Effectiveness of the New COVID-19 Vaccine
In the continuous battle against the COVID-19 pandemic, the value of staying updated about the latest developments in vaccine research cannot be overstated. Among these advancements, a new COVID-19 vaccine has shown promising results in a recent randomized controlled trial. The study, which involved a large sample size, indicated the vaccines potential in reducing the incidence of the disease and providing long-term protection. This article aims to delve into the key findings of this research and the implications for disease prevention strategies.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine can restore and enhance protection against the variants currently responsible for most infections and hospitalizations in the United States. The vaccine has proven effective against the XBB lineage and JN.1 variants. Between mid-September and January, vaccination offered 54% protection against COVID-19. The CDC recommends the updated COVID-19 vaccine for everyone aged 6 months or older, especially those at higher risk of severe illness. Thanks to various CDC programs and the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program, vaccines are freely available to most children through their familys insurance.
Recent reports suggest that the newest COVID-19 vaccines are 54% effective at preventing symptomatic infection in adults. As studies are ongoing to assess the vaccines effectiveness in preventing severe symptoms, the slow uptake of the vaccine has posed challenges for researchers in gathering adequate data. Up until now, only about 22% of U.S. adults and 11% of children have received the new shots.
The most recent COVID-19 vaccine is approximately 54% effective at protecting people from symptoms of COVID-19 and 49% effective at protecting against symptoms from the JN.1 variant. This shows that the vaccine offers good protection against the currently dominant strain of the virus. Detailed insights on the vaccines impact on emergency room visits, urgent care visits, and hospitalizations are expected to be released in the coming weeks.
Early CDC data also corroborates that the latest COVID-19 vaccine offers strong protection against symptomatic infection, including from JN.1. The vaccine provided 54% protection against symptomatic infection among immunocompetent adults who were recently vaccinated compared with those who did not receive an updated vaccine. The goal of the US Covid-19 vaccination program is to primarily prevent severe disease. Measuring vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection, however, offers an additional early perspective on how well the vaccines are working.
Despite the promising effectiveness of the updated vaccines against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and protection against JN.1 and XBB viral lineages, there are concerns about their efficacy against the XBB variant. Therefore, the CDC continues to stress the importance of vaccination, especially for people at higher risk of complications from COVID-19. As the situation evolves, so does our understanding of the virus, and with it, our strategies to combat it.
Just over a year after Brazilian President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva took office, the criminal negligence of his Workers Party (PT) government in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic has been thoroughly exposed.
Daily data on the pandemic was halted in February of last year, while in May the government welcomed the World Health Organizations (WHO) decision to end the Public Health Emergency of International Concern for COVID-19 without any scientific basis. The government has failed to implement educational campaigns on the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the dangers still posed by COVID-19, and, at the end of last year, the Lula government ruled out COVID-19 vaccination for the entire population, even as the pandemic is still raging.
Pfizers bivalent vaccine, covering the original variants and the Omicron BA.1 or BA.4/BA.5 variant, began to be administered in February 2023 to people over 60, those over 12 with comorbidities, and other specific groups. At the end of April, with only 17.6 percent of the eligible population receiving the bivalent vaccine, the Lula government authorized it for the entire population over 18, despite claiming it would not bring benefits.
At the end of October, the Lula government announced that the COVID-19 vaccine would be included in the National Immunization Program (PNI) starting this year. However, it will only be applied to children between six months and five years old, older people, and other specific groups. Even if all the people included in the PNI are immunized, this will represent less than a third of the Brazilian population with a new shot of the COVID-19 vaccine in 2024.
Considering what was seen last year, even a reasonable level of immunization of this population is hardly likely. Having abandoned virtually all public health measures that help alert the public to the dangers of COVID-19, while leading the population to believe that the pandemic is over, the Lula governments COVID-19 vaccination campaign has been a fiasco. In mid-December, vaccination coverage of the bivalent was still barely 17 percent.
Since coming to power, the Lula government has followed the strategy of the worlds ruling elite of scrapping all mitigation measures, such as mask-wearing, and insisting that we will still live with COVID-19 and that our great ally is vaccination, according to Health Minister Nsia Trindade. Contrary to claims that it would follow the science in its supposed reconstruction of Brazil, the Lula governments decision to abandon universal COVID-19 vaccination shows that it is continuing and deepening the policy of herd immunity in Brazil initiated by fascistic ex-president Jair Bolsonaro (2019-2022), normalizing continuous waves of mass infection, debilitation and death.
Several people concerned about the pandemic have spoken out on X/Twitter, denouncing the Lula governments herd immunity policy. In a lengthy thread from the beginning of November, shortly after the announcement of the inclusion of the COVID-19 vaccine in the PNI, anti-COVID activist Mrcio explained the limitations of the Lula governments vaccination campaign: In making this decision, the federal government claims to be following what is recommended by the WHO. In fact, this is their recommendation. However, we must understand that the WHO is a multilateral organization that uses equity to make its recommendations to member countries. In other words, this WHO suggestion is the minimum a country could offer its population. Therefore, Brazil could offer the maximum or more than the minimum, vaccinating its entire population.
He also drew attention to the fact that the Lula government had not acquired the most up-to-date monovalent vaccines against the Omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant, which predominated in Brazil throughout most of last year and is being applied to virtually the entire population in the Northern Hemisphere. In the US, it is fully authorized for everyone 12 years or older, with an emergency use authorization for children six months to 11 years old.
In response to the Health Ministrys claim that For other people, including healthy adults, there is no recommendation for annual vaccination, Mrcio declared in another thread at the beginning of December: This attitude of the current federal government denies reality. COVID-19 still represents a danger both in the acute phase and in its chronic phase (Long COVID). Therefore, he added, this claim shows that Brazil has officially become one of the most denialist countries regarding SARS-CoV-2.
Indeed, it is a scientific fact that the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines decreases both over time and depending on the variant used to manufacture them and the variant against which it will act in case of infection, which is why pharmaceutical companies have been updating these vaccines regularly. Numerous studies have also pointed out the need to have the maximum possible vaccination coverage, with vaccines updated against the newest variants and applied periodically as one of the instruments for effectively combating the pandemic.
Moreover, despite reducing the possibility of severe cases, the vaccines do not prevent infection and do not offer significant protection against the various effects of Long COVID, a chronic condition that can affect virtually every organ in the body and develops in 10-20 percent of those infected, according to the WHO. Despite all the danger that long COVID poses to the Brazilian population, this mass debilitating effect is a subject ignored by the Lula government.
Leading neuroscientist Miguel Nicolelis, who has closely followed the dynamics of the pandemic in Brazil since its beginning, has also spoken out on X/Twitter. Throughout November, he questioned the justification for not vaccinating the entire population in 2024 with new vaccines developed to combat the new variants derived from Omicron. He went on to demand a Strategic Plan from the Ministry of Health to deal with the tsunami of patients with chronic COVID that will hit the doors of the SUS [Unified Health System] in the coming months and years.
In one of these posts, Nicolelis also charged: Brazil has abandoned any surveillance ... Basically, we are flying blind.
If monitoring the virus was one of the many measures entirely neglected by the Bolsonaro government, making it practically impossible to grasp the true extent of the pandemic in Brazil, this has only worsened under the Lula government. Last year, the number of RT-PCR tests carried out was the lowest since the beginning of the pandemic. By September, only 1.76 million tests had been carried out, compared to 9.5 million in 2020, 21 million in 2021, and 5.9 million in 2022.
Without implementing a nationally coordinated system for monitoring the pandemic or even making wastewater data available, the release of COVID-19 data occurs with significant gaps and underreporting every week, combining the data from the Brazilian states. The latest data shows that in the week between January 14 and 20, Brazil recorded 38,246 cases and 196 deaths from COVID-19. Overall, Brazil has recorded 38 million cases and 709,000 deaths since the start of the pandemic, in addition to the millions suffering from Long COVID.
After a wave between last September and November, the positivity rate monitored by Todos pela Sade (All for Health), a non-profit organization that analyzes data from seven private laboratories in Brazil, has increased since the beginning of the year, indicating the start of a new wave. According to the organizations bulletin on Monday, after persisting in the 20 percent range for three months, positivity for COVID-19 rose again after the holiday season, reaching 27 percent.
Mehring Books
COVID, Capitalism, and Class War: A Social and Political Chronology of the Pandemic
A compilation of the World Socialist Web Site's coverage of this global crisis, available in epub and print formats.
This coincides with the unchecked spread of the highly infectious and immune-resistant JN.1 subvariant. Predominant worldwide, it is driving a new wave in the US and other countries. According to the Fiocruz Epidemiological Institute, the prevalence of JN.1 jumped from 18.3 percent in November to 56.8 percent in December.
The Lula government, a loyal representative of the Brazilian and international capitalist elites, showed in its first year that it has no interest in implementing a scientific response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Lula came to power to deepen the austerity policies implemented during his previous governments (2003-2010) in order to prioritize corporate profits over life. Today, this is being expressed in the new fiscal regime approved last year and the zero deficit target for the 2024 budget, both of which have been applauded by the international financial markets, even as they threaten the constitutional right to healthcare.
As the New Years statement published by theWorld Socialist Web Siteanalyzed, eliminating the novel coronavirus, the only scientific response to the COVID-19 pandemic, remains viable and necessary. By the end of 2022, China demonstrated that the combination of several long-known public health measures, such as the use of high-quality masks, a strict surveillance and contact-tracing system, and vaccination, can stop the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, save lives, and prevent the debilitating effects of Long COVID. However, Chinas elimination strategy has also shown the unfeasibility of any nationally-based program in the epoch of imperialism.
For the elimination strategy to be effective, the declaration emphasized that it must be globally coordinated through the building of a mass movement fighting for the following principles: The fight against the pandemic is a political and revolutionary question which requires a socialist solution; The organization of public health must be on the basis of social need, not corporate profit; The profit motive must be entirely removed from all healthcare, pharmaceutical and insurance companies.
In Brazil, advancing this program requires a conscious break with the Lula government and the ruling Workers Party, as well as with the unions and the pseudo-left that have helped implement the herd immunity policy. We call on all those fighting for a science-based program in response to the pandemic, principled scientists, and above all the Brazilian working class to carefully study the WSWS New Years statement and organize the fight for the global elimination of COVID-19 as part of an international socialist movement.
Join the fight to end the COVID-19 pandemic
Someone from the Socialist Equality Party or the WSWS in your region will contact you promptly.
Its been four years since the COVID-19 virus first began to spread. The U.S. National Intelligence Council assessed that two theories on the viruss origins are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal or a laboratory-associated incident.
Recent alarming headlines of Chinese experiments involving the virus reignited pandemic-era fears online.
VERIFY reader Karen asked us on Facebook if a story from the Staten Island Advance, a newspaper local to New York Citys Staten Island, titled Chinese scientists create COVID-19 strain that is 100% lethal to humanized mice, report says is true. Similar headlines have appeared on other news sites like the New York Post.
Did Chinese scientists create a COVID-19 strain thats 100% lethal to mice?
No, Chinese scientists did not create a COVID-19 strain thats 100% lethal to mice.
Chinese scientists did recently conduct a study in which they cloned a coronavirus, not a COVID-19 strain, that killed all four mice that were infected with it. However, this is not consistent with past studies, and the researchers say it does not mean it would kill humans.
A group of Chinese scientists, the majority of which are affiliated with the Beijing University of Chemical Technology, recently pre-printed a study meaning theyve published it online before it has been reviewed by peers to confirm its scientifically sound titled Lethal Infection of Human ACE2-Transgenic Mice Caused by SARS-CoV-2-related Pangolin Coronavirus GX_P2V(short_3UTR).
The scientists did not create a mutant COVID-19 strain to conduct this study, as some of the headlines suggest, nor did they use COVID-19 at all. Instead, the scientists studied a different coronavirus using just four mice. Coronaviruses are a family of viruses that include COVID-19, but also strains of the common cold.
The studys authors clarified that the mouse infections in the study do not mean the virus would also kill humans. The exact same virus has been the subject of other studies, including those in which the virus infected similar kinds of mice. The mice in those other studies did not die.
First, well explain why the claim that the scientists created a COVID-19 strain is false. Then well add context to this coronaviruss lethality to mice both in this study and in similar studies.
Chinese scientists did not create a COVID-19 strain
The scientists explain within the text of the study that they worked with a coronavirus, which is a family of viruses that includes COVID-19, but not COVID-19 itself. This coronavirus, which they called GX_P2V, was a sample they found in an animal called a pangolin in 2017, according to the scientists.
The virus used in the study was first collected in 2018, according to an earlier study by researchers from Hong Kong and Beijing. Its collection date is confirmed by the Bacterial and Viral Bioinformatics Resource Center (BV-BRC), which shows it was one of six related viruses collected from pangolins by researchers at the time.
The virus began adapting, or mutating, after it was first collected, according to a study published in December 2022. The studys researchers, some of whom later worked on the viral lethal mouse study, said the virus rapidly adapted to a kind of animal cell commonly used as a host for viruses studied by scientists.
Lihua Song, Ph.D., one of the scientists who worked on the viral lethal mouse study, explained on ScienceCast, a forum for researchers to discuss studies with other scientists, that the sample they used is a clone of the virus sample that mutated between 2018 and 2022.
Scientists no longer have an original, unmutated version of the virus because the original sample adapted in the animal cell, Song explained. Song suspected that the original pangolin sample mutated because it had difficulty growing in the animal host cells used by scientists
Putting 100% lethal to humanized mice claim in context
The scientists in the viral study used a small sample size of mice: 12 in total, four of which were infected with the virus. All four of the infected mice died, but the researchers noted that the virus did not kill similar mice in other studies.
The mice used in the study were ACE2 humanized mice. These kinds of mice, according to the Jackson Laboratory, are humanized because their cells have human ACE2, the receptor used by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) to gain cellular entry.
While GX_P2V(short_3UTR) proved lethal in our mouse model, it's important to consider that it did not cause disease upon infecting two other distinct ACE2 humanized mouse strains, Song said on ScienceCast.
Song is referring to a January 2023 study that said it infected three groups of mice, two of which were groups of humanized ACE2 mice. The researchers noted that the infected mice presented no obvious clinical symptoms, leading them to believe that GX_P2V may not be very good at causing disease.
Song and the other researchers in the viral study wrote that the reason the virus was so lethal may have been because their mice had abnormally high ACE2.
It is very likely that the high pathogenicity of GX_P2V C7 in our hACE2 mice is due to the strong expression of hACE2 in the mouse brain, the researchers wrote. Under normal circumstances, both human and mouse brains exhibit low expression of ACE2.
The researchers said that because of this mouse infections in this study have no correlation with human infections.
The scientists said the purpose of the study was to assess a potential candidate for use in vaccines or drugs meant to protect against broad groups of coronaviruses.
The VERIFY team works to separate fact from fiction so that you can understand what is true and false. Please consider subscribing to our daily newsletter, text alerts and our YouTube channel. You can also follow us on Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok. Learn More
Text: 202-410-8808
State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada
Zip Code
Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe
A French study found an increased risk of changes to womens menstrual cycles after they received the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, but the risk did not last very long.
Could the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines change womens menstrual cycles?
A new French study has found evidence that they might while some experts caution that other factors could also be at play.
The research provides new arguments in favour of the existence of an increased risk of heavy menstrual bleeding following vaccination against COVID-19 by mRNA vaccine, according to a statementfrom Epi-Phare, an organisation that carries out national health studies for the French government.
The researchers documented the vaccination status of around 4,600 women admitted to hospitals due to significant menstrual bleeding in 2021 and 2022.
They compared their condition to a control group of women who were not treated for this issue.
Their findings suggest that the risk of experiencing heavy menstrual bleeding is marginally higher after a woman receives her first Moderna or Pfizer vaccine, both administered in two consecutive doses.
This increased risk continued for one to three months after vaccination. There was no observed risk of heavy menstrual bleeding after a subsequent booster dose.
It's important to hear what women have to say, Dr Odile Bagot, a gynaecologist who didnt take part in the study, told Euronews Next.
If there is a causal relationship, it's neither very frequent nor very significant in the end, and it's certainly not persistent beyond three months, she added, regarding the studys outcome.
Since initial reports of changes to womens menstruation cycles post-vaccination, several studies have been conducted to determine if thats the case..
A study published in January 2024, which analysed data from users of a period tracker application, concluded that vaccination was associated with a small change in cycle length that resolves quickly within the next cycle.
Another study drew similar conclusions. Conducted on the Swedish population and published in May 2023 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), it stated that the findings do not provide substantial support for a causal association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and menstrual disorders reported to health professionals.
When you have contradictory studies. It doesn't mean that one is lying and the other isn't, it means that the phenomenon is far from certain and not very strong, Bagot said.
Other factors could also have played a part in menstrual changes.
Both the stress of vaccination and the inflammatory and immune phenomena that necessarily follow vaccination can influence the cycle, added Bagot.
NEW YORK -
The latest versions of COVID-19 vaccines were 54% effective at preventing symptomatic infection in adults, according to the first U.S. study to assess how well the shots work.
The shots became available last year and were designed to better protect against more recent coronavirus variants.
In Thursday's study, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at 9,000 people who got tested for COVID-19 at CVS and Walgreens pharmacies, checking who tested positive and whether they had gotten a new shot or not.
The 54% finding is similar to what's been reported in other countries, and it's also about what was reported for an earlier vaccine version, said the Ruth Link-Gelles of the CDC, the study's lead author.
Studies coming out later this year will assess how effective the shot was at preventing symptoms severe enough to send patients to a doctor's office or hospital, she said.
The CDC recommends the new shots for everyone 6 months and older, but most Americans haven't gotten them. The latest CDC data suggests only about 22% of U.S. adults have gotten the shots, and only 11% of children. The slow uptake meant that it took longer for researchers to gather enough data to assess how well the shots work, Link-Gelles said.
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content
Between the flu, COVID-19 and RSV, theres a lot of sickness going around. Thats why health experts ask people to stay up to date on their vaccines.
Anne Meiswinkel has received six COVID-19 vaccinations since 2021.
Cause it keeps changing, and I think it's important, especially for us seniors, Meiswinkel said.
She also gets her flu shot each year.
I never had the flu before, and I know people that have it. You're like usually down and out for a good week, Meiswinkel said.
But not everyone chooses to get the same vaccines.
Kelly Webber stopped receiving COVID-19 vaccines after getting her initial two and one booster. She said this is because of what happened after.
I was really down and out for a few days with the boosters and the COVID shot. They make me very sick, so I decided not to do it, Webber said.
However, she does get her yearly flu vaccine.
My doctor always recommended it, Webber said. I have elderly parents. My mom's in a nursing home.
Webber seems to be in the majority when it comes to recent national vaccine trends.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), around 11% of children, 21% of adults and 41% of seniors said theyre up to date on getting the latest COVID vaccine. But it's very different for the influenza vaccine. Nearly half of surveyed children and adults got their shots, and more than 70% of seniors have received theirs.
Dr. Neal Smoller, a holistic pharmacist, said he believes the reasons less people are getting COVID vaccines vary. One of those is misinformation from sources who arent health experts.
It's been very difficult to watch all of the other social stuff unfold, and it makes it really challenging because we have answers to stop the spread of this, Smoller said.
Smoller owns and runs Village Apothecary in Woodstock. He said hes seen people prefer the convenience of getting all their shots at once for COVID and the flu.
Practitioners aren't out here just trying to push vaccines. We want people to be protected. We want people to be safe, and we want people to do what's medically indicated. So, for some people that's a stronger recommendation than others, Smoller said.
Meiswinkel said she and her husband plan to continue to stay current on their shots.
Neither one of us are compromised, but just due to the age, I think it's important, Meiswinkel said.
As for Webber, she says cons of the side effects outweigh the benefits of the COVID-19 booster for her, but shell continue to get her regular flu shot.
The CDC suggests everyone six months and older gets their seasonal flu vaccine and stays up to date with their COVID-19 vaccines.
Each year, as fall brings shorter, colder days to the Northern Hemisphere, we're reminded to get vaccinated against the flu, or influenza. In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that everyone over 6 months old receive a flu shot every year.
But is there a time limit on getting your flu shot? While it's best to get vaccinated before the season kicks off in earnest, it's still beneficial to get one toward the end of the season, two infectious-disease experts told Live Science.
Related: Never-before-seen antibodies can target many flu viruses
Normally, flu vaccines become available in late summer. Specific groups, such as pregnant people in their third trimesters, might consider vaccination in the summer. But the CDC recommends that most eligible people get vaccinated in the fall, by the end of October, as this is when cases begin to rise.
"In the U.S., we often say to get vaccinated around October, because that's when cases start going up and we know that the flu vaccine gives you good protection over a certain period of time," Dr. Sabrina Assoumou, an associate professor of medicine at Boston University and an attending physician at Boston Medical Center, told Live Science.
But if you miss that time window for some reason, you should still get a flu shot.
"Flu season typically continues through March, and it generally takes about two weeks after getting a flu shot for immunity to start kicking in," Dr. Daniel Kuritzkes, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, told Live Science in an email. So, if you haven't been vaccinated yet, it still makes sense to do so through the end of February, and maybe even into early March, he said.
There would also be "no harm" in getting vaccinated after March or April, considering that influenza viruses circulate all year round, Kuritzkes said. However, practically speaking, the risk of catching flu in the spring or summer is "so low" that healthcare professionals don't generally focus on vaccinations once flu season is over, he said.
If you haven't gotten sick by January, it may be tempting to think, "Oh, the holidays are done; I've dodged a bullet," Assoumou said. However, cases can still be seen later in flu season, and the later you get vaccinated, the shorter your window of available protection for that particular flu season, Assoumou added.
Notably, the peak of flu season has been difficult to predict in recent years due to COVID-19.
Flu transmission most often peaks in February in the U.S. but the COVID-19 pandemic temporarily disrupted the timing of this. For instance, in 2020, flu transmission reached historically low levels. Between 2021 and 2022, flu infections began to rise again, peaking in late December 2021 then again in April 2022, but transmission rates stayed high until mid-June. However, between 2022 and 2023, transmission peaked in late November and early December.
This suggests that "we're moving back towards more typical patterns in terms of influenza epidemiology," Kuritzkes said. Therefore, getting a flu shot in the fall continues to make the most sense, he said.
But what if you've already had the flu this season? Is it still worth getting vaccinated afterward?
Although it may seem counterintuitive, experts say yes. That's because many strains of influenza circulate each year. These strains fall into two broad categories influenza A and influenza B that are responsible for seasonal epidemics of the disease.
"For reasons we don't fully understand, in a typical year the majority of cases seen early in flu season tend to be influenza A, whereas cases due to influenza B are more common later in the season," in February and March, Kuritzkes said.
"Therefore, an unvaccinated person who gets flu in December or January from one type of influenza could still be susceptible to catching flu again later in the season from the other type," he said.
The annual flu vaccine is designed to provide protection against the major strains of influenza that are expected to circulate in that particular season. Flu vaccines in the U.S. are "quadrivalent," meaning they protect against four strains.
And even if you still get the flu after being vaccinated, you're much less likely to develop a severe infection or to be hospitalized, Assoumou said. "The role of these vaccines is to convert a severe infection into a mild one," she said.
People often forget just how deadly the flu can be, so it is really important that everyone gets vaccinated, Assoumou said. This is especially true for people who are at a heightened risk of flu complications, such as those who are pregnant, over age 65 or have underlying chronic health conditions, such as asthma or heart disease, according to the CDC.
Getting the flu vaccine is the "best way to protect yourself and the community" regardless of when you receive it, Assoumou said.
This article is for informational purposes only and is not meant to offer medical advice.
Ever wonder why some people build muscle more easily than others or why freckles come out in the sun? Send us your questions about how the human body works to community@livescience.com with the subject line "Health Desk Q," and you may see your question answered on the website!
New data released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that the most recent Covid-19 booster offers about 54% percent protection against infection with the virus.
A study published in the CDCs online journal Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report showed that the updated vaccine was essentially equally effective at protecting against the strain targeted by the vaccine called XBB.1.5 and the JN.1 subvariant, which emerged after the vaccine was made. JN.1 is currently the dominant virus circulating in the United States.
Ruth Link-Gelles, an author of the study, said it shows that the latest Covid shot offers significant protection to recipients.
We know that Covid is continuing to cause thousands of hospitalizations and hundreds of deaths in this country each week, Link-Gelles, the vaccine effectiveness program lead in the CDCs National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told STAT. And 50% added protection against Covid-19 is really going to be a meaningful increase in protection, especially for those at highest risk.
Arnold Monto, a veteran vaccine effectiveness researcher at the University of Michigan, said the findings are what are expected at this point for Covid vaccine boosters.
Were moving into the era of 50%, 60% percent efficacy. Reminds you of flu [vaccine], doesnt it? Monto said.
Link-Gelles agreed with the analogy, noting that in a good year, influenza vaccines offer protection in this range. So this is kind of exactly where we would expect it to be for a vaccine for a respiratory virus in a population that has some underlying immunity to that virus.
The study used what is called a test-negative design, looking at 9,222 people with Covid-like symptoms who were tested for the virus. Of those, nearly 3,300 tested positive for Covid and the results were calculated based on a comparison of those who had received the booster versus those who had not.
The vaccine effectiveness was 58% among people who were tested between seven and 59 days after having received a shot, and 49% among those who were tested 60 to 119 days after receipt of the vaccine. The differences were not statistically significant, but the article suggested that given what has been seen previously with Covid vaccination, a reduction in protection is expected over time.
Because consistent patterns of waning VE vaccine effectiveness were observed after original monovalent and bivalent Covid-19 vaccination, waning of VE is expected with more time since updated vaccination, especially against less severe outcomes such as symptomatic infection, the article said.
Though Covid transmission has begun to subside somewhat in the country, Link-Gelles said people who have not yet received the latest version of the vaccine should still do so. Especially for our highest-risk individuals people who are pregnant, people who have high-risk conditions its really important to go out if you have not already and get that vaccine this year.
