CLAIM
SPIKE PROTEINS FROM COVID SHOTS COULD PROMOTE CANCER GROWTH
DETAILS
Inadequate support: The claim relies on a study that used cells grown in the laboratory to produce the spike protein from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. These experimental conditions dont reflect what happens with the COVID-19 vaccine in the human body. Therefore, the results from this study cant be extrapolated to people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.
KEY TAKE AWAY
COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and death and is particularly important for people who are at a higher risk for severe COVID-19 complications. These include people with cancer and other conditions that can weaken the immune system. There is currently no evidence suggesting that COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of cancer, make it more aggressive, or make cancer therapy less effective.
Americas Frontline Doctors became widely known in 2020 for promoting the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine to prevent and cure COVID-19, despite a lack of evidence for its efficacy. The group continued to spread COVID-19 misinformation throughout the pandemic. In 2022, its founder Simone Gold was sentenced to 60 days in prison for entering the U.S. Capitol during the 6 January 2021 riot.
Claims linking vaccination with cancer have thrived on social media since the COVID-19 vaccines became available. However, such claims are unsubstantiated, often based on anecdotal accounts and misinterpreted data. The Facebook reel is yet another example of such a claim.
The reels claim is based on a study by Shengliang Zhang and Wafik S. El-Deiry, oncology researchers at Brown University, published in Oncotarget in June 2024. El-Deiry previously amplified unfounded claims that COVID-19 vaccines cause turbo cancer. Science Feedback debunked similar claims in earlier reviews.
Zhang and El-Deiry found that cancer cells modified to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein showed changes in p53, a tumor suppressor protein. However, the study was done in cancer cells growing in the lab, not in humans. Moreover, the experiments involved the spike protein from the virus, not from the vaccine. Therefore, these results dont provide evidence of what happens in people who received a COVID-19 vaccine, which makes the reels claim unsupported.
Science Feedback reached out to El-Deiry for comment regarding the reels claim. In an email, he stated that all the limitations of the study were acknowledged in the publication. Below, we discuss these limitations in greater detail.
The study aimed to investigate the effect of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 on the p53 protein.
To do this, the researchers modified human lung, breast, colorectal, and sarcoma cancer cells grown in the lab to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
p53 is a well-known tumor suppressor protein, meaning it helps protect the body from uncontrolled cell growth. Specifically, p53 is commonly dubbed the guardian of the genome due to its essential role in regulating DNA repair, cell division, and programmed cell death (apoptosis).
p53 is generally inactive until something damages the cell DNA, such as a toxic chemical or ultraviolet rays from sunlight. This damage activates p53, which then instructs the cell to repair the damage, or if this isnt possible, to stop dividing and self-destruct. In short, p53 prevents damaged cells from accumulating, dividing uncontrollably, and potentially developing into tumors.
The study found that spike protein-producing cells showed changes in p53 function compared to cells that didnt produce the protein. When the researchers exposed these cells to the chemotherapy drug cisplatin, they observed that the drug caused damage but the cells were less responsive to it compared to cells that didnt produce the spike protein. This was also associated with slightly increased survival of cancer cells, suggesting the drug was killing fewer cells than expected.
Based on these results, the authors speculated that SARS-CoV-2 might reduce the natural barriers that prevent the cell from developing into a tumor, particularly after repeated SARS-CoV-2 infections. They added that this potential mechanism might be relevant in the context of viral infection and mRNA vaccines in general but also for patients with cancer who may be receiving cytotoxic or other cancer treatments.
Finally, the authors called for further investigating the impact of viral proteins like SARS-CoV-2 spike on cell DNA repair mechanisms. This, they argued, would help minimize the risk of interfering with this process when developing therapeutic strategies like vaccines.
While more than half of all cancers have mutations in TP53[1], research suggests that p53 malfunction in itself isnt sufficient to cause cancer. Instead, cancer is likely the result of multiple, progressive genetic changes.
Referring to the research published in Oncotarget, El-Deiry, one of the studys authors, talked about the complex role of p53 in cancer in an X/Twitter thread:
Complete loss or mutation of p53 doesnt cause cancer immediately either in mice or humans. Similarly HPV E6 takes years to cause cervical or head and neck cancer (and theres an effective vaccine for HPV). These things are well known. But clearly loss of p53 is associated with cancer over time. It is a difficult area when one discusses causes. Its like cause of death. Theres an immediate cause but there can be many contributing factors.
Results in spike protein-producing cells cant be directly extrapolated to people who received a COVID-19 vaccine
The study suggests a potential mechanism by which the virus SARS-CoV-2 might interfere with DNA repair in the cell. However, these results are preliminary and only apply to the laboratory conditions used in this study.
First, all the experiments were done in cell cultures, which are very different from a whole organism like the human body. Cell cultures are a valuable initial model for studying biological mechanisms in a controlled and reproducible environment. However, they cant simulate the complexity of a human body, which comprises multiple tissues and organs connected to each other. For this reason, the results obtained in cell cultures cannot demonstrate that the same phenomenon occurs in people.
Furthermore, the study only evaluated the effects of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in cancer cells. These cells might have a different susceptibility to changes in p53 function compared to healthy cells. The authors acknowledged these limitations in the Discussion:
We have not conducted in vivo experiments and some of our experiments lack additional controls such as in flow analysis or by looking at kinetics of cell cycle checkpoint regulation. We have not evaluated normal cells such as airway, muscle, immune, brain or intestinal cells. [emphasis added]
Second, the study evaluated the effects of the spike protein from the virus, not from the vaccine. From the Discussion:
In the current manuscript we show preliminary evidence limited to viral protein spike from SARS-CoV-2 impacting on p53 function by inhibiting its transcriptional activation of key genes that mediate its functions in tumor suppression. [emphasis added]
The spike protein from the virus and that induced by COVID-19 vaccination are very similar but not identical. Specifically, the vaccine-spike protein contains a mutation that stabilizes the protein and prevents it from fusing within the cell membrane as the viral protein does. Since the spike proteins from the virus and the vaccine are different, the results obtained with one might not hold true for the other.
To produce the spike protein, the researchers inserted the genetic material encoding this protein into a plasmid (a circular DNA molecule) that they transferred into the cells. This is an artificial process that results in high amounts of protein (overexpression) that can interfere with its normal function and even be toxic for the cells. This can cause effects that arent specific to the protein investigated but simply result from producing any protein in high amounts. However, the study didnt control for this effect by assessing p53 function in cells overexpressing a protein unrelated to SARS-CoV-2.
Finally, the results suggested that cancer cells responded less to DNA damage and survived slightly better when they produced the spike protein. However, the study couldnt establish Whether these changes are a consequence from the suppressive effect of SARS-CoV-2 spike on p53 signaling. In other words, the study didnt show that the changes were actually caused by the spike protein interfering with p53.
The U.S. National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society state there is currently no evidence suggesting that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer or make it more aggressive or recurrent. As we explained in earlier reviews, there is also no plausible scientific mechanism that could explain how COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer.
While this study suggested that SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could influence the activity of one tumor suppressor protein in cancer cells, it didnt demonstrate that effect in people infected with SARS-CoV-2, let alone people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.
By Doug Donovan
Lauren Gardner, the Johns Hopkins University professor who pioneered infectious disease tracking during the COVID-19 pandemic, won the Future Insight Prize from Merck, the global life sciences conglomerate based in Germany.
Merck awarded the 500,000 prize (approximately $541,160) to Gardner today for her contributions to the development of artificial intelligence systems capable of discovering and tracking future pandemics.
Image caption: Lauren Gardner
"Receiving the Future Insight Prize will further support our mission at Johns Hopkins to refine predictive modeling and enhance decision making tools that are crucial for effectively managing public health emergencies," Gardner said at the Curious2024Future Insight Conference. "This recognition fuels our commitment to developing new AI-enabled solutions to anticipate and mitigate future threats from any known virus or other biological source."
Gardner has been at the forefront of epidemiological modeling well before the COVID-19 pandemic emerged in December 2019. Earlier that year she created a predictive map that determined the 25 U.S. counties where measles outbreaks were most likely to occur due to multiple variables. She has also previously developed predictive models for Zika, Dengue, MERS-CoV among other infectious diseases. In January 2020, as COVID-19 was still primarily contained to Asia, Gardner and her team in the Department of Civil and Systems Engineering created the Johns Hopkins web-based COVID-19 dashboard, an essential global resource that earned her the Lasker-Bloomberg Public Service Award, America's top biomedical research prize.
"The exemplary work of Dr. Gardner and her Johns Hopkins team made a significant public health contribution during the COVID-19 pandemic," Merck CEO Beln Garijo said. "With the Future Insight Prize, we hope she can accelerate ongoing efforts to create a world that is better prepared to predict and prevent future pandemics."
Gardner's current projects include enhancing epidemiological tools for early outbreak detection, creating a centralized open data repository, and advancing public health policy integration through training and capacity-building efforts. Her work aims to set new standards in using AI for public health and foster robust global responses to emerging infectious diseases.
usatoday.com wants to ensure the best experience for all of our readers, so we built our site to take advantage of the latest technology, making it faster and easier to use.
Unfortunately, your browser is not supported. Please download one of these browsers for the best experience on usatoday.com
The economic loss, particularly to Indias informal sector owing to the cumulative impact of macroeconomic shocks since 2016, including the demonetisation of high-value currency notes, the rollout of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the COVID-19 pandemic, is estimated at 4.3% of Indias GDP in 2022-23 or 11.3 lakh crore, India Ratings and Research said on Tuesday.
Noting that the sector was severely impacted by recent macroeconomic shocks, India Ratings principal economist Sunil Kumar Sinha estimated that 63 lakh informal enterprises shut down between 2015-16 and 2022-23, with about 1.6 crore jobs lost. This period also coincided with the rise in the formalisation of the economy, which has led to robust tax collections. While formalisation of the economy is the way forward, the reduced unorganised sector footprint has implications for employment generation, Mr. Sinha said.
In 2022-23, the Gross-Value Added (GVA) in the economy by such unincorporated enterprises was still 1.6% below 2015-16 levels. Moreover, their compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) was 7.4% between 2010-11 and 2015-16, but slipped into a 0.2% contraction since then, the rating firm reckoned based on the recently released findings of the governments Annual Survey of Unincorporated Sector Enterprises (ASUSE).
As per the survey, the number of establishments in the non-agricultural sector increased to 6.5 crore in 2022-23 from 5.97 crore in 2021-22, with employment rising to 10.96 crore from 9.79 crore workers. However, this was lower than the 11.13 crore people employed in the sector in the pre-shock period of 2015-16. This was primarily due to a decline in manufacturing jobs which stood at 3.06 crore in 2022-23, compared with 3.6 crore in 2015-16.
The latest data suggests that the real GVA of unincorporated firms in manufacturing, trade and other services (MTO) was 9.51 lakh crore in 2022-23, with an 18.2% share in Indias real MTO GVA, falling sharply from 25.7% in 2015-16.
The shrinkage has been sharper in other services and trade, with the informal sectors share dropped to 32.3% and 21.2% in 2022-23 from the pre-shock level of 46.9% and 34.3%, respectively. In the manufacturing sector, the share of the informal sector fell to 10.2%, from 12.5% during the same period, the firm said in its report.
Had the macro shocks not taken place during the post 2015-16 period and the growth in these enterprises followed the pattern between 2010-11 and 2015-16, the total number of such firms would have reached 7.14 crore in 2022-23, with the number of workers employed rising to 12.53 crore, India Ratings concluded.
The unorganised sector contributes over 44% to the countrys GVA and employs nearly 75% of the work force employed in non-agricultural enterprises, as per the 2022-23 Periodic Labour Force Survey.
The size of unincorporated sector enterprises (USE) was 15.4 lakh crore in 2022-23, growing at a CAGR of 4.3% between 2015-16 and 2022-23l, compared with a CAGR of 12.9% recorded between 2010-11 and 2015-16. Had the pace of growth of USE remained at 12.9% during 2015-16 to 2022-23, their size in 2022-23 would have been 26.9 lakh crore, India Ratings explained.
The onset of summer has triggered fears of the resurgence of Covid-19 as SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes Covid-19, has continued to mutate. There have been concerns around a group of variants called FLiRT, named after the technical names for their mutations, and the LB.1 variant, which has an additional mutation on FLiRT.
The FLiRT strains are sub-variants of Omicron, which was dominant in the third wave of infections in India in January 2022. FLiRT strains together account for over 60% of Covid-19 cases in the United States, with a variant known as KP.3 accounting alone for 33.1% of infections by early June, according to data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
What impact could these mutations have and what precautions should be taken? We explain.
FLiRT is a group of variants which include KP.2, JN.1.7, and any other variants starting with KP or JN. They are descendants of the JN.1 variant, which dominated infections in the US during late 2023 and early 2024.
Its symptoms resemble those of earlier variants, including fever, cough, fatigue and digestive issues with a heightened transmission rate. Of concern is its ability to evade immunity, gained from vaccines and previous infections.
The LB.1 strain, a mutation of the FLiRT group, was responsible for 17.5% of Covid-19 cases in the US this year as summer began. Both FLiRT and LB.1 are highly transmissible.
Preliminary research data from the Infectious Diseases Society of America shows most common FLiRT variants are mutations which can infect people who are vaccinated. They spread more easily than JN.1, while LB.1 is poised to be more infectious and transmissible than its predecessors.
The uptick in cases has been chiefly reported from the US, the United Kingdom and Singapore, with an increased rate of hospitalisation. CDC data for June 16 to 22 showed that the number of emergency room visits had increased to over 23%, while Covid-19 deaths had also risen by 14.3% in recent weeks. However, the share of Covid-19 deaths as a part of all deaths remains low, at 0.8%.
The Singapore Ministry of Health reported that the number of Covid-19 cases had risen to 25,900 cases between May 5 to 11 over the previous weeks 13,700 cases, while the number hospitalised increased from 181 to 250 over the same period.
The Indian Express in May reported that 290 cases of the KP.2 variant and 34 cases of the KP.1 variant had been detected in India.
Ever since Covid-19 began circulation in late 2019, the virus has continued to exist in and around humans. What has changed is how humans gradually acquired immunity to it compared to when it first appeared.
The US removed its mask mandates in early 2022, while the CDC stopped reporting daily case numbers on its data tracker by May 2023, viewing the situation as no longer being a public health emergency. There are also fewer tests being done for it, resulting in lower reporting of numbers.
However, Covid-19 strains continue to mutate and evolve. Over time, the immunity against the virus, developed through infections and vaccines, starts wearing off. Paul Hunter, a professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia in the UK, told Deutsche Welle: Sterilizing immunity following an infection or vaccination only lasts four to six months on average, so immunity gained from infections during winter or the autumn vaccination campaign will have already been lost for the most part.
This results in the need for continued booster doses of the vaccine. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has appealed to drug manufacturers to target the new variant as well. In particular, the elderly and those with comorbidities are more vulnerable to the infection.
Preventative measures prescribed since the beginning of the pandemic in 2020 should be adhered to, including maintaining social distancing, using well-fitted respiratory masks like N95 or KN95 indoors to protect against all variants, and increasing ventilation while indoors.
People vulnerable to the infection on account of their comorbidities, as well as those in areas where the spread of the infection has been reported, are advised to take extra precautions. Booster doses against the vaccine can help provide immunity against the current strain.
The so-called FLiRT variants of SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus that cause COVID-19 have been the dominant forms of the virus circulating this year globally, according to the World Health Organization
FLiRT is an acronym for the locations of the mutations the variants share on the virus spike protein. One of them, called KP.3, has become the most commonly circulating variant in the United States over the past month, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Here is what you need to know about FLiRT.
HOW ARE FLIRT VARIANTS DIFFERENT FROM PREVIOUS VARIANTS?
The FLiRT variants, which also include KP.3s parental lineage JN.1, have three key mutations on their spike protein that could help them evade antibodies, according to Johns Hopkins University.
ARE FLIRT VARIANTS MORE CONTAGIOUS OR LIKELY TO CAUSE MORE SEVERE ILLNESS?
Dr. Aaron Glatt, chief of infectious diseases at Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital in Oceanside, New York, and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America said in May that he had not seen evidence of an uptick in disease or hospitalizations, based on the data he tracks and experience with his own patients.
There have been some significant changes in the variants, but I think in recent times its not been as important, probably because of the immunity many, many people already have from prior illness and vaccination.
CDC data suggests that COVID-related hospitalizations have risen slightly since April and the number of patients in emergency departments who have tested positive for COVID has increased since May, in line with trends a year ago.
DO CURRENT VACCINES WORK AGAINST THE FLIRT VARIANTS?
The current vaccines should still have some benefit against the new variants, Glatt said.
Since 2022, health regulators have asked vaccine makers to design new versions of the COVID-19 vaccines to better target circulating variants.
Europes regulator has said vaccine makers should target the JN.1 variant. U.S. regulators asked for the vaccines to target variants within the JN.1 lineage, but said the preferred strain to target would be the KP.2 strain, which was dominant in June.
(Reuters)
Image credit: Prot | stock.adobe.com
Early in the pandemic, patients with asthma were considered at a higher risk for COVID-19 infection and illness-related hospitalization. In addition, social distancing measures were shown to help lower rates of emergency visits and hospitalizations for pediatric patients who have asthma. Whether symptomatic asthma in pediatric patients is associated with population-level COVID-19 illness exposure or reduction strategies is not well understood. Authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open evaluated whether symptomatic asthma was positively associated with population COVID-19 overall mortality, and would then be, conversely, associated with population-level completion of the COVID-19 primary vaccination series with state face mask mandates.
For this cross-sectional study, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guidelines were followed. Additionally, the follow data were included: state-level data regarding parent-reported current asthma symptom prevalence in their children from the National Survey of Childrens Health from 2018-2019 and 2020-2021; age-adjusted COVID-19 overall mortality ratesa proxy for SARS-CoV-2 exposurefrom the CDC during 2020 and 2021; the proportion of population aged 5 years and older who completed the primary COVID-19 vaccination series in 2020 and 2021 (also from the CDC); and face mask requirements in enclosed spaces through August 2021, which was gathered from 20 states and the District of Columbia. Data were analyzed in February 2024.
Additionally, the authors calculated state-level change scores for parent-reported childhood asthma symptom prevalence for 2020 to 2021 compared with 2018 to 2019, then assessed state-level time trends. Trend associations were evaluated with concurrent state-level variables, according to the authors.
The data demonstrated that the mean state-level prevalence of parent-reported childhood asthma symptoms had decreased from approximately 7.77% (95% CI, 7.34%-8.21%) from 2018 to 2019, and to 6.93% (95% CI, 6.53%-7.32%) from 2020 to 2021 (P < .001), with an absolute mean change in score of approximately -0.85%. Additionally, the mean (SD) age-adjusted state-level COVID-19 mortality rate was 80.3 (30.2) per 100,000 in 2020, and this rate increased to 99.3 (33.9) in 2021. Further, the mean state-level COVID-19 primary series vaccination rate through December 2021 was approximately 72.3% (10.3%).
The investigators also observed that with each 10% increase in COVID-19 vaccination coverage, the prevalence of parent-reported child asthma symptoms decreased by 0.36%. Additionally, the prevalence of child asthma symptoms reported by their parents were not associated with state-level COVID-19 mortality, or with face mask requirements. State-level COVID-19 vaccination rates were inversely correlated with the state-level COVID-19 mortality rate in 2021 (r =0.75;P<.001); however, this was not true for 2020 (r=0.75;P<.001). There were also positive associations with mask mandates (r=.49;P<.001).
According to the investigators, this study is the first to evaluate population-level and parent-reported childhood asthma symptoms prevalence and COVID-19 vaccination. The findings demonstrate that higher COVID-19 vaccination rates may provide protection against pediatric patients symptomatic asthma, and that vaccination might also provide some benefits against SARS-CoV-2 infection and other human coronaviruses through cross-reactive antibody responses in individual children. This suggests that community-level immunity in states that have higher vaccination rates may also contribute to the reduction of childrens risk to asthma. Alternatively, simultaneous exposure to high population-level burden of COVID-19-attributed disease and sustained state-level face mask requirements were not associated with parallel trends in patient-reported symptomatic childhood asthma.
The authors note that there are limitations to the study, such as the lack of state-level estimates of COVID-19 vaccination rates among children with a history of asthma in the analysis because of the unavailability of the data. Because of this, differences in symptomatic asthma among vaccinated pediatric patients compared with unvaccinated children could not be made. Despite this, the investigators confirm that reduction in symptomatic asthma among pediatric patients in 2020 and the overall individual-level COVID-19 mortality reduction with vaccination offer outside support for the state-level findings. Further, the lack of association of COVID-19 vaccinationthat was primarily administered in 2021along with population-level COVID-19 mortality in 2020 acts as a negative control. According to the investigators, the findings should be confirmed with additional research to help determine whether asthma symptom prevalence in pediatric patients may be reduced by the sustained efforts of vaccination against COVID-19.
Reference
As COVID-19 has become endemic, new symptoms keep on arriving regularly. One of them noticed more frequently is the condition in which swollen tongues are seen that develop bumps, ulcers, and white patches. This is called 'COVID tongue.' Doctors have found that in people with COVID tongue, the top of their tongue becomes white and patchy, or they look red and appear swollen. They sometimes find bumps or open areas called ulcers on their tongue. Besides, people with 'COVID tongue' may also experience a loss of taste and a burning sensation in their mouth.
ADVERTISEMENT
According to Dr. Mehdizadeh, 'COVID tongue' can not be prevented. He also said that the remedies utilized in the literature include multivitamins and minerals, and anti-septic oral rinse.
ADVERTISEMENT
What is the reason behind 'COVID tongue'?COVID-19 attacks the bumps on the tongue, i.e., papilla, by using an angiotensin-converting enzyme receptor (ACE-2). Consequently, COVID-19 tongue symptoms can occur, including inflammation and swelling.
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel)
In a recent research letter published in the journal JAMA Network Open, scientists in Italy compared the rates of respiratory medication usage and wheezing due to bronchiolitis among children born during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic-associated lockdowns in Italy and those born in the winter months before the pandemic, when the incidence of respiratory syncytial virus infections was high.
Research letter: Wheeze Among Children Born During COVID-19 Lockdown. Image Credit:Herlanzer/ Shutterstock
Emerging evidence from epidemiological studies shows that the lockdowns and social distancing measures implemented in many countries to curb the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) also reduced the incidence rates of other respiratory viruses. Other disease mitigation measures, such as frequent handwashing and masking, have also contributed to lowering the rates of respiratory illnesses.
The respiratory syncytial virus is responsible for close to 80% of bronchiolitis cases in children, and respiratory syncytial virus infections generally occur in the winter months. It also increases the risk of asthma and wheezing. Here, the researchers aimed to understand whether children born during the COVID-19-associated lockdowns, when their exposure to the respiratory syncytial virus would have been low, had a lower risk of wheezing or asthma.
The present research included children born during the COVID-19-associated lockdown in Italy, which spanned the months of February to April 2020. The comparison cohort included children born in the same months during 2016 and 2017, for whom the data was obtained from the Pedianet database, which contains data from 150 pediatricians and family doctors in Italy.
The International Statistical Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes in the health records were used to define wheezing, while the incidence rates of asthma were inferred from medications prescribed for asthma.
The researchers calculated the cumulative incidence of wheezing in person-months. Mediation analyses were conducted to determine the association between the onset of wheezing and whether the child was born during the COVID-19-related lockdown or the pre-pandemic winter months.
The study also examined how bronchiolitis mediated this association to determine the potential role of respiratory syncytial virus infections in increasing the risk of wheezing. All the estimations were adjusted for sociodemographic factors such as area deprivation index, sex, and geographic location.
The study found that children born during the pandemic-enforced lockdowns had a lower requirement of respiratory medications and experienced fewer episodes of wheezing than children born during the same months but in the pre-pandemic years of 2016 and 2017.
The researchers included 2,192 children born during 2020 in the pandemic-associated lockdown months and over 3,800 children born before the pandemic. The two cohorts did not differ in area deprivation index scores, sex, or the occurrence of atopic disease.
The 30-month follow-up observations reported that the incidence of wheezing in the lockdown cohort was 9.4% (206 out of 2192 children), while that in the historical cohort was 15% (582 out of 3,889 children). The lockdown cohort saw a wheezing episode rate of 67.6 per 10,000 person-months, while the historical cohort experienced a wheezing episode rate of 110 every 10,000 person-months.
Furthermore, the number of bronchiolitis cases was almost negligible during the lockdown as compared to the occurrence of bronchiolitis during the pre-pandemic period (6.6 versus 82.4 per 10,000 person-months).
Additionally, the findings showed that the risk of wheezing was 44% lower in children born during the months when the COVID-19-associated lockdowns were implemented. The preventative measures implemented during the lockdown to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 were believed to lower the risk of wheezing by 30%, not accounting for the impact of bronchiolitis on wheezing risk.
The use of nebulized glucocorticosteroids and nebulized 2 agonists was lower among children born during the lockdown as compared to those born in the pre-pandemic years, indicating that the incidence of asthma was also lower in children born during the COVID-19-related lockdown months.
While the present study was not able to ascertain the incidence of respiratory syncytial virus infections, given its retrospective nature, based on the findings from other extensive cohort studies, the authors believe that the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus infections during the early years of the infant lowers the five-year risk of asthma by 26%. These findings also highlight the importance of the universal immunoprophylaxis against respiratory syncytial virus.
Overall, the study found that children born during the COVID-19-associated lockdown months experienced significantly lowered rates of wheezing and asthma as compared to children born during the same months in previous years. The results suggest that protection from respiratory syncytial virus infections and bronchiolitis in the first year of growth could lower the risk of wheezing and asthma in the later years.
Journal reference:
Their names sound benign, but their danger is real: KP.1. LB.1. JN.1. KP.2. The latest variants of the COVID-19 disease run together like a less-than-appetizing version of alphabet soup. But what they all spell out, according to SSM Health physician Dr. Shephali Wulff, an expert on infectious diseases, is the need for everyone to get a new coronavirus vaccine this fall.
We have three years of evidence that these vaccines are safe and effective, and that people who have been vaccinated are less likely to end up in the hospital or die from COVID, said Wulff, SSM Healths VP of Quality and Safety.
The urgency for this is borne out by the numbers this summer. COVID-19 is ramping up across 39 states at a time of year when the diseases prevalence is relatively low with more people spending time outdoors.
Theres a difference, though. Many people have been skipping additional vaccines and some have never gotten one, expecting numerous COVID-19 infections to help them develop antibodies and a degree of immunity.
If anything, the official COVID-19 infection numbers may be lower than the actual totals, she said.
Prevalence data is flawed because folks are not testing, or they are testing at home, which does not get reported, she said.
Summer, she notes, is not always disease-free. She cites the circulation of respiratory viruses such as rhino/enterovirus and other coronaviruses as staples of the summer season, and the fact that flu season is extending longer than it used to.
Travel and large gatherings may be partially to blame for the uptick, she said. In addition, peoples immunity from last falls vaccines may be waning. All of that, she says, makes it imperative to get a new vaccine this year, just like people do with an annual flu shot.
Wulff said the public can expect new vaccines to be available in the fall, probably late September or early October. Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax all are developing vaccines to guard against infection by some of the more recent variants.
People 65 and older remain especially vulnerable to the coronavirus, but only 40 percent got a COVID-19 vaccine last fall. Seniors account for the majority of hospitalizations and deaths due to the virus.
Yet children under 5 remain susceptible to COVID-19 as well, and only 14 percent of that population was vaccinated last year.
Wulff noted that the vaccine is covered by most insurances, including Medicaid and Medicare. Departments of public health also offer the vaccines. Have a conversation with your physician about the vaccine, she urged.
Find a physician for your family.
