Category: COVID

Categories : COVIDTags :

Prof Madhi Addresses Omicron Subvariant Concerns

On By ModernMedia
SARS-CoV-2 virus
SARS-CoV-2 virus. Source: Fusion Medical Animation on Unsplash

In an interview about new Omicron subvariants, leading vaccinologist Prof Shabir Madhi said that “we don’t need to be concerned” about any current threat they may pose to South Africa. However, he stressed that it can still be lethal, particularly in those without underlying T cell immunity. He also noted that boosters are also important for high-risk populations, while some sort of seasonality needs to be observed for COVID for it to make boosters worthwhile for those at low risk due to the way vaccination protection wanes.

The XBB 1.5 SARS-CoV-2 subvariant, nicknamed ‘Kraken’ by researchers, is now accounting for more than half of cases in the United States, and appears much more transmissible and antibody-evasive than the original Omicron variant which evolved in Southern Africa. Prof Pravin Manga, editor of the Wits Journal of Clicnical Medicine interviewed Prof Madhi and asked him what the emergence of Omicron subvariants meant for South Africa.

Prof Madhi, who is the Dean of the Faculty of Health Sciences at Wits University, noted that before this new XBB.1.5 variant, there were BA4 and BA5, which created a “mini surge” in the middle of last year when they arrived in SA. There were concerns that these strains seemed more antibody-resistant than previous ones, stoking fears that they would result in increased hospitalisations and deaths.

In light of the current situation, he says that “the short answer is that we don’t need to be concerned.”

One important aspect of immunity which was becoming apparent was that, although neutralising antibodies were important in protecting against contracting and transmitting the virus, “what seems to be playing a greater role in protecting against severe disease is the T cell immunity, the Natural Killer cell immunity.” This immunity is much more diverse than that from antibodies, instead of merely targeting the Spike protein is rather “multi-epitopic”, targeting the N-protein as well.

“Now this T cell immunity appears to be holding strong. It appears to be less affected by all these mutations. In fact, close to 75 to 80% of vaccine-induced T cell immunity is conserved despite the multiple mutations have arisen in Omicron and its subvariants.”

Differing impacts across countries

With regard to the impact of the virus, Prof Madhi noted that China had pursued its ‘zero COVID’ policy, along with “suboptimal” coverage of vaccines (especially among ages 60+) that were “probably not the best”, meaning that large portions of the population were essentially naïve to the virus.

SA meanwhile, had 90% of the population infected at least once with COVID, and coupled with vaccination, meant that many will have highly robust immunity, which appears to last for 9–12 months compared to vaccine-only immunity where protection starts wanes after 4–6 months.

“What is unlikely to materialise in a country such as South Africa is large numbers of hospitalisations,” he says.

Protecting at-risk populations and the need for new vaccines

At present, he says there is not a strong case for boosters, but people at greater risk, such as those over 60, people with underlying medical conditions, and compromised immune systems, hybrid immunity is likely not enough protection. In these cases probably at least four doses of vaccination. From a public health standpoint, the population under 45 without underlying conditions would require a huge effort for only a nominal benefit as they are no longer at high risk of severe disease.

Timing is also important, due to the waning of vaccine protection, as the best time to get a booster is “probably around two or three weeks before the start of the next resurgence.” Otherwise, it’s useless to get a booster now if the next resurgence is in six months and antibodies will have waned – an obvious logistical challenge for little benefit. Therefore, in order for boosters to be useful, the virus will have to settle into some sort of predictable seasonality such as with influenza.

As for people who are at risk, at least four doses are probably required, though the case for a fifth is thin. Annual boosters are a likely option, and there is a need for a second generation of vaccines. These vaccines would need to be resilient against further mutations that may arise.

Novavax, monoclonal antibodies and Paxlovid

Regarding Novavax, Prof Madhi said that it had been licensed for use in South Africa, but their bivalent vaccine was not yet available. It would not be procured by government but rather by a private company – a situation which needs to change in terms of who is allowed to bring in vaccines. Another issue is whether the no fault compensation used by the government for public sector vaccinations would be used in the private sector as well.

Prof Manga also asked about whether there had been any success with monoclonal antibody treatment, to which Prof Madhi answered that there had been some limited use in the country but overall, monoclonal antibodies were “spectacularly unsuccessful” as they were highly specific and generally unable to keep up with mutations.

In general, antivirals hold much better promise, particularly Paxlovid which is unfortunately not available in South Africa. It was disappointing that it was not available in the country,

Benefits to both pregnant mothers and babies

Regarding pregnant women and children, Prof Madhi said that their own study shows that a substantial amount of transmission takes place between mothers and children. Infants with COVID under six months are often hospitalised, especially in the first month of life. Vaccination reduces the risk of hospitalisation and protects the baby as well, with research showing that babies born to vaccinated mothers were 80% less likely to develop COVID, “which is really a huge benefit,” he noted. This is likely a little reduced with Omicron because the only thing that babies get from the mother is antibodies, not T cell immunity.

Vaccination also reduces the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes such as stillbirth, and safety “is simply not an issue” as supported by the data. He says there is case for vaccinating pregnant women, even under 45, in the second trimester of the pregnancy so that more antibodies are transferred to the foetus.

Categories : COVIDTags :

Updated Bivalent Boosters Offer Better Protection against Omicron

On By ModernMedia
Image by Ivan Diaz on Unsplash

A real-world effectiveness study of updated bivalent mRNA vaccines has shown that bivalent boosters are more effective than original monovalent boosters at preventing hospitalisation and death from the Omicron variant. The study was published today in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“While original COVID vaccines had been demonstrated to be safe and effective prior to the FDA’s authorisation, the Pfizer and Moderna bivalent vaccines that have been deployed in the United States since last fall were approved by the FDA for emergency use on the basis of non-clinical data for those two new vaccines,” explains Dr Danyu Lin, lead author on the study. “We were able to evaluate not only the effectiveness of the two bivalent boosters but also compare their effectiveness to that of monovalent boosters.”

Researchers at the at the University of North Carolina’s Gillings School of Global Public Health compared the incidence of severe Omicron infection resulting in hospitalisation or death for individuals aged 12 and up who received a monovalent or bivalent booster dose to those who did not. The study analysed vaccination and infection data of more than six million North Carolina residents from May to December of 2022, during which the Omicron variant’s BA.4.6/BA.5 and BQ.1/BQ.1.1 strains were predominant in the United States. Both the Pfizer and Moderna bivalent vaccines were included in the study, which also considered different age groups, previous infection status, and the number of booster doses already received.

The effectiveness of the booster was highest at roughly four weeks after administration and decreased afterward. Average effectiveness against severe infection resulting in hospitalisation or death over a three-month period was 25% for one monovalent booster dose and 62% for one bivalent booster dose.

“The increased effectiveness found in this study demonstrates why it’s important for people to protect themselves with the updated booster even if they had already gotten the original booster dose,” says Dr Zack Moore, State Epidemiologist with the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.

Source: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Categories : COVIDTags :

Hybrid Immunity Offers Greatest Protection against COVID

On By ModernMedia
Image of a syring for vaccination
Photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash

Analysing data from controlled studies throughout the world, researchers discovered that people with hybrid immunity – from both full vaccination and prior infection – are the most protected against severe illness and reinfection. The study, published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, will aid public policy-makers in planning the optimal timing of vaccinations.

Researchers from University of Calgary teamed up with World Health Organization (WHO) experts to answer the question of how well protected people are from combinations of vaccinations, boosters and prior infection.

“The results reinforce the global imperative for vaccination,” says Dr Niklas Bobrovitz, first author on the study. “A common question throughout the pandemic was whether previously infected people should also get vaccinated. Our results clearly indicate the need for vaccination, even among people that have had COVID.”

The global emergence and rapid spread of the Omicron variant required scientists and policy-makers to reassess population protection against Omicron infection and severe disease. In the study, investigators were able to look at immune protection against Omicron after a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination or hybrid immunity.

“Protection against hospitalisation and severe disease remained above 95 per cent for 12 months for individuals with hybrid immunity,” says Dr Lorenzo Subissi, PhD, a technical officer with WHO and senior author on the study. “We know more variants are going to emerge. The study shows, to reduce infection waves, vaccinations could be timed for rollout just prior to expected periods of higher infection spread, such as the winter season.”

The systematic review and meta-analysis found that protection against Omicron infection declines substantially by 12 months, regardless of prior infection, vaccinations or both, which means vaccination is the best way to periodically boost protection and to keep down levels of infection in the population. In total, 4268 articles were screened and 895 underwent full-text review – a difficult task before the assistance of experts in health informatics.

“This study demonstrates the power of machine translation. We were able to break through language barriers; most of the time, systematic reviews aren’t done in every language, they are limited to one or two,” says Dr Tyler Williamson “These former BHSc classmates, along with the large diverse team they brought together, have emerged as global leaders in SARS-CoV-2 research and delivered decision-grade evidence to the world.”

While the findings demonstrate that vaccination along with a prior infection carries the most protection, the scientists warn against intentional exposure to the virus.

“You should never try to get COVID,” says Bobrovitz. “The virus is unpredictable in how it will affect your system. For some, it can be fatal or send you to hospital. Even if you have a mild infection, you risk developing long COVID.”

The group says the next phase of this research would be to investigate how the bivalent vaccine performs against severe disease.

Findings from the study complement data on the SeroTracker dashboard which monitors studies and news reports to track seroprevalence data – the percentage of people in a population who have antibodies against the novel coronavirus. The website aggregates serology data from studies and news reports in different populations, and built-in filters allow users to compare seroprevalence levels between countries, occupations, and demographic groups.

Source: University of Calgary

Categories : COVIDTags :

How SARS-CoV-2 Evolved Past its Own Weaknesses

On By ModernMedia
Image from Pixabay

New research suggests that the first pandemic-accelerating mutation in the SARS-CoV-2 virus evolved as a way to correct vulnerabilities that were caused by the mutation that started the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Published in Science Advances, this new evidence addresses important biological questions about two key mutations in the virus’ surface spike protein, say the researchers. It suggests that a spike protein mutation called D614G, which emerged a few months after the virus began spread among humans, was not an adaptation to humans. Instead, the mutation was an adaptation to the major changes that happened in the spike gene just before the pandemic, changes which allowed spread via respiratory transmission.

“This study has revealed that the first two genetic alterations in the evolution of the spike protein in SARS-CoV-2 are connected by their function, and this knowledge can improve our understanding of how the spike protein works and how the virus evolves, with important implications for vaccine design and effectiveness of COVID antibodies,” says Stephen Gould, professor of biological chemistry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, whose lab was studying the basic biology of the virus’s spike protein when the study began.

The initial mutation in the virus, Gould says, is known by scientists as the “furin cleavage site insertion mutation.”

Research by other scientists across the world has shown that this mutation enabled the virus’s spike protein to be cut and primed it for rapid infection of cells lining the airway.

While this initial mutation was essential in helping SARS-CoV-2 efficiently slip into human cells, the mutation’s effects weren’t all good, says Gould, as it cut the spike protein structure into two separate pieces.

According to Gould, this change disrupted other functions of the spike protein, creating evolutionary pressure for a second mutation to correct the disrupted functions of the spike protein while keeping the initial mutations’ rapid infection benefits .

In early 2020, researchers from the University of Toronto discovered a subsequent SARS-CoV-2 mutation, called D614G; however, its precise function was not known.

Gould, first author and graduate student Chenxu Guo, and the research team set out to understand the D614G mutation and its effect.

Working with dozens of blood samples from patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in April 2020 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Gould’s team isolated antibodies for the spike protein from the patients’ blood samples. Then, they used these antibodies to track the location of spike proteins in human cells genetically engineered to produce the spiky surface molecules.

They found that the D614G mutation redirects the spike protein and pulls the virus from the surface of human cells into a tiny compartment within the cell called a lysosome, which the spike protein reprograms into storage containers that are used to release infectious virus particles from the cell.

In addition, the D614G mutation caused a three-fold drop in the abundance of spike proteins at the cell surface.

“With less spike protein on the surface of virus-infected cells, it may be more difficult for the immune system to identify and kill those virus-containing cells,” says Gould.

The researchers caution that the study does not provide information about the still-debated origins of the virus. However, their work suggests that the two mutations likely arose in rapid succession.

The researchers are new examining whether spike protein mutations in more recent virus strains affect spike protein trafficking, studying the identity of the human proteins that deliver spike proteins to lysosomes, and researching how spike proteins convert lysosomes into compartments that release more virus.

Source: John Hopkins Medicine

Categories : COVIDTags :

Getting a COVID Booster Shot is not as Easy as it Should be

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Spencer Davis on Unsplash

By Daniel Steyn for GroundUp

As COVID cases rise again around the world and the more infectious XBB.1.5 variant spreads rapidly, health minister Joe Paahla has emphasised the importance of getting vaccinated and boosted.

About 19 million people in South Africa (just over 30% of the population) are fully vaccinated and four million booster shots have been administered. The country is administering just over 40 000 jabs a week.

At the moment only people over 50 are eligible for a second booster. But according to Dr Nicholas Crisp, Deputy Director-General for the National Department of Health, all adults will be eligible in February. “As soon as the systems are all in place and staff orientated, the department will announce,” Crisp told GroundUp.

But finding a booster shot has become difficult. Privately-owned facilities have mostly discontinued their rollout of the vaccine, although a handful of Dis-Chem pharmacies still do vaccinations. Public sector health facilities are the only alternative.

Active vaccination sites can be found on the government’s Find My Jab website. Some are “visiting” sites only, open once or twice a week, and others are permanently open, but it is advised to call ahead to confirm availability.

“The department is trying to find a more efficient way of updating which vaccination sites are active and those are being reflected and changed weekly on Find My Jab,” says Crisp.

The Western Cape Health Department makes weekly updates to this list of vaccination sites in the province.

One concerned reader from Pennington in KwaZulu-Natal, who is over the age of 50 and HIV-positive (meaning COVID poses a higher risk for him) told GroundUp that his local clinic no longer offered vaccines. It had been ten months since his previous booster. He went to the nearest hospital but was refused a jab and told to wait for an SMS.

He called the vaccination hotline and was told to send a copy of his ID and vaccination card to be registered on the system and receive an SMS, despite already having received jabs in the past.

Without a device to send the documents, and 60km of flood-damaged road between him and and his nearest PostNet, he has still not received his booster shot.

Republished from GroundUp under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Source: GroundUp

Categories : COVIDTags :

What is the XBB.1.5 ‘Kraken’ Variant? An FAQ

On By ModernMedia
SARS-CoV-2 infecting a human cell
Infected cell covered with SARS-CoV-2 viruses. Source: NIAID

By Sameer Elsayed for The Conversation

Despite intensive public health efforts to grind the COVID-19 pandemic to a halt, the recent emergence of the highly transmissible, extensively drug-resistant and profoundly immune system-evading XBB.1.5 SARS-CoV-2 subvariant is putting the global community on edge.

What is XBB.1.5?

In the naming convention for SARS-CoV-2 lineages, the prefix “X” denotes a pedigree that arose through genetic recombination between two or more subvariants.

The XBB lineage emerged following natural co-infection of a human host with two Omicron subvariants, namely BA.2.10.1 and BA.2.75. It was first identified by public health authorities in India during summer 2022. XBB.1.5 is a direct descendent, or more accurately, the “fifth grandchild” of the original XBB subvariant.

Diagram of the genetic lineage of a COVID-19 subvariant
Genetic lineage of COVID-19 subvariant XBB.1.5. (Sameer Elsayed), Author provided

How does XBB.1.5 differ from Omicron?

XBB.1.5 is one of many Omicron subvariants of concern that have appeared on the global pandemic scene since the onset of the first Omicron wave in November 2021. In contrast to other descendants of the original Omicron variant (known as B.1.1.529), XBB.1.5 is a mosaic subvariant that traces its roots to two Omicron subvariant lineages.

XBB.1.5 is arguably the most genetically rich and most transmissible SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariant yet.

Where is XBB.1.5 prevalent?

According to the World Health Organization, XBB.1.5 is circulating in at least 38 countries, with the highest prevalence in the United States, where it accounts for approximately 43 per cent of COVID-19 cases nationwide. Within the U.S., there is wide geographic variation in the proportion of cases caused by XBB.1.5, ranging from seven per cent in the Midwest to over 70 per cent in New England.

XBB.1.5 has also been officially reported by governmental agencies in Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Kuwait, Russia, Singapore, South Africa and the United Kingdom. Real-time surveillance data reveals that XBB.1.5 is rapidly spreading across the globe and will likely become the next dominant subvariant.

XBB.1.5 has also been detected in municipal wastewater systems in the United States, Europe and other places.

How likely is XBB.1.5 to cause serious illness?

Illustration of five coronaviruses of different colours in a line
The XBB lineage emerged following natural co-infection of a human host with two Omicron subvariants, namely BA.2.10.1 and BA.2.75. (Shutterstock)

There is limited data about the ability of XBB.1.5 to cause serious illness. According to the World Health Organization, XBB.1.5 does not have any specific mutations that make it any more dangerous than its ancestral subvariants.

Nonetheless, XBB.1.5 is perceived as being equally capable of causing serious illness in elderly and immunocompromised persons compared to previous Omicron subvariants of concern.

Are current mRNA vaccines effective against XBB.1.5?

XBB.1.5 and XBB.1 are the Omicron subvariants with the greatest immune-evasive properties. Therefore, one of the most contentious issues surrounding XBB.1.5 relates to the degree of protection afforded by currently available mRNA vaccines, including the latest bivalent booster formulations.

Researchers from the University of Texas determined that first-generation and bivalent mRNA booster vaccines containing BA.5 result in lacklustre neutralizing antibody responses against XBB.1.5. A report (yet to be peer reviewed) from investigators at the Cleveland Clinic found that bivalent vaccines demonstrate only modest (30 per cent) effectiveness in otherwise healthy non-elderly people when the variants in the vaccine match those circulating in the community.

Furthermore, some experts believe the administration of bivalent boosters for the prevention of COVID-19 illness in otherwise healthy young individuals is not medically justified nor cost-effective.

In contrast, public health experts from Atlanta, Ga. and Stanford, Calif. reported that although the neutralizing antibody activity of bivalent booster vaccines against XBB.1.5 is 12 to 26 times less than antibody activity against the wild-type (original) SARS-CoV-2 virus, bivalent vaccines still perform better than monovalent vaccines against XBB.1.5.

However, investigators from Columbia University in New York found that neutralizing antibody levels following bivalent boosting were up to 155–fold lower against XBB.1.5 compared to levels against the wild-type virus following monovalent boosting.

This suggests that neither monovalent nor bivalent booster vaccines can be relied upon to provide adequate protection against XBB.1.5.

How can you protect yourself against XBB.1.5?

A blue sign reading 'wearing a mask is recommended,' in French and English
Standard infection control precautions including indoor masking, social distancing and frequent handwashing are effective measures against XBB.1.5 and other subvariants of concern. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Graham Hughes

The rapid evolution of SARS-CoV-2 continues to pose a challenge for the management of COVID-19 illness using available preventive and therapeutic agents. Of note, all currently available monoclonal antibodies targeting the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 are deemed to be ineffective against XBB.1.5.

Antiviral medicines such as remdesivir and Paxlovid may be considered for the treatment of eligible infected patients at high risk of progressing to severe disease.

Standard infection control precautions including indoor masking, social distancing and frequent handwashing are effective measures that can be employed for personal and population protection against XBB.1.5 and other subvariants of concern.

Although bivalent boosters may be considered for elderly, immunocompromised and other risk-averse individuals, their effectiveness in preventing COVID-19 illness due to XBB.1.5 remains uncertain.

Why is XBB.1.5 nicknamed ‘Kraken’?

Some scientists have coined unofficially-recognized nicknames for XBB.1.5 and other SARS-CoV-2 subvariants of concern, arguing that they are easier to remember than generic alphanumeric designations.

The ‘Kraken’ label for XBB.1.5 is currently in vogue on social media sites and news outlets, and the nicknames ‘Gryphon’ and ‘Hippogryph’ have been used to denote the ancestral subvariants XBB and XBB.1, respectively. Kraken refers to a mythological Scandinavian sea monster or giant squid, Gryphon (or Griffin) refers to a legendary creature that is a hybrid of an eagle and a lion, while Hippogryph (or Hippogriff) is a fictitious animal hybrid of a Gryphon and a horse.

Notwithstanding their potential utility as memory aids, the use of nicknames or acronyms in formal scientific discussions should be avoided.

Sameer Elsayed is Professor of Medicine, Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, and Epidemiology & Biostatistics at Western University.

Source: The Conversation

Categories : COVID VaccinesTags :

Increase in Global Willingness to Accept COVID Vaccines

On By ModernMedia
Vaccine injection
Image source: NCI on Unsplash

Global COVID vaccine acceptance increased from 75.2% in 2021 to 79.1% in 2022, according to a new survey of 23 countries accounting for more than 60% of the world’s population, published today in Nature Medicine. It was not all good news, though: vaccine hesitancy increased in eight countries including South Africa, and nearly one in eight vaccinated respondents were hesitant about receiving a booster dose.

This third annual study reveals a wide variability between countries and suggests a need to tailor communication strategies to effectively address vaccine hesitancy.

“The pandemic is not over, and authorities must urgently address vaccine hesitancy and resistance as part of their COVID prevention and mitigation strategy,” says CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy (CUNY SPH) Senior Scholar Jeffrey V. Lazarus. “But to do so effectively, policymakers need solid data on vaccine hesitancy trends and drivers.”

To provide these data, an international collaboration led by Lazarus and CUNY SPH Dean Ayman El-Mohandes performed a series of surveys starting in 2020 in 23 countries which were impacted significantly by the pandemic, including the United States as well as South Africa and Brazil.

Of the 23 000 respondents (1000 per country surveyed), 79.1% were willing to accept vaccination, up 5.2% from June 2021. The willingness of parents to vaccinate their children also increased slightly, from 67.6% in 2021 to 69.5% in 2022. However, eight countries saw an increase in hesitancy (from 1.0% in the UK to 21.1% in South Africa). Worryingly, almost one in eight (12.1%) vaccinated respondents were hesitant about booster doses, and booster hesitancy was higher among the 18–29 age groups.

“We must remain vigilant in tracking this data, containing COVID variants and addressing hesitancy, which may challenge future routine COVID immunisation programs,” says Dean El-Mohandes, the study’s senior author.

The survey also provides new information on COVID treatments received. Globally, ivermectin was used as frequently as other approved medications, despite the fact that it is not recommended by the WHO or other agencies to prevent or treat COVID  

Also of note, almost 40% of respondents reported paying less attention to new COVID information than before, and there was less support for vaccine mandates. 

In some countries, vaccine hesitancy was associated with being female (for example in China, Poland, Russia), having no university degree (in France, Poland, South Africa, Sweden, or the US), or lower income (in Canada, Germany, Turkey or the UK). Also, the profile of people paying less attention to the pandemic varied between countries.

“Our results show that public health strategies to enhance booster coverage will need to be more sophisticated and adaptable for each setting and target population,” says Lazarus, also head of the Health Systems Research Group at ISGlobal. “Strategies to enhance vaccine acceptance should include messages that emphasise compassion over fear and use trusted messengers, particularly healthcare workers.”

The data provided by these surveys may offer insight to policymakers and public health officials in addressing COVID vaccine hesitancy. The study follows on the heels of a global consensus statement on ending COVID as a public health threat that Lazarus, El-Mohandes and 364 co-authors from 112 countries published in Nature in November.

Source: CUNY SPH

Categories : COVIDTags :

China Accused of Under-reporting COVID Deaths

On By ModernMedia

In China, there are signs that the latest wave of COVID brought about by the easing of lockdown measures alongside a surprisingly low vaccination rate may be more severe than official reports indicate.

A recent spate of suspicious deaths among Chinese celebrity has prompted alarm among citizens, BBC News reports. In December, 40-year-old opera singer Chu Lanlan died, which came as a shock to many, given her young age.

Her family said they were saddened by her “abrupt departure”, but did not give details of the cause of her death.

China’s scrapping of many “zero COVID” regulations has resulted in a surge of cases, and there reports of hospitals and crematoria becoming overwhelmed. Yet China has only reported 22 COVID deaths since December, based on its own strict criteria which now only allow for death from respiratory illnesses such as pneumonia.

The World Health Organization (WHO) on Wednesday warned that the country was under-representing its COVID statistics, especially deaths. Chinese officials denied this.

China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said in a media briefing that China had transparently and quickly shared COVID data with the WHO, adding that China’s “epidemic situation is controllable”.

“Facts have proved that China has always, in accordance with the principles of legality, timeliness, openness and transparency, maintained close communication and shared relevant information and data with the WHO in a timely manner,” Mao said.

While many countries have likely under-represented COVID deaths, including the United States, the extent appears to be much greater in China.

Back in January of 2022, Forbes took a critical look at China’s official figures, with a death rate at the time of 0.32 per 100 000 population compared to the US’ 248 per 100 000 – a rate 800 times lower higher which beggars belief.

China used these figures to position itself as the world leader in the response against COVID, the New York Times noted.

The director of Beijing’s Institute of Respiratory Diseases admitted in a TB interview that the number of deaths among the elderly was “definitely more” so far this winter than in past years, but stressed that critical cases remained in the minority.

This week the People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s official newspaper, urged citizens to work towards a “final victory” over COVID and dismissed criticism of the previous zero-COVID policy.

Categories : COVIDTags :

Scientists Retract Controversial Omicron Origins Article

On By ModernMedia

On December 1, Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin reported new findings on the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 variant Omicron, one of which was a “stepwise” emergence of the variant across Africa rather than the accepted scenario of it emerging in a single area around South Africa.

In light of new findings of contaminated samples used in the research, the team led by Prof Jan Felix Drexler has now retracted the article, which was published in the journal Science.

The new findings mean that some of the article’s statements are no longer provable beyond reasonable doubt, and the authors retracted their article in line with sound scientific procedure.

In the article entitled “Gradual emergence followed by exponential spread of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant in Africa”, researchers came to the conclusion that the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 emerged in western Africa a few months prior its eventual discovery in South Africa in early November. Shortly after the article was published, other scientists, such as SA’s Dr Tulio de Oliveira, called into question the plausibility of the genome sequences analysed in the study. Subsequent analysis of residual samples found evidence of contamination, the source of which can no longer be traced.

One of the article’s messages — that viruses with Omicron sequence signatures existed across the continent before Omicron was officially detected in South Africa — is based on collective data from PCR analysis done independently by laboratories in several African countries. However, the conclusive reconstruction of the virus’s evolution, another of the article’s key messages, is likely to be affected by sequence contamination not detected before analysis.

The contamination also makes it impossible to correct the analyses retrospectively in due time, because this would require additional analyses of thousands of patient samples from Africa that may not be available in sufficient quantity and quality. Therefore, in agreement with all the authors, the entire article is being retracted. The research group that ran the project is currently carrying out an evaluation and review of the analyses.

Prof Drexler and his team expressed regret for the incident and gratitude to their international colleagues for flagging the potential problems following the article’s publication.

Source: Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin

Categories : COVIDTags :

How to Prevent Dangerous Weight Loss in COVID Patients

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Stephen Andrews on Unsplash

COVID infection often causes adipose atrophy, weight loss and cachexia, which significantly contribute to poor quality of life and mortality. Now, researchers at Karolinska Institutet have discovered that SARS-CoV-2 infection fuels blood vessel formation in fat tissues, thus revving up the body’s thermogenic metabolism. Blocking this process with an existing drug curbed weight loss in mice and hamsters that were infected with the virus, according to the study published in the journal Nature Metabolism.

“Our study proposes a completely new concept for treating COVID associated weight loss by targeting the blood vessels in the fat tissues,” says corresponding author Yihai Cao, professor at Karolinska Institutet.

The researchers examined how different types of fat, including brown fat and visceral and subcutaneous white fat, reacted when exposed to SARS-CoV-2 and how it impacted weight in mice and hamsters. They found that the animals lost significant amounts of weight in four days and that this weight loss was preceded by the activation of brown fat and the browning of both types of white fat. These fat tissues also contained more microvessels and high levels of a signaling protein called vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which promotes the growth of new blood vessels.

Similar mechanisms in humans

The researchers observed the same mechanisms in human tissue samples from four patients who died of COVID, suggesting the findings could be clinically relevant for humans.

When the animals were treated with an anti-VEGF drug, the animals recovered most of their lost weight and their fat tissues exhibited fewer microvessels.

“Antiangiogenic drugs are currently used in the clinic to treat various types of cancers,” Yihai Cao says. “It’s possible these drugs could also be helpful in treating COVID-related problems such as excessive weight loss and metabolic changes, thus improving the quality of life and survival for these patients. Of course, we will need more research to validate if our preclinical findings also hold up in human trials.”

Source: Karolinska Institutet