The first line of vaccines was highly effective at restricting COVID-19’s damage - Yahoo Canada Shine On | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Health

The first line of vaccines was highly effective at restricting COVID-19’s damage – Yahoo Canada Shine On

Published

 on


More than 70 per cent of the world’s population has received at least one COVID-19 vaccination. (Shutterstock)

After more than three years of COVID-19, the World Health Organization (WHO) reports that over 763 million infections, and nearly seven million deaths, have been attributed to SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 vaccination was deemed crucial to prevent the continued spread of the disease, protect those infected from experiencing severe effects, counter the rise of new variants, and ultimately end the pandemic.

The WHO has lifted the Public Health Emergency of International Concern, but ending the ongoing threat of COVID-19 still depends on vaccination and other protective behaviours. Understanding the effectiveness of vaccines remains crucial.

Primary doses and boosters

Today, more than 5.5 billion people (72.3 per cent of the world’s population) have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. A total of 5.09 billion people have completed a primary COVID-19 vaccination series (i.e., two doses of a two-dose vaccine or one dose of a one-dose vaccine).

At the end of 2021, several countries began offering booster doses in response to research indicating that the effectiveness of the vaccines may diminish over time, especially against the Omicron variant, which emerged in late 2021, and has become the dominant circulating variant.

With this in mind, we sought to answer two questions. First, how well does the primary series of COVID-19 vaccines protect people (against infections, hospitalizations and deaths) four months or more after completing vaccination? Second, how well does the first booster dose protect people three months or more after receiving it?

Answering these questions will provide invaluable information for policymakers to make evidence-based decisions, such as the timing of administering COVID-19 vaccine booster doses.

To answer these questions we sought to identify all studies that:

  1. Compared people who were vaccinated (either with the primary series or a booster) to people who were unvaccinated;

  2. Followed people for at least 112 days after a primary series, or 84 days after a booster dose, and;

  3. Looked at who got infected, was hospitalized or died due to COVID-19.

In total, we identified 68 studies that met these criteria, representing 23 countries. We then combined all the data to better understand how the vaccines’ protection changes over time. The results were published in Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

Protection against COVID-19, in general

The WHO has set standards to define whether a vaccine offers adequate protection. Specifically, vaccines should show at least 70 per cent protection against infections and 90 per cent protection against hospitalizations and deaths.

We found that the primary series offered excellent protection against hospitalizations and deaths in the short term, showing over 90 per cent protection against both outcomes within 42 days after vaccination. This protection waned over time, going below the WHO recommendation, but stayed relatively high, at around 80 per cent against hospitalizations at eight months post-vaccination, and around 85 per cent against deaths at six months post-vaccination.

The primary series also offered good protection against infections in the short term (over 80 per cent within the first 42 days), but that protection fell to around 60 per cent after four months, and 50 per cent after nine months.

The initial protection of a booster dose was around 70 per cent against infections and 90 per cent against hospitalizations within the first month after vaccinations. Protection then fell to around 45 per cent against infections and to around 70 per cent against hospitalizations after four months had passed. Too little data was available to track the long-term effects against deaths.

Overall, the vaccines work at preventing infections, hospitalizations and deaths related to COVID-19, but their effectiveness does decline over time, particularly against infections. Boosters restore protection lost, but may need additional boosting over time.

Protection against the Omicron variant

Vaccines were generally less effective against the Omicron variant, which emerged in fall 2021, about a year after COVID-19 vaccines were introduced.

Within 42 days after vaccination with the original COVID-19 vaccine formulations, the primary series only reached around 60 per cent protection against Omicron-based infections, and this dropped to around 30 per cent after five months.

The primary series’ protection against hospitalization for Omicron infections reached around 70 per cent within the first 42 days, but also dropped over time, reaching closer to 50 per cent after six months. None of these reached the levels recommended by the WHO.

The boosters did fare better in protecting against Omicron. Within the first 28 days after the booster, protection hovered close to the 70 per cent threshold against infections and 90 per cent threshold against hospitalizations recommended by the WHO.

For context, if individuals delayed the administration of the booster by six months after completing the primary series, their protection levels would be around 20 per cent against Omicron infections and around 50 per cent against hospitalizations right before receiving the booster.

Yet, booster protection also waned over time, falling to about 40 per cent against Omicron infections and 70 per cent against hospitalizations after four months post-booster. Too little data was available to comment on long-term effects against deaths.

Pfizer, left, and Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccines were introduced in fall 2022. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

With Omicron, boosters are particularly needed to maintain adequate protection, but this protection also needs additional boosting as it wanes over time.

New formulations of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines that target the Omicron variant were introduced in fall 2022, and are recommended for booster shots by Canada’s National Advisory Commission on Immunization. The Public Health Agency of Canada recommended in March 2023 that people at high risk of severe COVID-19 get an additional booster shot.

In May, the WHO recommended that new formulations of COVID-19 vaccines should target Omicron XBB variants, which are the dominant variants currently circulating.

Behaviour-based prevention measures remain necessary

While vaccines provide reasonable protection against COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations and deaths, their effectiveness is imperfect and wanes over time, particularly against the now-dominant Omicron variant for people vaccinated with the original vaccines.

Notably, waning is especially pronounced against infections. This means that although being vaccinated is likely to protect most people against becoming severely ill, vaccinated people are still at risk of catching the virus and transmitting it to others — some of whom will be at higher risk of severe complications from the disease.

That means measures like wearing a mask, washing one’s hands, and staying at home when sick remain essential complements to vaccination. Contrary to vaccines, these measures do not decline in effectiveness over time and are particularly well suited to protect people against infections.

Eliminating the threat of new COVID-19 infections will continue to rely heavily on a combination of vaccination and behaviours, whereas new vaccine doses will continue to protect those who are infected from severe complications like hospitalizations and deaths.

This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. If you found it interesting, you could subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

It was written by: Nana Wu, Concordia University; Keven Joyal-Desmarais, Concordia University, and Simon Bacon, Concordia University.

Read more:

Nana Wu receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).

Keven Joyal-Desmarais receives funding from the Fonds de recherche du Québec (FRQ) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).

Simon Bacon receives funding from Fonds de recherche du Québec (FRQ), Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI), Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), Weston Family Foundation, Canadian Cancer Society (CCS), Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (HSFC), Quebec Ministère de l’économie et de l’innovation (MEI), Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC), Canadian Statistical Sciences Institute (CANSSI), The Auger Foundation, Concordia University, CIUSSS-NIM.

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Health

Pediatric group says doctors should regularly screen kids for reading difficulties

Published

 on

 

The Canadian Paediatric Society says doctors should regularly screen children for reading difficulties and dyslexia, calling low literacy a “serious public health concern” that can increase the risk of other problems including anxiety, low self-esteem and behavioural issues, with lifelong consequences.

New guidance issued Wednesday says family doctors, nurses, pediatricians and other medical professionals who care for school-aged kids are in a unique position to help struggling readers access educational and specialty supports, noting that identifying problems early couldhelp kids sooner — when it’s more effective — as well as reveal other possible learning or developmental issues.

The 10 recommendations include regular screening for kids aged four to seven, especially if they belong to groups at higher risk of low literacy, including newcomers to Canada, racialized Canadians and Indigenous Peoples. The society says this can be done in a two-to-three-minute office-based assessment.

Other tips encourage doctors to look for conditions often seen among poor readers such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder; to advocate for early literacy training for pediatric and family medicine residents; to liaise with schools on behalf of families seeking help; and to push provincial and territorial education ministries to integrate evidence-based phonics instruction into curriculums, starting in kindergarten.

Dr. Scott McLeod, one of the authors and chair of the society’s mental health and developmental disabilities committee, said a key goal is to catch kids who may be falling through the cracks and to better connect families to resources, including quicker targeted help from schools.

“Collaboration in this area is so key because we need to move away from the silos of: everything educational must exist within the educational portfolio,” McLeod said in an interview from Calgary, where he is a developmental pediatrician at Alberta Children’s Hospital.

“Reading, yes, it’s education, but it’s also health because we know that literacy impacts health. So I think that a statement like this opens the window to say: Yes, parents can come to their health-care provider to get advice, get recommendations, hopefully start a collaboration with school teachers.”

McLeod noted that pediatricians already look for signs of low literacy in young children by way of a commonly used tool known as the Rourke Baby Record, which offers a checklist of key topics, such as nutrition and developmental benchmarks, to cover in a well-child appointment.

But he said questions about reading could be “a standing item” in checkups and he hoped the society’s statement to medical professionals who care for children “enhances their confidence in being a strong advocate for the child” while spurring partnerships with others involved in a child’s life such as teachers and psychologists.

The guidance said pediatricians also play a key role in detecting and monitoring conditions that often coexist with difficulty reading such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, but McLeod noted that getting such specific diagnoses typically involves a referral to a specialist, during which time a child continues to struggle.

He also acknowledged that some schools can be slow to act without a specific diagnosis from a specialist, and even then a child may end up on a wait list for school interventions.

“Evidence-based reading instruction shouldn’t have to wait for some of that access to specialized assessments to occur,” he said.

“My hope is that (by) having an existing statement or document written by the Canadian Paediatric Society … we’re able to skip a few steps or have some of the early interventions present,” he said.

McLeod added that obtaining specific assessments from medical specialists is “definitely beneficial and advantageous” to know where a child is at, “but having that sort of clear, thorough assessment shouldn’t be a barrier to intervention starting.”

McLeod said the society was partly spurred to act by 2022’s “Right to Read Inquiry Report” from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which made 157 recommendations to address inequities related to reading instruction in that province.

He called the new guidelines “a big reminder” to pediatric providers, family doctors, school teachers and psychologists of the importance of literacy.

“Early identification of reading difficulty can truly change the trajectory of a child’s life.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 23, 2024.

Source link

Continue Reading

Health

UK regulator approves second Alzheimer’s drug in months but government won’t pay for it

Published

 on

 

LONDON (AP) — Britain’s drug regulator approved the Alzheimer’s drug Kisunla on Wednesday, but the government won’t be paying for it after an independent watchdog agency said the treatment isn’t worth the cost to taxpayers.

It is the second Alzheimer’s drug to receive such a mixed reception within months. In August, the U.K. regulator authorized Leqembi while the same watchdog agency issued draft guidance recommending against its purchase for the National Health Service.

In a statement on Wednesday, Britain’s Medicines and Healthcare regulatory Agency said Kisunla “showed some evidence of efficacy in slowing (Alzheimer’s) progression” and approved its use to treat people in the early stages of the brain-robbing disease. Kisunla, also known as donanemab, works by removing a sticky protein from the brain believed to cause Alzheimer’s disease.

Meanwhile, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, or NICE, said more evidence was needed to prove Kisunla’s worth — the drug’s maker, Eli Lilly, says a year’s worth of treatment is $32,000. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized Kisunla in July. The roll-out of its competitor drug Leqembi has been slowed in the U.S. by spotty insurance coverage, logistical hurdles and financial worries.

NICE said that the cost of administering Kisunla, which requires regular intravenous infusions and rigorous monitoring for potentially severe side effects including brain swelling or bleeding, “means it cannot currently be considered good value for the taxpayer.”

Experts at NICE said they “recognized the importance of new treatment options” for Alzheimer’s and asked Eli Lilly and the National Health Service “to provide additional information to address areas of uncertainty in the evidence.”

Under Britain’s health care system, most people receive free health care paid for by the government, but they could get Kisunla if they were to pay for it privately.

“People living with dementia and their loved ones will undoubtedly be disappointed by the decision not to fund this new treatment,” said Tara Spires-Jones, director of the Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh. “The good news that new treatments can slow disease even a small amount is helpful,” she said in a statement, adding that new research would ultimately bring safer and more effective treatments.

Fiona Carragher, chief policy and research officer at the Alzheimer’s Society, said the decision by NICE was “disheartening,” but noted there were about 20 Alzheimer’s drugs being tested in advanced studies, predicting that more drugs would be submitted for approval within years.

“In other diseases like cancer, treatments have become more effective, safer and cheaper over time,” she said. “ We hope to see similar progress in dementia.”

___

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.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Health

Women in states with bans are getting abortions at similar rates as under Roe, report says

Published

 on

 

Women living in states with abortion bans obtained the procedure in the second half of 2023 at about the same rate as before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to a report released Tuesday.

Women did so by traveling out of state or by having prescription abortion pills mailed to them, according to the #WeCount report from the Society of Family Planning, which advocates for abortion access. They increasingly used telehealth, the report found, as medical providers in states with laws intended to protection them from prosecution in other states used online appointments to prescribe abortion pills.

“The abortion bans are not eliminating the need for abortion,” said Ushma Upadhyay, a University of California, San Francisco public health social scientist and a co-chair of the #WeCount survey. “People are jumping over these hurdles because they have to.”

Abortion patterns have shifted

The #WeCount report began surveying abortion providers across the country monthly just before Roe was overturned, creating a snapshot of abortion trends. In some states, a portion of the data is estimated. The effort makes data public with less than a six-month lag, giving a picture of trends far faster than the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, whose most recent annual report covers abortion in 2021.

The report has chronicled quick shifts since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling that ended the national right to abortion and opened the door to enforcement of state bans.

The number of abortions in states with bans at all stages of pregnancy fell to near zero. It also plummeted in states where bans kick in around six weeks of pregnancy, which is before many women know they’re pregnant.

But the nationwide total has been about the same or above the level from before the ruling. The study estimates 99,000 abortions occurred each month in the first half of 2024, up from the 81,000 monthly from April through December 2022 and 88,000 in 2023.

One reason is telehealth, which got a boost when some Democratic-controlled states last year began implementing laws to protect prescribers. In April 2022, about 1 in 25 abortions were from pills prescribed via telehealth, the report found. In June 2024, it was 1 in 5.

The newest report is the first time #WeCount has broken down state-by-state numbers for abortion pill prescriptions. About half the telehealth abortion pill prescriptions now go to patients in states with abortion bans or restrictions on telehealth abortion prescriptions.

In the second half of last year, the pills were sent to about 2,800 women each month in Texas, more than 1,500 in Mississippi and nearly 800 in Missouri, for instance.

Travel is still the main means of access for women in states with bans

Data from another group, the Guttmacher Institute, shows that women in states with bans still rely mostly on travel to get abortions.

By combining results of the two surveys and comparing them with Guttmacher’s counts of in-person abortions from 2020, #WeCount found women in states with bans throughout pregnancy were getting abortions in similar numbers as they were in 2020. The numbers do not account for pills obtained from outside the medical system in the earlier period, when those prescriptions most often came from abroad. They also do not tally people who received pills but did not use them.

West Virginia women, for example, obtained nearly 220 abortions monthly in the second half of 2023, mostly by traveling — more than in 2020, when they received about 140 a month. For Louisiana residents, the monthly abortion numbers were about the same, with just under 700 from July through December 2023, mostly through shield laws, and 635 in 2020. However, Oklahoma residents obtained fewer abortions in 2023, with the monthly number falling to under 470 from about 690 in 2020.

Telehealth providers emerged quickly

One of the major providers of the telehealth pills is the Massachusetts Abortion Access Project. Cofounder Angel Foster said the group prescribed to about 500 patients a month, mostly in states with bans, from its September 2023 launch through last month.

The group charged $250 per person while allowing people to pay less if they couldn’t afford that. Starting this month, with the help of grant funding that pays operating costs, it’s trying a different approach: Setting the price at $5 but letting patients know they’d appreciate more for those who can pay it. Foster said the group is on track to provide 1,500 to 2,000 abortions monthly with the new model.

Foster called the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision “a human rights and social justice catastrophe” while also saying that “there’s an irony in what’s happened in the post-Dobbs landscape.”

“In some places abortion care is more accessible and affordable than it was,” she said.

There have no major legal challenges of shield laws so far, but abortion opponents have tried to get one of the main pills removed from the market. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously preserved access to the drug, mifepristone, while finding that a group of anti-abortion doctors and organizations did not have the legal right to challenge the 2000 federal approval of the drug.

This month, three states asked a judge for permission to file a lawsuit aimed at rolling back federal decisions that allowed easier access to the pill — including through telehealth.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version