A second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine should be offered to individuals infected with the virus shortly after receiving the first dose, according to findings recently published by the Azrieli Faculty of Medicine of Bar-Ilan University and Ziv Medical Center.
The study, published in the journal Epidemiology & Infection, tracked a cohort of 541 Ziv Medical Center health care workers — some of whom had already recovered from COVID-19 — to determine how those previously infected with COVID-19 responded to vaccination compared to those who weren’t infected.
In this joint study, health care workers at Ziv Medical Center, one of the main hospitals in northern Israel, regularly provided blood samples to measure their antibody levels following vaccination. A number of differences emerged following sample analysis of individuals infected pre- and post-vaccination, and those who were never infected.
Previously infected individuals who received one dose of the vaccine had much higher IgG antibody levels than fully vaccinated workers who were never infected. However, infection after the first dose (and before the second) did not increase IgG levels, and individuals infected after the first dose who never received the second had similar antibody levels to those who received one dose and were never infected. Individuals in the cohort infected post-vaccination had IgG antibody levels at 21 and 50 days similar to those never infected who received the same number of doses and much lower than those infected pre-vaccination.
“Our study suggests that two doses of vaccine are needed in those who were infected shortly after the first dose,” says epidemiologist Prof. Michael Edelstein, of Bar-Ilan University’s Azrieli Faculty of Medicine. “Although it was conducted on a small cohort, our data suggest that a second dose provides optimal protection to those patients infected between doses,” he adds. Edelstein collaborated with Dr. Kamal Abu-Jabal, of Ziv Medical Center and the Azrieli Faculty of Medicine, and a team of colleagues from the hospital and the medical school.
The researchers stress that larger studies should confirm or refute the need for a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine in these individuals, in particular in the context of emerging variants against which vaccines are less effective.
The current findings build upon research published in February 2021 in the journal Eurosurveillance. In that study, on the same cohort of health care workers, the researchers reported evidence that those previously infected with the virus responded very strongly to one dose of the Pfizer vaccine, regardless of when they were infected and whether or not they had detectable antibodies against COVID-19 prior to receiving the vaccine.
Prof. Edelstein and colleagues are continuing to follow the cohort’s antibody response and immune system response, as well as the response to the third dose for those who receive it.
Story Source:
Materials provided by Bar-Ilan University. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

A new study by University of Minnesota Medical School researchers is revealing that some people who received an mRNA vaccination for COVID-19 have greater immune responses compared to others. While the vaccine induces strong immune responses against the virus in almost everyone, data shows those who were previously infected with the virus have even greater immune responses after vaccination compared to fully vaccinated people who never had COVID-19.
Marc Jenkins, PhD, a professor and director of the Center for Immunology at the University of Minnesota Medical School, is the corresponding author, and Kathryn Pape, PhD, is the first author of a study published in Cell Reports. Jenkins and Pape are renowned experts on B cells, the immune cells in the body responsible for producing antibodies.
“Memory B cells are capable of rapid antibody production after re-infection, which is critical for immunity as antibody levels decline,” Jenkins said. “Our research shows that fully vaccinated people who had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection end up with an even larger number of memory B cells than fully vaccinated people who have not had an infection.”
The study found that: People with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection had a large number of spike-specific memory B cells before vaccination, and after the first dose of an mRNA vaccine, had a significant boost in spike-specific memory B cells — but not after the second dose; Despite the weaker response to the second mRNA dose, people with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection still ended up with a larger number of spike-specific memory B cells than fully vaccinated people who never had the virus, and; The spike-specific memory B cells in people with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection bound more tightly to the spike protein of the virus compared to the memory B cells induced in uninfected people after a single mRNA vaccination.”Our results show the benefit that people who had a SARS-CoV-2 infection get from vaccination and predict that this group may have fewer breakthrough infections,” Jenkins said. “While it’s unclear how many memory B cells are needed for protection against infection, our data also indicates that people who had a previous infection and were then fully vaccinated are the least likely group to need a third — or booster — shot.”
This team is now studying memory B cell formation in fully vaccinated people with immunosuppressed systems.
The study was funded by the Office of the Dean at the University of Minnesota Medical School.
Story Source:
Materials provided by University of Minnesota Medical School. Original written by Angel Mendez. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

SharecloseShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Getty ImagesScientists who discovered how our bodies feel the warmth of the sun or the hug of a loved one have won the Nobel Prize. David Julius and Ardem Patapoutian, from the US, share the 2021 prize in Medicine or Physiology for their work on sensing touch and temperature. They unpicked how our bodies convert physical sensations into electrical messages in the nervous system.Their findings could lead to new ways of treating pain.Heat, cold and touch are crucial for experiencing the world around us and for our own survival.But how our bodies actually do it had been one of the great mysteries of biology. Image source, Karolinska InstituteThomas Perlman, from the Nobel Prize Committee, said: “It was a very important and profound discovery.”Prof David Julius’s breakthrough, at the University of California, San Francisco, came from investigating the burning pain we feel from eating a hot chilli pepper. He experimented with the source of a chilli’s heat – the chemical capsaicin.Image source, Getty ImagesHe discovered the specific type of receptor (a part of our cells that detects the world around them) that responded to capsaicin.Further tests showed the receptor was responding to heat and kicked in at “painful” temperatures. This is what happens, for example, if you burn your hand on a cup of coffee. The discovery led to a flurry of other temperature-sensors being discovered. Prof Julius and Prof Ardem Patapoutian found one that could detect cold. Meanwhile, Prof Patapoutian, working at the Scripps Research institute, was also poking cells in a dish.Those experiments led to the discovery of a different type of receptor that was activated in response to mechanical force or touch. When you walk along a beach and feel the sand under your feet – it is these receptors that are sending signals to the brain. Just in! New medicine laureate Ardem Patapoutian and his son Luca, watching the #NobelPrize press conference shortly after finding out the happy news.Stay tuned for our interview with Patapoutian coming up soon!Photographer: Nancy Hong pic.twitter.com/44OCpRSTki— The Nobel Prize (@NobelPrize) October 4, 2021
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.View original tweet on TwitterThese touch and temperature sensors have since been shown to have a wide role in the body and in some diseases. The first heat sensor (called TRPV1) is also involved in chronic pain and how our body regulates its core temperature. The touch receptor (PIZ02) has multiple roles, from urinating to blood pressure. The Prize Committee said their work had “allowed us to understand how heat, cold and mechanical force can initiate the nerve impulses that allow us to perceive and adapt to the world around us.”It added: “This knowledge is being used to develop treatments for a wide range of disease conditions, including chronic pain.”The pair will share the 10m Swedish kronor (£845,000) prize.Follow James on TwitterPrevious winners2020 – Michael Houghton, Harvey Alter and Charles Rice for the discovery of the virus Hepatitis C.2019 – Sir Peter Ratcliffe, William Kaelin and Gregg Semenza for discovered how cells sense and adapt to oxygen levels2018 – James P Allison and Tasuku Honjo for discovering how to fight cancer using the body’s immune system2017- Jeffrey Hall, Michael Rosbash and Michael Young for unravelling how bodies keep a circadian rhythm or body clock2016 – Yoshinori Ohsumi for discovering how cells remain healthy by recycling waste2015 – William C Campbell, Satoshi Ōmura and Youyou Tu for anti-parasite drug discoveriesRelated Internet LinksThe Nobel Prize in Physiology or MedicineThe BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.

David Julius and Ardem Patapoutian were honored for their discoveries about how heat, cold and touch can initiate signals in the nervous system.The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded jointly on Monday to David Julius and Ardem Patapoutian “for their discoveries of receptors for temperature and touch.”Their work sheds light on how to reduce chronic and acute pain associated with a range of diseases, trauma and their treatments.“Our ability to sense heat, cold and touch is essential for survival and underpins our interaction with the world around us,” the Nobel committee said in a news release. “In our daily lives we take these sensations for granted, but how are nerve impulses initiated so that temperature and pressure can be perceived?”This question, the committee said, has now been solved.David Julius utilized capsaicin, a pungent compound from chili peppers that induces a burning sensation, to identify a sensor in the nerve endings of the skin that responds to heat. Peter Barreras/Invision, via The Associated PressWhy did they win?The pair made breakthrough discoveries that launched intense research activities that in turn led to a rapid increase in our understanding of how our nervous system senses heat, cold, and mechanical stimuli. The laureates identified critical missing links in our understanding of the complex interplay between our senses and the environment.Specifically, Mr. Julius utilized capsaicin, a pungent compound from chili peppers that induces a burning sensation, to identify a sensor in the nerve endings of the skin that responds to heat. Mr. Patapoutian used pressure-sensitive cells to discover a novel class of sensors that respond to mechanical stimuli in the skin and internal organs. Who won the 2020 Nobel Prize in medicine?Dr. Harvey J. Alter, Michael Houghton and Charles M. Rice received the prize for their discovery of the hepatitis C virus. The Nobel committee said the three scientists had “made possible blood tests and new medicines that have saved millions of lives.”Who else won Nobel Prizes in science in 2020?The physics prize went to Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez for their discoveries — including work on black holes — that have improved the understanding of the universe.The chemistry prize was jointly awarded to Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer A. Doudna for their work on the development of Crispr-Cas9, a method for genome editing.When will the other Nobel Prizes be announced?There are two more science prizes. Physics will be announced on Tuesday, and Chemistry on Wednesday, both in Stockholm.The prize in Literature will be announced in Stockholm on Thursday. Read about last year’s winner, Louise Glück.The Nobel Peace Prize will be announced on Friday in Oslo. Read about last year’s winner, the World Food Program.The Nobel in economic science will be announced in Stockholm on Oct. 11. Last year’s prize was shared by Paul R. Milgrom and Robert B. Wilson.

The request, expected this week, comes after a study found the company’s vaccine was only 71 percent effective against hospitalization from Covid-19.WASHINGTON — Johnson & Johnson is planning to ask federal regulators early this week to authorize a booster shot of its coronavirus vaccine, according to officials familiar with the company’s plans. The firm is the last of the three federally authorized vaccine providers to call for extra injections, amid mounting evidence that at least the elderly and other high-risk groups need more protection.Federal officials have become increasingly worried that the more than 15 million Americans who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine face too much risk of severe Covid-19. The Food and Drug Administration on Friday scheduled a meeting on Oct. 15 of its expert advisory committee to discuss whether to grant emergency use authorization of a booster shot of Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine.That is part of a broader effort by the government to shore up the protection provided by all three vaccines. Regulators last month authorized a booster shot for many recipients of Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine and are contemplating doing the same this month for recipients of Moderna’s.The fact that the advisory committee meeting on Johnson & Johnson was scheduled even before the company filed an application to the Food and Drug Administration reflects a particular sense of urgency in the Biden administration to provide more protection to recipients of that vaccine.Although the federal government has emphasized for months that all three vaccines are highly effective, a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose vaccine was only 71 percent effective against hospitalization from Covid-19, compared with 88 percent for Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine and 93 percent for Moderna’s.“Real-world data suggest that the two-dose Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine regimens provide more protection” than the single dose of Johnson & Johnson, the researchers said. Other research found that Johnson & Johnson recipients were more likely to have breakthrough infections or symptomatic Covid-19 than recipients of the other two vaccines.Johnson & Johnson cites some studies with better results: A study of nearly two million people, funded by the company, estimated that the vaccine was 81 percent effective against hospitalization. Other research suggests that protection from Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine does not wane over time like protection from Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine.Nonetheless, Johnson & Johnson now appears to agree with federal officials that a single shot of its vaccine is not enough.Last month, the company announced that a second dose, given two months after the first, increased the vaccine’s effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 by about 22 percentage points, to 94 percent. The firm also said two shots were 100 percent effective against severe disease, although that estimate was less conclusive.“The data shows that there is a dramatic increase in efficacy when the boost is given at two months. And we believe that it’s potentially even better when given later,” said Dr. Dan H. Barouch, a virologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston who helped develop the vaccine.“I’m not a public health authority, but I would say it’s scientifically reasonable for people who are desiring a higher level of efficacy to obtain a booster shot” between two to six months after the first shot of the vaccine, he said.At a meeting of a C.D.C. advisory committee in September, some independent experts questioned whether Johnson & Johnson recipients were being forgotten while the federal government moved to authorize a third shot for Pfizer recipients.“To me, the biggest policy question out there is the Johnson & Johnson,” Dr. Helen Keipp Talbot, an internist and infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, said at the meeting last month, where the committee weighed whether to recommend a third shot for some Pfizer recipients. “I worry we’re getting distracted by the question of boosters of Pfizer when we have bigger and more important things to do in the pandemic.”Dr. Nirav D. Shah, Maine’s top health official and the president of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, said that after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine became available this spring, many states directed it to rural areas because it required only one injection and was easier to transport.“It is rural areas that are getting particularly hit right now” by the Delta variant, Dr. Shah said. “So I think there is good reason to offer J. & J. recipients a booster if the data support it.”In San Francisco last month, health officials said Johnson & Johnson recipients would be permitted to receive a booster shot of either the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine. “If people talk to their health care provider and say, ‘I’d really like to have an mRNA shot in addition to the Johnson & Johnson shot that I got,’ we will accommodate that,” Dr. Grant Colfax, the city’s public health director, told reporters.For federal regulators and the government’s panels of outside experts, key questions remain: How long after an initial Johnson & Johnson injection should a second shot be administered? And would it be better to boost Johnson & Johnson recipients with a shot of Moderna’s or Pfizer’s vaccine?If the Food and Drug Administration authorizes a second shot six months after the initial injection, that would allow the company to market its vaccine as a one-shot regimen, plus a booster. Some data indicate a second shot at six months produced a stronger immune response than a second shot at two months.Researchers found a nine- to twelvefold increase in antibodies among clinical trial recipients who received a second shot after six months, compared with a roughly fourfold increase for people who received a second dose after two months, Dr. Barouch said.But there could be a trade-off: Some argue that Johnson & Johnson recipients would not be sufficiently protected during the extra months before a second shot, and that a two-dose regimen made more sense from the start.The timing is not a trivial question: According to C.D.C. data, more than two-thirds of Johnson & Johnson recipients were vaccinated at least four months ago. Many would not be immediately eligible if a booster shot was available only six months after the first injection..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-3btd0c{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:1rem;line-height:1.375rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-3btd0c{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-3btd0c strong{font-weight:600;}.css-3btd0c em{font-style:italic;}.css-1kpebx{margin:0 auto;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-family:nyt-cheltenham,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.375rem;line-height:1.625rem;}@media (min-width:740px){#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-1kpebx{font-size:1.6875rem;line-height:1.875rem;}}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1kpebx{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1gtxqqv{margin-bottom:0;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}.css-19zsuqr{display:block;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}.css-12vbvwq{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-12vbvwq{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-12vbvwq:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}#NYT_BELOW_MAIN_CONTENT_REGION .css-12vbvwq{border:none;padding:10px 0 0;border-top:2px solid #121212;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-12vbvwq[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-qjk116{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-qjk116 strong{font-weight:700;}.css-qjk116 em{font-style:italic;}.css-qjk116 a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-thickness:1px;text-decoration-thickness:1px;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:visited{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration-color:#326891;text-decoration-color:#326891;}.css-qjk116 a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}The prospect of using a different vaccine as a booster presents another dilemma. A study by the National Institutes of Health suggests that Moderna’s vaccine works better as a booster than a second shot of Johnson & Johnson. But Dr. Barouch said that study only measured antibody levels — an indication of the strength of the immune system’s response — while Johnson & Johnson’s study of a second shot of its own vaccine looked at efficacy data.Johnson & Johnson is also considered likely to fight for using its own vaccine as a second shot to protect its public image. The company struggled for months with manufacturing problems that delayed delivery of tens of millions of doses it had promised to the federal government. And the vaccine’s appeal dropped after it was linked to a rare but serious blood-clotting disorder and injections were paused for 10 days in April. It remains a distant third in the number of shots administered in the United States.People eligible for Pfizer’s booster include those 65 and older and those who live in long-term care facilities, have underlying medical conditions or are at higher risk of exposure to the virus because of their jobs or institutional settings, a group that includes health care workers, teachers and prisoners.The Food and Drug Administration and the C.D.C. are expected to propose essentially the same criteria for booster shots of Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, although there is some discussion about whether to broaden eligibility to include more middle-aged people, according to people familiar with the situation.Moderna’s request for authorization of a booster shot is up next, with a meeting scheduled for Oct. 14, the day before the Johnson & Johnson discussion. Some experts suggest that the company’s supporting data is even more scant than Pfizer’s.Multiple studies indicate that the potency of Moderna’s vaccine wanes less over time than Pfizer’s. Moderna officials suggest that is because the dosage is stronger and the interval between shots is a week longer than in Pfizer’s regimen.On the other hand, the fact that the government has set a precedent in authorizing a Pfizer booster could generate momentum for extra shots of the other two vaccines. Otherwise, health care officials are left trying to explain why only Pfizer recipients are eligible for boosters.In Maine, for example, Dr. Shah said that health care staff who are administering booster injections are telling nursing home residents: “We’re really sorry, right now it’s only for those who got Pfizer, but don’t worry. Just because you’re not getting a booster today, does not mean your protection level has fallen to zero. We’ll be back, if and when” boosters of the other vaccines are cleared.“That’s a tough conversation to have,” he said.More support might come from Israeli health officials, who presented data last month at the Food and Drug Administration’s advisory committee hearing on a Pfizer booster. Israel has relied almost entirely on Pfizer’s vaccine.According to summaries of the country’s latest data, extra shots of Pfizer’s vaccine are associated with significantly lower rates of infection, severe Covid-19 and, among those 60 or older, death.At this point, federal officials and some of the government’s outside experts have accepted that they are making decisions with data that is less than perfect. As with the other vaccines, the data on Johnson & Johnson’s efficacy is fragmented and to some extent contradictory, discrepancies that may be at least partly explainable by whether the highly contagious Delta variant was dominant among the population being studied.“The data are somewhat all over the place,” Dr. Shah said. “That is the nature of science.”Noah Weiland

Although nursing home deaths from Covid-19 remain dramatically down from their peak at the end of last year, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis shows a significant uptick in August as the Delta variant swept through the country.After declining for months, largely because of the federal effort to vaccinate residents, the number of deaths rose sharply from July to August. Nursing homes reported nearly 1,800 deaths among their residents and staff in August, which represented the highest monthly toll since February.The findings underscore the ongoing vulnerability of nursing home residents, who are old and in poor health, and highlights the importance of getting booster shots to people in this population. The rising number of infections could fuel more calls to vaccinate nursing home workers ahead of the federal requirement announced in August by President Biden.“While the vast majority of Covid-19 deaths happened outside of nursing homes in July and August, the high rate of increase within nursing homes indicates that residents and staff in these settings are at risk of death during the Delta surge,” the researchers said. The study, published Friday, did not break out how many of the dead were unvaccinated.August saw a much steeper increase in deaths in nursing homes than in the community at large, said Priya Chidambaram, a senior policy analyst for the foundation and one of the study’s authors. “Vaccinations are very strongly protecting people in these facilities, but the Delta variant did have an impact,” she said.Preliminary data from September may indicate deaths are falling again, she said.Nursing homes were especially hard hit early on in the pandemic, accounting for nearly a third of the country’s overall deaths through the end of June, according to the Kaiser analysis. But the vaccination of residents brought the monthly number of deaths down from a high of around 22,000 in December and January to around 300 for June and July.Although cases did increase, “we’re still nowhere near our peak in December 2020, nor at any point last year, thanks to safe and effective vaccines as well as providers’ ongoing vaccination efforts and infection control measures,” the American Health Care Association, a major nursing home trade group, said in a statement.The association said infections were largely the result of a high number of cases in the surrounding community. The very small number of cases occurring “are largely happening in communities where there is high spread and low vaccination rates among the general population,” the group said.But the group added that it was encouraged by the recent rollout of booster shots for the Pfizer vaccine and said it was eager to follow any developments regarding the other vaccines.While the vaccination rate among residents is now approaching 85 percent, according to the latest data from the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, only about 65 percent of nursing home employees are vaccinated, roughly the same percentage as American adults overall.“The rate of increase among staff is slower than among residents,” Ms. Chidambaram said.

As the nation’s death toll climbed above 700,000 in October, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, an adviser on the pandemic to President Biden, emphasized the need for the 70 million Americans who are eligible for a vaccine to get immunized during interviews on Sunday morning talk shows.“Many of those deaths were unavoidable but many, many are avoidable, were avoidable and will in the future be avoidable,” Dr. Fauci, who is also director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said on CNN’s State the Union.Dr. Fauci was enthusiastic about the development of the new Merck anti-viral pill, describing it as “extremely important.” In announcing the results of its clinical trial last Friday, Merck said the pill was able to cut the risk of hospitalization and death from the virus by half.But he also warned that Americans should not wait to be vaccinated because they believe they can take the pill. While the new medicine may decrease a person’s risk, the best way to be protected is avoiding infection, he said.Merck said it would seek emergency authorization from the Food and Drug Administration for its drug, known as molnupiravir, as soon as possible. The pills could be available by late this year.Dr. Fauci pointed to the stark difference in how many people died during Merck’s clinical trial for the treatment, with eight among the placebo group and none among those taking the drug. “That’s very impressive, so we really look forward to the implementation of this and to its effect on people who are infected,” he said.The federal government has placed advanced orders for 1.7 million doses of the new medication. But Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the former F.D.A. commissioner under President Trump and a board member for Pfizer, said that amount was “not enough” on CBS’ Face the Nation, covering only one month’s worth of infections in Southern states since the Delta variant emerged. He also contrasted that quantity with the national stockpile of medication to treat a flu pandemic, which he said numbers in the tens of millions.Earlier, Dr. Fauci dismissed the notion that federal officials had not procured enough of the medicine, saying they had placed “a good bet” on the treatment.“We have options for millions more,” he said on the program, predicting the company would ramp up production to meet demand in the United States and across the world.Dr. Fauci also expressed optimism that the country was now seeing a slow down in cases, signaling a potential respite from the pandemic. “We certainly are turning a corner on this particular surge,” he said during an interview on “This Week” on ABC News.But he also refused to predict whether people would be able to freely gather this coming Christmas, saying on CBS News that “it’s just too soon to tell.”

A police bulletin seeking information on a man recorded shoplifting packages of diapers drew fresh attention to a continuing crisis of access to the product, according to the National Diaper Bank Network.“Anyone recognize him?” the police in Winter Haven, Fla., asked on Facebook last month.Photos with the post showed a man walking out of a Walmart without paying for his items after several of his credit cards were declined, the police said. Among the items in his cart were boxes of diapers.“When your card is declined and you try another one with the same result, that is NOT license to just walk out with the items anyway,” read the Facebook post, which was later deleted.The Winter Haven Police Department drew swift criticism for the post from people wondering why the department had gone after a man who had stolen basic necessities for his children, also pictured in the surveillance photos.“That’s a good father in a hard spot,” one Facebook user said in response to the department’s follow-up post. “Have some empathy.”After the incident, which was previously reported by WFTS-TV in Tampa, Fla., the store asked the police not to prosecute the man, according to a waiver of prosecution the Winter Haven Police Department provided to The New York Times. Walmart and the man did not respond to requests for comment.It’s possible the man was among the one in three American families who struggle with diaper need, according to a February 2020 report by the National Diaper Bank Network, an organization that provides diapers to children. Joanne Samuel Goldblum, the network’s founder and chief executive, said she suspects that figure probably rose during the coronavirus pandemic as diaper prices increased and supply plummeted.“Diaper need is a topic that’s so swept under the rug,” she said on Friday. “Covid really laid it bare for us.”The pandemic has upended global supply chains and created a run on many products, including diapers. Kimberly-Clark and Procter & Gamble, two of the country’s largest diaper manufacturers, increased the prices of baby products this year. A typical package of 100 diapers costs $30 to $50 from most online retailers.Even a small price increase can put a strain on families, many of whom pay around $75 for a month’s worth of diapers for one baby, according to the National Diaper Bank Network. Many parents have to choose between buying diapers or other necessities, and some will leave their child in a soiled diaper because they can’t afford a replacement.For the families who make it to the store, diapers aren’t always in stock.Amanda Trussell, the mother of a 2-year-old boy, said that diapers had been hard to find near her home in Junction City, Kan., even before the pandemic started and that store shelves had only gotten more empty in the last year and a half.“At one point, we went to three or four different stores to find a pack and had to settle on a size bigger because there were just none in his size,” she said on Saturday.When her family runs low on diapers, Ms. Trussell, 24, puts her son in a reusable cloth diaper. That’s why she hasn’t had to go to a diaper bank, which offers supplies to low-income parents.Diaper banks across the country have reported recent surges in families who couldn’t afford diapers. WestSide Baby, which is based in Seattle, distributed 2.4 million diapers last year, up 60 percent from 1.5 million in 2019, according to Sarah Cody Roth, the organization’s executive director. WestSide Baby is on track this year to meet or exceed last year’s total, she said.Diaper banks in Oklahoma and Pennsylvania have reported similar trends. Many banks give families 50 diapers per month, which covers about two weeks, said Cathy Battle, the executive director of the Western Pennsylvania Diaper Bank. That’s often not enough for families who can’t afford diapers.A lack of diapers can seriously harm a family’s physical and mental health, said Megan V. Smith, the senior director of community health transformation at the Connecticut Hospital Association. Many parents who can’t afford diapers feel like ineffective caregivers, she said.“If you have to worry about where you’re going to get the next diaper, you can’t focus on singing and reading and playing with your child,” said Dr. Smith, who has researched diaper need and maternal mental health.Many day cares require parents to supply their children with enough diapers to get through the day. That means mothers and fathers who can’t buy diapers have to miss work to watch their child, Dr. Smith said, which makes them even less likely to have money for diapers.The federal government does not provide funding for diapers, but that may change if Congress passes the End Diaper Need Act of 2021, which would funnel grant money to social services that support low-income families and adults with disabilities.States have taken different approaches to get diapers into the hands of parents. A Colorado law passed this summer earmarked $2 million to create a statewide diaper distribution program. Connecticut allocates part of its state budget to the Diaper Bank of Connecticut. California, which leads the country in diaper-funding efforts, is one of several states that do not tax the product, and it offers diaper reimbursements to parents participating in CalWorks, the state’s welfare-to-work program.Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, who shepherded the CalWorks diaper reimbursement into law, said that diaper need was just as important an issue as hunger insecurity.“There’s a number of women that can at least breastfeed their child,” she said on Friday. “You can’t have a child and not diaper them.”Isabella Grullón Paz

Being able to measure the electrical activity of the brain has helped us gain a much better understanding of the brain’s processes, functions, and diseases over the past decades. So far, much of this activity has been measured via electrodes placed on the scalp (through electroencephalography (EEG)); however, being able to acquire signals directly from inside the brain itself (through neural interfacing devices) during daily life activities could take neuroscience and neuromedicine to completely new levels. A major setback to this plan is that, unfortunately, implementing neural interfaces has proven to be remarkably challenging.
The materials used in the minuscule electrodes that make contact with the neurons, as well as those of all connectors, should be flexible yet durable enough to withstand a relatively harsh environment in the body. Previous attempts at developing long-lasting brain interfaces have proven challenging because the natural biological responses of the body, such as inflammation, degrade the electrical performance of the electrodes over time. But what if we had some practical way to locally administer anti-inflammatory drugs where the electrodes make contact with the brain?
In a recent study published in Microsystems & Nanoengineering, a team of Korean researchers developed a novel multifunctional brain interface that can simultaneously register neuronal activity and deliver liquid drugs to the implantation site. Unlike existing rigid devices, their design has a flexible 3D structure in which an array of microneedles is used to gather multiple neural signals over an area, and thin metallic conductive lines carry these signals to an external circuit. One of the most remarkable aspects of this study is that, by strategically stacking and micromachining multiple polymer layers, the scientists managed to incorporate microfluidic channels on a plane parallel to the conductive lines. These channels are connected to a small reservoir (which contains the drugs to be administered) and can carry a steady flow of liquid toward the microneedles.
The team validated their approach through brain interface experiments on live rats, followed by an analysis of the drug concentration in the tissue around the needles. The overall results are very promising, as Prof. Sohee Kim from Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology (DGIST), Korea, who led the study, remarks: “The flexibility and functionalities of our device will help make it more compatible with biological tissues and decrease adverse effects, all of which contribute to increasing the lifespan of the neural interface.”
The development of durable multifunctional brain interfaces has implications across multiple disciplines. “Our device may be suitable for brain-machine interfaces, which enable paralyzed people to move robotic arms or legs using their thoughts, and for treating neurological diseases using electrical and/or chemical stimulation over years,” explains Dr. Yoo Na Kang of the Korea Institute of Machinery & Materials (KIMM), first author of the study. Let us hope many people benefit from a direct and durable connection to the brain!
Story Source:
Materials provided by DGIST (Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology). Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Most strokes happen when an artery in the brain becomes blocked. Blood flow to the neural tissue stops, and those tissues typically die. Because of the locations of the major arteries in the brain, many strokes affect motor function. Some affect vision, however, causing patients to lose their vision or find it compromised or diminished. A research team led by Purdue University’s Alexander Chubykin, an associate professor of biological sciences in the College of Science, in collaboration with the team led by Gong Chen at Jinan University, China, has discovered a way to use gene therapy to turn glial brain cells into neurons, restoring visual function and offering hope for a way to restore motor function.

advertisement