Publisher Health

A recent clinical trial described in CJASN has examined the potential of vitamin D supplementation for protecting the kidney health of individuals with pre-diabetes.
In the general population, low blood vitamin D levels have been associated with higher risks of various diseases, including type 2 diabetes and kidney disease. Sun H. Kim, MD, MS (Stanford University School of Medicine) and her colleagues conducted a secondary analysis of the Vitamin D and type 2 diabetes (D2d) study to evaluate the effects of vitamin D supplementation on kidney health in individuals with pre-diabetes, a condition that increases risk for type 2 diabetes, which in turn is the leading cause of kidney disease.
The study randomized 2,423 adults with overweight/obesity and pre-diabetes to vitamin D3 4000 IU per day or placebo, for a median treatment duration of 2.9 years. “The D2d study is unique because we recruited individuals with high-risk pre-diabetes, having 2-out-of-3 abnormal glucose values, and we recruited more than 2,000 participants, representing the largest vitamin D diabetes prevention trial to date,” said Dr. Kim.
During the trial, there were 28 cases of kidney function worsening in the vitamin D group and 30 in the placebo group, and the average change in kidney function during follow-up was similar in both groups. “Our results did not show a benefit of vitamin D supplements on kidney function. About 43% of the study population was taking outside-of-study vitamin D, up to 1000 IU daily, at study entry, though. Among those who were not taking any vitamin D on their own, there was a suggestion for vitamin D lowering the amount of urine protein over time, which means that it could have a beneficial effect on kidney health. Additional studies are needed to look into this further.”
Dr. Kim added that vitamin D supplementation is popular, and it’s difficult for clinical trials of vitamin D supplementation to show a benefit if the population studied is not vitamin D deficient. “The majority of the study population had sufficient blood vitamin D levels and normal kidney function,” she said. “Benefits of vitamin D might be greater in people with low blood vitamin D levels and/or reduced kidney function.”
Study co-authors include Irwin G. Brodsky, MD, Ranee Chatterjee, MD, MPH, Sangeeta R. Kashyap, MD, William C. Knowler, MD, DrPH, Emilia Liao, MD, Jason Nelson, MPH, Richard Pratley, MD, Neda Rasouli, MD, Ellen M. Vickery, MS, Mark Sarnak, MD, MS, and Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, MS.
Disclosures: The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures associated with this publication.
Story Source:
Materials provided by American Society of Nephrology. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Intense blooms of toxic algae are becoming common occurrences along the coast of Florida and elsewhere. Results from a new study led by University of Miami (UM) scientists found that wearing the face mask everyone has become accustomed to during the COVID-19 pandemic may help protect against these airborne toxins too.
The UM Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science researchers designed an experiment to understand how effective commonly available air conditioner filters and face masks are at filtrating out the toxins emitted during harmful algal bloom events.
“We found that face masks and air conditioner filters with high filter performance ratings can reduce the risk of exposure by filtering out small, toxin-containing particles,” said the study’s lead author Cassandra Gaston, an assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at the UM Rosenstiel School.
“These filter materials can also be effective at filtering out other kinds of small particles as well,” said Haley Royer, a co-first author of the study and Ph.D. student at the UM Rosenstiel School’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences. “As we all know by now, face masks are essential in preventing the transmission of COVID-19 from person to person.”
Harmful algal blooms, often referred to as red tides and blue-green algae, are exacerbated by nutrient-rich runoff from agriculture and industrial waste that end up in waterways. Noxious particles enter the air mostly from the breaking of waves, resulting in airborne toxins that cause serious health problems to humans and marine life. Airborne toxins can also affect indoor air quality particularly for businesses and homes near contaminated waterways.
To conduct the experiment, the researchers created a bubbling device to produce airborne toxin-containing particles in the lab by bubbling air into the liquid containing cultures of a toxic-producing blue-green algae, Microcystis aeruginosa. Cutouts of three types of face masks and six types of AC filters purchased from home improvement stores were placed in-line with generated particles to determine how well the masks and filters blocked particles of different sizes. The researchers used N95, disposable surgical mask and medical-grade, odor-filtering carbon fiber masks. For AC filters, the researchers used filters for window units and central air conditioning units with different filter performance ratings.
They found that AC filters filtered out 20-90% of the airborne particles with particle filtration increasing with increasing filter performance rating. Face masks filtered out over 90% of toxin-containing particles. The findings suggest that low-cost, commercially available face masks and AC filters with high filtration efficiency ratings can help avoid both indoor and outdoor exposure to harmful algal bloom toxins in the air.
Harmful algal blooms are expected to become more prevalent worldwide due to climate change and increased nutrient runoff from a growing human population.
According to the researchers, the study also has relevance for the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the current COVID-19 pandemic. The virus has an average size of 60-140 nanometers, which is within the size of particles investigated in this study.
The study, titled “Filtration Efficiency of Air Conditioner Filters and Face Masks to Limit Exposure to Aerosolized Algal Toxins,” was accepted for publication on April 20, 2021 in the journal Aerosol and Air Quality Research.
The study’s authors include: Cassandra Gaston, Haley Royer, Raymond Leibensperger III, Daniela Maizel, Kaycie Lanpher, Helena Solo-Gabriele, Larry Brand, R. Grace Zhai, Alberto Caban-Martinez and Kimberly Popendorf from the University of Miami.
Funding for the study was provided by the UM Laboratory of Integrated Knowledge (U-LINK) and Florida Department of Health (DOH) project “Diversity and Innovation in Screening and Prevention of Exposure over the Long-term (DISPEL) to HABs.” DOH funding supported preparation of visual and video materials for communicating strategies to the public for reducing HAB exposures.

People who were infected with the coronavirus but do not get vaccinated may be more than twice as likely to get infected again than those who tested positive and bolstered their natural immunity with a vaccine, according to a small study that assessed the likelihood of reinfection.The study, by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, examined the risk of reinfection during May and June among hundreds of Kentucky residents who tested positive for the virus in 2020.Those who did not get vaccinated this year faced a risk of reinfection that was 2.34 higher than those who did get their shots. Released on Friday, the study suggests that for those who had overcome an infection, the addition of a vaccine offered better protection than the natural immunity generated by their original bout with the virus alone.Even though the study examined only a small number of people in Kentucky, it would seem to counter the argument by one of its home-state U.S. senators, Rand Paul, who has repeatedly asserted that vaccination is unnecessary for people like him who had the virus and developed immunity.Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the director of the C.D.C., said the data reinforced the importance of vaccination, even for those who had already had the virus.“If you have had Covid-19 before, please still get vaccinated,” Dr. Walensky said. “Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country.”The study authors cautioned that much is still not known on how long natural immunity to the virus lasts and that genomic sequencing to confirm reinfections among those in the study was not conducted.The C.D.C. and the Biden administration have been aggressively campaigning to increase vaccinations in recent weeks as cases and hospitalizations have soared in the last month, largely because of the Delta variant, and especially in regions of the country where immunization rates are low.In the last week, the number of new virus cases reported each day has averaged 100,200, as of Thursday, the first time the daily average surpassed 100,000 since mid-February, according to a New York Times database.Another study published Friday reported that vaccinations dramatically reduced Covid hospitalizations among the elderly in February, March and April. The study examined data on 7,280 patients from a Covid hospitalization surveillance network, using state records to look at their vaccination status. The vast majority of the hospital patients had not been vaccinated or were only partially vaccinated; only 5 percent were fully vaccinated.Although vaccination did not entirely eliminate infections, the risk of being hospitalized was significantly lower for those who were fully vaccinated. Among those 65 to 74, the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines reduced the risk of Covid-related hospitalization by 96 percent and the Johnson & Johnson one-dose vaccine reduced hospitalizations by 84 percent. In the age group of 75 and older, the Pfizer vaccination reduced hospitalizations by 91 percent; the Moderna vaccine by 96 percent; and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine by 85 percent.

Engineers at MIT and Harvard University have designed a small tabletop device that can detect SARS-CoV-2 from a saliva sample in about an hour. In a new study, they showed that the diagnostic is just as accurate as the PCR tests now used.
The device can also be used to detect specific viral mutations linked to some of the SARS-CoV-2 variants that are now circulating. This result can also be obtained within an hour, potentially making it much easier to track different variants of the virus, especially in regions that don’t have access to genetic sequencing facilities.
“We demonstrated that our platform can be programmed to detect new variants that emerge, and that we could repurpose it quite quickly,” says James Collins, the Termeer Professor of Medical Engineering and Science in MIT’s Institute for Medical Engineering and Science (IMES) and Department of Biological Engineering. “In this study, we targeted the U.K., South African, and Brazilian variants, but you could readily adapt the diagnostic platform to address the Delta variant and other ones that are emerging.”
The new diagnostic, which relies on CRISPR technology, can be assembled for about $15, but those costs could come down significantly if the devices were produced at large scale, the researchers say.
Collins is the senior author of the new study, which appears today in Science Advances. The paper’s lead authors are Helena de Puig, a postdoc at Harvard University’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering; Rose Lee, an instructor in pediatrics at Boston Children’s Hospital and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and a visiting fellow at the Wyss Institute; Devora Najjar, a graduate student in MIT’s Media Lab; and Xiao Tan, a clinical fellow at the Wyss Institute and an instructor in gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital.
A self-contained diagnostic
The new diagnostic is based on SHERLOCK, a CRISPR-based tool that Collins and others first reported in 2017. Components of the system include an RNA guide strand that allows detection of specific target RNA sequences, and Cas enzymes that cleave those sequences and produce a fluorescent signal. All of these molecular components can be freeze-dried for long-term storage and reactivated upon exposure to water.

Australian researchers have revealed how the bacterium Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus) obtains the essential nutrient, manganese, from our bodies, which could lead to better therapies to target what is a life-threatening, antibiotic-resistant pathogen.
Pneumococcus is one of the world’s deadliest organisms, responsible for more than one million deaths each year and is the leading infectious cause of mortality in children under five. It is the main cause of bacterial pneumonia, as well as a major cause of meningitis, sepsis and inner ear infections (otitis media).
Published today in Science Advances and after ten years of detailed investigations, researchers from the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity (Doherty Institute) and the Bio21 Molecular Science & Biotechnology Institute (Bio21), along with collaborators at the Australian National University and Kyoto University, Japan, have determined the structure of the unique ‘gateway’ that pneumococcus uses to steal manganese from the body.
All organisms, including pathogens, need vitamins and minerals to survive. While researchers knew that manganese was critical for survival of the pneumococcus, how it took manganese from the body wasn’t understood.
University of Melbourne Associate Professor Megan Maher, a laboratory head at Bio21, said they noticed the bacterium was drawing in nutrients in a regulated way.
“Eventually we discovered that this was due to a unique gateway that sits in the bacterium’s membrane that opens and closes to specifically allow manganese in,” said Associate Professor Maher.

Dominic Houghton, 23, told BBC North West Tonight he thought his “body would be able to just brush it off” but he was admitted to hospital in Liverpool with Covid-19.He had decided not to get vaccinated but after seven days battling the virus his breathing “got really, really sharp” and he took himself to A&E.In the North West of England, only 63.7% of people aged 18-24 have had at least one dose of the Covid-19 vaccine – 4.2% below the national average.One in five people in hospital with Covid in England are aged 18-34.Why not follow BBC North West on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram? You can also send story ideas to northwest.newsonline@bbc.co.uk

The signs and symptoms that you might need an evaluation.Q: How common is adult A.D.H.D.? What are the symptoms and is it possible for someone who was not diagnosed with it as a child to be diagnosed as an adult?A: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or A.D.H.D., is a neurodevelopmental disorder often characterized by inattention, disorganization, hyperactivity and impulsivity.It is one of the most common mental health disorders. According to the World Federation of A.D.H.D., it is thought to occur in nearly 6 percent of children and 2.5 percent of adults.In the United States, 5.4 million children, or about 8 percent of all U.S. children ages 3 to 17, were estimated to have A.D.H.D. in 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.For decades, experts believed that A.D.H.D. occurred only among children and ended after adolescence. But a number of studies in the ’90s showed that A.D.H.D. can continue into adulthood. Experts now say that at least 60 percent of children with A.D.H.D. will also have symptoms as adults.It’s not surprising that so many people are now wondering whether they might have the disorder, especially if their symptoms were exacerbated by the pandemic. The Attention Deficit Disorder Association, an organization founded in 1990 for adults with A.D.H.D, saw its membership nearly double between 2019 and 2021. In addition, Children and Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, or CHADD, reported that the highest proportion of people who call their A.D.H.D. help line are adults seeking guidance and resources for themselves.What is adult A.D.H.D.?Childhood A.D.H.D. is often associated with fidgeting and difficulty sitting still. In adults, “typically the hyperactivity is less pronounced,” said Dr. Lidia Zylowska, a psychiatrist at the University of Minnesota Medical School and author of “The Mindfulness Prescription for Adult ADHD.”Adults with the disorder often struggle with lack of focus and disorganization, “the so-called executive function skills — planning, organizing, time management — basically, skills needed for ‘adulting,’” Dr. Zylowska added.When adults ignore tasks that require these skills, it can create chaos. Bills pile up; lateness at work can lead to being fired; health appointments are delayed or neglected; accidents happen.In educational and workplace settings, adults with untreated A.D.H.D. often feel unmotivated and tend to have poor planning and problem-solving skills when an obstacle emerges, said Russell A. Barkley, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine i and the author of “Taking Charge of Adult A.D.H.D.”“I call them time-blind,” Dr. Barkley added. “They just can’t manage themselves relative to time limits.”Kylie Barron, an A.D.D.A spokeswoman who has A.D.H.D., called it a “disorder of performance.” For her, this means “always unintentionally messing up, sticking your foot in your mouth and doing the wrong thing at the wrong time.”These concerns are common among those with A.D.H.D., Dr. Barkley said.“They set goals and they mean to accomplish them,” he added. And although they truly are sincere, they don’t usually follow through, especially when it comes to long-term aspirations, he said.Many adults with A.D.H.D. also have problems regulating emotions, and may display anger, impatience, an inability to get along at work, self-doubt and difficulty managing stress.With treatment and the right support, however, people with A.D.H.D. can be highly successful.Can you be diagnosed with A.D.H.D. for the first time as an adult?Yes, but adults who are diagnosed with A.D.H.D. must have also experienced significant symptoms of the disorder before the age of 12, even if they were not formally diagnosed during childhood, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or D.S.M.“There’s all kinds of reasons why people can get into adulthood without being diagnosed or detected,” Dr. Barkely said.Girls, for example, are less likely to be diagnosed than boys, which is part of the reason the prevalence of A.D.H.D. among women has typically been underrecognized, he added.In addition, the D.S.M. criteria for the disorder is subjective, said Dr. Martin Teicher, a psychiatry professor and the editor of the Harvard Medical School guide on adult A.D.H.D. You have to draw some arbitrary distinctions about which behaviors happen “often,” he added.Some children who are extremely bright can “sneak under the wire” without their A.D.H.D. being detected because they are doing well academically, but they will generally have other problems like being very fidgety, Dr. Teicher said.How do you know for sure if you have it, and what does treatment look like?A.D.H.D. has a spectrum of severity levels and symptoms can become more (or less) pronounced in different environments.If you believe that you have adult A.D.H.D., you might consider using a screening tool . It isn’t meant to provide a diagnosis, however it can help you recognize the signs and symptoms of adult A.D.H.D.Afterward, it is essential to get a comprehensive evaluation from a clinician specializing in A.D.H.D. This will help determine whether you have the disorder and a second (or third) one. As many as 50 percent of adults with A.D.H.D., for example, have an anxiety disorder.If there is more than one issue going on, “it may be difficult to tease out what is causing what,” Dr. Zylowska said. “It is important to take a developmental history and create a timeline of when A.D.H.D. behaviors started.”The disorder tends to run in families, meaning that if one of your parents had A.D.H.D., there is a much higher likelihood that you might have it too. One small study, for example, found that among parents of 79 children with A.D.H.D., 41 percent of mothers and 51 percent of fathers had the disorder.Typically, A.D.H.D. is treated with stimulant medications like Adderall, however there are also non-stimulant medications like Strattera. People with A.D.H.D. also use therapy, coaching, mindfulness-based training, nutritional interventions and exercise to manage their symptoms.What are some online resources for people with adult A.D.H.D.?Education and self-compassion are both important parts of A.D.H.D. treatment. If you’re looking for a general overview of the disorder, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Mental Health are good places to start.For a deeper dive, ADDitude Magazine has a wealth of articles about the disorder. And CHADD, the A.D.H.D. advocacy organization, includes many offerings beyond its telephone help line, including online support groups and courses; free webinars; and a resource page for adults with A.D.H.D.A.D.D.A. also offers online support groups, including one for the partners of people with A.D.H.D; and a “productivity powerhour,” where participants support one another in completing a specific goal. In addition, A.D.D.A. has volunteer ambassadors who will give you a call to answer any questions you might have and offer support.If you are looking for a provider, both CHADD and A.D.D.A. have directories where you can search for a health care professional.Finally, people with A.D.H.D. often have conflict in their romantic relationships and friendships. For relationship advice, check out the websites ADHD & Marriage and ADHD Roller Coaster.Do you have a health question? Ask Well.

Pancreatic cancer, which affects about 60,000 Americans every year, is one of the deadliest forms of cancer. After diagnosis, fewer than 10 percent of patients survive for five years.
While some chemotherapies are initially effective, pancreatic tumors often become resistant to them. The disease has also proven difficult to treat with newer approaches such as immunotherapy. However, a team of MIT researchers has now developed an immunotherapy strategy and shown that it can eliminate pancreatic tumors in mice.
The new therapy, which is a combination of three drugs that help boost the body’s own immune defenses against tumors, is expected to enter clinical trials later this year.
“We don’t have a lot of good options for treating pancreatic cancer. It’s a devastating disease clinically,” says William Freed-Pastor, a senior postdoc at MIT’s Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research. “If this approach led to durable responses in patients, it would make a big impact in at least a subset of patients’ lives, but we need to see how it will actually perform in trials.”
Freed-Pastor, who is also a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, is the lead author of the new study, which appears today in Cancer Cell. Tyler Jacks, the David H. Koch Professor of Biology and a member of the Koch Institute, is the paper’s senior author.
Immune attack
The body’s immune system contains T cells that can recognize and destroy cells that express cancerous proteins, but most tumors create a highly immunosuppressive environment that disables these T cells, helping the tumor to survive.

More than one-third of infant caregivers reported serving at least one non-recommended milk type to their infant in the past month — most providing them daily — and the majority of toddler caregivers did not follow expert recommendations to provide only cow’s milk to their children, according to a new study in the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, published by Elsevier.
To assess the prevalence of serving non-recommended milk beverages (i.e., toddler milk and plant milk) in place of and in addition to recommended milk-based products (including commercially prepared infant formula and cow’s milk) for infants (aged 6-11 months), infants in transition (12 months), and toddlers (aged 13-36 months), researchers surveyed US primary caregivers of infants, infants in transition, and toddlers.
“We explored the provision of recommended and non-recommended milk products to infants and toddlers, so we looked at infant formulas, toddler milks, cow milks, and non-dairy milks. We also wanted to find any sociodemographic factors that might be associated with the types of milks offered by caregivers of diverse backgrounds,” said Maria J. Romo-Palafox, PhD, RD, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Doisy College of Health Sciences, Saint Louis University, St Louis, MO, USA.
Approximately two-thirds of caregivers reported serving the types of milk that experts recommend for their infant or toddler, including breastfeeding and/or serving commercially prepared infant formula with no other milk type to infants and serving cow’s milk to toddlers. However, more than one-third of infant caregivers surveyed reported serving at least one non-recommended milk type to their infant in the past month, including toddler milk and/or cow’s milk, and most reported providing them daily. Furthermore, the majority of toddler caregivers did not follow expert recommendations to provide only cow’s milk to their children and tended to provide non-recommended milk-types — infant formula most often, followed by toddler milk and plant milk — in addition to recommended milk types.
Researchers found that factors such as the child’s age, household income, the racial and ethnic background of the caregiver, and the product’s marketing claims were associated with which milk type the children received, suggesting that more research is needed to understand how diverse populations interpret product claims and how marketing may perpetuate health disparities.
“It’s important to note that infant formulas are not inherently bad. We are glad this product exists for moms who cannot breastfeed. But the public should have all the information so they can make an informed decision about what is best for their baby,” Dr. Romo-Palafox explained. The results of this study indicate an opportunity for public health education campaigns, community outreach, and additional guidance from healthcare providers, especially regarding potential nutrient deficiencies, dehydration, and undernutrition when providing cow’s milk or plant milk to infants and replacing breastmilk (or commercially prepared infant formula).
Story Source:
Materials provided by Elsevier. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

A licensed drug normally used to treat abnormal levels of fatty substances in the blood could reduce infection caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus by up to 70 per cent, reveals a study in the laboratory by an international collaboration of researchers.
The research team, led by the University of Birmingham and Keele University in the UK and the San Raffaele Scientific Institute in Italy, has demonstrated that fenofibrate and its active form (fenofibric acid) can significantly reduce SARS-COV-2 infection in human cells in the laboratory. Importantly, reduction of infection was obtained using concentrations of the drug which are safe and achievable using the standard clinical dose of fenofibrate. Fenofibrate, which is approved for use by most countries in the world including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), is an oral drug currently used to treat conditions such as high levels of cholesterol and lipids (fatty substances) in the blood.
The team is now calling for clinical trials to test the drug in hospitalised COVID-19 patients, to be carried out in addition to two clinical trials also currently underway in such patients in research being led by the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in the US and Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel.
SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, infects the host through an interaction between the Spike protein on the surface of the virus and the ACE2 receptor protein on host cells. In this study, responding to the global COVID-19 pandemic, the team tested a panel of already licensed drugs — including fenofibrate — to identify candidates that disrupt ACE2 and Spike interactions. Having identified fenofibrate as a candidate, they then tested the efficacy of the drug in reducing infection in cells in the laboratory using the original strains of the SARS-CoV-2 virus isolated in 2020. They found fenofibrate reduced infection by up to 70%. Additional unpublished data also indicates that fenofibrate is equally effective against the newer variants of SARS-CoV-2 including the alpha and beta variants and research is ongoing into its efficacy in the delta variant.
Corresponding author Dr Farhat Khanim, of the University of Birmingham in the UK, explained: “The development of new more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants has resulted in a rapid expansion in infection rates and deaths in several countries around the world, especially the UK, US and Europe. Whilst vaccine programmes will hopefully reduce infection rates and virus spread in the longer term, there is still an urgent need to expand our arsenal of drugs to treat SARS-CoV-2-positive patients.”
Co-corresponding author Dr Alan Richardson, of Keele University in the UK, added: “Whilst in some countries vaccination programmes are progressing at speed, vaccine uptake rates are variable and for most low middle income countries, significant proportions of the population are unlikely to be vaccinated until 2022. Furthermore, whilst vaccination has been shown to reduce infection rates and severity of disease, we are as yet unsure of the strength and duration of the response. Therapies are still urgently needed to manage COVID-19 patients who develop symptoms or require hospitalisation.”
Co-author Dr Elisa Vicenzi, of the San Raffaele Scientific Institute in Milan, Italy, said: “Our data indicates that fenofibrate may have the potential to reduce the severity of COVID-19 symptoms and also virus spread. Given that fenofibrate is an oral drug which is very cheap and available worldwide, together with its extensive history of clinical use and its good safety profile, our data has global implications — especially in low-middle income countries and in those individuals for whom vaccines are not recommended or suitable such as children, those with hyper-immune disorders and those using immune-suppressants.”
First author Dr Scott Davies, also of the University of Birmingham, concluded: “We now urgently need further clinical studies to establish whether fenofibrate is a potential therapeutic agent to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
The research, published today (Aug 6) in Frontiers in Pharmacology, was also carried out in collaboration with the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and the University of Liverpool in the UK.
Story Source:
Materials provided by University of Birmingham. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.