Connect with us

International

Journal of Hepatology COVID-19 news brief

Amsterdam, March 21, 2022 – Patients with liver disease are particularly vulnerable to the impact of COVID-19. The Journal of Hepatology, official journal…

Published

2 years ago

on

Amsterdam, March 21, 2022 – Patients with liver disease are particularly vulnerable to the impact of COVID-19. The Journal of Hepatology, official journal of EASL, The European Association for the Study of the Liver, published by Elsevier, is committed to updating clinicians and researchers with the latest research and clinical information they need to address the special needs of these patients during the pandemic.

Credit: Journal of Hepatology

Amsterdam, March 21, 2022 – Patients with liver disease are particularly vulnerable to the impact of COVID-19. The Journal of Hepatology, official journal of EASL, The European Association for the Study of the Liver, published by Elsevier, is committed to updating clinicians and researchers with the latest research and clinical information they need to address the special needs of these patients during the pandemic.

 

Immune response of COVID-19 vaccinated liver transplant patients is less robust compared to healthy patients
A new study determined for the first time the long-term protection provided by the anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in patients who have undergone liver transplantation (LT). One hundred and forty-three liver transplant patients and 58 healthy patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at the time of vaccination and at one, four and six months after the second dose.

The long-term antibody response to the full course of vaccination was significantly lower in 131 LT patients without prior COVID-19 infection: 78.8% at six months following full vaccination compared to 100% of the healthy patient group.

In contrast, all 12 LT patients who had recovered from a COVID-19 infection presented a full response to the vaccine, which was detectable after the first vaccine dose and was maintained until the sixth month.

LT patients taking a higher daily dose of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), an immunosuppressive drug, were more likely to have an unsuccessful immune response. In patients who had recovered from COVID-19, MMF dosage had no impact.

Lead investigator Pierluigi Toniutto, MD, Hepatology and Liver Transplantation Unit, Department of Specialized Medicine, Udine University Hospital, Udine, Italy, pointed out that although significantly lower than controls, the antibody rate in LT patients was maintained for at least six months. “One may hypothesize that modifying the daily dose of MMF in the immediate pre- and post-vaccination period after a booster shot may increase the immunogenicity in COVID-naïve liver transplant patients.”

The article is “Past COVID-19 and immunosuppression regimens affect the long-term anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination response in liver transplant recipients,” by Pierluigi Toniutto, Edmondo Falleti, Sara Cmet, Annarosa Cussigh, Laura Veneto, Davide Bitetto, Ezio Fornasiere, Elisa Fumolo, Carlo Fabris, Assunta Sartor, Roberto Peressutti, Francesco Curcio, Laura Regattin, and Lucrezia Grillone (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2022.02.015). Openly available. Author contact: Pierluigi Toniutto at pierluigi.toniutto@uniud.it

 

Liver transplantation impacted by the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in hard hit countries
A global survey of 128 liver transplant centers found that the COVID-19 pandemic dramatically changed clinical practice. The impacts were felt differently around the world, with particularly detrimental effects in countries badly hit by the pandemic. The survey, organized by The European Association for the Study of Liver Disease, the European Liver and Intestine Transplant Association of the European Society of Organ Transplantation, and the International Liver Transplantation Society, asked the centers about transplant processes, therapy, living donation procedures, and organ procurement from January 1 to July 1, 2020 compared with the same period in 2019.

Most centers postponed transplants with organs from deceased donors at the start of the pandemic, except for patients referred to the centers in severe condition. As expected, countries identified as “hard hit” by the pandemic had fewer patients added to the liver transplant waiting list and fewer liver transplants performed. However, a higher rate of waiting list mortality was observed in countries that were less impacted by the pandemic, and countries with high living transplant activity had more patients added to the waiting list and more transplants performed in 2019 compared to 2020.

Lead investigator Francesco Paolo Russo, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University Hospital Padua, Padua, Italy, suggested that this could have been due to severe lockdowns in those regions.

“Although cessation of transplant activity, especially living donation, is prudent during a pandemic, if increased mortality is the result of lockdowns or fear of seeking medical care, a reassessment of how we manage patients with chronic liver disease in a pandemic would be warranted,” noted Dr. Russo.

Observations from this survey may guide how liver transplantation programs handle future waves of the pandemic or other crises in the future. “It is crucial to recognize that the frequency of pandemics has increased over the last 20 years, and it is unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 will be the last global health crisis that we witness,” said Dr. Russo. “Lessons learned could be critical knowledge for the future.”

The article is “Global impact of the first wave of COVID-19 on liver transplant centers: A multi-society survey EASL-ESOT/ELITA-ILTS),” by Francesco Paolo Russo, Manhal Izzy, Ashwin Rammohan, Varvara A. Kirchner, Tommaso Di Maira, Luca Saverio Belli, Thomas Berg, Marina Carmen Berenguer, and Wojciech Grzegorz Polak (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2021.09.041). Openly available. Author contact: Francesco Paolo Russo at francescopaolo.russo@unipd.it

 

New data suggest liver injury following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is rare and lower than influenza vaccination
A study using electronic medical records from the Indiana University Health Enterprise Data Warehouse found that only a small percentage of individuals receiving SARS-CoV-2 vaccines experience liver damage. This is a rare adverse effect that is associated with other vaccines.

Investigators looked at patients without preexisting liver disease who had received a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine between December 2020 and October 2021. These patients were compared with a control group of patients with no preexisting disease who received an influenza vaccine in 2019. Among 470,274 individuals who had received the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, 177 individuals (0.038%) experienced liver injury. Sixty percent were female, 90% were white and the average age at first vaccine was 70 years. Compared to the influenza control group, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination had a lower frequency of liver injury after vaccination (0.038% vs. 0.069%).

“Our study adds to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the safety of SARS-CoV-19 vaccination – a lower frequency relative to other vaccines that are the standard of care,” said lead author Naga Chalasani, MD, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

The article is “Unexplained liver test elevations after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination,” by John Guardiola, MD; Craig Lammert, MD; Evgenia Teal, MS; and Naga Chalasani, MD (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2022.02.014). Openly available. Author contacts: Craig Lammert at clammert@iu.edu or Naga Chalasani at nchalasa@iu.edu

 

Study suggests COVID-19 vaccines are not linked to autoimmune hepatitis, but delayed patient care is a concern
Some studies have suggested a causal relationship between COVID-19 vaccination and the onset of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), a chronic disease in which the body’s own immune system attacks healthy liver cells. Investigators from one of the largest centers in Europe for autoimmune liver disease have found little evidence of this, but their research has raised concerns that patients may be postponing medical care.

From 2017 to 2019, before the pandemic, investigators observed an increase of new AIH diagnoses and an increase of total patients at their center. When COVID-19 pandemic restrictions eased in 2021, the absolute number of patients treated at the center increased, but the proportion of newly diagnosed AIH cases declined considerably.

Lead investigators Darius F. Rüther, MD, MSc, and Jan P. Weltzsch, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany, and European Reference Network on Hepatological Diseases (ERN RARE-LIVER), noted that of the patients newly diagnosed with AIH after the pandemic, five were diagnosed within 18 weeks of their vaccination. However, only one patient had no sign of preexisting chronic liver disease.

“Considering that over 90% of the over 70-year-old German population were vaccinated in 2021, this one case is clearly below the rate expected by chance of a temporal coincidence, and the clear drop in the proportion of newly diagnosed cases is a strong indication against any induction of AIH through COVID-19 vaccination.”

However, the authors added that the number of visits per patient at the center had dropped considerably. The decline in new diagnoses and patient visits indicates delayed and likely missed diagnoses. “Patients and referring physicians should be encouraged to seek medical expert advice in rare and complex disease such as AIH in spite of pandemic restrictions,” they suggested.

The article is “Autoimmune hepatitis and COVID-19: No increased risk for AIH after vaccination but reduced care,” by Darius Ferenc Rüther, Jan Philipp Weltzsch, Christoph Schramm, Marcial Sebode, and Ansgar Wilhelm Lohse (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2022.02.013). Openly available. Author contacts: Darius Ferenc Rüther at d.ruether@uke.de or Jan Philipp Weltzsch at j.weltzsch@uke.de

Journal

Journal of Hepatology

DOI

10.1016/j.jhep.2022.02.015

Method of Research

Observational study

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Past COVID-19 and immunosuppression regimens affect the long-term anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination response in liver transplant recipients

Read More

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

International

Health Officials: Man Dies From Bubonic Plague In New Mexico

Health Officials: Man Dies From Bubonic Plague In New Mexico

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Officials in…

Published

3 hours ago

on

March 13, 2024

By

Health Officials: Man Dies From Bubonic Plague In New Mexico

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Officials in New Mexico confirmed that a resident died from the plague in the United States’ first fatal case in several years.

A bubonic plague smear, prepared from a lymph removed from an adenopathic lymph node, or bubo, of a plague patient, demonstrates the presence of the Yersinia pestis bacteria that causes the plague in this undated photo. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Getty Images)

The New Mexico Department of Health, in a statement, said that a man in Lincoln County “succumbed to the plague.” The man, who was not identified, was hospitalized before his death, officials said.

They further noted that it is the first human case of plague in New Mexico since 2021 and also the first death since 2020, according to the statement. No other details were provided, including how the disease spread to the man.

The agency is now doing outreach in Lincoln County, while “an environmental assessment will also be conducted in the community to look for ongoing risk,” the statement continued.

“This tragic incident serves as a clear reminder of the threat posed by this ancient disease and emphasizes the need for heightened community awareness and proactive measures to prevent its spread,” the agency said.

A bacterial disease that spreads via rodents, it is generally spread to people through the bites of infected fleas. The plague, known as the black death or the bubonic plague, can spread by contact with infected animals such as rodents, pets, or wildlife.

The New Mexico Health Department statement said that pets such as dogs and cats that roam and hunt can bring infected fleas back into homes and put residents at risk.

Officials warned people in the area to “avoid sick or dead rodents and rabbits, and their nests and burrows” and to “prevent pets from roaming and hunting.”

“Talk to your veterinarian about using an appropriate flea control product on your pets as not all products are safe for cats, dogs or your children” and “have sick pets examined promptly by a veterinarian,” it added.

“See your doctor about any unexplained illness involving a sudden and severe fever, the statement continued, adding that locals should clean areas around their home that could house rodents like wood piles, junk piles, old vehicles, and brush piles.

The plague, which is spread by the bacteria Yersinia pestis, famously caused the deaths of an estimated hundreds of millions of Europeans in the 14th and 15th centuries following the Mongol invasions. In that pandemic, the bacteria spread via fleas on black rats, which historians say was not known by the people at the time.

Other outbreaks of the plague, such as the Plague of Justinian in the 6th century, are also believed to have killed about one-fifth of the population of the Byzantine Empire, according to historical records and accounts. In 2013, researchers said the Justinian plague was also caused by the Yersinia pestis bacteria.

But in the United States, it is considered a rare disease and usually occurs only in several countries worldwide. Generally, according to the Mayo Clinic, the bacteria affects only a few people in U.S. rural areas in Western states.

Recent cases have occurred mainly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Countries with frequent plague cases include Madagascar, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Peru, the clinic says. There were multiple cases of plague reported in Inner Mongolia, China, in recent years, too.

Symptoms

Symptoms of a bubonic plague infection include headache, chills, fever, and weakness. Health officials say it can usually cause a painful swelling of lymph nodes in the groin, armpit, or neck areas. The swelling usually occurs within about two to eight days.

The disease can generally be treated with antibiotics, but it is usually deadly when not treated, the Mayo Clinic website says.

“Plague is considered a potential bioweapon. The U.S. government has plans and treatments in place if the disease is used as a weapon,” the website also says.

According to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the last time that plague deaths were reported in the United States was in 2020 when two people died.

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/13/2024 - 21:40

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Riley Gaines Explains How Women’s Sports Are Rigged To Promote The Trans Agenda

Riley Gaines Explains How Women’s Sports Are Rigged To Promote The Trans Agenda

Is there a light forming when it comes to the long, dark and…

Published

7 hours ago

on

March 13, 2024

By

Riley Gaines Explains How Women's Sports Are Rigged To Promote The Trans Agenda

Is there a light forming when it comes to the long, dark and bewildering tunnel of social justice cultism?  Global events have been so frenetic that many people might not remember, but only a couple years ago Big Tech companies and numerous governments were openly aligned in favor of mass censorship.  Not just to prevent the public from investigating the facts surrounding the pandemic farce, but to silence anyone questioning the validity of woke concepts like trans ideology. 

From 2020-2022 was the closest the west has come in a long time to a complete erasure of freedom of speech.  Even today there are still countries and Europe and places like Canada or Australia that are charging forward with draconian speech laws.  The phrase "radical speech" is starting to circulate within pro-censorship circles in reference to any platform where people are allowed to talk critically.  What is radical speech?  Basically, it's any discussion that runs contrary to the beliefs of the political left.

Open hatred of moderate or conservative ideals is perfectly acceptable, but don't ever shine a negative light on woke activism, or you might be a terrorist.

Riley Gaines has experienced this double standard first hand.  She was even assaulted and taken hostage at an event in 2023 at San Francisco State University when leftists protester tried to trap her in a room and demanded she "pay them to let her go."  Campus police allegedly witnessed the incident but charges were never filed and surveillance footage from the college was never released.  

It's probably the last thing a champion female swimmer ever expects, but her head-on collision with the trans movement and the institutional conspiracy to push it on the public forced her to become a counter-culture voice of reason rather than just an athlete.

For years the independent media argued that no matter how much we expose the insanity of men posing as women to compete and dominate women's sports, nothing will really change until the real female athletes speak up and fight back.  Riley Gaines and those like her represent that necessary rebellion and a desperately needed return to common sense and reason.

In a recent interview on the Joe Rogan Podcast, Gaines related some interesting information on the inner workings of the NCAA and the subversive schemes surrounding trans athletes.  Not only were women participants essentially strong-armed by colleges and officials into quietly going along with the program, there was also a concerted propaganda effort.  Competition ceremonies were rigged as vehicles for promoting trans athletes over everyone else. 

The bottom line?  The competitions didn't matter.  The real women and their achievements didn't matter.  The only thing that mattered to officials were the photo ops; dudes pretending to be chicks posing with awards for the gushing corporate media.  The agenda took precedence.

Lia Thomas, formerly known as William Thomas, was more than an activist invading female sports, he was also apparently a science project fostered and protected by the athletic establishment.  It's important to understand that the political left does not care about female athletes.  They do not care about women's sports.  They don't care about the integrity of the environments they co-opt.  Their only goal is to identify viable platforms with social impact and take control of them.  Women's sports are seen as a vehicle for public indoctrination, nothing more.

The reasons why they covet women's sports are varied, but a primary motive is the desire to assert the fallacy that men and women are "the same" psychologically as well as physically.  They want the deconstruction of biological sex and identity as nothing more than "social constructs" subject to personal preference.  If they can destroy what it means to be a man or a woman, they can destroy the very foundations of relationships, families and even procreation.  

For now it seems as though the trans agenda is hitting a wall with much of the public aware of it and less afraid to criticize it.  Social media companies might be able to silence some people, but they can't silence everyone.  However, there is still a significant threat as the movement continues to target children through the public education system and women's sports are not out of the woods yet.   

The ultimate solution is for women athletes around the world to organize and widely refuse to participate in any competitions in which biological men are allowed.  The only way to save women's sports is for women to be willing to end them, at least until institutions that put doctrine ahead of logic are made irrelevant.          

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/13/2024 - 17:20

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Congress’ failure so far to deliver on promise of tens of billions in new research spending threatens America’s long-term economic competitiveness

A deal that avoided a shutdown also slashed spending for the National Science Foundation, putting it billions below a congressional target intended to…

Published

14 hours ago

on

March 13, 2024

By

Science is again on the chopping block on Capitol Hill. AP Photo/Sait Serkan Gurbuz

Federal spending on fundamental scientific research is pivotal to America’s long-term economic competitiveness and growth. But less than two years after agreeing the U.S. needed to invest tens of billions of dollars more in basic research than it had been, Congress is already seriously scaling back its plans.

A package of funding bills recently passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden on March 9, 2024, cuts the current fiscal year budget for the National Science Foundation, America’s premier basic science research agency, by over 8% relative to last year. That puts the NSF’s current allocation US$6.6 billion below targets Congress set in 2022.

And the president’s budget blueprint for the next fiscal year, released on March 11, doesn’t look much better. Even assuming his request for the NSF is fully funded, it would still, based on my calculations, leave the agency a total of $15 billion behind the plan Congress laid out to help the U.S. keep up with countries such as China that are rapidly increasing their science budgets.

I am a sociologist who studies how research universities contribute to the public good. I’m also the executive director of the Institute for Research on Innovation and Science, a national university consortium whose members share data that helps us understand, explain and work to amplify those benefits.

Our data shows how underfunding basic research, especially in high-priority areas, poses a real threat to the United States’ role as a leader in critical technology areas, forestalls innovation and makes it harder to recruit the skilled workers that high-tech companies need to succeed.

A promised investment

Less than two years ago, in August 2022, university researchers like me had reason to celebrate.

Congress had just passed the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act. The science part of the law promised one of the biggest federal investments in the National Science Foundation in its 74-year history.

The CHIPS act authorized US$81 billion for the agency, promised to double its budget by 2027 and directed it to “address societal, national, and geostrategic challenges for the benefit of all Americans” by investing in research.

But there was one very big snag. The money still has to be appropriated by Congress every year. Lawmakers haven’t been good at doing that recently. As lawmakers struggle to keep the lights on, fundamental research is quickly becoming a casualty of political dysfunction.

Research’s critical impact

That’s bad because fundamental research matters in more ways than you might expect.

For instance, the basic discoveries that made the COVID-19 vaccine possible stretch back to the early 1960s. Such research investments contribute to the health, wealth and well-being of society, support jobs and regional economies and are vital to the U.S. economy and national security.

Lagging research investment will hurt U.S. leadership in critical technologies such as artificial intelligence, advanced communications, clean energy and biotechnology. Less support means less new research work gets done, fewer new researchers are trained and important new discoveries are made elsewhere.

But disrupting federal research funding also directly affects people’s jobs, lives and the economy.

Businesses nationwide thrive by selling the goods and services – everything from pipettes and biological specimens to notebooks and plane tickets – that are necessary for research. Those vendors include high-tech startups, manufacturers, contractors and even Main Street businesses like your local hardware store. They employ your neighbors and friends and contribute to the economic health of your hometown and the nation.

Nearly a third of the $10 billion in federal research funds that 26 of the universities in our consortium used in 2022 directly supported U.S. employers, including:

  • A Detroit welding shop that sells gases many labs use in experiments funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense and Department of Energy.

  • A Dallas-based construction company that is building an advanced vaccine and drug development facility paid for by the Department of Health and Human Services.

  • More than a dozen Utah businesses, including surveyors, engineers and construction and trucking companies, working on a Department of Energy project to develop breakthroughs in geothermal energy.

When Congress shortchanges basic research, it also damages businesses like these and people you might not usually associate with academic science and engineering. Construction and manufacturing companies earn more than $2 billion each year from federally funded research done by our consortium’s members.

A lag or cut in federal research funding would harm U.S. competitiveness in critical advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics. Hispanolistic/E+ via Getty Images

Jobs and innovation

Disrupting or decreasing research funding also slows the flow of STEM – science, technology, engineering and math – talent from universities to American businesses. Highly trained people are essential to corporate innovation and to U.S. leadership in key fields, such as AI, where companies depend on hiring to secure research expertise.

In 2022, federal research grants paid wages for about 122,500 people at universities that shared data with my institute. More than half of them were students or trainees. Our data shows that they go on to many types of jobs but are particularly important for leading tech companies such as Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Intel.

That same data lets me estimate that over 300,000 people who worked at U.S. universities in 2022 were paid by federal research funds. Threats to federal research investments put academic jobs at risk. They also hurt private sector innovation because even the most successful companies need to hire people with expert research skills. Most people learn those skills by working on university research projects, and most of those projects are federally funded.

High stakes

If Congress doesn’t move to fund fundamental science research to meet CHIPS and Science Act targets – and make up for the $11.6 billion it’s already behind schedule – the long-term consequences for American competitiveness could be serious.

Over time, companies would see fewer skilled job candidates, and academic and corporate researchers would produce fewer discoveries. Fewer high-tech startups would mean slower economic growth. America would become less competitive in the age of AI. This would turn one of the fears that led lawmakers to pass the CHIPS and Science Act into a reality.

Ultimately, it’s up to lawmakers to decide whether to fulfill their promise to invest more in the research that supports jobs across the economy and in American innovation, competitiveness and economic growth. So far, that promise is looking pretty fragile.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Jan. 16, 2024.

Jason Owen-Smith receives research support from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and Wellcome Leap.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending