Multiple heart-related conditions linked to triple dementia risk

 Having multiple conditions that affect the heart are linked to a greater risk of dementia than having high genetic risk, according to a largescale new study.

Led by Oxford University and the University of Exeter, the study is among the largest ever to examine the link between several heart-related conditions and dementia, and one of the few to look at the complex issue of multiple health conditions.

Published in The Lancet Healthy Longevity, the paper looked at data from more than 200,000 people, aged 60 or above, and of European ancestry in UK Biobank. The international research team identified those who had been diagnosed with the cardiometabolic conditions diabetes, stroke, or a heart attack, or any combination of the three, and those who went on to develop dementia.

Within this study population, the researchers found that the more of these three conditions a person had, the higher their risk of dementia. People who had all three conditions were three times more likely to develop dementia than people who had a high genetic risk.

Dr Xin You Tai, Lead Author and Doctoral Student at University of Oxford, said: "Dementia is a major global issue, with predictions that 135 million worldwide will have the devastating condition by 2050. We found that having such heart-related conditions is linked to dementia risk to a greater extent than genetic risk. So whatever genetic risk you were born with, you can potentially make a big impact on reducing risk of dementia by looking after heart and metabolic health throughout life."

The team, which included the universities of Glasgow and Michigan, found that nearly 20,000 of the UK Biobank participants they studied had been diagnosed with one of the three conditions. Just over 2,000 had two conditions, and 122 had all three.

Professor David Llewellyn, Senior Author, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology and Clinical Health at the University of Exeter, said: "Many studies look at the risk of a single condition in relation to dementia, but health is more complex than that. We know that many patients actually have a range of conditions. Our study tells us that for people who have a diagnosis of diabetes, stroke or a heart attack it is particularly important to look after their health and ensure they are on the right treatment, to prevent further problems as well as to reduce their dementia risk."

The team divided the 200,000 participants into three categories of genetic risk from high to low, based on a comprehensive risk score reflecting multiple genetic risk traits relevant to individuals of European ancestry. They also had brain imaging data for over 12,000 participants, and found widespread damage across the brain for those with more than one cardiometabolic condition. By contrast, high genetic risk was linked to deterioration only in specific parts of the brain.

Dr Kenneth M. Langa, Study Co-author, Professor of Medicine at the University of Michigan and Veteran Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, said: "Our research indicates that protecting the heart throughout life likely also has significant benefits for the brain. To look after your heart, you can engage in regular exercise, eat a healthy diet and do everything possible to ensure blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol levels fall within guidelines."

Dr Sara Imarisio, Head of Research at Alzheimer's Research UK, said: "The evidence is clear that what's good for your heart is also good for your head. A person's risk of developing dementia is a complex mix of their age, their genes, and aspects of their lifestyle. In this study, researchers looked at data from a population of 60 years and older, including whether they had particular heart conditions, information about their genetics, and how these affected their risk of developing dementia. They found that people with multiple heart health conditions were even more likely to develop dementia than people who had an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease due to their genetics

"These findings reiterate the importance of treating the causes of poor heart health, not just for its own sake, but also the added benefit in terms of reducing the number of dementia cases. From the generosity of our supporters who enabled us to fund this work, to the selflessness of the volunteers that made it possible, we want to say thank you, without you research like this cannot take place.

"If anyone is worried about the health of your heart or your brain, please speak to your doctor."

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Exeter. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

---

Journal Reference:

1. Xin You Tai, Michele Veldsman, Donald M Lyall, Thomas J Littlejohns, Kenneth M Langa, Masud Husain, Janice Ranson, David J Llewellyn. Cardiometabolic multimorbidity, genetic risk, and dementia: a prospective cohort study. The Lancet Healthy Longevity, 2022; 3 (6): e428 DOI: 10.1016/S2666-7568(22)00117-9

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/06/220608184340.htm

CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing approach can alter the social behavior of animals

 Georgia State University scientists have created gene-edited hamsters for studies of social neuroscience and have found that the biology behind social behavior may be more complex than previously thought.

A team of Georgia State University researchers led by Regents' Professor of Neuroscience H. Elliott Albers and Distinguished University Professor Kim Huhman used CRISPR-Cas9 technology to eliminate the actions of a neurochemical signaling pathway that plays a critical role in regulating social behaviors in mammals. Vasopressin and the receptor that it acts on called Avpr1a regulates social phenomena ranging from pair bonding, cooperation, and social communication to dominance and aggression. The new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), finds that knocking out the Avpr1a receptor in hamsters, and thus effectively eliminating vasopressin's action on it, dramatically altered the expression of social behavior in unexpected ways.

"We were really surprised at the results," Albers said. "We anticipated that if we eliminated vasopressin activity, we would reduce both aggression and social communication. But the opposite happened."

Instead, the hamsters without the receptor showed much higher levels of social communication behavior than did their counterparts with intact receptors. Even more interesting, the typical sex differences observed in aggressiveness were eliminated with both male and female hamsters displaying high levels of aggression towards other same-sex individuals.

"This suggests a startling conclusion," Albers said. "Even though we know that vasopressin increases social behaviors by acting within a number of brain regions, it is possible that the more global effects of the Avpr1a receptor are inhibitory.

"We don't understand this system as well as we thought we did. The counterintuitive findings tell us we need to start thinking about the actions of these receptors across entire circuits of the brain and not just in specific brain regions."

The hamsters used in the research were Syrian hamsters, which have become increasingly important for studies of social behavior, aggression and communication. They are the species in which vasopressin was first demonstrated to influence sociality. Hamsters provide a powerful model for the studies of social behavior because their social organization is far more similar to humans than that observed in mice, even though mice are the most common laboratory animal used. Hamsters are unique research animals in other ways as well, explained Huhman, who is Associate Director of the Neuroscience Institute at Georgia State.

"Their stress response is more like that of humans than it is other rodents. They release the stress hormone cortisol, just as humans do. They also get many of the cancers that humans get," she said. "Their susceptibility to the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 makes them the rodent species of choice because they are vulnerable to it just as we are."

The work using CRISPR in hamsters was a significant step forward, say both researchers. "Developing gene-edited hamsters was not easy," Albers said. "But it is important to understand the neurocircuitry involved in human social behavior and our model has translational relevance for human health. Understanding the role of vasopressin in behavior is necessary to help identify potential new and more effective treatment strategies for a diverse group of neuropsychiatric disorders ranging from autism to depression."

Story Source:

Materials provided by Georgia State University. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

---

Journal Reference:

1. Jack H. Taylor, James C. Walton, Katharine E. McCann, Alisa Norvelle, Qian Liu, Jacob W. Vander Velden, Johnathan M. Borland, Michael Hart, Chengliu Jin, Kim L. Huhman, Daniel N. Cox, H. Elliott Albers. CRISPR-Cas9 editing of the arginine–vasopressin V1a receptor produces paradoxical changes in social behavior in Syrian hamsters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2022; 119 (19) DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2121037119

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/05/220516104643.htm

Marathon US hearings to decide fate of COVID shots for tots

 Parents anxious to finally vaccinate their youngest children against COVID-19, strap in: A lot is set to happen over the next week.

On Wednesday, both Moderna and Pfizer will have to convince what’s essentially a science court -- advisers to the Food and Drug Administration -- that their shots work well in babies, toddlers and preschoolers.

Kids under 5 are the only group not yet eligible for COVID-19 vaccination in the U.S. If the agency’s advisers endorse one or both shots for them -- and the FDA agrees -- there’s still another hurdle. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must recommend whether all tots need immunization or just those at high risk from the virus.

Adding to the complexity, each company is offering different dose sizes and number of shots. And the week won’t even start with the littlest kid debate: Moderna first will ask FDA’s advisers to support its vaccine for older children.

Only a handful of countries, including China and Cuba, have offered different types of COVID-19 vaccinations to children younger than 5.

Here’s a primer to help keep all the developments straight.

PFIZER’S PLAN FOR THE LITTLEST

Pfizer has a pediatric track record -- its COVID-19 vaccine is the only type the FDA allows for children of any age. Two doses plus a booster are cleared for everyone 5 and older. Shots for the 5- to 11-year-olds contain a third of the dose given to teens and adults.

For kids younger than 5, Pfizer and its partner BioNTech lowered the dose even more, to a tenth of the adult dose. The trade-off is a need for three shots, the first two given three weeks apart and the last at least two months later.

MODERNA’S PLAN FOR THE LITTLEST

Moderna is seeking FDA clearance for two shots, each a quarter of its adult dose, given about four weeks apart for kids younger than 6. (Moderna tested a slightly different age limit than Pfizer.)

The FDA currently allows Moderna’s vaccine to be used only in adults. But some countries allow two full-size doses for teens and half-size shots for kids ages 6 to 11 — which Moderna also hopes to offer in the U.S.

MAKING THEIR CASE

Pfizer disappointed parents back in December when a study found two shots weren’t quite strong enough. So researchers tested a third shot in youngsters age 6 months through 4 years during the winter surge of the omicron variant.

Pfizer’s preliminary data showed after three shots, children developed high levels of virus-fighting antibodies with no safety problems. In addition, the vaccine appeared 80% effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19. But that calculation was based on just 10 cases diagnosed among study participants by the end of April, and it could change if more cases have occurred since.

Moderna’s study found tots ages 6 months through 5 years developed high antibody levels after two of its shots. But while there were no severe cases of COVID-19 during the trial, the vaccine was only about 40% to 50% effective at preventing milder infections.

Moderna recently added a booster dose to the tot study — and disclosed in a presentation for Wednesday’s meeting that it also plans to allow participants a chance to help test an omicron-targeting booster.

WHEN COULD SHOTS START?

If the FDA authorizes one or both shots — a decision expected shortly after its advisory panel’s meeting — all eyes move to the CDC. That agency recommends how to use vaccines. Which tots should get COVID-19 vaccination will be an important debate as the coronavirus doesn’t tend to make children as sick as adults yet nearly 500 deaths in U.S. children under 5 have been reported.

The CDC’s own vaccine advisers are scheduled to meet next Friday and Saturday, and a final decision by the CDC’s director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, should come shortly after they’re done.

If all those steps fall into place, vaccinations could begin in many areas June 21.

VACCINATION SITES

Pediatricians, other primary care physicians and children’s hospitals are expected to vaccinate most of the youngest kids. Limited drugstores will offer them for at least some of the under-5 group — parents should check local availability for different ages. The Biden administration says it also is working with a variety of other groups, such as children’s museums, to offer pop-up clinics and reach even more youngsters.

WHAT IF MY CHILD RECENTLY HAD COVID-19?

About three-quarters of children of all ages are estimated to have been infected at some point during the pandemic. It’s a question sure to come up as CDC’s advisers make recommendations for the littlest kids, so stay tuned.

For older ages, the CDC has recommended vaccination anyway to lower the chances of reinfection. There’s no firm guidance on how long to wait; the CDC has said people may wait as long as three months.

DEMAND IS UNCLEAR

There are roughly 18 million children younger than 5, and many parents are eager to get their tots vaccinated. But it’s unclear how many ultimately will, given disappointing vaccine uptake by older children.

According to the CDC, just 29% of kids ages 5 to 11 have gotten two doses, and about 60% of 12- to 17-year-olds.

WHAT ABOUT MODERNA AND OLDER KIDS?

On Tuesday, the FDA’s advisers will consider Moderna shots for older kids, those 6 to 17 -- a decision that might alleviate some parent confusion.

The agency has held up the teen vaccine for months while it investigated a rare side effect, heart inflammation. That’s mostly a risk for teen boys and young men, and also can occur with the Pfizer vaccine.

https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-centers-for-disease-control-and-prevention-business-688e324a3e42ed8149887be533738ca7

Transcript: Quest Diagnostics at Jefferies Global Healthcare Conference

 https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/QUEST-DIAGNOSTICS-12290/news/Transcript-Quest-Diagnostics-Incorporated-Presents-at-2022-Jefferies-Global-Healthcare-Conference-40696181/

Bayer Wins Roundup Trial in Missouri Court

 A Missouri court has ruled in favor of Bayer AG's Monsanto in a trial regarding claims that its Roundup weed-killer causes cancer, the company said late Thursday.

"The jury's verdict in favor of the company brings this trial to a successful conclusion and is consistent with the evidence in this case that Roundup does not cause cancer and was not the cause of Mr. Shelton's cancer," Bayer said.

The verdict marks the third trial win for Monsanto, which has been dealing with a wave of lawsuits making such claims.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/BAYER-AG-436063/news/Bayer-Wins-Roundup-Trial-in-Missouri-Court-40687807/

China slams new WHO report suggesting further investigation into Covid ‘lab leak’ theory

 The World Health Organization is recommending more investigation into the theory that Covid-19 leaked from a Chinese laboratory, something once dismissed by some as a conspiracy theory but since taken seriously by some experts and officials.

It's a U-turn by the WHO, which was last year heavily criticized for stating that it was "extremely unlikely" that the virus had leaked from a laboratory, and has faced accusations of being too credulous and deferential to China.

On Friday, Beijing responded forcefully to the report, and repeated its suggestion ⁠— without evidence ⁠— that the virus may have come from an American laboratory.

“The lab leak theory is totally a lie concocted by anti-China forces for political purposes, which has nothing to do with science,” foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian told a daily press briefing. “We always supported and participated in science-based global virus tracing, but we firmly opposed any forms of political manipulation.”

He repeated calls for investigations into “highly suspicious laboratories such as Fort Detrick” in Maryland “and the University of North Carolina,” where China has suggested, again without evidence, that the United States was developing the coronavirus as a bioweapon. NBC News has contacted the Department of Defense and the University of North Carolina for a response.  

U.S. intel report: 3 researchers at Wuhan lab fell ill in November 2019

MAY 24, 202101:41

The WHO's change of direction came Thursday in the first report by its Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens, known as SAGO.

The group agreed that the now-infamous Wuhan seafood market likely “played an important role” early in the pandemic because a number of patients in December 2019 had links to that site.

However, there are still “gaps in our knowledge,” it said, specifically about how the virus got to the market and where the first “spillover” between animals and humans happened.

The report recommended “further investigations” into the idea this could have happened in a laboratory, as well as “all other” possible routes.

China has previously suggested that Covid could have been imported into its country in frozen food. Thursday’s WHO report said the “cold chain” theory should be investigated further, too.

NBC News tried to contact the information office of China's National Health Commission for comment Friday but was told the officials covering the issue had left for the day.

A lab leak was once seen as a fringe conspiracy theory, clouded by the mistaken belief that its supporters were suggesting that Covid had been intentionally released as a bioweapon. In fact, many of its exponents were postulating that the virus may have escaped from a lab, namely the Wuhan Institute of Virology, following an accident during virus tests. Thursday's report noted this was not only possible, but lab accidents in the past had triggered some outbreaks in the past.

Last year, President Joe Biden told U.S. spy agencies to compile a report looking into Covid's possible origins. At least one unnamed American intelligence agency believes it could have escaped from a lab but the community remains divided, the report said.

Dr. Jean-Claude Manuguerra, co-chair of the 27-member SAGO, said some scientists might be “allergic” to the idea but urged them to be “open-minded,” The Associated Press reported.

However, three members of the group did not agree that the lab leak theory should be investigated, including China's Professor Yun-Gui Yang and Russia's Dr. Vladimir Dedkov, the report said.

Thursday's report marks a dramatic shift for the WHO, which said in a February 2021 report that a lab leak was "extremely unlikely." However, after months of criticism and outside pressure, Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus admitted last July it had been "premature" to rule out the idea because "I have worked in the lab, and lab accidents happen."

A WHO team visited Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan in January 2021. Ng Han Guan / AP file

In the early months of the Covid pandemic, Tedros was accused of being too eager to please Chinese President Xi Jinping. In 2020, just as then-President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would sever its relationship with WHO completely, China upped its funding of the organization by $30 million.

In addition, China was slow to release data and alert the world about the true extent and potential danger of the rapidly spreading virus.

More recently the Sino-WHO relationship has taken a hit, with Beijing censoring Tedros after he criticized its "zero-Covid" policy.

Jamie Metzl, who sits on a WHO advisory group unrelated to SAGO, told the AP that "the Chinese government is still refusing to share essential raw data and will not allow the necessary, full audit of the Wuhan labs."

In Washington, a Republican-led subcommittee in the House on the Covid pandemic tweeted, “Americans were smeared as ‘conspiracy theorists’ for asking whether #COVID19 came from a lab leak. Now, the WHO is asking the same questions.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/covid-19-urges-investigation-chinese-wuhan-lab-leak-theory-rcna32910

Why Operation Warp Speed won’t be replicated under Biden

 With all the challenges the nation faces today, I am frequently asked whether another Operation Warp Speed (OWS)-like initiative is in order. For instance, I have been asked “Can’t we use an OWS initiative to cure cancer?” “How about applying it to our supply chain issues?” And most recently, “Can we use an OWS process to make more baby formula?”

My answer is always the same: Perhaps, but not under this administration.

Operation Warp Speed has been described as nothing short of a scientific “miracle.” This could not be further from the truth. Warp Speed’s achievement of bringing safe and effective vaccines to the American people in 80 percent less time than ever before was the result of a deliberate strategy, exacting execution, exceptional teamwork and inspired leadership. As important, it was the beneficiary of an underlying ideology and set of experiences present in the previous administration yet absent in the current one.

An inveterate belief in the power of America’s private sector. The Trump team was ideologically disposed to believing America’s private sector possessed the ingenuity, innovative spirit and industrial dexterity to rapidly address our most pressing challenges. Early in the pandemic, we experienced this first-hand as companies such as General Motors converted their production lines to manufacture tens of thousands of mechanical ventilators in just a few months.

It was only natural, therefore, that we would turn to the private sector to accelerate the discovery, manufacturing, distribution and administration of hundreds of millions of vaccines in record time.

In contrast, when faced with challenges such as uncontrolled energy costs, shortages of baby formula and rising meat prices, the Biden administration is more likely to criticize and disparage private sector participants as monopolists and price gougers. Its progressive biases favor increased regulatory oversight to constrain the private sector, while President Trump’s free market biases and distaste for regulatory intrusion liberated the private sector.

Leaders who knew how to mobilize industry. Trump’s prior experience was in business. He knew how the private sector worked and understood its motivations. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar spent 10 years in the pharmaceutical sector and understood its tolerance for risk-taking. Where we lacked private sector experience, we acquired it in the form of individuals such as Dr. Moncef Slaoui, who came to us from a 30-year career in vaccine development.

Contrast this with the current president and HHS secretary, who have spent their careers in politics. Exacerbating this lack of business experience, the Biden team inexplicably dismissed Dr. Slaoui from the OWS initiative upon entering office. So, even if the senior-most Biden team members were ideologically disposed to embracing the power of the private sector, none of them possesses the insights and experiences necessary to mobilize it.

The willingness to delegate decisionmaking and bypass the bureaucracy. One of the keys to Operation Warp Speed’s success was creating a multi-disciplinary team of both private-sector and government experts and then giving its members broad authority to make decisions quickly without bureaucratic meddling. Trump and Azar provided the resources necessary for success and then made themselves completely accessible to the team when needed. Jared Kushner ensured that the balance of the White House staff left the team alone. The administration never meddled, rather it offered unconditional support. We all aligned on a goal, which was to have at least one safe and effective vaccine with millions of manufactured doses before the end of 2020. The team and a small governing board subsequently spent $30 billion and delivered the results.

Upon arrival, the Biden team revoked all decisionmaking authority from the OWS experts and centralized it in the White House. This led to significant ambiguity, paralysis and lethargy in the decisionmaking process. Moreover, it led to discouragement and partial disengagement among those most critical to success.

The defining and fundamental principle underpinning Operation Warp Speed’s spectacular achievements was simple and easily replicated: The federal government’s role is to enable success, while the private sector’s role is to deliver success. Its corollary, of course, is to never permit the federal government to engage in activities the private sector can perform more competently.

Unfortunately, the ideological biases and lack of private sector insights leading to too much control and corporate distrust at the top of the Biden administration today will preclude another Operation Warp Speed-like success anytime soon.

Paul Mango was deputy chief of staff for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from 2019-2021, serving as Secretary Azar’s formal liaison to Operation Warp Speed. His new book, “Warp Speed: Inside the Operation That Beat COVID, the Critics, and the Odds,” is due out in hardcover this week (Republic Book Publishers, June 14, 2022).

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/3517236-operation-warp-speed-was-a-tremendous-success-heres-why-it-wont-be-replicated-under-biden/