Administering a booster shot of Johnson & Johnson’s COVID vaccine was found to be 85% effective in preventing serious illness in Omicron-dominated areas, preliminary results from a South African trial study show.
The South African Medical Research Council performed the study on health workers from 15 November to 20 December, but has not yet been peer-reviewed. It found the booster was effective in largely protecting staff as Omicron came to dominate the country.
“The increase in CD8+ T-cells generated by the Johnson & Johnson vaccine may be key to explaining the high levels of effectiveness against severe COVID disease and hospitalisation in the Sisonke 2 study, as the Omicron variant has been shown to escape neutralising antibodies,” Johnson & Johnson reported in a statement. That data showed that the booster jab “provides 85 percent effectiveness against hospitalisation in areas where Omicron is dominant/”
“This adds to our growing body of evidence which shows that the effectiveness of the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine remains strong and stable over time, including against circulating variants such as Omicron and Delta,” it continued.
Around half a million South African health staff have received Johnson jabs as part of clinical trials. South Africa has recorded more than 3.5 million cases and 94 000 deaths since the start of the pandemic.
An earlier South African study in December found the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to be less effective overall against Omicron, but still reduced hospital admissions by up to 70%.
A new systematic review has found only very low-quality evidence that substances claiming to treat or prevent alcohol-induced hangover have any effectiveness. In light of this, the researchers called for more rigorous scientific exploration of the effectiveness of these remedies for hangovers to provide practitioners and the public with accurate evidence-based information for decision making.
Numerous remedies claim to be effective against hangover symptoms; however, up-to-date scientific examination of the literature is lacking. To address this gap, a team of researchers from King’s College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust conducted a systematic review to consolidate and assess the current evidence for hangover treatments.
The study, published today by the scientific journal Addiction, assessed 21 placebo-controlled randomised trials of clove extract, red ginseng, Korean pear juice, and other hangover cures. Although some studies showed statistically significant improvements in hangover symptoms, all evidence was of very low quality, usually because of methodological limitations or imprecise measurements. In addition, no two studies reported on the same hangover remedy and no results have been independently replicated.
Of the 21 included studies, eight were conducted exclusively with male participants. The studies were generally limited in their reporting of the nature and timing of alcohol challenge that was used to assess the hangover cures and there were considerable differences in the type of alcohol given and whether it was given alongside food.
Common painkillers such as paracetamol or aspirin have not been evaluated in placebo controlled randomised controlled trials for hangover. Future studies ought to be more rigorous, such as using validated scales to assess hangover symptoms, the researchers advised. More female participants are also needed in hangover research.
Lead author Dr Emmert Roberts said: “Hangover symptoms can cause significant distress and affect people’s employment and academic performance. Given the continuing speculation in the media as to which hangover remedies work or not, the question around the effectiveness of substances that claim to treat or prevent a hangover appears to be one with considerable public interest. Our study has found that evidence on these hangover remedies is of very low quality and there is a need to provide more rigorous assessment. For now, the surest way of preventing hangover symptoms is to abstain from alcohol or drink in moderation.”
The hangover cures assessed in this study included Curcumin, Duolac ProAP4 (probiotics), L-cysteine, N-Acetyl-L-Cysteine (NAC), Rapid Recovery (L-cysteine, thiamine, pyridoxine and ascorbic acid), Loxoprofen (loxoprofen sodium), SJP-001 (naproxen and fexofenadine), Phyllpro (Phyllanthus amarus), Clovinol (extract of clove buds), Hovenia dulcis Thunb. fruit extract (HDE), Polysaccharide rich extract of Acanthopanax (PEA), Red Ginseng, Korean Pear Juice, L-ornithine, Prickly Pear, Artichoke extract, ‘Morning-Fit’ (dried yeast, thiamine nitrate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, and riboflavin), Propranolol, Tolfenamic acid, Chlormethiazole, and Pyritinol.
SARS-CoV-2 is a “predatory virus” that appears to have multiplied the risk of death by a similar amount for most adults in the UK regardless of their underlying health status, according to new research published in PLOS Medicine.
The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM)-led research team estimated excess mortality in the UK during Wave 1 of the COVID pandemic in nearly 10 million adults aged 40 and over. They then estimated and compared relative rates of all-cause mortality in people with and without more than 50 health and socio-demographic characteristics before the pandemic and during Wave 1.
The rate of death during Wave 1 increased on average by a factor of just over 40% (x1.4) for the study population compared to before the pandemic. This relative increase in the rate of death was surprisingly consistent across much of the population, regardless of health conditions and other characteristics.
However, before the pandemic, those with pre-existing health conditions such as heart disease or asthma had a higher mortality rate than those without a further mortality rate increase of 40% had a bigger absolute impact on them.
Exceptions included those with dementia and learning difficulties; both groups had approximately 3x the rate of death compared to people without the condition before the pandemic but approximately 5x the rate of death compared to people without the condition during Wave 1.
Non-white ethnicities were another exception: black people had 20% reduced rate of death compared to white people before the pandemic but a 50% increase in relative rate of death compared to white people during Wave 1. Also, those living in London also had a lower rate of death before the pandemic compared to people living outside of London, but substantially elevated relative rate during Wave 1.
Researcher co-leader, LSHTM’s Dr Helen Strongman, said: “Our work has shown that the threat posed by COVID increases evenly with frailty or ill health caused by ageing and a wide range of respiratory and non-respiratory medical conditions. This compares to flu, which also tends to be more dangerous in the elderly but also affects young children and is more strongly associated with respiratory conditions such as asthma, COPD and smoking.”
Whilst the health and demographic factors studied are known to be associated both with mortality in non-pandemic years and mortality due to COVID during the pandemic, this is the first time the two have been linked – analysing all-cause mortality rather than COVID-specific mortality.
Dr Strongman said: “As we learn to live with COVID, we all need to be aware of and manage our own risk and that of others around us. Our study shows that SARS-CoV-2 is a predatory virus, amplifying mortality rates across the board, and having the biggest impact on those with existing ill health or who are frail. This emphasises how important it is for everyone to protect themselves and the most vulnerable in society through measures such as vaccination and wearing face masks. However, more basic research about why and how the virus exploits any vulnerability is needed.”
Dr Helena Carreira from LSHTM and co-lead author, added: “While we saw increases in the rate of death during the first wave of the pandemic across the population, our study also reinforced how COVID has disproportionately affected some groups, including people with dementia and learning disabilities, possibly through higher levels of exposure due to institutional or home-based care or occupation.”
Further research is needed to clarify whether there were differences across waves in the UK, especially for ethnicity, deprivation and other factors, and independent effects of individual health and demographic risk factors should be investigated.
Limitations include possible misclassification of the date of death for some individuals and the misclassification of health factors through incomplete information. However, the similarity of the results obtained from sensitivity analyses suggest only a minor impact on their findings.
