Sepsis is a leading cause of death in the first months of life and nearly half of under-5 deaths occur in the neonatal period.
There are no specific vaccines available to prevent neonatal sepsis, which is caused by a wide range of bacterial agents, but
we have shown across 3 BCG vs no-BCG RCTs conducted in 🇬🇼 that the beneficial non-specific effects (#NSEvac) of at-birth BCG vaccination more than halves the risk of fatal neonatal sepsis among hospitalized newborns: academic.oup.com/jid/article-ab…
Likely immunological mechanisms (2/14)
An important paper for the prevention of early-life fatal sepsis was published on🎄 day; but first a little background on how novel scientific discoveries arise: (4/14)
For measles vaccination (MV), we discovered in 🇬🇼 that MV provided in the presence of maternal measles antibody enhanced MV's beneficial #NSEvac.
We therefore initiated several projects testing this hypothesis:
1st, compared to no scar, we found that children with a BCG scar had 66% (33%-83%) lower mortality if their mother also had a BCG scar but only 8% (−83%-53%) for mothers w. no scar: academic.oup.com/jpids/article/… (6/14)
And in a retrospective study, maternal BCG vaccine scars were associated with a 60% (4% to 83%) reduction in all-cause mortality up to 6 weeks of age: sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
We are now adding an important chapter to this developing story. (7/14)
As part of inclusion procedures in a previously published RCT testing different BCG strains provided at birth, academic.oup.com/cid/article/71…, our team assessed the maternal BCG scar status for 10,598 newborns; 60% of the mothers had a visible BCG scar from previous vaccination. (8/14)
As for providing neonatal BCG vs no BCG, being born to a mother with a BCG scar more than halved the risk of fatal sepsis by 6 weeks of age among admitted infants, the risk reduction being 51% (9% to 74%), when compared to if the mother had no scar. journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-… (9/14)
The protective effects against fatal sepsis were especially evident for males, for whom maternal scar was associated with a 65% (11% to 86%) reduction, when compared to no maternal scar.
Remember, all newborns had received BCG at birth as part of main trial procedures. (10/14)
The immunological pathways behind this intriguing finding is not yet known, but transmission of trained immunity and heterologous resistance to infections across generations was recently demonstrated by @katzmauski, @dominjor et al in @NatImmunolnature.com/articles/s4159… (11/14)
Unfortunately, BCG is not prioritized, as illustrated by the fact that 4289 mothers (40%) in our study had no 💉scar.
Despite the universal recommendation of BCG at birth, BCG is often delayed and @WHO-@UNICEF BCG coverage estimates are only compiled by 12 months of age. (12/14)
I hope for help with retweets & contacts to policy-makers so we can together ensure that BCG is provided to more newborns as early as possible, especially in areas with high early-life mortality/morbidity and/or TB-endemic areas.
), it was with the expectation that the prevalence of C19 infections in vaccinated vs unvaccinated would gradually approach each other (reducing the unvac/vac ratio), due to expected declining protective immunity from 💉
and buildup of natural immunity. At the time, the ratio was ~2.9 w. ~500 vs 1200 cases. It has since gradually declined, but much faster in the last weeks.
Today, the ratio is only 1.30 with 1052 cases in unvac and 6910 for💉.
We need to have a discussion of this development,
because it should have substantial ramifications for public health policies:
1) The coronapassport, until mid-January valid for 12 m(!) after 2x💉has marginal to zero (or negative?) effects in this scenario
2) We should immediately assess whether the shots work against Omicron
Min datter havde 5-års fødselsdag denne weekend og fik (udover en del andre 🎁) også muligheden for en snarlig COVID-19 💉. Jeg nød i den forbindelse at læse @Pottegard ’s balancerede refleksioner om +/- 💉.
Vi vælger at afvente pga. følgende:
🧵(1/13)
1)Studiet der ligger til grund for godkendelsen rapporterer markant beskyttelse imod 🦠, men follow-up er kun få mdr (som for voksne)
2)Ca. 1 ud af 1000 smittede i vores datters aldersgruppe får alvorlig C19 og til sammenligning er der, i de samlede studier blandt (...)
(2/13)
🧒<16 år, ret få der får alvorlige bivirkninger (severe AEs), men det kan alligevel ikke udelukkes at det er i omegnen af ca 0.2% eller 1 ud af 500 (NB: disse tal er behæftet med usikkerhed, så bemærk venligst forbehold)
3)Dette måske skyldes primært at studierne var små
(3/13)