Health and well-being improved by spending time in the garden, study finds

New research suggests that people who have access to a private garden and actively make use of it have better health and well-being than those without a garden.

A study by a team of researchers from the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom and the Royal Horticultural Society, a U.K. charity, has found that having access to a private garden improves people’s health and well-being if they actively make use of it.

The research, which appears in the journal Landscape and Urban Planning, shines a light on the value of private green space, as well as public green space. It also raises questions about the equity of access to these spaces.

Green spaces

The association between green spaces — open areas of land that have vegetation growing in them — and health benefits is well-documented.

For example, a recent meta-analysis in the journal Environmental Research found that “[green space] exposure is associated with numerous health benefits in intervention and observational studies,” which suggests “a beneficial influence of [green space] on a wide range of health outcomes.”

However, less research has focused on the role of access to and use of gardens for people’s health and well-being.

Dr. Siân de Bell, of the University of Exeter Medical School and lead author of the present study, says that “[a] growing body of evidence points to the health and well-being benefits of access to green or coastal spaces. Our study is one of the largest to date to look at the benefits of gardens and gardening specifically.”

“Our findings suggest that whilst being able to access an outdoor space, such as a garden or yard, is important, using that space is what really leads to benefits for health and well-being.”

Almost 8,000 participants

To conduct the study, Dr. de Bell and her team drew on data from the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment survey. This survey involved a representative sample of almost 8,000 participants from across England.

Trained interviewers regularly met the participants at home and asked them a series of questions about their access to and use of outdoor space and their general health and well-being.

When analyzing the data, the team accounted for confounding factors that may relate to health, well-being, and garden access. These included gender, socioeconomic status, employment status, marital status, the presence of children in the household, home ownership, and dog ownership.

Access to private gardens important

The team found that access to a private outdoor space — whether a garden, patio, or balcony — was associated with improved health and well-being.

However, a significant factor was whether and how people used their private garden. The researchers found that people who both relaxed in their garden and did some gardening had improved health and well-being compared with those who did not use the space.

Interestingly, the type of garden to which people had access played a significant role in the health and well-being benefits that they gained from their garden use. Having access to a private outdoor space improved health and well-being more than having access to a communal space.

The team speculates that this may be because, in a private space, there is less chance of conflict with people who may wish to use the area differently. Having access to a private space allows a person to craft it in the way that suits them.

Conversely, a communal garden that a management company runs for a block of flats, for example, may not give the users of the garden permission to make any changes.

As the authors note, the study was limited in this way, as the data it drew on were not detailed enough for the authors to understand fully why people gain health and well-being benefits from a private garden.

For example, it may be that communal gardens produce similar benefits if a person has more control over crafting a part of it, or if they can contribute to collective decisions about its management. These data were not available to the researchers, however.

Equity of access?

The authors also point out that due to the small sample size, they could not look in detail at demographic factors that may affect access to private gardens. This information is important to understand the factors that can stop people from accessing or using private gardens.

For example, the study found that fewer younger people had access to a garden and that those in the lowest socioeconomic status banding had the highest chance of not having access to a garden.

People who rented were also less likely to have access to a private garden and were the least likely to use a garden if they had one. This finding may reflect the short tenancies common in the U.K., which could discourage people from investing in the upkeep of a garden that they cannot guarantee that they will be able to enjoy in the future.

Source: MedicalNews Today

Study suggests a protein may predict severe COVID-19

High levels of the protein suPAR in the blood of a person with COVID-19 may be a predictor of a more severe disease course.

A new study suggests that the protein soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) may help scientists predict who is likely to develop more severe COVID-19.

The research, published as a research letter in the journal Critical Care, may help clinicians identify people who are more likely to need intensive care support. It may also help them identify those who can safely manage the disease at home.

Flattening the curve

The sudden emergence and rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has put health services across the world at risk of being overwhelmed.

Patients who develop a severe infection of COVID-19 will often experience forms of respiratory failure, which, in turn, puts pressure on intensive care units (ICU).

Easing this pressure has been central to the responses of different governments. This has become known as “flattening the curve.”

If too many people require intensive care treatment in too short a time, ICUs might become overwhelmed and unable to care for all patients.

This is not only dangerous for the health of people with COVID-19 but for those with other illnesses who need treatment in an ICU.

Flattening the curve has predominantly occurred through social distancing measures. However, scientists have been investigating which instances of COVID-19 may become more severe.

If they can identify effective ways of predicting disease severity, then people who are likely to need intensive care support can stay in the hospital and potentially start receiving treatment.

Conversely, doctors can send those who are not likely to develop a severe case of the disease home. These people can then manage the disease through self-care, which will relieve pressure on ICUs.

Is suPAR protein a predictor?

In the present study, the authors looked at the relationship between high levels of suPAR in the blood of people with COVID-19 and the severity of the disease.

According to Prof. Jochen Reiser, the Ralph C. Brown, MD, Professor of Internal Medicine, Chairperson of the Department of Internal Medicine at Rush University, Chicago, and co-corresponding author of the study, “[i]f we measure suPAR as part of diagnosing COVID-19, we may know whom to watch more and whom to send home.”

The study analyzed data from 15 COVID-19 patients from the Rush University Medical Center and 57 patients from the University of Athens Medical School in Greece.

After measuring the patients’ levels of blood suPAR, the researchers looked at how long it took before a patient required intubation, which involves ventilating a person by inserting a tube into their lungs.

The researchers found that those who had higher levels of suPAR in their blood needed intubation more quickly than those with lower levels.

According to Prof. Reiser, “[t]his is the first report in the world to show that suPAR is elevated in COVID-19 and is predictive.”

“Since suPAR is a reactant of the innate immune system, it’s an indicator of disease severity. These results show that the higher the plasma suPAR level, the worse the outcome will be in the lungs of these patients. The higher the suPAR level, the shorter the time before patients needed intubation.”

As Prof. Reiser notes, “[t]here is a body of literature that suPAR is associated with poor outcomes from acute respiratory distress syndrome (a condition in many patients with severe COVID-19) and poor lung functioning in critically ill patients.”

This study is only small, and so its findings require further research to confirm that suPAR is an effective predictor of COVID-19 severity. As noted in a recent article in the BMJ, this is a common issue for current published research on COVID-19 prediction models.

Nonetheless, the findings point researchers in the right direction to carry out this future research, including whether targeting suPAR is a treatment option.

Source: Medical News Today

‘Summer is not going to make this go away,’ study concludes

A recent study asks which factors impact the progression of the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors investigate meteorological factors and public health measures across multiple geographical locations.

As the COVID-19 pandemic rumbles on, scientists are observing its features from every possible angle. Some scientists are trying to identify factors that reduce the speed of its spread.

The authors of a recent study, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, asked whether school closures and other public health interventions result in a slowdown of the COVID-19 pandemic.

They also assessed whether geographical and meteorological factors play a part in curtailing the pandemic, including latitude, temperature, and humidity.

As expected, the authors found that “public health interventions were strongly associated with reduced epidemic growth.” However, more surprisingly, they concluded that the spread of SARS-CoV-2 was not associated with temperature.

Viruses and temperature

Scientists have established that influenza outbreaks — the most well-studied respiratory viral outbreaks — are associated with changes in climate; they tend to occur during colder months. However, questions remain as to why these viruses display such seasonality.

Although scientists are still investigating the matter, reduced case numbers in hotter months are likely to be due to higher temperatures, higher humidity, or higher solar radiation.

As the authors explain, “These three characteristics are all associated with geographic latitude, a measure that can be determined effortlessly and with precision.”

The fact that schools tend to close over the summer months could also play a part in reducing the risk of influenza outbreaks.

For the recent study, the researchers focused on data taken from ‘geopolitical areas with documented outbreaks of COVID-19’ during 2 separate weeks.

They classed the first week — March 7–13, 2020 — as the exposure period. The authors took note of latitude, temperature, humidity, school closures, restrictions of mass gatherings, and physical distancing measures.

Then, they measured the increase in the number of COVID-19 cases 14 days later to allow for the incubation period. They took their measurements for the week, March 21–March 27, 2020. In other words, they looked at the relevant variables during week one and measured how much these variables influenced COVID-19 rates 2 weeks later.

According to the authors, the chosen interval of 14 days reflects “the assumed time between transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and reporting of confirmed COVID-19 cases.”

The analysis

During their analysis, the scientists controlled the data for a wide range of variables with the potential to skew the results. The variables included altitude, gross domestic product, percentage of inhabitants aged 65 years or older, population density, proximity to regions with established epidemics, such as Wuhan, China, and average life expectancy.

In all, the analysis used data from 144 geopolitical regions, including 375,609 cases of COVID-19. The scientists took data from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Situation Report 61. This included state-level information for the United States and Australia, province- and territory-level data for Canada, and countrywide data for the rest of the world.

They excluded China because, at that point, the epidemic was waning there. They also excluded Italy, Iran, and South Korea because the epidemic was peaking in those countries.

The authors conclude that COVID-19 epidemic growth “was not associated with geographic latitude, nor with temperature during the exposure period 14 days before.”

This came as a surprise to the researchers. One of the authors, Dr. Peter Jüni from the University of Toronto, Canada, says, “We had conducted a preliminary study that suggested both latitude and temperature could play a role, but when we repeated the study under much more rigorous conditions, we got the opposite result.”

The scientists did identify a relationship between epidemic growth and relative and absolute humidity. When they carried out more detailed analyses, these relationships weakened. However, the authors believe that both dimensions of humidity may play a minor role but that “this remains hypothetical.”

With some countries considering easing their public health interventions, the findings are important. The authors write:

“[I]t is of considerable importance that we found strong negative associations with three public health interventions commonly used to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: restrictions of mass gatherings, school closures and measures of social distancing.”

Another author, Prof. Dionne Gesink, explains, “Summer is not going to make this go away. It’s important people know that. On the other hand, the more public health interventions an area had in place, the bigger the impact on slowing the epidemic growth. These public health interventions are really important because they’re the only thing working right now to slow the epidemic.”

The authors also note certain limitations to their research. For instance, not every country collects data on COVID-19 in the same way, making it difficult to draw reliable estimates and comparisons. Similarly, the number of SARS-CoV-2 tests each country carried out varies wildly.

Overall, though, the scientists conclude that seasonality is unlikely to play a significant role in the epidemiology of COVID-19.

Their take-home message is that “[o]nly area-wide public health interventions were consistently associated with reduced epidemic growth, and the greater the number of co-occurring public health interventions, the larger the reduction in growth.“

Source: MedicalNews Today

How the heart changes our sensory perception

A new study helps explain why our sensitivity to external sensory stimuli fluctuates with the beating of our hearts.

According to popular culture, the brain and heart work in opposition to each other. The brain is the seat of rational, objective thought, while the heart is emotional and intuitive.

In reality, the activity of the two organs is intimately connected, with neither having a monopoly on reason or emotion.

Our hearts beat faster when we think about something exciting or frightening, for example. Conversely, an early morning jog can brighten our mood as our heart and lungs work harder.

A new study adds to evidence that the brain’s sensitivity to external sensory stimuli changes in step with the beating of the heart.

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, and the Berlin School of Mind and Brain, both in Germany, set out to investigate this relationship.

Their study features in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

Mild electric shocks

The scientists recruited 37 volunteers and carried out a total of 960 trials. In 800 of these, they gave the participant a mild electric shock to either the middle or index finger of their left hand. The volunteers indicated when they detected the stimulus, and in which finger they felt it.

The researchers told the participants that every trial contained a stimulus, but in the remaining 160 trials, there was no such stimulus.

During each trial, the researchers used electroencephalography (EEG) to record electrical activity in the brain and electrocardiography (EKG) to record the electrical activity of the heart.

They discovered two mechanisms that they believe underpin how the heart influences sensory perception.

The first shows how the phase of the heartbeat might change conscious experience.

Previous research by the same scientists found that during systole, when the heart pumps blood around the body, people are less able to detect and localize a weak electric shock than they are during diastole, when the heart is refilling with blood.

The new study linked this change in sensitivity to a distinctive feature of the brain’s electrical activity known as the P300, which relates to consciousness.

It seems that the P300 signals the extent to which a sensory stimulus is “surprising.” The signal is larger when the stimulus is unexpected, making it more worthy of conscious attention.

The researchers found that the P300 signal dipped during systole. They believe that this may be because the pulse of raised blood pressure that sweeps through the body when the heart contracts is a predictable stimulus that does not merit conscious attention.

It is also important that people do not confuse internal, self-generated stimuli, such as the heartbeat, with external stimuli.

However, the weakened P300 in the brain during systole seems to have the knock-on effect of reducing our sensitivity to sensory stimuli that coincide with it.

External or internal focus

The second, related mechanism that connects the heart and sensory perception appears to depend on whether the focus of our attention is inward or outward.

Another distinctive feature of the brain’s electrical activity, known as the heartbeat-evoked potential (HEP), reflects how consciously aware of our heartbeat we are at that moment.

The researchers discovered that when the volunteers’ HEP was strong, they were worse at detecting and localizing the electric shocks.

“This seems to be a result of directing our attention between external environmental signals and internal bodily signals,” explains Esra Al, who led the research.

The brain can rapidly switch conscious attention between internal sensations, such as breathing or heartbeat, and external sensations. It seems that we cannot focus on both simultaneously, though.

Beyond its curiosity value, the new research may also have implications for healthcare.

After a heart attack or stroke, the usual two way communication between heart and brain may become impaired.

“The new results might help to explain why patients after stroke often suffer from cardiac problems and why patients with cardiac disease often have impaired cognitive function,” says senior author Arno Villringer.

Source: MedicalNews Today

Study identifies possible antibody to new coronavirus

New research has identified an antibody that may be effective in treating and preventing coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19).

A new study has identified an antibody that may be valuable in responding to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The antibody has the potential to help treat the disease, as well as to reduce the chances of contracting the infection that causes it.

The research has been published in the journal Nature Communications, and it was led by scientists from three institutions in the Netherlands: Utrecht University, the Erasmus Medical Center, and the pharmaceutical company Harbour BioMed.

Antibodies

Since the emergence of the virus that causes COVID-19 — called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) — and the rapid spread of the disease throughout the world, scientists have been researching ways to fight back.

While much attention has focused on the creation of a vaccine that would enable the body to develop its own antibodies to the virus, researchers have also been working to develop the antibodies themselves, which could then be injected to help people combat the infection.

Previous research has shown that antibodies can help treat illnesses caused by similar viruses, so a SARS-CoV-2 antibody may help inhibit the infection until a vaccine is developed.

Generally, antibodies work by stopping a virus from infecting the cells of a host organism. According to the present study, the newly identified antibody stops SARS-CoV-2 from infecting cells by targeting the spike proteins on the virus’ surface that allow it to gain access to the cells of the host.

Antibodies are usually developed in nonhuman species. Researchers then take steps to make them effective within humans. However, the team has developed the new antibodies in a way that will not require “humanizing” them first.

A COVID-19 treatment?

While translating these findings into an effective COVID-19 treatment will require more research and testing, the initial discovery is valuable.

According to co-supervising study author Prof. Frank Grosveld, “This discovery provides a strong foundation for additional research to characterize this antibody and begin development as a potential COVID-19 treatment.”

“The antibody used in this work is ‘fully human,’ allowing development to proceed more rapidly and reducing the potential for immune-related side effects.”

Previously, the researchers had studied the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, in 2002–2003. The coronavirus responsible for this disease has many similarities to SARS-CoV-2, so the scientists were able to build on their earlier research as they worked to identify a SARS-CoV-2 antibody.

According to the study’s other co-supervising author, Berend-Jan Bosch, Ph.D., “Using this collection of SARS-CoV antibodies, we identified an antibody that also neutralizes infection of SARS-CoV-2 in cultured cells.”

“Such a neutralizing antibody has potential to alter the course of infection in the infected host, support virus clearance, or protect an uninfected individual that is exposed to the virus.”

Because the antibody is able to neutralize both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, it may also be valuable for treating similar coronaviruses that may emerge in the future.

For Bosch, “This cross-neutralizing feature of the antibody is very interesting and suggests it may have potential in mitigation of diseases caused by future-emerging, related coronaviruses.”

Dr. Jingsong Wang, the founder and CEO of Harbour BioMed, acknowledges: “This is groundbreaking research. Much more work is needed to assess whether this antibody can protect or reduce the severity of disease in humans.”

“We expect to advance development of the antibody with partners. We believe our technology can contribute to addressing this most urgent public health need, and we are pursuing several other research avenues.”
– Dr. Jingsong Wang

Source: MedicalNews Today 

COVID-19: Study highlights sources of misinformation

A study finds that those who learn about the new coronavirus from conservative outlets, social media, and online news aggregators are more likely to be misinformed.

Though the new coronavirus that causes COVID-19 is still relatively new, people already know much about it, including its means of transmission, and how we can slow that transmission down.

Conveying this information to the public, however, can be difficult. Now, a study of more than 1,000 people in the United States finds that their understanding of SARS-CoV-2 closely aligns with the sources of their information.

People in the U.S. who learned about COVID-19 from conservative outlets, social media, and online news aggregators are more often misinformed about the disease, the research concludes.

Stay informed with live updates on the current COVID-19 outbreak and visit our coronavirus hub for more advice on prevention and treatment.

The study from researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, appears in the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review’s April 2020 issue.

The study reports the results of a survey that the researchers conducted from March 3 to March 8, 2020, with a nationally representative sample of 1,008 U.S. adults. The survey’s results have a margin of error of ±3.57%.

Good news, bad news

On a positive note, the survey found that 87% of respondents understood the importance of thorough hand washing as a means to stop the spread of COVID-19.

The survey also found, however, some troubling misconceptions that significant numbers of respondents held:

• 23%, or more than 1 in 5 participants, considered it either probably or definitely true that the Chinese government developed COVID-19 as a bioweapon.
• 10%, or 1 in 10, thought the same of the U.S. government.
• 19%, almost 1 in 5, thought it was probably or definitely true that some at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) exaggerated the degree of danger that the disease posed, as part of a plot to prevent Donald Trump’s election for a second term as President.
• 21%, 1 in 5, believed that taking vitamin C could probably or definitely prevent infection.

There is no evidence that any of these beliefs are accurate.

Comparing information sources

The researchers surveyed respondents about their use of the following sources of information: Mainstream print, mainstream broadcast, conservative media, liberal media, online news aggregators, and social media.

The scientists then grouped the respondents’ answers in the following three categories:

1. Mainstream media, such as network news and publications, including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.
2. Conservative outlets, including Fox News and commentators such as Rush Limbaugh.
3. Social media, including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, as well as web news aggregators, such as Google News and Yahoo News.

Consumers of mainstream media

Overall, the survey found that those who got their information from mainstream outlets were generally better informed.

• Individuals who specifically reported using broadcast mainstream news understood that COVID-19 is more lethal than seasonal flu.
• Those who reported using print mainstream news believed that regular hand washing and avoiding symptomatic people were good prevention strategies. Notably, the survey occurred before scientists had confirmed the ability of asymptomatic individuals to spread the virus.
• People who used print media did not believe vitamin C was an effective defense against COVID-19, that CDC warnings were exaggerated or had anything to do with politics, or that China had created the virus as a bioweapon.

Consumers of conservative media

Followers of conservative media were more likely to hold inaccurate opinions about SARS-CoV-2 and to believe conspiracy theories.

• They believed SARS-CoV-2 began as a Chinese bioweapon, and that they could take vitamin C to stay healthy.
• They did not believe the disease posed a personal threat but thought others were using it as a political weapon against Donald Trump.

Consumers of social media and web news aggregators

Respondents in these groups together were similar, though divided:

• Social media respondents believed that the threat of coronavirus was a politically motivated hoax from the CDC, that the Chinese deliberately created the virus, and that vitamin C was the secret cure.
• Respondents who frequented web news aggregators were unconvinced that hand washing had value, or that steering clear of symptomatic individuals was worth doing.

Recommendations

The study’s authors suggest five steps that public health officials should consider taking to combat COVID-19 disinformation. These are:

1. Recognizing that there remain some who discount the value of hand washing, and the dissemination of compelling evidence for the practice should continue.
2. Developing standards for patrolling social media and catching and convincingly refuting misinformation before it has the chance to take root.
3. Strategically supplying fact-checking personnel with information that debunks the most prevalent misconceptions first, to maximize the use of resources.
4. Supplying conservative outlets with more accurate information through the placing of public service announcements, supplying persuasive interview subjects, and promoting websites where consumers can find accurate information.
5. Encouraging online subscription news outlets to take down their paywalls around COVID-19 content to make accurate information accessible to the largest audience.

Source: MedicalNews Today

Review says MMR vaccine is effective, does not cause autism

A new review of data from more than 20 million children shows that the MMR vaccine, which protects against measles, mumps, and rubella, is effective and not associated with autism.

Health authorities licensed the MMR vaccine for use in 1971 after tests showed that adverse reactions from the combined vaccine were no greater than any from the existing, single vaccines.

Governments have since rolled the vaccine out across the globe, leading to the eradication of measles in many countries, including the United States.

Despite this, the vaccine has been the subject of much controversy, in particular, due to a 1998 study linking the vaccine to autism. The study was later shown to be fraudulent and was discredited, but not before it received wide publicity, leading to public misconceptions about the vaccine.

An updated review of the evidence has now confirmed that the MMR vaccine is effective and not associated with autism.

The Cochrane Library, which surveys medical research to help health professionals make evidence-based decisions, has published the review.

Updating the evidence

The latest analysis follows a 2012 review, which concluded that there was good evidence for the safety and effectiveness of the MMR vaccine. This 2020 update includes 74 new studies that researchers have published since 2012.

“We wanted to assess the effectiveness, safety, and long- and short-term harms of the MMR vaccines in this updated review,” explains lead author, Dr. Carlo Di Pietrantonj of Italy’s Regional Epidemiology Unit, SeREMI.

The updated review includes data on three types of vaccine: MMR; MMRV, which is a combined vaccine that also protects against chickenpox (known clinically as varicella); and MMR+V, which is when healthcare professionals give the MMR vaccine and chickenpox vaccine separately but at the same appointment.

In total, the review included 138 studies with data from 23 million children. Some 63% of the studies assessed potential harms from the vaccines (13 million children), while the remaining 37% (10 million children) looked at how effective the vaccines were at preventing the respective diseases.

Effective at preventing disease

The review found that one dose of the MMR vaccine was 72% effective in preventing mumps, which can cause flu-like symptoms and severe swelling of the salivary glands.

Success rates increase to 86% after two doses of the vaccine. From the data the review analyzed, the number of mumps cases would fall from roughly 7% unvaccinated children to 1% of children when they received two doses of the MMR vaccine.

For measles, the success rates are much higher. The review found that just one dose of the vaccine would prevent 95% of cases. Receiving two doses of the vaccine is similarly effective and would prevent a further 1% of cases. Vaccinating children with just one dose of MMR would reduce the overall number of measles cases from 7% to below 0.5%, the statistics show.

One dose of the vaccine was found to be 89% effective in preventing rubella.

Rubella causes a rash in children but can be serious if a woman contracts it during pregnancy, potentially leading to miscarriage or causing deafness in the child.

Data on chickenpox, meanwhile, showed that two doses of the vaccine can prevent 95% of cases, even after 10 years. However, the data on chickenpox was from just one study.

Safe for mass immunization

While clearly effective at preventing viral disease, there are risks from vaccination. Some children may develop a fever or rash following vaccination, for example.

The researchers also identified certain associations with the MMR vaccines, such as experiencing fits due to high temperature and a blood clotting condition called idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura.

However, the research team says the risk of these occurring (less than a 1% chance in both cases) is much lower than the risks that the diseases themselves pose.

The scientists also wanted to look specifically at other risks that the public perceives, such as autism.

“We wanted to look at evidence for specific harms that have been linked with these vaccines in public debate — often without rigorous scientific evidence as a basis,” explains Dr. Pietrantonj.

The review summarizes data from two studies with almost 1.2 million children that show that the rates of autism diagnosis are similar in those receiving the MMR vaccine and those who do not.

The researchers also found no evidence for a connection with a host of other diseases the public has previously linked to the vaccine, including encephalitis, diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, and asthma.

On the basis of this data, the scientists continue to recommend the MMR vaccines for global use.

“Overall, we think that existing evidence on the safety and effectiveness of MMR/MMRV/MMR+V vaccines supports their use for mass immunization,” says Dr. Pietrantonj.

The Cochrane study is an important reminder of the efficacy and importance of the MMR vaccine, particularly in the fight against measles.

Despite the availability of the vaccine, more than 140,000 people died from measles in 2018 alone, data from the World Health Organization (WHO) show.

Measles remains a leading cause of death in children and there are concerns about a growing number of cases, partly due to anti-vaccination movements.

Reported cases have increased by more than 30% worldwide since 2016, while 2019 saw the greatest number of cases in the U.S. in 28 years.

These trends are of serious concern for child health. The data from this latest research may provide reassuring evidence on the safety and effectiveness of the MMR vaccine, while supporting continuing efforts to eliminate the disease worldwide.

Source: MedicalNews Today