Mother’s ultra-processed food intake linked to obesity risk in children; Unlikely during peripregnancy

A mother’s consumption of ultra-processed foods appears to be linked to an increased risk of overweight or obesity in her offspring, irrespective of other lifestyle risk factors, suggests a US study.

Researchers suggest that mothers might benefit from limiting their intake of ultra-processed foods, and that dietary guidelines should be refined and financial and social barriers removed to improve nutrition for women of child bearing age and reduce childhood obesity.

According to the World Health Organization, 39 million children were overweight or obese in 2020, leading to increased risks of heart disease, diabetes, cancers, and early death.

Ultra-processed foods, such as packaged baked goods and snacks, fizzy drinks and sugary cereals, are commonly found in modern Western style diets and are associated with weight gain in adults. But it’s unclear whether there’s a link between a mother’s consumption of ultra-processed foods and her offspring’s body weight.

To explore this further, the researchers drew on data for 19,958 children born to 14,553 mothers (45% boys, aged 7-17 years at study enrollment) from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II) and the Growing Up Today Study (GUTS I and II) in the United States.

pregnant lady

pregnant lady/Commons.wikimedia.org

The NHS II is an ongoing study tracking the health and lifestyles of 116,429 US female registered nurses aged 25-42 in 1989. From 1991, participants reported what they ate and drank, using validated food frequency questionnaires every four years.

The GUTS I study began in 1996 when 16,882 children (aged 8-15 years) of NHS II participants completed an initial health and lifestyle questionnaire and were monitored every year between 1997 and 2001, and every two years thereafter.

In 2004, 10,918 children (aged 7-17 years) of NHS II participants joined the extended GUTS II study and were followed up in 2006, 2008, and 2011, and every two years thereafter.

A range of other potentially influential factors, known to be strongly correlated with childhood obesity, were also taken into account. These included mother’s weight (BMI), physical activity, smoking, living status (with partner or not), and partner’s education, as well as children’s ultra-processed food consumption, physical activity, and sedentary time.

Overall, 2471 (12%) children developed overweight or obesity during an average follow-up period of 4 years.

The results show that a mother’s ultra-processed food consumption was associated with an increased risk of overweight or obesity in her offspring. For example, a 26% higher risk was seen in the group with the highest maternal ultra-processed food consumption (12.1 servings/day) versus the lowest consumption group (3.4 servings/day).

In a separate analysis of 2790 mothers and 2925 children with information on diet from 3 months pre-conception to delivery (peripregnancy), the researchers found that peripregnancy ultra-processed food intake was not significantly associated with an increased risk of offspring overweight or obesity.

This is an observational study, so can’t establish cause and the researchers acknowledge that some of the observed risk may be due to other unmeasured factors, and that self-reported diet and weight measures might be subject to misreporting.

Other important limitations include the fact that some offspring participants were lost to follow-up, which resulted in a few of the analyses being underpowered, particularly those related to peripregnancy intake, and that mothers were predominantly white and from similar social and economic backgrounds, so the results may not apply to other groups.

Nevertheless, the study used data from several large ongoing studies with detailed dietary assessments over a relatively long period, and further analysis produced consistent associations, suggesting that the results are robust.

The researchers suggest no clear mechanism underlying these associations and say the area warrants further investigation.

Nevertheless, these data “support the importance of refining dietary recommendations and the development of programs to improve nutrition for women of reproductive age to promote offspring health,” they conclude.

Also Read:

Air pollution is more dangerous for women than men: Study

Neanderthal gene in modern women helps give birth to more children, says study

Frozen embryo transfers linked with high blood pressure risks in pregnancy; What is sibling comparison?

Why WHO Optimistic About Oxford Covid-19 Vaccine? How Others Stack at AZD1222?

Finally, a Covid-19 vaccine developed by Oxford University’s Jenner Institute and licensed to the multinational pharmaceutical company, AstraZeneca has emerged as the favourite of World Health Organization scientists out of about 23 vaccines in their Phase III trial, after reporting success and safety in the first two phases.

For India, this vaccine is important as AstraZeneca, among others, had entered a deal with Pune-based Serum Institute of India to supply one billion doses for low-and-middle-Income countries, with first 400 million to be produced before the end of 2020. Its other global facilities will produce 300 million doses for the US.

Between April 23-May 21, Oxford University with AstraZeneca conducted human trials of the vaccine – where 1,077 volunteers were given the AZD1222 shot and all of them developed protective neutralizing antibodies as well as T-cells (T lymphocytes) which multiplied to attack any pathogen inside the human system. The participants were aged between 18 and 55 and split roughly 50-50 between male and female. Ninety-one percent of them were white, while roughly 5% were Asian, and fewer than 1% were Black.

While AZD1222 enters the next phase III of the clinical trials, the results published in The Lancet medical journal, show that the Covid-19 vaccine prompted no serious side effects among the people who received two doses so far, which has promted the WHO Chief Scientist Michael Ryan, the World Health Organization’s health emergencies chief to say: “We now need to move into larger scale, real-world trials, but it is good to see more data, more products moving in to this very important phase of vaccine discovery.” See the video below from 19:30 for WHO remarks on Oxford vaccine:

The next stage — Phase III — trial will be conducted in the US on 30,000 patients, besides those “in low-to-middle income countries including Brazil and South Africa which are already underway,” the university has said in a release.

Sarah Gilbert, professor of vaccinology at Oxford University, had earlier informed that 8,000 volunteers were enrolled for the Phase III trial which will assess how the vaccine works in a large number of people over the age of 18, and how well the vaccine works to prevent them from the infection. However, it will take a year to conclusively determine if the vaccine offers long-term protection or not.

“There is still much work to be done before we can confirm if our vaccine will help manage the COVID-19 pandemic… We still do not know how strong an immune response we need to provoke to effectively protect against Sars-Cov-2 infection,” said Gilbert.

Indian Serum Institute Role 

Pascal Soriot, chief executive of AstraZeneca, said the company was on track to be producing doses by September. While the Oxford University will have intellectual property rights, Pune-based Serum Institute of India will emerge as a major supplier.

The data, published in the medical journal the Lancet, showed that the vaccine caused side effects such as fever, headaches, muscle aches, and injection site reactions, in about 60% of patients, which are deemed mild and not dangerous for any vaccine.

The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine AZD1222 has finally emerged as a relatively safe vaccine in view of similar results or data from others is still awaited from 22 other contestants who are in Phase III trial. In case its immediate rival vaccine from the Chinese biotech CanSino, the Phase 2 results showed that this vaccine works better in some people and not equally efficient among those aged 55 and older, a key target for Covid-19 vaccination.

Advantages of Oxford vaccine over Moderna vaccine

While the AZD1222 vaccine went on trials from April 30 with a 10,000-patient study in the United Kingdom, another 5,000-patient test began in Brazil in June and the current phase 3 results could become available in September, October, or November, said Astra-Zeneca.

AZD1222 has another advantage as it needs to be kept cold, but not frozen, whereas the messenger RNA vaccines work on the body’s genetic messaging system to provoke an immune response. The mRNA vaccines, developed by Moderna, the German firm BioNTech and the drug giant Pfizer, increased levels of neutralizing antibodies in patients.

WHO Scientist Michael Ryan announcing the Oxford vaccine trial results at a press conference Monday, July 20, 2020 (WHO)

AZD1222 works differently using a genetically engineered virus, called adenovirus, which was taken from chimps and modified not to replicate and sicken people. It carries a gene for one of the proteins in SARS-Cov-2 and inserts it into a recipient’s cells, which in turn, cause the patient’s cells to make that protein, which is then recognized by the immune system as foreign. This mechanism was not there in the past but has been used in experimental vaccines such as the Ebola virus and the virus that causes Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

Oxford vaccine vs CanSino

The next rival CanSino, also into its Phase 3 trial, is a viral vector vaccine that uses a live but weakened human cold virus, adenovirus 5 — known as Ad5 for short — to develop immune system of the body to recognize the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Its focus is on the Ad5 parts of the vaccine rather than the SARS-Cov-2 and many research groups have stopped it over concerns about preexisting immunity, which can run to 70% or higher in some populations.

CanSino Phase 2 trial essentially showed that those who had no or low-level pre-existing immunity to Ad5 developed neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 at roughly double the rate of people who had high-level preexisting immunity, especially in people aged 55 and older. CanSino has dropped the higher dose.

Kathryn Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program in Nashville, Tenn., noted the CanSino vaccine may not be protective enough for older adults, but it might be useful in children. However, the CanSino vaccine has already received an emergency license in China for use in the military.

UN, WHO create new fund for Coronavirus

A new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Solidarity Response Fund to raise money from donors to support the World Health Organization (WHO) respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, the first-of-its-kind, has been created by the United Nations Foundation and the Swiss Philanthropy Foundation, together with WHO.

The fund has already lined up support from Facebook and Google who have instituted a matching scheme for funds raised through their platforms, while individual donors are also supporting the fund through www.COVID19ResponseFund.org.

“We need everyone to get involved in this massive effort to keep the world safe,” said Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “A lot of people and institutions have been saying they want to contribute to the fight against the novel coronavirus. Now they can.”

 

Elizabeth Cousens, UN Foundation President and CEO said, “The case for global cooperation could not be clearer – communities everywhere are affected, and people want to contribute. This new fund will create space for people everywhere, together, to fight this virus.”

Funds will go towards enabling the COVID-19 Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan to enable all countries – particularly those most vulnerable and at-risk, and with the weakest health systems – to prepare for and respond to the COVID-19 crisis such as rapidly detecting cases, stopping transmission of the virus, and caring for those affected.

WHO is seeking financing for protective equipment for frontline health workers; to equip diagnostic laboratories; improve surveillance and data collection; establish and maintain intensive care units; strengthen supply chains; accelerate research and development of vaccines and therapeutics;  and take other critical steps to scale up the public health response to the pandemic.

All donations made to the COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund are tax-deductible to the extent allowable by local laws. Swiss Philanthropy Foundation has also partnered with Transnational Giving Europe to extend tax benefit to European countries where applicable.

Increasing Public Expenditure on Healthcare

The Twelfth Five Year Plan projected to increase total public fund, plan and non-plan on core health to 1.87 per cent of GDP by the end of Twelfth Plan. The National Health Policy, 2017 envisages increasing public expenditure on health to 2.5% of GDP in a time bound manner by 2025.

As per WHO Global Health Expenditure database 2014, the expenditure on healthcare for BRICS is China (3%), the Russian Federation (4%), Brazil (4%) and South Africa (4%) of Gross Domestic Product. The Government spending on healthcare in India as a percentage of GDP has increased from 1.16% in 2004-05 (Actual) to 1.4% in 2016-17 (BE) as per Economic Survey.

The allocation of funds for health sector is based inter-alia, on the availability of resources and competing claims on these resources. An increase in economic growth makes available increased resources for funding the health sector. In addition to this, availability of overall resources, past utilization, requirements and absorptive capacity inter-alia guide the allocations to the health sector.

The Minister of State (Health and Family Welfare), Smt Anupriya Patel stated this in a written reply in the Rajya Sabha here today.

Trial Results Show Ebola Vaccine Developed by Merck is Working: WHO

The World Health Organization (WHO) has said that an experimental Ebola vaccine has been found to be highly protective against the deadly virus in a major trial in Guinea.

WHO said that an international vaccine-focussed organization, GAVI, provided $5 million to Merck, and the medical firm committed to ensure that 300,000 doses of the vaccine are available for emergency use in the interim, and to submit the vaccine for licensure by the end of 2017.
Merck has also submitted the vaccine to WHO’s Emergency Use and Assessment Listing procedure, a mechanism through which experimental vaccines, medicines and diagnostics can be made available for use prior to formal licensure.

“The vaccine is the first to prevent infection from one of the most lethal known pathogens, and the findings add weight to early trial results published last year,” WHO said in a release, noting the results of the latest trial, published in the medical journal The Lancet.

According to WHO, the vaccine, rVSV-ZEBOV was studied in a trial involving 11,841 people in Guinea during 2015. Among the 5,837 people who received the vaccine, no Ebola cases were recorded 10 days or more after vaccination. In comparison, there were 23 cases 10 days or more after vaccination among those who did not receive the vaccine.

“While these compelling results come too late for those who lost their lives during West Africa’s Ebola epidemic, they show that when the next Ebola outbreak hits, we will not be defenceless,” said Dr. Marie-Paule Kieny, WHO’ Assistant Director-General for Health Systems and Innovation, and the study’s lead author.

The Ebola virus was first identified in 1976 and caused sporadic outbreaks in Africa. However, the 2013-2016 outbreak in west Africa, that killed more than 11,300 people, underlined the urgent need of a vaccine.

The trial took place in the coastal region of Basse-Guinée, the area of Guinea still experiencing new Ebola cases when the trial started in 2015.

It employed an innovative design, a so-called “ring vaccination” approach – the same method used to eradicate small pox. This involved tracing all people who may have been in contact with a new Ebola case within the previous three weeks as well as certain “contacts of contacts.” These “rings” were randomized to receive the vaccine either immediately or after a three-week delay.

However, the authors note that the trial was not designed to measure this effect, so more research will be needed.

Life Expectancy: Indian women live longer than men

Life expectancy has escalated to a great extent since 1990 as people even in poor nations are living longer than ever, though many of them struggling with sickness and age-old ailments, finds a new study.

In India, between 1990 and 2013, life expectancy for men and women has elevated by 6.9 years and 10.3 years, respectively.

Photo Credit: Pedro Ribeiro Simões

This new study was conducted in 188 countries by an international research team working on a project called “Global Burden of Disease” and headed by Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington.

Owing to the deterioration of mortality and illness rates due to HIV/AIDS and malaria in the last ten years, health has enhanced to a great deal across the globe. Apart from this, meeting contagious, maternal, newborn and nutritive conditions, effectively has also added to the enhancement.

Nevertheless, healthy life expectancy (HALE) at birth hasn’t seen much improvement, thus; making those who live longer live sicker.

Theo Vos, the professor of IHME as well as who lead the study said albeit health has seen a global advancement it’s time that “more effective ways” to treat and combat disorders and diseases are discovered.

The study discovered that global life expectancy and healthy life expectancy for both genders escalated by 6.2 years and 5.4 years, respectively. However, in comparison to the life expectancy that increased from 65.3 in 1990 to 71.5 in 2013, healthy life expectancy didn’t see a drastic leap with 56.9 in 1990 to 62.3 in 2013.

Majority of the evaluated nations showed “significant and positive” healthy life expectancy changes. However, Belize, Botswana and Syria didn’t show drastic changes in HALE in 2013 as compared to 1990 with the first two nations, showing regression of 2 and 1.3 years, respectively.

In other cases, countries like Paraguay, Belarus and South Africa saw a deterioration in healthy life expectancy. For instance, places like Swaziland and Lesotho in Africa and South Africa, respectively, saw healthy life expectancy drop in individuals born in 2013 as compared to them who were born 20 years before.

People of Cambodia and Nicaragua showed gripping escalation between 1990 and 2013 with 13.9 and 14.7 years, respectively.

Nonetheless, Ethiopia was pin-pointed as one of the nations that have been giving massive efforts to make sure that their country people live both healthier and longer. For instance, in 1990, the healthy life expectancy of an Ethiopian was 40.8 years, but by 2013 with 13.5 years leap, it saw over a two-fold increase to 54.3 years.

Christopher Murray, who is the IHME director said albeit “income and education” play important roles in ensuring proper health, it doesn’t “tell the full story,” adding that weighing both healthy life expectancy and health loss on each sides at country level will facilitate “guide policies” in ensuring longer and healthier lives in every nook and cranny of the world.

Italy, Spain, Norway, Switzerland and Israel showed the lowest rates of health loss. With 42 years, in 2013, Lesotho recorded the lowest healthy life expectancy whereas with 73.4 years, Japan recorded the highest healthy life expectancy.

The findings have been published in the August 27 issue of the journal “The Lancet”.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Europe showed stagnation in showing better life expectancy during the 1990s, but after 1990 when life expectancy increased by 6 years around the world, Europe also saw some increase.

On the other hand, African nations have been showing a drop in life expectancy due to being plagued by HIV/AIDS, but now with the accessibility of antiretroviral therapy, the rates have seen an escalation. For instance, in 2000, standard life expectancy at birth was 50 years, but it saw an 8 year leap in 2013.

WHO further informed that high-income nations showed greater life expectancy at 60 years of age with expectation of the individual, living another 23 years in comparison to low-income and lower-middle income nations, which showed 17 more years of life expectancy.