Huge Study Reveals 2 Vaccines That Appear to Reduce Dementia Risk
How the medicine might do that is a mystery scientists are desperate to solve. A new study on two vaccines for older adults gives us a crucial clue.
The retrospective cohort study included more than 130,000 people in the US. It reveals that the shingles vaccine (called Shingrix) and the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine (Arexyv) are associated with a reduced risk of dementia compared to the annual flu vaccine.
Related:
Both Shingrix and Arexyv are recommended for older adults, and they contain the AS01 adjuvant, which helps stimulate the immune system after vaccination. The flu vaccine does not.
Because the link to dementia was noticed soon after receiving the jab, it's unlikely that the vaccines' protection from direct viral exposure is behind the dementia link.
Instead, the findings from the University of Oxford suggest "that the AS01 adjuvant itself plays a direct role in lowering dementia risk."
Within 18 months of receiving just the Shingrix vaccine, participants showed an 18 percent reduction in dementia risk compared to those who received only the flu vaccine.
Meanwhile, those who received the RSV vaccine showed a 29 percent reduction in dementia risk compared to the flu vaccine.
Participants who received both the Shingrix and the Arexyv vaccine showed a 37 percent reduction in risk.
This combined effect was not statistically greater than one vaccine on its own. In other words, protection from two viruses didn't significantly increase the protection against dementia.
The findings suggest that some vaccines "protect against dementia through mechanisms unrelated to (or at least in addition to) the prevention of their [target virus]", write the study authors, led by psychiatrist Maxime Taquet from the University of Oxford.
If that's true, then certain vaccines may protect against dementia by triggering important pathways in the immune system.
The conclusions align with an emerging hypothesis: that dementia is not actually a brain disease but a disorder of the immune system within the brain.
Perhaps vaccines can help get that system up and running again, even if a threatening virus never comes along.
In recent years, studies have shown that exposure to several common viruses, like those behind cold sores, shingles, mono, pneumonia, and COVID-19, can lead to a higher risk of cognitive decline down the road. Moreover, vaccines seem to reduce that risk by a significant amount.
But why that is has remained a mystery.
In 2024, for instance, a study from the United Kingdom found that Shingrix delayed dementia onset by 17 percent compared to older, less effective shingles vaccines.
At the time, this was interpreted as indicating that the more effective a shingles vaccine is at reducing viral exposure, the more the brain is protected against cognitive decline.
This older version of the shingles vaccine (called Zostavax), however, doesn't include the AS01 immune-booster, and that may have influenced the results.
In the US, it is generally recommended that adults over the age 50 receive two doses of the shingles vaccine to protect themselves against the varicella-zoster virus. This is the same virus that causes chicken pox, and it can lie latent in the brain for years before re-emerging in adults.
It is also recommended that adults over age 75 receive the RSV vaccine.
Both of these vaccines can protect from dangerous infections, but it seems that may not be all they do.
"It is likely that both the AS01 shingles and RSV vaccines provide some protection against dementia," conclude Taquet and his colleagues.
"The mechanisms underpinning this protection remain to be determined."
Vaccines have saved a staggering 154 million lives around the world in the last half century from deadly viruses.
If we're lucky, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
The study was published in npj Vaccines.
Related News
One Dietary Supplement Shown to Reduce Aggression by Up to 28%
Do Women Need More Sleep Than Men? Here's The Science.
Virus Traces Discovered in The Brain Lining of People With Schizophrenia
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
Clinical Case: Kidney Cancer Hides in 6-mm Breast Lesion
A 54-year-old woman with a history of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) developed a metastatic lesion in her breast 6 years after radical nephrectomy. The lesion, initially detected via routine imaging, was confirmed as RCC by histopathology and immunohistochemistry. This case report by Aman Saswat Sahoo, a fourth-year Medicine & Surgery undergraduate at the University of Central Lancashire, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Preston, England, and colleagues, highlighted the need for meticulous diagnostic evaluation to distinguish between primary breast carcinoma and metastatic disease, particularly in patients with a history of RCC. The Patient and Her History The patient had a history of RCC that was initially treated with radical nephrectomy and no chemotherapy. She had undergone regular CT imaging since her surgery 3 years ago, and routine CT identified a 4-mm lesion in the lower outer quadrant of the right breast. No other relevant preexisting medical conditions were reported. Her medical, family, travel, allergy, social, and drug histories were unremarkable. Findings and Diagnosis A clinical examination revealed no palpable abnormalities in both breasts. Mammography revealed a 6-mm nodule in the posterolateral region of the right breast, which was absent on a prior mammogram conducted 4 years earlier. Ultrasound imaging confirmed the presence of a solid nodule measuring approximately 5 mm in size. Ultrasound evaluation correlated these findings with a 5-mm benign-appearing nodule. A core biopsy was performed, and histopathologic evaluation showed an inflammatory lesion, characterised by cells with clear cytoplasm and macrophages. Considering the initial diagnosis, immunohistochemical staining provided crucial diagnostic clarity, with positive results for PAX8, CD10, and MNF116 markers, confirming metastatic RCC. Given the patient's history, these findings confirmed the presence of metastatic RCC in the right breast. The patient was informed of the diagnosis of metastatic RCC in the right breast. Further assessment of distant sites and the potential for systemic therapy were discussed at this stage; however, it was later decided that no systemic interventions would be pursued. Although the lesion was considered minor in terms of surgical intervention, its identification is crucial as an indicator of metastatic disease. Wide local excision was performed after tagging the lesion with a radiofrequency identification tag located 3 mm inferior to the original site; no axillary surgery was performed. Postoperative histopathologic evaluation revealed a 5-mm well-circumscribed metastatic RCC. No vascular invasion, ductal carcinoma in situ, or lobular carcinoma in situ was identified. Discussion Although RCC is prominent in its ability to spread haematogenously, metastasis to the breast is extremely uncommon. The route for metastasis usually includes the migration of tumour cells from the kidneys through the inferior vena cava to the right ventricle of the heart. From here on, they enter the pulmonary circulation and eventually reach the breast. Breast metastasis from RCC is exceedingly rare, with fewer than 60 cases documented in the literature. Although the risk for RCC recurrence is highest within the first 2 years following treatment, metastases to uncommon sites, such as the breast, have been reported even a decade after the initial diagnosis and surgical intervention. 'The limited information available in the literature regarding optimal treatment strategies and patient outcomes for RCC metastasis to the breast highlights the need for further studies to better understand this condition,' the authors wrote.
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
Cancer Care Costs High Among Privately Insured Patients
TOPLINE: A recent analysis found that privately insured US patients with newly diagnosed cancer, especially those with more advanced disease, had 'substantial out-of-pocket costs.' Monthly out-of-pocket costs among these patients increased by a mean of almost $600, on average, but increased to nearly $720 per month for those with stage IV disease. METHODOLOGY: Out-of-pocket costs for cancer care in the US are rising, but most research has focused on Medicare beneficiaries. It's important to understand privately insured patients' financial burdens, especially with cancer rates growing among younger Americans. Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 19,656 patients with cancer, using a dataset that links claims from a large private insurer to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry. Overall, 74.1% had breast cancer, 14.5% had colorectal cancer, and 11.4% had lung cancer. Analyses also included 26,502 individuals without cancer who were assigned pseudo – diagnosis date. Monthly out-of-pocket costs (copays, co-insurance, and deductibles) were calculated from claims and inflation-adjusted to 2024 US dollars. TAKEAWAY: After a cancer diagnosis, monthly out-of-pocket costs rose by $592, on average. Those added costs increased with disease stage, from $462 per month for stage 0 cancer to $720 per month for stage IV cancer. Out-of-pocket costs spiked in the month of diagnosis and remained elevated for 6 months compared with those in individuals without cancer — totaling an average of $4145 in cumulative additional costs (over 7 months). IN PRACTICE: 'In this cohort study, patients with private insurance were found to have high OOPCs [out-of-pocket costs] after an incident diagnosis of cancer, and those with the most advanced cancer had the highest OOPCs,' the authors wrote. 'The variability in OOPCs based on cancer stage underscores the need for policies such as paid sick leave, that address both insurance continuity and financial assistance, especially for patients with more advanced cancer.' SOURCE: This study, led by Liam Rose, PhD, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, was published online in JAMA Network Open. LIMITATIONS: Differential insurance attrition could have affected the results: Patients with stage IV cancer were most likely to drop their coverage. The study could only capture direct medical costs, which misses other potential financial burdens, such as lost income and travel expenses. DISCLOSURES: This study received funding support through a grant from the American Cancer Society. One author reported receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs and National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
This is why you shouldn't put make-up on children
Would you dab perfume on a six-month-old? Paint their tiny nails with polish that contains formaldehyde? Dust bronzer onto their cheeks? An investigation by the Times has found that babies and toddlers are routinely exposed to adult cosmetic products, including fragranced sprays, nail polish and even black henna tattoos. While these may sound harmless – or even Instagram-friendly – the science tells a more concerning story. Infant skin is biologically different from adult skin: it's thinner, more absorbent and still developing. Exposure to certain products can lead to immediate problems like irritation or allergic reactions, and in some cases, may carry longer term health-risks such as hormone disruption. This isn't a new concern. A 2019 study found that every two hours in the US, a child was taken to hospital because of accidental exposure to cosmetic products. Newborn skin has the same number of layers as adult skin but those layers are up to 30% thinner. That thinner barrier makes it easier for substances, including chemicals, to penetrate through to deeper tissues and the bloodstream. Young skin also has a higher water content and produces less sebum (the natural oil that protects and moisturises the skin). This makes it more prone to water loss, dryness and irritation, particularly when exposed to fragrances or creams not formulated for infants. The skin's microbiome – its protective layer of beneficial microbes – also takes time to develop. By age three, a child's skin finishes establishing its first microbiome. Before then, products applied to the skin can disrupt this delicate balance. At puberty, the skin's structure and microbiome change again, altering how it responds to products. The investigation found that bronzers and nail polish were being used on young children. These products often contain harmful or even carcinogenic chemicals, such as formaldehyde, toluene and dibutyl phthalate. Toluene is a known neurotoxin, and dibutyl phthalate is an endocrine disruptor – a chemical that can interfere with hormone function, potentially affecting growth, development and fertility. Both substances can more easily pass through infants' thinner, more permeable skin. Even low-level exposure to formaldehyde, such as from furniture or air pollution, has been linked to higher rates of lower respiratory infections in children (that's infections affecting the lungs, airways and windpipe). Irritating ingredients In the US, one in three adults experiences skin or respiratory symptoms after exposure to fragranced products. If adults are reacting, it's no surprise that newborns and children with their developing immune systems are at even greater risk. Perfumes often contain alcohol and volatile compounds that dry out the skin, leading to redness, itching and discomfort. Certain skincare ingredients have also been studied for their potential to affect hormones, trigger allergies or pose long-term health concerns: alkylphenols used in detergents and cosmetics may disrupt hormone activity antimicrobials such as triclosan can interfere with thyroid hormones and contribute to antibiotic resistance bisphenols, (BPA widely used in packaging are linked to hormone disruption. cyclosiloxanes (D4 and D5) may accumulate in the body and affect hormonal balance ethanolamines can react with other ingredients to form nitrosamines, some of which are potential carcinogens parabens are preservatives that mimic oestrogen, though some studies suggest minimal risk at low doses phthalates used in fragrances and plastics are linked to reproductive toxicity, especially in early-life exposures benzophenone is found in many sunscreens and some forms may act as allergens and hormone disruptors. While many of these ingredients are permitted in regulated concentrations, some researchers warn of a 'cocktail effect': the cumulative impact of daily exposure to multiple chemicals, especially in young, developing bodies. Temporary tattoos Temporary tattoos, particularly black henna, are popular on holidays but they aren't always safe. Black henna is a common cause of contact dermatitis in children and may contain para-phenylenediamine (PPD), a chemical approved for use in hair dyes but not for direct application to skin. PPD exposure can cause severe allergic reactions and, in rare cases, cancer. Children may develop hypopigmentation – pale patches where colour is lost – or, in adults, hyperpigmentation that can last for months or become permanent. Worryingly, children exposed to PPD may experience more severe reactions later in life if they use hair dyes containing the same compound. This can sometimes lead to hospitalisation or even fatal anaphylaxis. Because of these risks, European legislation prohibits PPD from being applied directly to the skin, eyebrows, or eyelashes. 'Natural' doesn't mean harmless Products marketed as 'natural' or 'clean' can also cause allergic reactions. Propolis (bee glue), for instance, is found in many natural skincare products but causes contact dermatitis in up to 16% of children. A study found an average of 4.5 contact allergens per product in 'natural' skincare ranges. Out of 1,651 'natural' personal care products on the US market, only 96 (5.8%) were free from contact allergens. Even claims like 'dermatologically tested' don't guarantee safety; they simply mean the product was tested on skin, not that it's free from allergens. Babies and young children aren't just miniature adults. Their skin is still developing and is more vulnerable to irritation, chemical absorption and systemic effects: substances that penetrate the skin can enter the bloodstream and potentially affect organs or biological systems throughout the body. Applying adult-targeted products, or even well-meaning 'natural' alternatives, can therefore carry real risks. Adverse reactions can appear as rashes, scaling or itchiness and, in severe cases, blistering or crusting. Respiratory symptoms like coughing or wheezing should always be investigated by a medical professional. When in doubt, keep it simple. Limit what goes on your child's skin, especially in the early years. Adam Taylor is a Professor of Anatomy, Lancaster University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
