A single injection for newborns could protect them against HIV for years, study suggests
The study is one of the first to show that the first weeks of life offer a critical window where the immune system is naturally more tolerant, meaning it is the optimal time to deliver gene therapies that would otherwise be rejected at older ages.
Researchers hope the gene therapy jab could be used in the future to fight against paediatric infections in high-risk areas.
'Nearly 300 children are infected with HIV each day,' said first author Amir Ardeshir, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the Tulane National Primate Research Center in the US.
'This approach could help protect newborns in high-risk areas during the most vulnerable period of their lives.'
The study, published in the journal Nature, created a gene therapy that programs cells to produce HIV-fighting antibodies.
An animal study that tested the injection on non-human primates found it protected them from infection for at least three years without the need for a booster shot. But this was only if the injection was administered in the first month of life.
In comparison, those that received the gene therapy between eight and 12 weeks after birth did not tolerate the treatment, study authors explain.
'This is a one-and-done treatment that fits the critical time when these mothers with HIV in resource-limited areas are most likely to see a doctor,' Dr Ardeshir said.
'As long as the treatment is delivered close to birth, the baby's immune system will accept it and believe it's part of itself.'
Globally, an estimated 1.3 million women and girls living with HIV become pregnant every year, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
But if they do not receive medication, the rate of transmission of HIV from the mother to her child either during pregnancy, labour, delivery or breastfeeding ranges between 15 per cent and 45 per cent, according to WHO data.
Although antiviral treatments can suppress the virus and limit transmission, adherence to treatment and doctor visits decline after childbirth, particularly in areas with limited access to healthcare, the study authors noted.
This gene therapy uses a harmless virus that can deliver genetic code to cells, but is different to a vaccine. This virus was injected into muscle cells and delivered instructions to produce antibodies that are capable of neutralising multiple strains of HIV.
Researchers explained that previous studies have found repeated infusions of the injection are needed for it to work.
But by injecting it into muscle cells, researchers say they become 'micro-factories that just keep producing these antibodies'.
Newborns showed greater tolerance to the jab, which prevented infection during breastfeeding. However, older infants and juveniles were more likely to have produced anti-drug antibodies that shut down the treatment.
In addition, exposing a foetus to the antibodies from the gene therapy before birth helps older infants accept the therapy.
However, because it has only been tested on animals, researchers still do not know if it will work on human children.
If successful, this treatment could dramatically reduce mother-to-child HIV transmission rates in high-risk regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, where 90 per cent of paediatric HIV cases can be found.
'Nothing like this was possible to achieve even 10 years ago,' Dr Ardeshir said. 'This was a huge result, and now we have all the ingredients to take on HIV.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Ozempic to Mounjaro - what are the weight loss injections and what were they designed to do?
Drugs designed to treat diabetes and repurposed as miracle diet aids have taken over TikTok - and Hollywood. The weight loss caused by these weekly injectables is rapid and previously unattainable, people boast, showing off newly svelte bodies. But what are these drugs, how do they work - and what were they originally designed to do? Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro - what are they? Let's start with the most well-known of the trio: Ozempic. Ozempic blew up in 2022 - if media reports from the US were to be believed, every pound dropped in LA was probably thanks to the "miracle" injectable drug. What started as the preserve of A-listers and the Hollywood elite quickly grew in popularity. The drug's generic name is semaglutide. This is the same as Wegovy, which has been licensed as a weight loss drug in the UK and is now available on the NHS. Wegovy has a slightly higher dosage and is designed for weight loss, while Ozempic's primary purpose was as a diabetes treatment (more on that later). Mounjaro - also known by its generic name tirzepatide - is the newer kid on the block. Like Ozempic and Wegovy, it suppresses the appetite and lengthens the amount of time food stays in the stomach, leading to weight loss - at least for as long as you carry on taking it. In 2022, the US Food and Drink Administration (FDA) fast-tracked approval of the drug to treat obesity after a study showed it helped people lose more than 20% of their bodyweight. Mounjaro was supposed to be available through GP surgeries and other community services in the UK from 23 June. But at the start of August, Sky News research revealed only eight of 42 NHS Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) in England had started providing treatment to patients, and many of the rest unable to guarantee when it would be available. 3:31 From diabetes drug to diet pill Ozempic and Mounjaro were both developed as treatments for type 2 diabetes. The drugs, which come as weekly injections, lower blood sugar by increasing insulin production when your blood sugar is rising and helping prevent your liver making and releasing too much sugar. So how do they cause weight loss? Both semaglutide and tirzepatide work by mimicking the hormone, GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide one), to manage hunger and slow down digestion. Tirzepatide - Mounjaro - is a dual-acting drug and also mimics the hormone GIP (glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide). In terms of weight loss, in clinical trials people lost up to 20% of their body weight on tirzepatide and 15% on semaglutide. Researchers have also found the weight loss jabs could reduce the risk of heart attacks, strokes or heart failure in obese people regardless of the amount of weight they lose. They sound like miracle drugs for people wanting to lose weight - what's the catch? There are a few downsides. First off, the listed side effects: nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea, bad enough for about 5% of people in the semaglutide trial to stop taking it and 6-7% in the tirzepatide trial. People in the semaglutide trial also experienced problems with gallstones. The drugs also carry serious risks including kidney failure, pancreatitis and thyroid cancer. Another downside has been dubbed "Ozempic face". Facial ageing is a side effect of sudden weight loss as people find the skin on their face sagging where once it was plump. The drugs also only work for as long as you carry on taking them, and people have reported gaining back all the weight they lost after stopping the drug - either out of choice or because of a supply shortage. In August, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) - the body that provides guidance on the use of new drugs - said that people coming off the drugs should be offered "structured advice and follow-up support" to help prevent weight gain. This includes being monitored by the NHS for at least a year after completing treatment and support to help build "long-term behavioural habits, use self-monitoring tools, and draw on wider support - from online communities to family-led interventions and local activities". Shortages for diabetics Perhaps a bigger conversation than side effects for individuals is around the impact on people who rely on these treatments, now they've exploded in popularity as a weight loss quick-fix. While intended for diabetics, Ozempic and Mounjaro are prescribed "off-label" in the US to people wanting to shed weight. The drugs faced widespread shortage last year, with reports of diabetics having to drive from pharmacy to pharmacy in search of stock because of the high demand. Links to cancer prevention Research has suggested weight loss jabs, officially GLP-1 receptor agonists, could almost halve the risk of obesity-related cancers. The study, published in the journal eClinicalMedicine, was presented at the European Congress on Obesity in Malaga. It found that there were similar rates of obesity -related cancer among patients treated with the injections and those given weight loss, or bariatric, surgery. Dr Yael Wolff Sagy, the study's co-lead author from Clalit Health Services in Tel-Aviv, Israel, said a "direct effect" of the injections was that they were found "to be 41% more effective at preventing obesity-related cancer". "We do not yet fully understand how GLP-1s work," she said. "But this study adds to the growing evidence showing that weight loss alone cannot completely account for the metabolic, anti-cancer, and many other benefits that these medications provide." Co-lead Professor Dror Dicker, from Hasharon Hospital, Rabin Medical Centre in Israel, suggested the protective effects of the drugs "likely arise from multiple mechanisms, including reducing inflammation". He added further research was needed "to make sure that these drugs do not increase the risk for non-obesity-related cancers". Being overweight or obese is the second biggest cause of cancer in the UK, causing more than one in 20 cancer cases, according to the NHS. Are they available in the UK? An estimated 1.5 million people are taking weight loss jabs in the UK, the vast majority of whom pay for them privately. Ozempic is available in the UK for type 2 diabetes patients with a prescription. Wegovy and Mounjaro is available to NHS patients, but only through specialist weight management services. Over the next three years, around 240,000 people with the "greatest need" are expected to receive Mounjaro through the NHS. However, Sky News research into Wegovy and Mounjaro shows delays in the rollout of both weight loss jabs.
Metro
an hour ago
- Metro
Men aren't trusted to take the contraceptive pill - I'm proof we should be
The male contraceptive pill got a step closer to being a reality this week – potentially becoming available in the next few years. The drug – known as the YCT-529 pill – has undergone tests that indicate it is safe for humans, with no side effects. It's good news. For years women have been expected to take the lead in reproductive responsibility, and that's long been unfair on them. You'd think most women would be excited – at last, men can pull their weight. Not necessarily. The online discourse surrounding it has been troubling, with people asking if they can actually trust men to take the pill. It's a story that comes around every few years, and it always elicits the same reaction. 'I can't trust my fiancé to remember to put the bins out' wrote The Sun's Joely Chilcott back in 2019, 'let alone take charge of taking a pill every day to stop ME getting pregnant.' In 2024, Helen Coffey wrote for the Independent, about how women 'just can't trust men' to take the pill. Just this morning,Amol Rajan asked on Radio 4, 'is it the case that some men might be useless at… taking a pill daily for a sustained period of time?' I get the mistrust, but it raises some uncomfortable questions: – 'are men really that unreliable?', and the more troubling one: 'Why do so many women think so?' A 2022 survey done by the American Chemistry Society found that, though 49% of men would be willing to take a daily contraceptive pill, 42% of women were worried that men would simply forget to take it. The baffling thing here is that men obviously take medicine all the time. I've taken Sertraline for the last decade or so to manage my depression. I take it every morning with my breakfast. It's part of my daily routine. One of the first things I do when I wake up is take a puff on the preventative inhaler I use to manage my asthma. Like many people, I've recently started using GLP-1 injections to help with weight loss. I take my jab every Sunday, regularly as clockwork. That's three regular medications, and my GP trusts me to take them all by myself. I've done courses of antibiotics. I had daily pain meds when I had a bike accident a few years ago. I've applied topical cream to rashes as prescribed. I once spent two years taking daily pills for acid reflux. More to the point, gay and bisexual men (like me) have been taking PrEP– a daily pill that prevents HIV infection – for years. The NHS estimates that over 100,000 people in England are currently on PrEP, the majority of them men who have sex with men. They take it religiously, because their lives depend on it. HIV-positive men take antiretroviral therapy daily, often multiple pills, to manage their condition. Trans men take testosterone regularly. Here I am, a man, and I've been trusted absolutely to take my pills, like a good boy. And somehow, miraculously, despite my poor, unreliably male brain, I've pulled it off. So why wouldn't a partner trust me to take The Pill? The idea that men can't handle daily medication is proveably nonsense. What's more, when you consider that studies have found that around 50% of women reportedly miss the pill at least once a month due to forgetfulness, the concern about male reliability starts to look a little more like projection. So why this persistent myth that we can't be trusted with contraception? Maybe it comes down to bodily autonomy and reproductive control, and I do get that. For decades, women have had to bear the physical and emotional burden of preventing pregnancy. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video They've endured hormonal side effects, weight gain, mood swings, and decreased libido – all while being told these are acceptable trade-offs. The deeper issue is that pregnancy happens in women's bodies, not men's. When the consequences of contraceptive failure fall disproportionately on women, it makes sense they'd be hesitant to hand over control, even to trustworthy partners. There's also historical precedent for women's scepticism – men have been known to intentionally deceive women about using contraceptives, also known as reproductive coercion. A 2017 study from Bournemouth University found that as many as one in four women reported coercion over their reproductive lives. Even if women can bring themselves to trust their partners, there's still deep-seated attitudes on the male side that could cause issues. Marc Burrows is appearing at the Edinburgh Fringe in 'The Britpop Hour' at 6.10 every day, Underbelly Bristo Square. Men may worry about appearing 'less masculine' or 'weak' or fear the pill might mess with their libido. These hang-ups – rooted in outdated ideas about what makes a man manly – could prove way more problematic than any trust issues. It's something both genders need to work on. The truth is, we desperately need more contraceptive options for everyone. The current setup is bonkers: women get to choose from a smorgasbord of pills, implants, and injections (with many recorded side effects), while men get… condoms and the snip. That's it. More Trending This lopsided situation forces women to shoulder the burden and costs of preventing pregnancy. It's high time we evened the score. If we can trust men to take life-saving medications for depression, HIV, diabetes, and countless other conditions, we can certainly trust them with contraception. View More » The question isn't whether men are capable – it's whether we're ready to ditch the tired assumptions that keep reproductive responsibility so ridiculously one-sided. Do you have a story you'd like to share? Get in touch by emailing Share your views in the comments below. MORE: Calvin Harris' placenta Instagram post isn't 'vile' but the backlash is MORE: England defeat to India shows finishing touches are missing ahead of the Ashes MORE: TV reboots aren't evil – but this remake has made an unforgivable mistake Your free newsletter guide to the best London has on offer, from drinks deals to restaurant reviews.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Labour's decision to close the Fleming Fund is a false economy that puts our national security at risk
Health emergencies rarely respect borders or budgets. As I write, the world is facing an antibiotic emergency, with bacteria rapidly evolving resistance to the treatments we depend on to counter infectious diseases. Without effective antibiotic treatments, global health and the global economy are defenceless against the likes of pneumonia and sepsis. Antibiotics are the infrastructure of modern medicine, making chemotherapy, caesarean sections and hip replacements possible. More than 1.1million people die across the world every year because of antibiotic resistance, including 35,000 in the UK alone. These trends are increasing and inter-generational, with deaths in children tripling in the last three years. For the last decade, the UK has been at the forefront of global efforts to tackle the wider threat posed by antimicrobial resistance (AMR). While antibiotic resistance poses the single biggest threat to modern medicine, AMR points to a serious problem for all types of antimicrobial agents – antifungals, antivirals, and antiparasitics – threatening to reverse all the significant gains we've made against HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis. The UK's Fleming Fund has been a bulwark against such threats: building laboratory capacity in 25 low- and-middle-countries to detect emerging AMR outbreaks, allowing for proactive, data-driven responses before they escalate into global crises. Among many other things, the Fleming Fund has tripled the genomic sequencing capacity across the entire African continent – which even pivoted to detect Covid-19 variants. The UK government's decision to shut down the Fleming Fund is a false economy and directly puts our national security at risk. It will cost lives, as well as precious GDP that could be spent on frontline NHS services. If we are to learn any lessons at all from Covid-19, it should be that we cannot afford to cut corners when it comes to preventing and preparing for inevitable pathogenic threats. Bold investment to protect against AMR Decisions made today will directly impact our ability to counter and contain AMR pandemics in the very near future. When I was Chancellor in 2023, the Treasury recognised the economic health ramifications of AMR, and the UK government commissioned economic studies to better understand the risks and opportunities. The Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation found that if AMR resistance accelerates in line with poorer-performing countries, the world faces an additional seven million deaths globally by 2050. The Center for Global Development then estimated that economically, this would wipe $1.7 trillion annually off global GDP by 2050 and it will cost $175 billion extra a year for health systems to treat people. Country-level estimates released recently estimate that the British economy would be $59 billion smaller in this scenario and the UK would spend an additional $2.8 billion a year treating superbugs. $296 billion and $188 billion would be wiped off the US and EU economies respectively. In contrast, this research shows that there would be large economic benefits to the UK and elsewhere if we invest in improving the treatment of infections. With the UK economy facing significant challenges and the NHS workforce facing rising pressures, now is the time to act boldly and invest proactively to protect against AMR. Whilst the UK alone cannot solve AMR, the UK can and should leverage its world-leading technical expertise and diplomatic leadership through the Fleming Fund, its Special Envoy on AMR, Dame Sally Davies, and other global investments in AMR. Even in a world where only 0.3 per cent of gross national income (GNI) is earmarked for international aid funding, there must be a budget line for AMR. If we are to drive economic growth and build resilience against health threats at home and abroad, we need decisive action with investments that put health security first. With an evolved Fleming Fund, we can mitigate against the worst effects of AMR by supporting research and development of new antibiotics, increasing access to treatments in countries where lack of access accelerates resistance, embedding large-scale education and training programmes to ensure the sustainable and responsible use of existing antibiotics, and harnessing AI for diagnostic tests and surveillance for the UK and the countries most severely impacted by AMR. A world without the Fleming Fund puts even greater pressure on UK government and the life sciences sector to find new ways to prepare for the pandemics we already detect and those we are yet to detect, to safeguard UK health and economic security. Now is the time for the government to step up.
