Microbiome: First bacteria we meet can keep us out of hospital
The first bacteria our bodies meet – in the hours after we're born – could protect us from dangerous infections, UK scientists say.They have shown, for the first time, that good bacteria seem to halve the risk of young children being admitted to hospital with lung infections.The researchers said it was a "phenomenal" finding and could lead to therapies that boost good bacteria in babies.Our early encounters with microbes are thought to be crucial in how our immune system develops.We come out of the womb sterile, but this doesn't last for long. All the nooks and crannies of the human body become home to a world of microbial life, known as the microbiome.
Researchers at University College London and the Sanger Institute investigated the earliest stages in our body's colonisation by bacteria, fungi and more.They collected stool samples from 1,082 newborns in the first week of life. The team then performed a massive genetic analysis on all the DNA in the samples to work out exactly which species were present and how common they were in each child.They then tracked what happened to those babies, using hospital data, for the next two years.
One particular early inhabitant of the human body, Bifidobacterium longum, seemed to have a protective effect.Only 4% of babies with this species would spend a night in hospital with a lung infection over the next two years. Babies with different starter-bacteria were two-to-three times more likely to need to stay in hospital.It is the first data to show the formation of the microbiome affects the risk of infection."I think it's really phenomenal. It's amazing to be able to show this. I'm excited," Prof Nigel Field, from UCL, told the BBC.
How are these bacteria doing it?
The most likely culprit for children ending up in hospital is respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), but what joins the dots between this and B. longum?That is the "million dollar question" for Prof Field.We know B. longum starts off digesting breast milk which both contains food for the baby and encourages good bacteria. The exact details have not yet been worked out, but either the bacteria themselves or the compounds they make by digesting food are interacting with the immune system "and are influencing the way in which the immune system matures and is able to recognise friend from foe," according to Prof Field.The protective bacteria were found only in babies that came into the world via a vaginal delivery rather than a caesarean. Even then they were not discovered after every vaginal delivery.The researchers say their findings do not justify the practice of vaginal seeding, where some new parents smear babies with a swab taken from the vagina.
The good bacteria seem to be coming from the end of the mother's digestive system, an idea known in the field as the "first lick"."I feel pretty confident in saying that vaginal seeding is not a good thing," said Prof Field.However, the long-term ambition is to come up with microbial therapies – like a probiotic yogurt – that could be given to babies to set their microbiomes on a healthy path.Prof Louise Kenny, from the University of Liverpool and a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, said: "A caesarean section is often a life-saving procedure, and can be the right choice for a woman and her baby."She said that while the benefit was seen only in babies born vaginally, it was not in every child born that way so "further research is needed to create a full, nuanced picture".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BreakingNews.ie
21 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Statins can reduce sepsis deaths, study suggests
People who are critically ill with sepsis may be more likely to survive if they are given statins, a new study suggests. Researchers wanted to explore whether the cholesterol-busting drugs may bring additional benefits for patients. Advertisement The new study examined information on sepsis patients who received statins during a stint in intensive care and compared it with patients in a similar situation who did not receive statins. Some 14.3 per cent of 6,000 sepsis patients who were given statins died within 28 days. This is compared with 23.4 per cent of 6,000 patients who did not receive statin therapy. The research team from China said that this equates to a 39 per cent reduced risk of death within a month. Advertisement The research, based on data from thousands of patients at a hospital in Israel between 2008 and 2019, also found that 7.4 per cent of statin patients died while in the intensive care unit compared with 13.6 per cent of those who did not receive statins. And during their overall hospital stay, some 11.5 per cent of sepsis patients who were given statins died, compared with 19.1 per cent of sepsis patients who did not take statins. However, it appeared that those who were not prescribed statins had a slightly shorter hospital stay compared with those who did receive them – an average of eight days compared with almost 10 days. 'We found that statin users exhibited decreased 28-day all-cause mortality,' the authors wrote in the journal Frontiers in Immunology. Advertisement Sepsis is a life-threatening reaction to an infection that occurs when the immune system overreacts and starts to damage the body's tissues and organs. In Ireland, about 12,000 people are affected by sepsis every year, according to the HSE. Sepsis experts said that 'anything which might reduce the burden of a condition which claims one in five lives worldwide needs to be rigorously explored' as they called for larger trials to confirm the findings. Statins are known as cholesterol-busting drugs because they can help lower the level of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in the blood. Advertisement But experts said that they also have other benefits, including reducing inflammation and antibacterial effects. The research team called for larger trials to confirm their findings. 'Our large, matched cohort study found that treatment with statins was associated with a 39 per cent lower death rate for critically ill patients with sepsis, when measured over 28 days after hospital admission,' said Dr Caifeng Li, the study's corresponding author and an associate professor at Tianjin Medical University General Hospital in China. 'These results strongly suggest that statins may provide a protective effect and improve clinical outcomes for patients with sepsis.' Advertisement Ireland Sepsis: Doctors launch awareness campaign about le... Read More Commenting on the study, Dr Ron Daniels, founder and chief executive of the Sepsis Trust, said: 'It has been known for some time that the anti-inflammatory properties of statins confer a survival benefit on those who take them if they develop sepsis. 'Whilst previous studies have failed to show a similar survival benefit in treating people with sepsis with statins, this new study supports calls for a large, multi-country, randomised control trial. 'Anything which might reduce the burden of a condition which claims one in five lives worldwide needs to be rigorously explored.'
Telegraph
22 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The NHS truths the Left don't want you to hear
Until very recently, Health Secretary Wes Streeting tried to market himself as a radical health reformer, who is not afraid to poke sacred cows. While his reform-minded rhetoric always remained at a highly-abstract and general level, Streeting deserved some credit for it, because he did not have to do this. He had the courage to say things which he knew would rub some people up the wrong way, not least the Corbynite wing of his own party. Sadly, that brief period of NHS candour is now officially over. Streeting, the self-styled reformer, is no more. He and his colleagues have fully retreated into their comfort zone. During the recent local election campaign, Labour distributed a leaflet that showed a mock medical bill, and a doctor holding up a credit card reader. The message was clear: vote for us, because this is what the other lot want to do to you. On Twitter/X, Labour are now frequently posting dire warnings about the alleged evils of insurance-based healthcare systems. This is exactly that old-school NHS cultism which Streeting used to disavow until five minutes ago. It may work for him. The NHS may be falling apart, but the cult around is still going strong. In the eyes of its keenest defenders, the NHS can do no wrong. They have quietly dropped the old cliché about the NHS being 'the envy of the word', and replaced it with a slightly more subtle version, which goes something like this: Once upon a time, the NHS used to be the best healthcare system in the world. But then, from 2010 on, it was systematically defunded. It was deliberately run into the ground, so that it can be privatised more easily. A privatised system would mean luxury healthcare for the rich, and Wild West medicine for the poor. None of these claims are true. Let's have a look at each of them in turn. 'The NHS used to be the best healthcare system in the world' The NHS was never the best healthcare system in the world. The idea that it ever was can be traced back to a ranking compiled by the Commonwealth Fund, an American healthcare think tank, which relies on a very unusual methodology, in which medical outcomes only account for a fifth of the total score. This matters, because on medical outcomes, the NHS has always been one of the worst-performing healthcare systems in the developed world – as even the Commonwealth Fund study shows. There is no turning point after which the NHS's performance suddenly deteriorated. It was just never good in the first place. '…it was systematically defunded' At the end of the 2010s, age-adjusted real NHS spending per capita was only marginally higher than it had been in the beginning of the decade. Put differently, the NHS budget only just about kept pace with population growth, population ageing, and inflation. This clearly constituted a slowdown in spending increases compared to the previous decade. But it does not constitute a 'defunding'. In any case: that period of relative spending restraint is already over again. The NHS budget was given a massive boost during the pandemic, which has only been partially reversed. Public healthcare spending in the UK stands at just under 9% of GDP: one of the highest levels in the world. '…so that it can be privatised…' Conspiracy theories about secret plans to privatise the NHS have been around for decades. I wrote a report on this three years ago, for which I went through the news archives, and I found warnings about the NHS's imminent demise from every year since 1980. But somehow, it never happens. The NHS remains an unusually state-centred system. Most healthcare systems, including tax-funded ones, use a mix of public, private for-profit and private non-profit providers. 'A privatised system would mean luxury healthcare for the rich, and Wild West medicine for the poor' There are no plans – secret or otherwise – to privatise the NHS. More's the pity. Because there is nothing wrong with private healthcare systems. There are good examples of private, insurance-based healthcare systems, most notably in the Netherlands and Switzerland, which are nothing like the dreaded system of the US. These systems cover everybody: poor people are exempt from health insurance premiums and co-payments. Under these systems, rich and poor alike get faster access to medical treatment, and better medical outcomes, than they would on the NHS. The only thing these people don't get is a naff feel-good mythology around their health systems.
BBC News
26 minutes ago
- BBC News
Cancer patients 'priced out' of holidays, charity warns
Cancer patients are being "priced out" of holidays due to "extremely unfair" travel insurance costs, a charity has cancer support charity said patients and those with a history of the disease were "frequently" being quoted premiums of thousands of pounds, while some were being refused cover chief executive, Dame Laura Lee, said: "We know how stressful a cancer diagnosis can be, and the last thing people should have to think about is inflated insurance costs."The Association of British Insurers (ABI) said the "significant costs" associated with emergency treatment abroad for pre-existing medical conditions were taken into account when offering cover. In a statement, Dame Lee emphasised the "emotional distress" caused by "barriers" to obtaining travel insurance for people with said: "Travelling and taking holidays can be so important for someone's wellbeing and recovery, and it is extremely unfair that people with cancer are being priced out of the opportunity to visit family and friends abroad or simply explore the world."Maggie's has called on the Treasury, Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and insurers to jointly develop recommendations to ensure cancer patients are "treated more fairly" by providers. 'Completely unaffordable' Josh Cull, 28, told BBC Breakfast he went through "a year of hell" in 2021 after being treated for a brain tumour which affected his eyesight and ability to walk. "I then decided, you know what, I'm going to live some life now," he while searching for insurance for a trip to South East Asia with his fiancée and brother, Mr Cull said the lowest quote he could find was £3,000, which he described as "completely unaffordable"."[That was] despite being two-and-a-half years clean, no recurring conditions. I was completely healthy," he Cull said he decided to travel without insurance, having had most of his savings "wiped out" by his time off work for treatment."I [didn't] want it to stop me living my life," he said, adding that he instead took other more "affordable" precautions ahead of the trip, such as getting "extra vaccines".A spokesperson for the ABI said in a statement that it "remained committed" to supporting customers who have or have had cancer. "As part of a signposting agreement introduced by the FCA, if an insurer is unable to offer you cover because of a pre-existing medical condition, they will point you to specialist providers who can help you find an appropriate policy."A 2018 report by the FCA warned that cancer patients were struggling to find affordable travel insurance, even long after their treatment had BBC has approached the Treasury for comment.
