Why using the same arm for vaccines might boost the body's response
When it comes to getting the most out of a vaccine, arm consistency can make a difference. Some studies suggest that getting a booster in the same arm as the initial shot can boost the immune system's response. Now, we're getting clues as to why using the same arm for initial and booster doses might be better for activating the immune system's response to a vaccine.
In a small study published April 28 in the journal Cell, researchers from Australia found that when a vaccine is given, specialized immune cells called macrophages prepare to fight inside lymph nodes. The macrophages then direct where memory B cells go to more effectively respond to the booster when it is given in the same arm.
According to the team, the findings were made in mice and validated in human participants and offer enough evidence to refine how we approach vaccines.
'A unique and elegant aspect of this study is the team's ability to understand the rapid generation of effective vaccine responses,' Anthony Kelleher, a study co-author and clinician scientist at the Garvan Institute of Medical Research and the Kirby Institute at University of New South Wales Sydney, said in a statement. 'We did this by dissecting the complex biology in mice and then showed similar findings in humans. All this was done at the site of the generation of the vaccine response, the lymph node.'
[ Related: New study: US could see millions of measles cases if vaccination rates keep dropping. ]
During immunization, a harmless version of a pathogen called a vaccine antigen is introduced into the body. The antigen is then filtered through the lymph nodes. These work like immune system boot camps that train the body to fight off the real pathogen when and if they are confronted with it.
Previously, the team from the study looked at memory B cells. These cells are crucial for generating antibody responses when infections return. They found that memory B cells tend to stay on the lymph node closest to the injection site. They migrate to the outer layer of the local lymph node and interact closely with the macrophages–those specialized immune cells primed for battle in the lymph nodes–that reside there. When a booster was given in the same location, those already-on-alert macrophages captured the antigen and activated the memory B cells more efficiently. In turn, this made high quality antibodies.
'Macrophages are known to gobble up pathogens and clear away dead cells, but our research suggests the ones in the lymph nodes closest to the injection site also play a central role in orchestrating an effective vaccine response the next time around. So location does matter,' study co-author and immunologist Rama Dhenni said in a statement.
In this new study, the team conducted a clinical study with 30 volunteers receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Ten of the participants received their booster dose in the same arm as their first dose. The other 10 were given the second shot in the opposite arm.
According to the results, the group who received both doses in the same arm began producing neutralizing antibodies against the virus within the first week after the second dose. They also showed to be more effective against the potent Delta and Omicron COVID-19 variants. After four weeks, both groups had similar antibody levels. However, that early protection could be important during an outbreak.
'If you've had your COVID jabs in different arms, don't worry – our research shows that over time the difference in protection diminishes,' study co-author and immunologist Mee Ling Munier said in a statement. 'But during a pandemic, those first weeks of protection could make an enormous difference at a population level. The same-arm strategy could help achieve herd immunity faster – particularly important for rapidly mutating viruses where speed of response matters.'
It's important to note that this study included a small sample size and other studies have found benefits in switching arms. In future research, the team hopes to build on this work to refine vaccination guidelines and enhance the effectiveness of vaccines.
'If we can understand how to replicate or enhance the interactions between memory B cells and these macrophages, we may be able to design next-generation vaccines that require fewer boosters,' Tri Phan, a study co-author and clinical immunologist, said in a statement. 'This is a fundamental discovery in how the immune system organises itself to respond better to external threats – nature has come up with this brilliant system and we're just now beginning to understand it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
31 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's First Surgeon General: RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk
When Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. began his tenure as Health and Human Services Secretary, he pledged, 'We won't take away anyone's vaccines.' However, recent policy changes under his leadership—coupled with the unprecedented dismissal of all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on June 9—have proven that statement false, raising grave concerns for our nation's COVID-19 response and broader vaccine policies. These shifts not only jeopardize public health but also threaten to erode trust in our health institutions at a critical time. In May 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced a new COVID-19 vaccine framework, limiting access to updated vaccines for Americans aged 65 and older or those with specific risk factors. Furthermore, Secretary Kennedy announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for 'healthy' children or pregnant women—bypassing the standard ACIP review process. Compounding these changes, the abrupt removal of ACIP's entire panel of independent experts, who have guided evidence-based vaccine policy for decades, risks destabilizing a cornerstone of public health. These actions collectively restrict access to a vital tool for saving lives and undermine confidence in our health systems. During my tenure as Surgeon General under the first Trump administration, we faced significant public health challenges, from addressing the opioid epidemic by increasing access to Naloxone to launching Operation Warp Speed for the COVID-19 vaccine development effort. The vaccines developed under Trump's first term have proven to be one of our most effective defenses against COVID-19; yet, the current administration's new policies limit their availability, potentially leaving millions vulnerable. The dismissal of ACIP's experts—without a clear plan for replacing them with qualified scientists—further jeopardizes trust in the institutions tasked with protecting Americans. The major flaw in the new vaccine framework is its narrow assessment of risk. Although the immediate dangers of COVID-19 have lessened, it remains a leading cause of death and hospitalization, claiming nearly 50,000 lives in the U.S. in 2024—more than breast cancer or car accidents. The fact is, 75% of Americans have risk factors, such as obesity or diabetes, that increase their vulnerability to severe COVID outcomes. However, the burden is now placed on individuals to self-identify as high risk, creating confusion and inconsistency in access. Unlike other countries with centralized systems for identifying at-risk individuals, the U.S. expects patients—many of whom lack easy access to healthcare—to navigate eligibility alone. Risk assessment should also consider individual circumstances beyond underlying health conditions. A 58-year-old bus driver or healthcare worker faces significantly greater exposure than someone working remotely. By limiting vaccines to specific groups based solely on preexisting health status, the policy overlooks these critical contextual differences. Secretary Kennedy's team argues that there is insufficient evidence to support updated COVID-19 vaccines for healthy Americans under 65, but this claim is flatly unfounded. Years of real-world data demonstrate that vaccines save lives and reduce hospitalizations across all age groups. During the 2023 to 2024 fall and winter season, 95% of those hospitalized for COVID had not received an updated vaccine. While the administration cites other countries' more restrictive vaccine policies, such comparisons ignore the unique health landscape in the U.S., which includes higher obesity rates, worse maternal health outcomes, and uneven healthcare access. The policy also neglects the issue of Long COVID, which affects millions with debilitating symptoms lasting months or years. Though older adults are at higher risk for severe acute infections, Long COVID disproportionately impacts adults aged 35 to 49—and children are also affected. Vaccination reduces the risk of developing Long COVID, an essential reason many healthy individuals choose to stay up-to-date with their vaccines. Particularly concerning is the decision to end COVID vaccine recommendations for 'healthy' pregnant women, which contradicts the FDA's own guidance. Pregnant women face heightened risks of severe COVID outcomes, including death, pre-eclampsia, and miscarriage. Vaccination during pregnancy is crucial—not just for maternal health but also for protecting infants under six months, who cannot be vaccinated and rely on maternal antibodies for protection. Decades of research confirm that vaccines, including COVID vaccines, safely transfer antibodies to newborns, lowering their risk of severe illness. The dismissal of ACIP's members amplifies these concerns. ACIP has been a trusted, science-driven body that ensures vaccines are safe and effective, saving countless lives through its transparent recommendations. Its members, rigorously vetted for expertise and conflicts of interest, provide independent guidance critical to public health. Removing them without clear evidence of misconduct risks replacing qualified scientists with less experienced voices. This move fuels vaccine hesitancy and skepticism about public health decisions, particularly when paired with the bypassing of ACIP's review process for the new COVID vaccine policies. These changes create uncertainty about who can access vaccines. Without clear CDC recommendations, insurance companies may impose their own coverage criteria, potentially increasing costs for a vaccine that was previously free for most Americans. Healthcare providers, lacking federal guidance and ACIP's expertise, may struggle to advise patients, leading to a confusing and inequitable system that limits choice—hardly the 'medical freedom' Secretary Kennedy claims to champion. Ultimately, these actions threaten to erode trust in public health. FDA officials argue the new framework enhances transparency, yet bypassing ACIP's review and dismissing its members undermines that aim. Extensive data demonstrate that updated vaccines lower hospitalization and death rates, yet this evidence was sidelined. Such actions breed skepticism, making it harder to unite Americans around shared health goals. The stakes are high, but a better path is possible. Restoring trust requires transparent, evidence-based policymaking that prioritizes access to life-saving tools. I urge Secretary Kennedy and the administration to reconsider this framework, reinstate ACIP's role in vaccine policy, and ensure any new appointees are qualified, independent experts. If concerns about ACIP exist, they should be addressed through reform, not dissolution. Healthcare providers and community leaders must also educate patients about vaccination benefits, particularly for vulnerable groups like pregnant women and those with high exposure. Individuals can take action by staying informed, discussing vaccination with their doctors, and advocating for clear, equitable access to vaccines. By working together—government, providers, and citizens—we can protect lives, reduce the burden of Long COVID, and rebuild confidence in our public health system. We must seize this opportunity to unite around science and ensure a healthier, safer, and prosperous future for all Americans.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Every 30 minutes, someone arrives at an ER with a gunshot wound, according to the CDC
The COVID-19 pandemic and its corresponding increase in shootings sparked a national conversation around firearm injury, emergency room visits, and the treatment of gun violence victims in hospitals. Five years later, the conversation has faded, but new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that gun violence remains a stubborn presence across the country, with 93,022 shooting injuries treated in hospitals from 2018 to 2023. According to the research, an American emergency room treats at least one firearm injury every 30 minutes. 'Most cities use police data to inform prevention planning, but data from hospital and public health sources is an essential, and often missing, piece to guide action, as many incidents of violence and crime are not reported to police,' said Dr. Adam Rowh, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC and lead author of the study, via e-mail to The Trace. The study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine in April, analyzed the CDC's data on emergency department firearm injuries, which is limited to the District of Columbia and nine states: Florida, Georgia, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. The study showed that the monthly rates for shooting injuries were highest in July and lowest in February; daily rates were disproportionately high on holidays, and nighttime peaks were the highest on Friday and Saturday, consistent with prior research. The researchers also found that rates were highest between 2:30 a.m. and 3 a.m., and were the lowest between 10 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. The authors of the study concluded that knowing the periods when gunshot injuries are highest could be essential both in deploying care and in effectively allocating resources, such as trauma preparedness, ambulance services, hospital staffing, and strategies for intervention. One of those strategies is hospital-based violence intervention programs (HVIPs), an effort aimed at mitigating reinjury by providing holistic and rehabilitative care to shooting victims. The model, first developed 30 years ago, has spread nationwide, and various programs fund their services through myriad resources, most notably through grants now facing the threat of cuts and closures. 'It's happening on every front,' January Serda, the grant coordinator of one such program in Newport News, Virginia, said of federal cuts to community violence intervention funding, education, and healthcare. Dr. Randi Smith, a trauma surgeon who launched an HVIP at Grady Memorial Hospital, in Atlanta, said she has attended to a gunshot victim on every one of her on-call days in the trauma center. Financial and social investment in such programs is as paramount to treatment as life-saving medical care, she emphasized. 'I was very motivated to start a violence intervention program, taking best practices from some of the programs that I have been a part of and shortcomings that I had learned from the past,' Smith said. The program she started in 2023, Interrupting Violence Among Youth and Young Adults, is one of the few based in the Southeast. The program has served more than a thousand people, including survivors and their family members. According to Smith, its reinjury rates are less than 3 percent, compared with national benchmarks that are up to 30 percent and institutional benchmarks that are between 12 percent and 15 percent. Her work has a long legacy. Nearly four decades ago, physicians and nurses—especially those with public health experience—were among the first cohort of medical practitioners to recognize gun violence as a public health issue. That recognition was largely based on what they witnessed in hospitals and emergency rooms, as the rate of shootings reached historic highs in the 1980s and 1990s. Those firsthand accounts were pivotal in the development of the nation's first hospital-based violence intervention programs. Serda, the grant coordinator for an HVIP in Virginia, said in today's multilayered crisis, it's more paramount than ever to prioritize care for the people on the frontlines. She came to violence intervention from nonprofit management and fundraising for survivors of sexual assault in 2022, after her 17-year-old son, Justice Dunham, was fatally shot in a high school parking lot after a basketball game. 'I was blown away by the lack of training around trauma-informed care, or safe spaces and outlets, for nurses and practitioners, and people who are seeing this firsthand and helping the community,' said Serda, who began to advocate for trauma-informed initiatives designed to help patients, her HVIP team and others address the emotional impact of caring for victims of violence and firearm injuries. 'There was no discussion about compassion fatigue, burnout, or vicarious trauma.' As hospital personnel adjust to the ever-evolving firearm violence crisis, Smith said listening to their experiences, and supporting their well-being, has never been more crucial. 'I think a lot of people are looking at the recent news, post-pandemic, that shootings have decreased, and have not realized that we as hospital staff are still treating patients day after day,' said Smith, 'dealing with a medical environment that shifted significantly since the pandemic, and navigating extreme burnout.' This story was produced by The Trace and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
A quarter of the world's population are adolescents: major report sets out health and wellbeing trends
The Lancet has released its second global commission report on Adolescent Health and Wellbeing. Adolescents are defined as 10- to 24-year-olds. The report builds on the first one, done in 2016. The latest report presents substantial original research that supports actions it recommends to be taken across sectors as well as at global, regional, country and local level. The co-chairs of the commission, Sarah Baird, Alex Ezeh and Russell Viner, together with the youth commissioners lead, Shakira Choonara, give a guide to the report's findings. The report noted significant improvements in some aspects of adolescent health and wellbeing since the 2016 report. These include reductions in: communicable, maternal and nutritional diseases, particularly among female adolescents the burden of disease from injuries substance use, specifically tobacco and alcohol teenage pregnancy. It also found that there had been an increase in age at first marriage and in education, especially for young women. Despite this progress, adolescent health and wellbeing is said to be at a tipping point. Continued progress is being undermined by rapidly escalating rates of non-communicable diseases and mental disorders, accompanied by threats from compounding and intersecting megatrends. These include climate change and environmental degradation, the growing power of commercial influences on health, rising conflict and displacement, rapid urbanisation, and the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. These megatrends are outpacing responses from national governments and the international community. Born between 2000 and 2014, this is the first cohort of humans who will live their entire life in a time when the average annual global temperature has consistently been 0.5°C or higher above pre-industrial levels. At roughly 2 billion adolescents, they are the largest cohort of adolescents in the history of humanity. And this number will not be surpassed as populations age and fertility rates fall in even the poorest countries. They are the first generation of global digital natives. They live in a world of immense resources and opportunities, with unprecedented connectedness made possible by the rapid expansion of digital technologies. This is true even in the hardest-to-reach places. Growing participation in secondary and tertiary education is equipping adolescents of all genders with new economic opportunities and providing pathways out of poverty. These opportunities, however, are not being realised for most adolescents. Increasing numbers continue to grow up in settings with limited opportunities. In addition, investments in adolescent health and wellbeing continue to lag relative to their population share or their share of the global burden of disease. Investments in adolescents accounted for only 2.4% of the total development assistance for health in 2016-2021. This was despite the fact that adolescents accounted for 25.2% of the global population in that period and 9.1% of the total burden of disease. We use development assistance as a measure because, while governments also invest in adolescents, it's difficult to account for how much this is. For example, when a government supports a health facility, it serves the entire population. Yet, the report provides evidence to show that the return on investments in adolescent health and wellbeing is highly cost-effective and at par with investments in children. The report recognises the special place of Africa in the global future of adolescents. It notes that, by the end of this century, nearly half of all adolescents will live in Africa. Currently, adolescents in Africa experience higher burdens of communicable, maternal and nutritional diseases, at more than double the global average for both male and female adolescents. They also have a higher prevalence of anaemia, adolescent childbearing, early marriage and HIV infection. They are much less likely to complete 12 years of schooling and more likely to not be in education, employment, or training. Female adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa have the highest adolescent fertility rate at 99.4 births per 1,000 female adolescents aged 15-19 (the global average is 41.8). They have also experienced the slowest decline between 2016 and 2022. Globally, there was progress in reducing child marriage between 2016 and 2022. But in eight countries in 2022, at least one in three female adolescents aged 15–19 years was married. All but one of these eight countries were in sub-Saharan Africa. Niger (50.2%) and Mali (40.6%) had the highest proportion of married female adolescents. The practice of child marriage is declining in south Asia and becoming more concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa. As the report notes: it continues because of cultural norms, fuelled by economic hardships, insurgency, conflict, ambiguous legal provisions, and lack of political will to enforce legal provisions. Beyond adolescent sexual and reproductive health concerns in sub-Saharan Africa, obesity is increasing fastest in the region. This illustrates the vulnerability of adolescents to the power of commercial interests. Since 1990, obesity and overweight has increased by 89% in prevalence among adolescents aged 15–19 years in sub-Saharan Africa. This is the largest regional increase. The absence of data on adolescents is a problem. Adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa are absent in many data systems. For example, data on adolescent mental health in sub-Saharan Africa is virtually absent. Stronger data systems are needed to understand and track progress on the complex set of determinants of adolescent health and wellbeing. Another area of concern is the massive inequities within countries, often gendered or by geography. While female adolescents in Kenya are experiencing substantial declines in the burden of HIV and sexually transmitted infections, adolescent males are experiencing increasing burdens. In South Africa, years of healthy life lost to maternal disorders show more than 10-fold differences between the Western Cape and North West provinces. Where there's been strong political leadership, remarkable changes have been seen. Take the case of Benin Republic. The adolescent fertility rate in the country declined from 26% in 1996 to 20% in 2018 and child marriage from 39% to 31% over the same period. Strong political leadership has also led to substantial reductions in female genital mutilation or cutting. This fell from 12% of girls in Benin in 2001 to 2% in 2011–12 among 15–19-year-old girls in Benin Republic. Political leadership also facilitated the expansion, by the national parliament in 2021, of the grounds under which women, girls, and their families could access safe and legal abortion. But for every country that takes positive steps to protect the health and wellbeing of adolescents, several others regress. The last decade has witnessed regression in several countries. In 2024, The Gambia attempted to repeal a 2015 law criminalising all acts of female genital mutilation or cutting. In 2022, Nigeria's federal government ordered the removal of sex education from the basic education curriculum. The report calls for a multisectoral approach across multiple national ministries and agencies, including the office of the head of state, and within the UN system. Coordination and accountability mechanisms for adolescent health and wellbeing also need to be strengthened. Laws and policies are needed to protect the health and rights of adolescents, reduce the impact of the commercial determinants of health, and promote healthy use of digital and social media spaces and platforms. Strong political leadership at local, national, and global levels is essential. The report also calls for prioritised investments, the creation of enabling environments to transform adolescent health and wellbeing, and the development of innovative approaches to address complex and emerging health threats. It calls for meaningful engagement of adolescents in policy, research, interventions and accountability mechanisms that affect them. Without these concerted actions, we risk failing our young people and losing out on the investments being made in childhood at this second critical period in their development. The current adverse international aid climate is particularly affecting adolescents as much development assistance relates to gender and sexual and reproductive health. Concerted action in addressing adolescent health and wellbeing is an urgent imperative for sub-Saharan Africa. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Alex Ezeh, Drexel University; Russell Viner, UCL, and Sarah Baird, George Washington University Read more: Canada must take action to prevent climate-related migration We design cities and buildings for earthquakes and floods — we need to do the same for wildfires Eating wild meat carries serious health risks – why it still happens along the Kenya-Tanzania border Alex Ezeh is a fellow at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (Stias). Russell Viner and Sarah Baird do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
