Possible Local Malaria Case Found in New Jersey. Here's What to Know
The New Jersey Departments of Health (NJDOH) and Environmental Protection reported on the case Monday. The resident hadn't recently traveled, suggesting they likely caught it from homegrown mosquitoes. If so, this would be the first locally acquired malaria case seen in the state in over three decades, though not the first such case reported in the country this year.
Malaria is caused by several species of the single-celled parasite Plasmodium. When an infected mosquito transmits the disease to a person, the parasites will first invade certain tissues (usually the liver), reproduce, and then infect red blood cells. A small percentage of the parasites in the bloodstream will develop into a stage of life that can newly infect and grow inside mosquitoes that bite the person, starting the cycle all over again.
The symptoms of malaria, which include fatigue, chills, and other flu-like illnesses, are caused by the damage the infection causes to our blood cells. Though most people survive their bout of malaria, it can also cause life-threatening complications like seizures, kidney failure, and sepsis. Even with available treatments today, malaria still kills roughly 600,000 people worldwide every year—making it one of the deadliest diseases around.
A Rare, Deadly Mosquito Virus Has Emerged in New York
Malaria was once a common threat in the U.S., particularly in warmer areas during the summer. But a dedicated public health campaign, which included mosquito spraying programs and the removal of breeding sites, eradicated the disease by the 1950s. Since then, just about all malaria cases reported in the U.S. are travel-related, originating from places where the disease is endemic. But the potential for malaria to make a comeback remains.
Malaria is spread by the bite of a female Anopheles mosquito, and there are native species in the U.S. that can transmit the disease to humans, including in New Jersey.
Though officials are unsure about the origin of this latest case, it's possible that a person with travel-related measles arrived in the area and was bitten by a mosquito that may have then bitten someone else. According to health officials, roughly 100 travel-related cases are reported annually in the state. If this new case is confirmed as local, this would be the first homegrown case documented in New Jersey since 1991.
Officials say that malaria's threat to the greater public is minimal, but other recent cases have been locally acquired. In 2023, for instance, there were three separate clusters in Florida, Texas, and Maryland (at the time, they were the first local U.S. cases documented in two decades). And earlier this month, Washington officials reported their own possible homegrown case of malaria, quite possibly the first ever found in the state.
Low as people's risk of malaria may be, we should still do our best to prevent mosquito bites. There are other diseases that mosquitoes in the U.S. can spread outside of malaria, including West Nile virus, Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE), and even dengue fever. We can personally reduce bites by using insect repellent and wearing long-sleeved clothing. And people should also do their part to clean up areas around their homes that could turn into literal breeding grounds for mosquitoes.
Here's What You Look Like to a Mosquito
'I urge the public to continue taking steps to eliminate standing water around their properties, which will go a long way to reducing the risk of mosquito breeding,' said Shawn M. LaTourette, NJ Environmental Protection Commissioner, in a statement. 'As the summer winds down, taking this simple but necessary step will help ensure quality of life and protect public health.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
First PRIZM Study Participant Enrolled in Tisento Therapeutics' Open-Label Extension Study in MELAS
Participants Who Complete Treatment in Global Phase 2b PRIZM MELAS Study Are Eligible to Enroll CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Aug. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Tisento Therapeutics today announced that the first participant has enrolled in the company's open-label extension study in MELAS (Mitochondrial Encephalomyopathy, Lactic Acidosis, and Stroke-like Episodes). The extension study (NCT06961344) is evaluating the long-term safety and tolerability of zagociguat in individuals with MELAS who complete treatment in the global Phase 2b PRIZM study, which is expected to complete screening in the next months. The extension study is intended to provide uninterrupted access to zagociguat for clinical trial participants for up to two years and evaluate the long-term safety of zagociguat. 'We're pleased to reach the important milestone of enrolling the first PRIZM study participant into our open-label extension study,' said Peter Hecht, Ph.D., chief executive officer of Tisento. 'Enthusiastic engagement by MELAS patients and physicians is powering momentum in our development program, and we look forward to completing PRIZM enrollment in the next few months.' The PRIZM study is actively enrolling in the U.S., Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, Italy, and Germany, and interested individuals are encouraged to discuss participation with their physician. PRIZM is evaluating the impact of zagociguat treatment on fatigue, cognitive performance, and other key aspects of MELAS. The clinical outcome assessments and endpoint strategy for the PRIZM study were informed by Tisento's interview study in which individuals living with MELAS described the symptoms and impacts of the disease that are most important to them. Participants who complete treatment in PRIZM have the opportunity to enroll in the open-label extension study. About the PRIZM Study PRIZM – a Phase 2b Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial Investigating Zagociguat in MELAS – is evaluating the efficacy and safety of oral zagociguat 15 mg or 30 mg compared to placebo when administered once-daily for 12 weeks in participants with genetically and phenotypically defined MELAS. The PRIZM study has a crossover design, with two 12-week treatment periods separated by a 4-week washout period. All participants will receive zagociguat during one of the 12-week periods and placebo during the other. Participants who complete treatment in the study have the opportunity to enroll in an open-label extension study. The global PRIZM study is now enrolling approximately 44 participants at mitochondrial disease centers of excellence in the U.S., Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. For more information, please visit or (NCT06402123). Interested individuals can also reach out to their physicians for participation details. About Zagociguat Zagociguat is a once-daily, oral, clinical-stage investigational medicine with potential to positively impact both peripheral and central nervous system manifestations of mitochondrial diseases. Zagociguat stimulates soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC), an enzyme that is found in virtually every cell in every tissue of the body and is part of a system of cellular mechanisms that control critical physiological functions including neuronal function and blood flow. A first-in-class, brain-penetrant sGC stimulator, zagociguat is hypothesized to rebalance dysregulated cellular pathways in MELAS. By restoring cellular functions that support mitochondria, zagociguat may help restore mitochondrial energy production and physiological function. In a Phase 2a study in patients with MELAS, zagociguat exhibited a favorable safety profile, exposure throughout the body including in the central nervous system, and improvements in neuronal function, mitochondrial function, and blood flow in the brain. Zagociguat is currently being evaluated as a treatment for MELAS in the Phase 2b PRIZM study. Zagociguat received Fast Track designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of MELAS. Fast Track is a process designed to facilitate the development and potentially expedite the review of medicines to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need, with the goal of getting important new drugs to patients earlier. For more information, visit About Tisento Therapeutics Tisento Therapeutics, a privately held biotech company, is developing novel medicines to treat diseases with significant unmet need, beginning with MELAS and other genetic mitochondrial diseases. Ti sento means 'I hear you' in Italian; our approach to innovation begins with listening to patients and then channeling what we learn into decisive actions that shape our research and clinical programs. Tisento is guided by a high-caliber internal team of biopharma veterans and an extensive external network of expert physicians, patient advocacy groups, researchers, industry-leading vendors, and other close collaborators who are partners in our mission to develop meaningful treatments for mitochondrial diseases. Learn more at our website, or connect with us on LinkedIn, Facebook, X (@tisentotx), or Bluesky. Contact Tisento Media RelationsJessi Rennekamp, Astrior CommunicationsEmail: jessi@ in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Medscape
24 minutes ago
- Medscape
AAP Counters ACIP Guidance in New Immunization Schedule
America's leading professional pediatric association has released its latest immunization schedule, contravening current federal COVID-19 immunization guidance. The immunization schedule was published on August 19 in the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)'s Redbook Online and calls for universal COVID-19 immunization beginning at 6 months. It also includes the group's formal recommendations for routine infant, children, and adolescent immunizations against 18 diseases. There are also updated recommendations for respiratory syncytial virus and influenza. 'We extensively reviewed the most recently available data about COVID-19 risks in kids, as well as safety and effectiveness of available COVID-19 vaccines. It's clear they are very safe for all populations,' Sean O'Leary, MD, chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases, said in a statement. In May of this year, Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, announced in a video posted on X, that the CDC had dropped Biden era recommendations that all pregnant women and children be given the COVID-19 vaccine. The video came on the heels of the CDC's announcement that only 13% of eligible children were up to date on their COVID-19 vaccine. In children aged 6 months to 23 months, that number was about 5%. 'Evidence-Based' vs 'Conflict of Interest' The AAP said its COVID-19 recommendations are 'evidence-based' and that they 'differ from recent recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the CDC, which was overhauled this year and replaced with individuals who have a history of spreading vaccine misinformation.' Kennedy's office shot back that the AAP is not acting in good faith. 'By bypassing the CDC's advisory process and freelancing its own recommendations, while smearing those who demand accountability, the AAP is putting commercial interests ahead of public health and politics above America's children,' Kennedy's Communications Director, Andrew Simpson, said in a statement provided to Medscape Medical News . Kennedy's office continued, 'The American people deserve confidence that medical recommendations are based solely on science and public health. We call on the AAP to strengthen conflict-of-interest safeguards and keep its publications free from financial influence, ensuring every recommendation reflects only the best interests of America's children.' COVID-19 The Academy noted that because it can be fatal in children, especially those aged 6 months through 23 months; it recommends a COVID-19 vaccine for this patient population, unless they have a known allergy to the ingredients of the vaccine. An age-appropriate COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for all children and adolescents 2 through 18 years of age in the following risk groups: Persons at high risk for severe COVID-19 Residents of long-term care facilities or other congregate settings Persons who have never been vaccinated against COVID-19 Persons whose household contacts are at high risk for severe COVID-19 The most updated version of the vaccine should be made available to any parent or guardian who desires their child to be protected against COVID-19, according to the Academy's recommendations. The AAP's COVID-19 vaccine guidelines are published online and will be published in the November issue of Pediatrics . 'Among the reasons we decided to move to a risk-based recommendation for healthy older children is the fact that the hospitalization rate for young children and children underlying medical conditions remains high, in line with rates for many of the other vaccine-preventable diseases for which we vaccinate,' O'Leary said. Federal recommendations state that the COVID-19 shot is not universally recommended, but that physicians take a case-by-case approach in pediatric cases. Adults aged 18 years or older are still advised to receive the vaccine under this administration. 'Rooted in Science' The AAP's other vaccine recommendations largely mirror those of ACIP. The new schedule also addresses recent updates on pentavalent meningococcal vaccine, the starting age of the human papilloma virus vaccine, and the removal of a hepatitis vaccine that is no longer available, according to the statement. 'The AAP will continue to provide recommendations for immunizations that are rooted in science and are in the best interest of the health of infants, children, and adolescents,' AAP President Susan J. Kressly, MD, said in the statement. 'Pediatricians know how important routine childhood immunizations are in keeping children, families, and their communities healthy and thriving.' Insurance Coverage in Question Insurance coverage for vaccinations is normally based on federal recommendations. Now that there is a schism in recommendations, coverage is in question. 'The AAP urges every insurer to cover all the vaccines that are included in this immunization schedule,' Kressly said in the statement. 'AAP is committed to working with our partners at the local, state, and federal levels to make sure every child, in every community, has access to vaccines.'
Medscape
24 minutes ago
- Medscape
Are UPFs Bad for Weight Loss and Health? It's Complicated
Hardly a day goes by without one or more studies or news stories about ultraprocessed foods (UPFs), most of them negative. The studies often demonize UPFs and urge the public to cut back on them or avoid them entirely. Emerging research suggests a more nuanced approach may be needed. Many researchers warn that UPFs are associated with a higher risk for adverse health outcomes and may even contribute to premature death; however, the 'healthiness' (often undefined in studies) of such foods is not always clearcut. Some studies, as well as a recent advisory from the American Heart Association (AHA), advise cutting back on UPFs with high fat, sugar, and salt content but also acknowledge that certain UPFs can be healthy, are often affordable, and could be part of a high-quality diet. These developments seem to indicate that not all UPFs are the same and that the effect on weight gain and health may be tied to the nutritional value of the food and not just its level of processing. The UPF category is 'so broad it borders on useless,' wrote Nicola Guess, PhD, a registered dietitian at the University of Oxford in Oxford, England, in a recent essay. 'It lumps store-bought whole-grain bread and hummus in with cookies, potato chips, and soda,' she added. Are UPFs an Obesity Culprit? There is general agreement that diets consisting primarily of UPFs are associated with increased energy intake and weight gain, but some experts question whether all UPFs cause people to put on weight. 'Epidemiological and experimental evidence consistently links UPF dietary patterns to increased energy intake, weight gain, and indicators of excess weight,' Filippa Juul of SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn, New York, and the University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil, and colleagues wrote in a recent Nature Reviews Endocrinology article. UPFs' negative effects may arise from their 'evolutionarily novel nutritional, physical, and chemical characteristics,' which could influence multiple biological pathways, including food reward systems, appetite and/or satiety regulation, and the microbiome, they added. 'To stem the global rise in obesity, multipronged policy efforts are needed to reduce UPF consumption and create health-promoting food systems,' the researchers concluded. A 2024 evidence review concluded that greater UPF consumption has been a key driver of obesity and that the 'obesogenic environment' must be changed to support efforts to reduce UPF intake. The lead author of that review, Samuel Dicken, PhD, of the Centre for Obesity Research, University College London, London, England, was also the lead author of a recent randomized controlled trial pitting a UPF diet against a minimally processed food (MPF) diet in an 8-week crossover trial. Food in both diets was provided to participants and was nutritionally matched in accordance with the UK's official government advice on how to eat a healthy, balanced diet. The MPF diet was more effective for weight loss than the UPF diet, yielding a 2% average reduction in weight compared with 1% for the UPF diet. Self-reported craving control was also significantly improved with the MPF diet, which may have helped support the lower calorie consumption, the authors suggested. 'Though a 2% reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their intake,' Dicken said at the time. 'If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we'd expect to see a 13% weight reduction in men and a 9% reduction in women on the minimally processed diet, but only a 4% weight reduction in men and 5% in women after the ultraprocessed diet. Over time this would start to become a big difference.' However, in comments on the study for the UK's Science Media Centre, several experts pointed out that regardless of the difference in diet, both groups lost weight, calling into question the idea that all UPFs cause weight gain. 'The study suggests that a diet meeting current dietary recommendations is not detrimental to weight maintenance, whether it is ultraprocessed or not,' Gunter Kuhnle, professor of nutrition and food science, University of Reading, Reading, England, noted in his response. In addition, experts noted, the crossover design of the trial, which had both groups following both diets, with a washout period in between, led to an 'order effect,' in which weight loss was less on the second diet across both trial arms. In his response, Kevin McConway, PhD, emeritus professor of applied statistics, The Open University, Milton Keynes, England, took issue with the researchers' methodology for extrapolating the diets' effect over the course of a year and questioned whether the MPF diet would lead to greater weight loss over time. Are All UPFs Unhealthy? If UPFs' effects on weight loss may depend on the foods' quality, could the same be true about the health impacts? Researchers often rely on definitions in the NOVA classification system, which groups foods into four categories ranging from unprocessed/minimally processed to ultraprocessed, in studies evaluating the health effects of UPFs. NOVA warns that the processes and ingredients used to manufacture UPFs typically make them nutritionally unbalanced and liable to be over-consumed and to replace foods that involve less processing. Dietary guidelines, by contrast, focus less on how food is processed and instead emphasize nutritional content, caloric intake, and avoidance of too much added sugar, saturated fat, and salt. Certain foods may be considered healthy by government nutritional standards but not so by NOVA, and vice versa. A recent large study of data from more than 200,000 US adults found that, after adjustment, participants who consumed the most UPFs, as defined by NOVA, were 11% more likely to develop cardiovascular disease (CVD) and 16% more likely to develop coronary heart disease (CHD) during the study period compared with those who consumed the least UPFs. After researchers combined the results with those from 19 other studies, they found that participants who consumed the most UPFs were 17% more likely to develop CVD, 23% more likely to develop CHD, and 9% more likely to have a stroke compared with those who consumed fewest UPFs. But that wasn't the whole story. 'Of note, divergent associations were observed for specific UPF groups in our cohorts,' the authors wrote. 'Sugar-sweetened beverages, processed meats, and artificially sweetened beverages were associated with higher [cardiovascular disease] and [coronary heart disease] risk. Conversely, ultraprocessed savory snacks, cold cereals, and yogurt/dairy-based desserts were inversely associated with CVD and CHD risk. Ultra-processed bread and cold cereals were associated with lower stroke risk, and hard liquors with lower CHD risk.' Similarly, a large study of data from the Nurses' Health Study found that 'high-quality meta-evidence shows that total UPF consumption is associated with higher T2D [type 2 diabetes] risk.' However, the authors wrote, among subgroups of UPFs, 'cereals; dark and whole-grain breads; packaged sweet and savory snacks; fruit-based products; and yogurt and dairy-based desserts were associated with lower T2D risk.' Moreover, in a proof-of-concept study, researchers developed a sample menu that included ≥80% calories from UPFs, as defined by NOVA, yet followed the recommendations for a healthy dietary pattern outlined in the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. A total of 91% of the calories ended up coming from UPFs, but the menu still scored 86 out of a possible 100 points on the 2015 Healthy Eating Index. 'This sample menu did not achieve a perfect score due primarily to excess sodium and an insufficient amount of whole grains,' the authors wrote. 'This menu provided adequate amounts of all macro- and micro-nutrients, except vitamin D, vitamin E, and choline.' A narrative review poses a key question: Just what might make UPFs bad? Is it the nutrient content or the processing that the food undergoes? The authors concluded that we don't know — which is pretty much the case today. The AHA's scientific advisory and many recent studies call for more research on the health impacts of food additives and processing techniques, as well as research to clarify the impact of UPFs that have better nutrition profiles. In her recent essay, Guess called the focus on UPFs 'a distraction from what we already know about nutrition.…We consume too much fast food, too many sugary beverages, too many cakes, doughnuts and chips. And we consume too few legumes, fruits and vegetables. We need better food and nutrition policies that make it easier for people to purchase and consume a healthier diet.' Dicken reported being funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Biomedical Research Center, a partnership between the UK NIHR and the UCLH National Health Service Foundation Trust; the Rosetrees Trust; and a UK Medical Research Council grant. Dicken reported receiving royalties from Amazon for a self-published book that mentions UPF, payments from Red Pen Reviews as a contributor, consultancy work for Consensus and Androlabs, and travel fees from a USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture grant to present a workshop on food processing classifications.
