Health
First-line immune defences against COVID-19 are short-lived and may explain reinfection
A new study finds that antibodies produced in the nose decline nine months after COVID-19 infection, while antibodies found in the blood last at least a year.
Newswise — A new study finds that antibodies produced in the nose decline nine months after COVID-19 infection, while antibodies found in the blood last at least a year.
Antibodies in the nasal fluid (known as immunoglobulin A, or IgA) provide first-line defence against COVID-19 by blocking SARS-CoV-2 virus when it first enters the respiratory tract. These antibodies are very effective at preventing the virus from entering cells and causing infection.
However, the investigators found that the nasal antibodies were only present in those recently infected and were particularly short-lived against the Omicron variant, compared to earlier variants.
These new findings – which are published in eBioMedicine – may explain why people who have recovered from COVID are at risk of reinfection, and especially with Omicron and its subvariants.
The study also found that vaccination is very effective in creating and boosting antibodies in the blood, which prevent severe disease, but had very little effect on nasal IgA levels.
First author of the study, Dr Felicity Liew, from the National Heart and Lung Institute at Imperial College London, said: “Before our study, it was unclear how long these important nasal antibodies lasted. Our study found durable immune responses after infection and vaccination, but these key nasal antibodies were shorter-lived than those in the blood. While blood antibodies help to protect against disease, nasal antibodies can prevent infection altogether. This might be an important factor behind repeat infections with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its new variants.”
The researchers note that studies that directly study these nasal antibodies and reinfections are needed to confirm their results.
The research was led by teams from Imperial College London and the University of Liverpool. It studied almost 450 people who had been hospitalised with COVID-19 between February 2020 and March 2021, before the emergence of Omicron variant and prior to vaccine rollout.
The study also found that whilst current vaccines are effective at boosting blood antibody which can prevent serious illness and death, they do not significantly boost nasal IgA antibodies.
The researchers call for the next generation of vaccines to include nasal spray or inhaled vaccines that target these antibodies more effectively. They say that vaccines capable of boosting these antibodies could potentially reduce infections more effectively and prevent transmission.
Co-senior author of the study, Professor Peter Openshaw, from the National Heart and Lung Institute at Imperial College London, said: “Our results highlight a need for nasal spray vaccines that can boost these local antibodies in the nose and lungs. Such vaccines might be able to prevent people from getting infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and reduce transmission of the virus between people. This could help us to better control the pandemic and stop new variants emerging.”
He continues: “Our current vaccines are designed to reduce severe disease and death and are dramatically effective in this aim. It’s now essential to also develop nasal spray vaccines that can provide better protection against infection. It’s brilliant that current vaccines mean fewer people are becoming seriously ill, but it would be even better if we could prevent them from getting infected and transmitting the virus.”
The study analysed antibodies of the participants to understand how long nasal antibodies lasted, compared with antibodies found in the blood. They also studied the effect of subsequent COVID-19 vaccines on antibodies in the nose and blood.
Samples were taken when people were hospitalised and at six months and one year after. Since most people were vaccinated during the study, many samples were also taken before and after vaccination.
They measured how well the antibodies neutralised the original SARS-CoV-2 virus, and the Delta and Omicron variants to see how long the antibodies were effective for after infection or vaccination.
The study included 446 people admitted to hospital in the early phase of the pandemic, including 141 who provided samples at the start of the study and six and 12 months later. For participants who only had one sample taken during the 12-month period of study, the researchers used modelling to estimate how the average antibody responses changed over time.
Of those who confirmed whether they had been vaccinated (323 people), 95% (307 people) received their first vaccination during the study follow-up period. This led to increases in all nasal and blood antibodies, but the change in the first-line defence nasal antibodies (IgA) was small and temporary. The researchers found that the participants’ sex, disease severity and age did not impact how long their nasal immunity lasted, but caution that their study was only in people with severe disease that required hospitalisation.
They also found that blood antibody from participants continued to bind the original SARS-CoV-2 virus, and the Delta and Omicron variants a year after infection, but found that booster vaccines are needed to maintain this immunity.
Co-senior author of the study, Dr Lance Turtle, Senior Clinical Lecturer at the University of Liverpool and Consultant in Infectious Diseases at Liverpool University Hospitals, said: “Our study suggests that this first-line defence immunity is separate from other immune responses, and although it is increased by vaccination and infection, it only lasts for about nine months. Nonetheless, booster vaccines can increase it slightly and otherwise have a significant impact on other areas of immunity, protecting against severe disease and death very effectively, so remain very important.”
The researchers note that their study did not screen participants for reinfection, but that this was unlikely to have occurred since the study took place during periods of national restrictions and lockdowns when COVID-19 incidence was low and people were not mixing. In a preliminary analysis, they found only two cases of reinfection in their study, suggesting that the overall trends seen are accurate.
The study was supported by the ISARIC4C, UKCIC and PHOSP-COVID consortia. It was jointly funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, UK Research and Innovation and the Medical Research Council.
–
This press release uses a labelling system developed by the Academy of Medical Sciences to improve the communication of evidence. For more information, please see: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AMS-press-release-labelling-system-GUIDANCE.pdf
About Imperial College London
Imperial College London is a global top ten university with a world-class reputation. The College’s 22,000 students and 8,000 staff are working to solve the biggest challenges in science, medicine, engineering and business.
The Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021 found that it has a greater proportion of world-leading research than any other UK university, it was named University of the Year 2022 according to The Times and Sunday Times Good University Guide, University of the Year for Student Experience 2022 by the Good University Guide, and awarded a Queen’s Anniversary Prize for its COVID-19 response. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/
The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)
The mission of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) is to improve the health and wealth of the nation through research. We do this by:
– Funding high quality, timely research that benefits the NHS, public health and social care;
– Investing in world-class expertise, facilities and a skilled delivery workforce to translate discoveries into improved treatments and services;
– Partnering with patients, service users, carers and communities, improving the relevance, quality and impact of our research;
– Attracting, training and supporting the best researchers to tackle complex health and social care challenges;
– Collaborating with other public funders, charities and industry to help shape a cohesive and globally competitive research system;
– Funding applied global health research and training to meet the needs of the poorest people in low and middle income countries.
NIHR is funded by the Department of Health and Social Care. Its work in low and middle income countries is principally funded through UK Aid from the UK government.
LinkL:
Source: Imperial College London
Author
Lifestyle
Women are at a higher risk of dying from heart disease − in part because doctors don’t take major sex and gender differences into account
Heart disease impacts women differently than men due to genetic and gender biases in healthcare. Awareness and improved treatment approaches are essential for better outcomes.
Last Updated on April 20, 2026 by Daily News Staff
Amy Huebschmann, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Judith Regensteiner, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus
A simple difference in the genetic code – two X chromosomes versus one X chromosome and one Y chromosome – can lead to major differences in heart disease. It turns out that these genetic differences influence more than just sex organs and sex assigned at birth – they fundamentally alter the way cardiovascular disease develops and presents.
While sex influences the mechanisms behind how cardiovascular disease develops, gender plays a role in how healthcare providers recognize and manage it. Sex refers to biological characteristics such as genetics, hormones, anatomy and physiology, while gender refers to social, psychological, and cultural constructs. Women are more likely to die after a first heart attack or stroke than men. Women are also more likely to have additional or different heart attack symptoms that go beyond chest pain, such as nausea, jaw pain, dizziness and fatigue. It is often difficult to fully disentangle the influences of sex on cardiovascular disease outcomes versus the influences of gender.
While women who haven’t entered menopause have a lower risk of cardiovascular disease than men, their cardiovascular risk accelerates dramatically after menopause. In addition, if a woman has Type 2 diabetes, her risk of heart attack accelerates to be equivalent to that of men, even if the woman with diabetes has not yet gone through menopause. Further data is needed to better understand differences in cardiovascular disease risk among nonbinary and transgender patients.
Despite these differences, one key thing is the same: Heart attack, stroke and other forms of cardiovascular disease are the leading cause of death for all people, regardless of sex or gender.
We are researchers who study women’s health and the way cardiovascular disease develops and presents differently in women and men. Our work has identified a crucial need to update medical guidelines with more sex-specific approaches to diagnosis and treatment in order to improve health outcomes for all.
Gender differences in heart disease
The reasons behind sex and gender differences in cardiovascular disease are not completely known. Nor are the distinct biological effects of sex, such as hormonal and genetic factors, versus gender, such as social, cultural and psychological factors, clearly differentiated.
What researchers do know is that the accumulated evidence of what good heart care should look like for women compared with men has as many holes in it as Swiss cheese. Medical evidence for treating cardiovascular disease often comes from trials that excluded women, since women for the most part weren’t included in scientific research until the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993. For example, current guidelines to treat cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood pressure are based primarily on data from men. This is despite evidence that differences in the way that cardiovascular disease develops leads women to experience cardiovascular disease differently.
In addition to sex differences, implicit gender biases among providers and gendered social norms among patients lead clinicians to underestimate the risk of cardiac events in women compared with men. These biases play a role in why women are more likely than men to die from cardiac events. For example, for patients with symptoms that are borderline for cardiovascular disease, clinicians tend to be more aggressive in ordering artery imaging for men than for women. One study linked this tendency to order less aggressive tests for women partly to a gender bias that men are more open than women to taking risks.
In a study of about 3,000 patients with a recent heart attack, women were less likely than men to think that their heart attack symptoms were due to a heart condition. Additionally, most women do not know that cardiovascular disease is the No. 1 cause of death among women. Overall, women’s misperceptions of their own risk may hold them back from getting a doctor to check out possible symptoms of a heart attack or stroke.
These issues are further exacerbated for women of color. Lack of access to health care and additional challenges drive health disparities among underrepresented racial and ethnic minority populations.
Sex difference in heart disease
Cardiovascular disease physically looks different for women and men, specifically in the plaque buildup on artery walls that contributes to illness.
Women have fewer cholesterol crystals and fewer calcium deposits in their artery plaque than men do. Physiological differences in the smallest blood vessels feeding the heart also play a role in cardiovascular outcomes.
Women are more likely than men to have cardiovascular disease that presents as multiple narrowed arteries that are not fully “clogged,” resulting in chest pain because blood flow can’t ratchet up enough to meet higher oxygen demands with exercise, much like a low-flow showerhead. When chest pain presents in this way, doctors call this condition ischemia and no obstructive coronary arteries. In comparison, men are more likely to have a “clogged” artery in a concentrated area that can be opened up with a stent or with cardiac bypass surgery. Options for multiple narrowed arteries have lagged behind treatment options for typical “clogged” arteries, which puts women at a disadvantage.
In addition, in the early stages of a heart attack, the levels of blood markers that indicate damage to the heart are lower in women than in men. This can lead to more missed diagnoses of coronary artery disease in women compared with men.
The reasons for these differences are not fully clear. Some potential factors include differences in artery plaque composition that make men’s plaque more likely to rupture or burst and women’s plaque more likely to erode. Women also have lower heart mass and smaller arteries than men even after taking body size into consideration.
Reducing sex disparities
Too often, women with symptoms of cardiovascular disease are sent away from doctor’s offices because of gender biases that “women don’t get heart disease.”
Considering how symptoms of cardiovascular disease vary by sex and gender could help doctors better care for all patients.
One way that the rubber is meeting the road is with regard to better approaches to diagnosing heart attacks for women and men. Specifically, when diagnosing heart attacks, using sex-specific cutoffs for blood tests that measure heart damage – called high-sensitivity troponin tests – can improve their accuracy, decreasing missed diagnoses, or false negatives, in women while also decreasing overdiagnoses, or false positives, in men.
Our research laboratory’s leaders, collaborators and other internationally recognized research colleagues – some of whom partner with our Ludeman Family Center for Women’s Health Research on the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus – will continue this important work to close this gap between the sexes in health care. Research in this field is critical to shine a light on ways clinicians can better address sex-specific symptoms and to bring forward more tailored treatments.
The Biden administration’s recent executive order to advance women’s health research is paving the way for research to go beyond just understanding what causes sex differences in cardiovascular disease. Developing and testing right-sized approaches to care for each patient can help achieve better health for all.
Amy Huebschmann, Professor of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Judith Regensteiner, Professor of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Our Lifestyle section on STM Daily News is a hub of inspiration and practical information, offering a range of articles that touch on various aspects of daily life. From tips on family finances to guides for maintaining health and wellness, we strive to empower our readers with knowledge and resources to enhance their lifestyles. Whether you’re seeking outdoor activity ideas, fashion trends, or travel recommendations, our lifestyle section has got you covered. Visit us today at https://stmdailynews.com/category/lifestyle/ and embark on a journey of discovery and self-improvement.
(Feature Impact) Shingles isn’t just a painful rash and nerve pain. It’s also linked with a higher risk of serious cardiovascular events, including heart attack and stroke, especially in the weeks to months after infection. However, shingles is largely preventable with vaccination.
The world’s leading nonprofit organization focused on changing the future of health for all, the American Heart Association, reminds eligible adults to protect themselves by getting vaccinated and staying on top of their heart health.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 1 in 3 adults in the U.S. will get shingles in their lifetime. If you’ve had chickenpox, the virus that causes shingles, also known as herpes zoster, is already inside you. It can “wake up” years later, causing painful blisters and nerve pain that can last for months or longer.
After a shingles episode, one large study published in the “Journal of the American Heart Association” found the risk of heart attack and stroke was nearly 30% higher in the short term and may persist over time.
“Shingles can be very painful and knock you down for weeks,” said Eduardo Sanchez, M.D., FAHA, the American Heart Association’s chief medical officer for prevention. “It’s also associated with a higher chance of heart and stroke problems afterward. If you’re 50 or older, or have a weakened immune system, talk to your doctor or pharmacist about the shingles vaccine. It’s a simple step that can keep you healthier.”
Knowing your risk is the first step toward prevention. Age is the most important risk factor for developing shingles. As people age, their immune systems naturally weaken, making it easier for the virus to reactivate. People over 50, and especially those living with heart disease, diabetes or other chronic illnesses, are more likely to develop shingles.
The risk of serious complications from shingles increases:
- As you get older
- If you take drugs that keep your immune system from working properly, like steroids and drugs given after an organ transplant
- If you have medical conditions that keep your immune system from working properly such as certain cancers like leukemia and lymphoma, or HIV infection
Heart Health Made Simpler
In addition to ensuring you’re up to date on your vaccines, talk to your health care professional about ways you can improve your overall heart health. According to the American Heart Association, heart disease remains the leading cause of death, taking more lives in the United States than any other cause.
Following healthy lifestyle guidance like Life’s Essential 8 can make inroads toward preventing heart disease and stroke, and improving brain health. The set of four health behaviors (eat better, be more active, quit tobacco and get healthy sleep) and four health factors (manage weight, control cholesterol, manage blood sugar and manage blood pressure) are key measures for improving and maintaining cardiovascular health.
How to Get the Shingles Vaccine
- Check eligibility: Recommended by the CDC for adults 50-plus and adults 19 and older with weakened immune systems.
- Find a location: Most national pharmacies, many primary care and specialty clinics and local health departments offer it. Search your pharmacy’s app or website, or call your clinician’s office.
- Book it: Make an appointment online or by phone. Same‑day or walk‑in options may be available at pharmacies.
- Bring what you need: Photo ID, insurance card and a list of medicines and allergies. Wear a short‑sleeve shirt, if you can.
- Plan for two doses, 2-6 months apart: When you schedule dose one, set a reminder or book dose two before you leave.
- Cost and coverage: Many health plans, including Medicare Part D, cover shingles vaccination at low or no cost. Check your benefits or ask the pharmacy to verify coverage.
- After your shot: A sore arm, fatigue, headache or mild fever are common and usually go away in 2-3 days. Call your clinician about severe or persistent symptoms.
- If you’ve had shingles before: You can still get vaccinated after you recover. Ask your health care provider about timing.
Learn more at heart.org/shingles.
Signs and Symptoms of Shingles
Symptoms to watch for: tingling, itching or burning on one side of the body or face; a stripe‑like rash that turns into fluid‑filled blisters; headache; fever; or chills.
Act fast: If you think you have shingles, contact your health care professional right away. Treatment works best within 72 hours of the rash appearing. If the rash is near your eye or you have eye pain or changes in vision, seek urgent care.
Lasting impact: The rash typically scabs over and clears within 2-4 weeks, but the pain in the rash area can last about a month. The duration of pain seems to increase with age.
Protect Yourself (and Others) from Shingles
If you have shingles, you can stop the spread by covering the rash and avoiding touching or scratching it. You should also wash your hands often, for at least 20 seconds, and avoid contact with people who may be at heightened risk until your rash scabs over, including:
- Pregnant women who never had chickenpox or the chickenpox vaccine
- Premature or low-birthweight infants
- People with weakened immune systems
Photos courtesy of Shutterstock
SOURCE:
Our Lifestyle section on STM Daily News is a hub of inspiration and practical information, offering a range of articles that touch on various aspects of daily life. From tips on family finances to guides for maintaining health and wellness, we strive to empower our readers with knowledge and resources to enhance their lifestyles. Whether you’re seeking outdoor activity ideas, fashion trends, or travel recommendations, our lifestyle section has got you covered. Visit us today at https://stmdailynews.com/category/lifestyle/ and embark on a journey of discovery and self-improvement.
health and wellness
Cannabis Legalization Drives Innovation, Raises Health Concerns
Cannabis legalization is driving innovation, but much of it focuses on commercial products rather than patient health. New research highlights gaps between market growth and medical evidence.
Lucy Xiaolu Wang, UMass Amherst and Nathan W. Chan, UMass Amherst
Cannabis legalization
Innovation in health care saves lives. But not all health innovations have enough evidence to actually benefit patients.
Barriers to innovation are often higher in illicit or restricted markets, including cannabis, stem cells and cryptocurrencies. Researchers face higher costs, limited access to raw materials and data, and stricter regulations.
Cannabis illustrates a particularly confusing tension between regulatory restrictions on one hand and research and innovation on the other.
While the U.S. federal government still classifies cannabis as having “no accepted medical use,” many states have legalized it for medical or recreational use. Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Human Services obtained a cannabis-related patent in 2003 covering potential medical uses of cannabis compounds for protecting the brain from damage or degeneration. The patent was exclusively licensed for commercialization.
Research and innovation on cannabis can take many forms. Clinical trials may study cannabis products as medical treatments, the effects of cannabis on its users, or factors related to abuse and dependence. Meanwhile, cannabis-related patents can be filed for wide-ranging purposes, such as chemical formulations, methods for production or new consumer products like edibles, beverages or vaporizers.
But do these innovations actually benefit consumers and patients?
We are economists studying how institutional changes affect innovation in different markets. Our recently published research found that legalization of recreational cannabis use appears to spur innovation, but primarily in ways that expand commercial opportunities rather than scientific understanding or health benefits for patients.
Cannabis’ evolving legality in the US
Cannabis is a plant that contains chemical compounds called cannabinoids. One such compound, tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, produces psychoactive effects, while another compound called cannabidiol, or CBD, is often used to relieve anxiety and pain. However, there has been insufficient evidence on how effective cannabis products are in treating medical conditions, as well as a lack of consistent medical and dosing guidance.
At the federal level in the U.S., cannabis has been classified as a Schedule I drug for over a half-century. This classification indicates that the federal government considers cannabis to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use.
As a Schedule I drug, there are significant restrictions on cannabis research. Researchers who seek to conduct cannabis-related clinical trials must obtain approval from both the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration, a process that can take over a year. They are also limited to using select varieties of cannabis obtained from federally authorized cannabis suppliers, and are generally prohibited from studying products available in state-authorized markets.
There are ongoing pushes to relax these restrictions. Meanwhile, cannabis has been legalized to varying extents in many states. California became the first state to pass a medical cannabis law in 1996, allowing qualified patients to grow, possess and use cannabis for medical purposes. Many states followed suit in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As of June 2025, 40 states allow medical cannabis use.
A number of states also allow recreational or nonmedical cannabis use among adults, which is regulated in similar ways to alcohol. Colorado and Washington enacted the first recreational cannabis laws in 2012, and there are 24 states that permit adults to use cannabis recreationally as of January 2026.
Altogether, the legal landscape for cannabis in the U.S. has varied considerably across states and over time. States with more permissive laws can lower the costs of medical research and product development with cannabis, even if federal drug scheduling continues to restrict access. For instance, one group of Washington State University researchers asked participants to independently purchase and smoke cannabis from a legal dispensary before returning to their lab for study.
State legalization and cannabis innovation
To systematically examine how state legalization affects cannabis-related innovation, we compiled and analyzed datasets tracking cannabis-related clinical trials and patent applications.
We distinguished different types of cannabis-related innovation. Specifically, we categorized cannabis-related clinical trials based on whether they focused on its potential as a treatment, its usage and effects, or its role in drug abuse. Similarly, we categorized cannabis-related patents based on whether they focused on chemical compounds, medical uses, methods or products.
We also assessed public health concerns across three measures: patents explicitly involving THC; patents with a high risk of misuse; and patents targeting consumers directly, such as high-potency formulations, edibles or vaporizers.
Then, we compared changes in cannabis-related innovation over time in states that legalized cannabis earlier with those in states that did so later or not at all. We measured innovation by counting the number of cannabis-related clinical trials and patent filings. We distinguished between medical and recreational legalization to assess how different policies affect innovation.
Overall, we found that when states legalize cannabis for recreational use, cannabis-related patents increase – but mostly in commercial-oriented areas rather than health-focused ones. Patents were concentrated in market-oriented innovations like cultivation equipment and consumer products, rather than in clinical or science-based research. We also found some evidence that these innovations may raise public health concerns.
Legalization did not result in meaningful increases in clinical trials. This suggests that barriers to cannabis-related clinical research – such as limited access to research-grade cannabis, limited funding and stigma around working with a federally controlled substance – remain substantial.
Gaps between research and product
As 420 – signifying April 20, a day celebrating cannabis culture – approaches each year, public attention turns toward the legal status of cannabis.
The legal landscape has evolved rapidly over the past few decades, and further changes are in the pipeline. Both the Biden and second Trump administrations have made efforts to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III substance, which would indicate that it has an accepted medical use and low-to-moderate potential for dependence.
These reevaluations of the legality of cannabis come at a critical time. There has been an explosion of recreational cannabis products in recent years, including increasingly potent strains and a wider variety of ways to use cannabis. Meanwhile, critical research on the health and safety of cannabis use has lagged due to heavy restrictions accompanying Schedule I status.
This gap between medical research and product innovation can have significant public health consequences. The 2019 to 2020 outbreak of lung injuries related to e-cigarette or vape use was linked partly to the use of unregulated or illicit cannabis vaping products. These harms highlight the risks of allowing product innovation for controlled substances to outpace scientific understanding.
Policies that significantly reduce obstacles to clinical research can in turn help close the widening gap between cannabis markets and addressing their public health implications.
Lucy Xiaolu Wang, Assistant Professor of Resource Economics, UMass Amherst and Nathan W. Chan, Professor of Resource Economics, UMass Amherst
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
