Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday May 11, @03:43PM   Printer-friendly

Researchers ruled out overexuberant antibodies in an autoimmune response:

The mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines have proven remarkably safe and effective against the deadly pandemic. But, like all medical interventions, they have some risks. One is that a very small number of vaccinated people develop inflammation of and around their heart—conditions called myocarditis, pericarditis, or the combination of the two, myopericarditis. These side effects mostly strike males in their teens and early 20s, most often after a second vaccine dose. Luckily, the conditions are usually mild and resolve on their own.

With the rarity and mildness of these conditions, studies have concluded, and experts agree that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks—male teens and young adults should get vaccinated. In fact, they're significantly more likely to develop myocarditis or pericarditis from a COVID-19 infection than from a COVID-19 vaccination. According to a large 2022 study led by researchers at Harvard University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the group at highest risk of myocarditis and pericarditis after vaccination—males ages 12 to 17—saw 35.9 cases per 100,000 (0.0359 percent) after a second vaccine dose, while the rate was nearly double after a COVID-19 infection in the same age group, with 64.9 cases per 100,000 (0.0649 percent).

Still, the conditions are a bit of a puzzle. Why do a small few get this complication after vaccination? Why does it seem to solely affect the heart? How does the damage occur? And what does it all mean for the many other mRNA-based vaccines now being developed?

A new study in Science Immunology provides some fresh insight. The study, led by researchers at Yale University, took a deep dive into the immune responses among 23 people—mostly males and ranging in age from 13 to 21—who developed myocarditis and/or pericarditis after vaccination.

Since the rare phenomenon was first noted, immunologists and other experts have hypothesized that the vaccine could be spurring several aberrant immune responses that would explain the inflamed hearts, such as an autoimmune response or an allergic reaction. And the new study rules some of them out.

The researchers used blood samples from a subset of the patients to look at immune responses and compare them with those from matched vaccinated controls. They first compared antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and found no evidence of "overexuberant" or enhanced antibody responses against the virus that might explain the myocarditis and pericarditis. The anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses in the two groups were comparable, with the patients with the heart condition having comparable, if not slightly blunted, antibody responses.

The researchers next screened for auto-antibodies, that is, antibodies spurred by the vaccine that are misdirected against a person's body rather than the virus. They used an established screening tool to scan for autoantibodies against over 6,000 human proteins and molecules. The researchers focused on over 500 of the probes that relate to cardiac tissue. They found no relative increase in the number of autoantibodies compared with the controls, suggesting that an autoimmune response was unlikely.

The researchers then took a broad, unbiased approach to compare the profiles of immune responses among the patients and controls. They found distinct immune signatures between the two groups, with patients showing elevated levels of immune signaling chemicals (cytokines) that are linked to acute, systemic inflammation. And those cytokines were accompanied by corresponding elevations in inflammatory cellular responses, particularly cytotoxic T cells. Further, the gene expression profiles of those T cells showed the potential to cause heart tissue damage.

Taken together, the researchers concluded that the most likely explanation is that in these rare cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, the vaccine is spurring a generalized, vigorous inflammatory response that leads to heart tissue inflammation and damage.

[...] For now, the finding that an inflammatory response is behind the cases can help guide treatment and prevention. A Canadian study from last year suggested that extending the interval between mRNA vaccine doses can reduce the chances of myocarditis and pericarditis in young males. But, the new study may bring some relief when it does occur—self-resolving inflammation is less concerning than a difficult-to-treat autoimmune response.

Journal Reference:
Cytokinopathy with aberrant cytotoxic lymphocytes and profibrotic myeloid response in SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine–associated myocarditis, (DOI: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.adh3455)


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only. Log in and try again!
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by krishnoid on Thursday May 11, @07:51PM (3 children)

    by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday May 11, @07:51PM (#1305927)

    I understood enough that COVID-19 causes lung scarring, but the lungs will eventually recover from that. Going out on a limb though, I suspect that oxygen and carbon dioxide can't be exchanged across alveolar scar tissue until that happens, so I'd have to hold my breath for 100 days [hopkinsmedicine.org] in the meantime? I could probably tough that out.

    You bring up a good point though. We won't know the effects of the vaccine for a decade or so. We also won't know long COVID-19's decadal effects either. The short-term effects, though ... I know two survivors who are still experiencing them intermittently., and I'd hazard a guess that we all do.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @09:54PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 11, @09:54PM (#1305950)

    I know two survivors who are still experiencing them intermittently., and I'd hazard a guess that we all do.

    I'll see your anecdotal evidence and raise you...uh...my anecdotal evidence.

    I know a handful of people who died within 21 days of being vaccinated.

    I know plenty of people who started suffering long-term debilitating effects within 21 days of being vaccinated. (I work in HR and deal with employee benefits at a company with ~800 employees).

    I know plenty of people who are "antivax" and never got the shot. Only two of them were sick for more than a few days. One was sick for 2 weeks, the other was sick for 3 weeks.

    The 2-week-sick person said they felt "run down" for months. This was in mid-2021. Now they say they feel fine.

    I didn't get the damn shot. Got sick with something in January of 2021 (along with the rest of my 8-person family), recovered after 3 days. Got sick again in the fall of 2022 (along with my family). Recovered in a few days.

    Keep on "believing the science" all you want. I'm happy with my decision.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 12, @01:15PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 12, @01:15PM (#1306060) Journal

      I didn't get the damn shot. Got sick with something in January of 2021 (along with the rest of my 8-person family), recovered after 3 days. Got sick again in the fall of 2022 (along with my family). Recovered in a few days.

      So infected twice with unknown long term consequences that you choose to ignore.

      I know plenty of people who are "antivax" and never got the shot. Only two of them were sick for more than a few days. One was sick for 2 weeks, the other was sick for 3 weeks.

      The 2-week-sick person said they felt "run down" for months. This was in mid-2021. Now they say they feel fine.

      Note that in the second sentence, this is the only long term debilitating consequences you mention anywhere.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by https on Friday May 12, @05:19PM

    by https (5248) on Friday May 12, @05:19PM (#1306133) Journal

    But we knew what the results of SARS-1 (2003) were, fifteen years later. People didn't recover from it so well [1].

    "But that was a different virus!", I hear an asshole in the back shouting. To which, STFU. the virus that caused SARS-1 is more closely related to nCoV-19 wild-type than nCoV-19 wild-type is related to n-CoV-19 Omicron.

    Funny thing about long term effects. As the pandemic continues, studies went from saying "symptoms persist for at least six months after..." to saying symptoms persist for at least twelve months after..." to saying symptoms persist for at least eighteen months after..." to saying symptoms persist for at least two years after..."

    There's a pattern there, and I know how I'm going to bet.

    [ 1 ] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(23)00061-5/fulltext [thelancet.com]

    --
    Offended and laughing about it.