Brain helps to burn body fat

Lower neighbourhood socioeconomic status and greater household crowding increase the risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, warn researchers.

"Our study shows that neighbourhood socioeconomic status and household crowding are strongly associated with risk of infection," said study lead author Alexander Melamed from Columbia University in the US.

"This may explain why Black and Hispanic people living in these neighbourhoods are disproportionately at risk for contracting the virus," Melamed added.

For the findings, published in the journal JAMA, the researchers examined the relationships between COVID-19 infection and neighbourhood characteristics in 396 women who gave birth during the peak of the Covid-19 outbreak in New York City. Since March 22, all women admitted to the hospitals for delivery have been tested for the virus, which gave the researchers the opportunity to detect all infections -- including infections with no symptoms -- in a defined population

The strongest predictor of COVID-19 infection among these women was residence in a neighbourhood where households with many people are common.The findings showed that women who lived in a neighbourhood with high household membership were three times more likely to be infected with the virus. Neighbourhood poverty also appeared to be a factor, the researchers said.Women were twice as likely to get COVID-19 if they lived in neighbourhoods with a high poverty rate, although that relationship was not statistically significant due to the small sample size.

The study revealed that there was no association between infection and population density.

"New York City has the highest population density of any city in the US, but our study found that the risks are related more to density in people's domestic environments rather than density in the city or within neighbourhoods," says co-author Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman."

The knowledge that SARS-CoV-2 infection rates are higher in disadvantaged neighbourhoods and among people who live in crowded households could help public health officials target preventive measures," the authors wrote.

Recently, another study published in the Journal of the American Planning Association, showed that dense areas were associated with lower COVID-19 death rates.

The American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and the European biotechnology company BioNTech SE have conducted an experimental trial of a COVID-19 vaccine candidate and found it to be safe, well-tolerated, and capable of generating antibodies in the patients.

The study, which is yet to be peer-reviewed, describes the preliminary clinical data for the candidate vaccine -- nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA), BNT162b1.

It said the amount of antibodies produced in participants after they received two shots of the vaccine candidate was greater than that reported in patients receiving convalescent plasma from recovered COVID-19 patients.

"I was glad to see Pfizer put up their phase 1 trial data today. Virus neutralizing antibody titers achieved after two doses are greater than convalescent antibody titers," tweeted Peter Hotez, a vaccine scientist from Baylor College of Medicine in the US, who was unrelated to the study.

Researchers, including those from New York University in the US, who were involved in the study, said the candidate vaccine enables human cells to produce an optimised version of the receptor binding domain (RBD) antigen -- a part of the spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 which it uses to gain entry into human cells.

"Robust immunogenicity was observed after vaccination with BNT162b1," the scientists noted in the study.

They said the program is evaluating at least four experimental vaccines, each of which represents a unique combination of mRNA format and target component of the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2.

Based on the study's findings, they said BNT162b1 could be administered in a quantity that was well tolerated, potentially generating a dose dependent production of immune system molecules in the patients.

The research noted that patients treated with the vaccine candidate produced nearly 1.8 to 2.8 fold greater levels of RBD-binding antibodies that could neutralise SARS-CoV-2.

"We are encouraged by the clinical data of BNT162b1, one of four mRNA constructs we are evaluating clinically, and for which we have positive, preliminary, topline findings," said Kathrin U. Jansen, study co-author and Senior Vice President and Head of Vaccine Research & Development, Pfizer.

"We look forward to publishing our clinical data in a peer-reviewed journal as quickly as possible," Jansen said.

According to Ugur Sahin, CEO and Co-founder of BioNTech, and another co-author of the study, the preliminary data are encouraging as they provide an initial signal that BNT162b1 is able to produce neutralising antibody responses in humans.

He said the immune response observed in the patients treated with the experimental vaccine are at, or above, the levels observed from convalescent sera, adding that it does so at "relatively low dose levels."

"We look forward to providing further data updates on BNT162b1," Sahin said.

According to a statement from Pfizer, the initial part of the study included 45 healthy adults 18 to 55 years of age.

It said the priliminary data for BNT162b1 was evaluated in 24 subjects who received two injections of 10 microgrammes ( g) and 30 g -- 12 subjects who received a single injection of 100 g, and 9 subjects who received two doses of a dummy vaccine.

The study noted that participants received two doses, 21 days apart, of placebo, 10 g or 30 g of BNT162b1, or received a single dose of 100 g of the vaccine candidate.

According to the scientists, the highest neutralising concentrations of antibodies were observed seven days after the second dose of 10 g, or 30 g on day 28 after vaccination.

They said the neutralising concentrations were 1.8- and 2.8-times that observed in a panel of 38 blood samples from people who had contracted the virus.

In all 24 subjects who received two vaccinations at 10 g and 30 g dose levels, elevation of RBD-binding antibody concentrations was observed after the second injection, the study noted.

It said these concentrations are 8- and 46.3-times the concentration seen in a panel of 38 blood samples from those infected with the novel coronavirus.

At the 10 g or 30 g dose levels, the scientists said adverse reactions, including low grade fever, were more common after the second dose than the first dose.

According to Pfizer, local reactions and systemic events after injection with 10 g and 30 g of BNT162b1 were "dose-dependent, generally mild to moderate, and transient."

It said the most commonly reported local reaction was injection site pain, which was mild to moderate, except in one of 12 subjects who received a 100 g dose, which was severe.

The study noted that there was no serious adverse events reported by the patients.

Citing the limitations of the research, the scientists said the immunity generated in the participants in the form of the T cells and B cells of their immune system, and the level of immunity needed to protect one from COVID-19 are unknown.

With these preliminary data, along with additional data being generated, Pfizer noted in the statement that the two companies will determine a dose level, and select among multiple vaccine candidates to seek to progress to a large, global safety and efficacy trial, which may involve up to 30,000 healthy participants if regulatory approval to proceed is received.

Washington D.C., May 9: Do the middle age feel much stressful now, and seems to have changed over time, if compared to the life in the 90s? Well, this recent study indicates that it might be true.

The study has signalled to the fact that life may become more stressful majorly for middle-aged people than it was in the 1990s. The researchers reached this analysis even before the novel coronavirus started sweeping the globe.

A team of researchers led by Penn State found that across all ages, there was a slight increase in daily stress in the 2010s compared to the 1990s. But when researchers restricted the sample to people between the ages of 45 and 64, there was a sharp increase in daily stress.

"On average, people reported about 2 percent more stressors in the 2010s compared to people in the past," said David M. Almeida, professor of human development and family studies at Penn State.

"That's around an additional week of stress a year. But what really surprised us is that people at mid-life reported a lot more stressors, about 19 percent more stress in 2010 than in 1990. And that translates to 64 more days of stress a year."

Almeida said the findings were part of a larger project aiming to discover whether health during the middle of Americans' lives has been changing over time.

"Certainly, when you talk to people, they seem to think that daily life is more hectic and less certain these days," Almeida said.

For the study, the researchers collected data from 1,499 adults in 1995 and 782 different adults in 2012.

Almeida said the goal was to study two cohorts of people who were the same age at the time the data was collected but born in different decades. All study participants were interviewed daily for eight consecutive days.

During each daily interview, the researchers asked the participants about their stressful experiences throughout the previous 24 hours.

They asked questions related to arguments with family or friends or feeling overwhelmed at home or work, so and so. The participants were also asked how severe their stress was and whether those stressors were likely to impact other areas of their lives.

"We were able to estimate not only how frequently people experienced stress, but also what those stressors mean to them," Almeida said.

"For example, did this stress affect their finances or their plans for the future. And by having these two cohorts of people, we were able to compare daily stress processes in 1990 with daily stress processes in 2010," Almeida added.

After analyzing the data, the researchers found that participants reported significantly more daily stress and lower well-being in the 2010s compared to the 1990s.

Additionally, participants reported a 27 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their finances and a 17 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their future plans.

Almeida said he was surprised not that people were more stressed now than in the 90s, but at the age group that was mainly affected.

"We thought that with economic uncertainty, life might be more stressful for younger adults. But we didn't see that. We saw more stress for people at mid-life," Almeida said.

"And maybe that's because they have children who are facing an uncertain job market while also responsible for their own parents. So it's this generational squeeze that's making stress more prevalent for people at mid-life," he concluded.