University of Colorado Boulder

THURSDAY, June 25, 2024 -- For the first time in two decades, the infant mortality rate in the United States has risen, new government data shows. In a report released Thursday by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers found that more than 20,500 babies died in 2022 before the age of 1. Overall, there were 5.6 infant deaths for every 1,000 live births, a 3% increase from the year before. “Infant health is one of the most important public health indicators that we have,” Amanda Jean Stevenson , a demographer and assistant professor of sociology at the University of Colorado Boulder, told CNN . “The fact that [infant mortality rates] are not continuing to decrease is a very big deal. Even flat infant mortality rates are not good," she added. "We need to see these numbers going down -- and fast -- because they are far too high.” In the United States, infant mortality had been generally trending down since at least 1995, but rates are still much higher in this country than they are in many other developed nations. Why are more infants dying? The leading causes of infant mortality stayed the same between 2021 and 2022: Congenital malformations led to nearly 1 in 5 deaths. Another 14% was caused by disorders related to short gestation and low birth weight, followed by sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), unintentional injuries and maternal complications. But the rate of infant deaths from maternal complications jumped 9% between 2021 and 2022, from about 30 infant deaths for every 100,000 live births to more than 33 per 100,000 live births. None of the other leading causes of infant death increased significantly, the report found. Infant health is tied tightly to maternal health, and the United States has struggled for years with high rates of death among women during pregnancy, childbirth or postpartum, CNN reported. COVID may have also played a role in the rise in infant mortality in 2022, Stevenson added. Infections in pregnant women during major surges in 2021 could have affected infants born in 2022. Last year, a large study found that pregnant women who got COVID were nearly four times more likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit than those who weren’t infected. They were also 15 times more likely to be ventilated and seven times more likely to die. Not only that, but they faced higher risks of preeclampsia, blood clots and problems caused by high blood pressure. Meanwhile, babies born to moms who had COVID were at higher risk of preterm birth and low birth weights. In the latest report, the infant mortality rate was highest among Black infants in 2022, with nearly 11 deaths for every 1,000 live births. But the rate among American Indian and Alaska Native infants spiked more than 20% in 2022, to more than 9 deaths for every 1,000 live births. The mortality rate among White infants increased but remained lower than most other racial and ethnic groups, with about 4.5 deaths for every 1,000 live births. Further complicating the reproductive health landscape, the U.S. Supreme Court revoked the federal right to an abortion in June 2022. Research published last month drew connections between infant mortality and abortion restrictions, finding that infant deaths spiked in Texas after the state passed a law in September 2021 that banned nearly all abortions beyond about six weeks of pregnancy. Among the 14 states that have passed near-total bans on abortion since the Supreme Court ruling, all but two had an higher-than-average infant mortality rate in 2022, CNN reported. Whatever your topic of interest, subscribe to our newsletters to get the best of Drugs.com in your inbox.

FRIDAY, July 19, 2024 -- Cancer growth can be fueled by flecks of ancient viral DNA lodged into the genetics of modern humans, a new study says. Overall, about 8% of the human genome is made of bits of DNA left behind by viruses that infected our primate ancestors, researchers say. Called “endogenous retroviruses,” these DNA fragments have long been considered harmless junk littering the modern human genetic profile, researchers said. But new research shows that when reawakened, these ancient viral strands can help cancer survive and thrive, researchers reported July 17 in the journal Science Advances . What’s more, shutting up these viral voices from the past can make cancer treatments more effective, researchers found. “Our study shows that diseases today can be significantly influenced by these ancient viral infections that until recently very few researchers were paying attention to,” said senior researcher Edward Chuong . Hes an assistant professor of molecular, cellular and developmental biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder’s BioFrontiers Institute. Eons ago, viruses baked their DNA into humans by infiltrating sperm, eggs and embryos, shaping human evolution along the way. While these genetic vestiges can no longer produce functional viruses, they can activate nearby human genes in ways that could affect health, researchers said. In this study, researchers found that a specific virus called LTR10 -- which infected primates 30 million years ago -- showed surprisingly high levels of activity in several types of cancer. LTR10 was active in about a third of tumors taken from dozens of colorectal cancer patients , researchers found. It also was very active in lung cancers. And when researchers used gene-editing tools to cut out LRT10, they discovered that genes known to promote cancer development and growth also went dark. “We saw that when you silence this retrovirus in cancer cells, it turns off nearby gene expression,” said lead researcher Atma Ivancevic , a research associate in Chuong’s lab. Experiments in mice yielded similar results. Removing LTR10 from tumor cells caused cancer treatments to work better at shrinking tumors. “We know that cancer cells express a lot of genes that are not supposed to be on, but no one really knows what is turning them on,” Chuong said in a university news release. “It turns out many of the switches turning them on are derived from these ancient viruses." Whatever your topic of interest, subscribe to our newsletters to get the best of Drugs.com in your inbox.

WEDNESDAY, June 26, 2024 -- The COVID virus, or rather people's immune response to it, has changed and it might be prudent to wait a couple days after symptoms start before taking a COVID test, researchers report. “For COVID, we found that if you only have one test, it’s best to wait two days after symptoms arise to use it, because the virus is unlikely to be detectable until then,” said study first author Casey Middleton , a PhD student in the department of computer science at the University of Colorado Boulder (UCB). “For flu and RSV, you’re best off to take that rapid test when you first feel symptoms," Middleton added in a university news release. She and her colleagues took what they knew about Omicron virus variants of the COVID-19 virus, typical patient behavior and other factors, and they created a computer model to gauge when testing might be most accurate. They found that if you take a COVID rapid test very soon after symptoms begin, the test misses infection 92% of the time. Taking the test two days after symptoms arise knocks that false-negative rate down to 70%, and your chances of identifying COVID accurately rise even higher on day three, the team said. On day three after symptoms begin, the test will catch about a third of infections. That may still seem like a high false negative rate, but the authors noted that COVID tests are really designed to spot those folks with "high viral loads." “Diagnosing only one third of infections can still cut transmission substantially if we've diagnosed the most infectious third," explained study senior author Daniel Larremore . He's a professor of computer science at the UCB's BioFrontiers Institute. Why the lag with detecting COVID? As the researchers explained, most everyone by now has been exposed to the COVID virus so their immune systems do react quickly, and this will trigger symptoms. However, unlike other common viruses, newer variants of COVID grows relatively slowly, taking longer to be accurately picked up on tests. In contrast, viruses like the flu or respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) replicate quickly, so tests should pick them up soon after symptoms start. “If you’re trying to make a decision about whether to go to book club or go to Bingo night with the grandparents, testing is a really good idea,” said Larremore. “But COVID has changed.” Larremore also believes that differences between the viral growth rates of flu, RSV and COVID make using new "three-in-one" virus home test kits problematic. “This is the conundrum,” said Larremore. “If you go in right away and test for all three, you can learn a lot from the flu and RSV tests, but you may have swung too early for COVID. If you wait a few days, the timing might be right to catch COVID, but you are too late for flu and RSV.” Middleton believes that recently updated U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention testing and prevention guidelines -- where folks test themselves again before determining whether its safe to return to work and socialize -- make more sense these days. “The five-day isolation policy made people isolate for too long in most cases,” Middleton said. The study was published recently in the journal Science Advances . Whatever your topic of interest, subscribe to our newsletters to get the best of Drugs.com in your inbox.