• View post from Universal Studios 'The Odyssey' Instagram page

Copied in Egypt in the 3rd century CE, when readers were beginning to abandon scrolls for bound pages, this rare, 1,700-year-old parchment manuscript tells the story of Odysseus’ homecoming and the long-awaited reunion with his family. The manuscript has recently been showcased internationally through a unique collaboration with Universal Pictures, bringing the Library's special collections to a global audience in an unprecedented way.

Professor Christopher Pressler, University Librarian and Director of The John Rylands Library, and Dr Jeremy Penner, Curator of African and Near Eastern Manuscripts, travelled to New York and London to participate in international press junkets for The Odyssey, presenting the manuscript alongside the film's cast and filmmakers. The collaboration marks a groundbreaking moment for a university library, placing a 1,700-year-old manuscript at the heart of a major contemporary cultural event.

The public display in the Collections Gallery at The John Rylands Library will allow visitors to explore the story of the manuscript, its extraordinary survival across seventeen centuries, alongside other rare and fascinating items that tell the story of the Library’s unique collections.

The Manchester Odyssey project is the latest example of The University of Manchester Library's commitment to sharing its Special Collections with international audiences. Earlier this year, the Library opened Lives and Literacy in Ancient Egypt at the Harry Ransom Center at The University of Texas at Austin, the first major international exhibition from The John Rylands Library to be staged in North America. The exhibition showcases one of the world's most significant collections of ancient Egyptian papyri, including the world's earliest known New Testament fragment and a remarkable collection of manuscripts illuminating everyday life in the ancient world.

Meanwhile, in New York, Ian Curtis: Insight has brought archival material from the internationally acclaimed Ian Curtis Archive in the British Pop Archive at The John Rylands Library to audiences in the United States for the first time. The exhibition presents handwritten lyrics, photographs, letters and artefacts from the archive of Joy Division frontman Ian Curtis, highlighting Manchester's continuing influence on global music and culture.

Together, these projects demonstrate the growing international profile of The University of Manchester Library's Special Collections and their role in advancing the University's vision of sharing knowledge, culture and research with the world. The initiatives span ancient manuscripts, popular culture archives and internationally significant literary treasures, connecting Manchester's collections with audiences across North America and beyond.

Visiting information

• On display from: 15 July 2026
• The John Rylands Library, Deansgate, Manchester
• For visitor information, please visit the dedicated project website.
• For media enquiries, contact: hannah.goodwin@manchester.ac.uk
• Press Images available to download.

Notes to editors

• Visit The Manchester Odyssey website

The John Rylands Library at The University of Manchester

Located in the heart of Manchester, The John Rylands Library boasts world-leading special collections housed within a magnificent Grade 1 Listed neo-Gothic building. For 125 years, this distinguished institution has brought together leading researchers, curators, imaging specialists and conservators. Their collaborative efforts are dedicated to exploring and preserving the human experience across five millennia.

The University of Manchester Library today publishes Imagine2035, its ten-year vision for the period 2026 to 2035. Developed over a year of engagement with almost 200 colleagues, Imagine2035 has been shaped by listening to students, researchers and partners across the University and beyond. 

It sets out how Britain’s third-largest academic library system intends to deliver the University’s Manchester 2035 strategy and to contribute to the international conversation about the future of research libraries.

Imagine2035 commits the Library to six fundamental transformations by 2035: from service to engine of student success; from collection to world-class knowledge infrastructure; from neutral platform to truth-teller; from local service to global cultural force; from reactive to architect of our future; and from workplace to community where people thrive. These transformations will be delivered through five strategic themes and twenty-five anchor initiatives, each mapped directly to the University’s five Manchester 2035 Leaps.

Among the anchors are the international launch of the British Pop Archive in New York, London and Berlin in 2026 and 2027; major exhibitions of the Library’s manuscript holdings in North America in 2026 and 2029; the development of the Ahmed Iqbal Ullah RACE Centre as the national reference point for anti-racist scholarship; the establishment of the Humanitarian Archive in partnership with The University of Manchester Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute; a complete reimagining of the Main Library as a flexible learning ecosystem; 100% validated Open Access compliance by 2029 through the Manchester Open Research Environment; and a sector-leading AI Accelerator Programme delivered through the world’s first Directorate of AI within a major research library.

The Library serves almost 50,000 students and thousands of researchers today, with the University projected to reach 100,000 students on campus and online during the lifetime of the strategy. Imagine2035 will be delivered with full transparency: progress against every anchor will be published annually through a public-facing dashboard, alongside the headline targets; top-quartile Russell Group performance for student experience, 100% validated Open Access compliance by 2029, foundational AI and digital training for every staff member by 2027, and full carbon literacy across the Library by 2035.

Dr Sara Gago, Dr Abigail Lay, Dr Holly Lovegrove, and Dr Sara Federici join the 55 early career researchers at 38 institutions across the UK, backing new research that can transform our understanding of Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, infectious diseases and chronic pain, among other pressing health challenges.

The grants support curiosity-driven, discovery-stage research – the foundational science that underpins future treatments and interventions. The awards support researchers to take their first steps as independent group leaders, testing bold ideas with the potential to improve lives, reduce health inequalities and strengthen the UK’s long-term research base.

Now in its eleventh year, Springboard supports researchers at a critical point in their careers, when many are establishing laboratories for the first time and need the freedom to explore ambitious questions.

Having recently marked a decade of impact, the programme has now supported 471 early career researchers at 68 UK higher education institutions, expanding institutional and regional reach with researchers at the University of Lincoln and the University of Greenwich funded for the first time this year, and more than £50.5 million invested since it’s creation in 2015.

With support from the UK Government’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, Wellcome and the British Heart Foundation, this year’s awards span the full breadth of biomedical and health research. Together, these projects aim to help people to live healthier lives, reduce health inequalities and strengthen the UK’s ability to prevent and respond to future health emergencies.

Professor James Naismith FRS FRSE FMedSci, Vice President (Non-Clinical) at the Academy of Medical Sciences, said: “The transition to research leadership is one of the most challenging stages in a research career, yet it is also when creativity is often at its strongest. Springboard invests in people at the moment when bold ideas begin to take shape, providing the freedom, confidence and backing researchers need to strike out on their own and ask big questions. The projects announced today show the impact this approach can have – demonstrating how early support can translate into meaningful benefits for patients, communities and the wider health system.”

UK Science Minister Lord Vallance FMedSci said: "To tackle cruel diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and chronic pain, and ultimately save lives, we must help researchers to take their ambitious discovery-stage work to the next level. This support is backing researchers at a stage where attracting commercial investment can be a challenge and builds on the Government’s record investment in research – unlocking more discoveries that benefit people across the UK and beyond."

Professor James Leiper, Director of Research at the British Heart Foundation, said: “Tomorrow’s medical breakthroughs start with today’s innovative ideas. Programmes like Springboard give early career researchers the backing and belief to take risks, follow their curiosity and ask questions that can change lives. We’re proud to support this work which has the potential to unlock new insights into heart and circulatory diseases, and open doors to better prevention and treatments, strengthening the UK’s research talent for years to come.”

Ben Murton, Head of Early Careers and Career Development Researchers at Wellcome, said: "Early career researchers need time and resource to establish their research identity, benefitting from larger and longer grants, which we’re committed to providing through our Discovery Research programme at Wellcome. Springboard provides an opportunity to launch into a research career and establish a research group, encouraging researchers to ask the big questions and pursue the bold ideas that lead to cutting-edge, curiosity-driven discoveries. The diversity of areas and approaches supported through Springboard is essential for a healthy pipeline of future research leaders.”

The application process for the next Springboard round has now opened. Prospective candidates should contact their institution’s Springboard Champion to register interest for the internal triage process. Each eligible institution may nominate up to four candidates by the end of April 2026, after which selected applicants will be invited to submit a full application to the Academy.

The finding, led by The University of Manchester, could support the development of future technologies that recycle greenhouse gases to make fuels and useful chemicals, more sustainably, using nothing more than light and water.

CO₂ is the main driver of human-caused climate change, but it is also an abundant carbon resource. Finding efficient ways to convert CO₂ already in the atmosphere into useful products is a major scientific challenge.

The team’s new catalyst, published today in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, combines ideas from biology and materials science to address the problem.

Professor Martin Schröder, Professor of Chemistry at The University of Manchester, said: “In nature, specialised enzymes can bind and release small molecules like CO₂ with remarkable control. We have been able to design a solid material that behaves in a similar way. It is activated by visible light to react and convert CO₂ and the original material is then regenerated to react with more CO₂”.

The work revolves around metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) - materials made from metal atoms or clusters  connected by organic linkers to form porous networks of tiny cavities in which molecules can be adsorbed and activated for conversion to new products, in this case CO₂ .

The researchers used a cerium-based MOF, built using organic linkers that contain amino groups to improve how it absorbs light. When illuminated, the material briefly undergoes an electronic change, creating temporary “open” sites in its pores that can grab hold of CO₂ molecules. They then react and convert into CO before being released again.

This reversible binding behaviour is similar to how enzymes in living systems handle small molecules such as CO₂.

In laboratory experiments, the new catalyst produces CO extremely efficiently, with no detectable by-products, outperforming many existing benchmark materials.

Unlike other existing systems, the process does not require precious metals or added chemicals that are consumed during the reaction. It also avoids producing large amounts of hydrogen instead of useful carbon-based products.

The new system uses only light, water and CO₂, and produces one single valuable product.

Prof Sihai Yang, said: “Our research is still at a fundamental stage, but the findings provide a clear blueprint for designing next-generation catalysts that turn waste CO₂ into useful chemicals.

 “By learning from how nature controls chemical reactions, we can begin to design materials that open up exciting possibilities for clean and efficient energy technologies.”

The researchers believe the principles demonstrated here could be applied to a wide range of reactions, helping to accelerate the development of sustainable solar-to-fuel technologies.

This research was publihsed in the Journal of the American Chemical Society

Full title: Light-induced Binding and Reduction of CO₂ over Transient Open Ce(III) Sites in a Metal-Organic Framework

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.5c20721 [doi.org]

URL:  https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.5c20721

The University is also the highest ranked employer in the city of Manchester. 

Approximately 20,000 colleagues from 500 organisations were asked to give their opinions on statements about their current employer in areas including working conditions, salary, potential for development and company or organisation image. 

The results of the FT survey support The University of Manchester as it delivers its Manchester 2035 strategy, recognising that its people are central to success and play a vital role at every stage, from ideation through to delivery.

The second annual UK’s Best Employers ranking, published by the Financial Times and its data provider Statista, recognises 500 organisations across the UK. The list is compiled following an independent survey of approximately 20,000 employees.

To read the full FT article, including methodology, visit: 

• UK’s Best Employers 2026: ranking 

Read more about the University’s survey and its strategy at:

• Colleague Engagement Survey
• Manchester 2035: From Manchester for the world 

Peanut allergy is one of the most common food allergies, affecting between 1% and 2% of people living in the west. And, for many years, their prevalence has been rising.

But a recent study out of the US shows that the rate of peanut allergy diagnoses in infants has actually declined. It appears this decline may be due to changes in allergy guidelines – highlighting the importance of introducing this common allergen early on.

A food allergy is a type of allergic reaction which occurs when your immune system reacts inappropriately to things it should ignore – such as pollen or certain types of foods. The most common allergic condition is hayfever – a reaction to pollen. Peanut allergy is one of the most common true food allergies – and also the most common cause of fatal food reactions.

The proportion of people with food allergies in England has more than doubled between 2008 and 2018. Similar data in the US showed more than triple the number of people developed a food allergy between 1997 and 2008.

The reasons for these increases are complex and due to many factors – including exposure to environmental pollutants, alterations in the gut microbiome and genetic predisposition. There also appears to be a link between certain inflammatory health conditions (such as atopic dermatitis and an infant’s likelihood of developing a food allergy.

But this latest study has shown that the US appears to have deviated from this overall trend, with peanut allergies actually falling in infants.

The study examined changes in the rates of peanut allergies since 2015. This was the year allergy guidelines in the US changed to encourage infants considered most at risk of food allergy (such as those with atopic dermatitis) to be introduced to peanuts early in life.

Previous research had shown that these guideline changes had resulted in an increase in the number of parents introducing peanuts into their child’s diet by one year of age. The research team wanted to assess whether this had had any affect on peanut allergy rates, too.

They enrolled almost 39,000 children during the pre-guidelines phase (when advice was to avoid peanuts) and around 47,000 in the post-guidelines phase (after 2015). Allergy incidence in both groups was tracked for one to two years.

Early exposure to peanuts is linked with reduced likelihood of developing an allergy. triocean/ Shutterstock

The research showed that the total rate of peanut allergy decreased from almost 0.8% to 0.5%. This meant fewer at-risk infants developed a peanut allergy following the guideline change.

These findings mirror prior work in the UK showing that early exposure to peanuts before the age of five was linked to a reduced likelihood of developing an allergy.

Food allergy guidelines

In the late-1990s and early 2000s, the burgeoning incidence of food allergies and their life-threatening implications prompted sweeping policy changes in many western countries.

In the UK in 1998 and the US in 2000, guidelines changed to recommend high-risk allergens (such as peanuts) were completely avoided by pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers and infants considered at high risk for allergy.

But these guidelines were made in the absence of any rigorous studies actually showing they’d have a positive effect. Indeed, animal studies had suggested there may be no benefits – showing that eating potential allergens early in life actually invokes an important phenomenon called oral tolerance.

Oral tolerance is where the immune system ignores a potential allergen after it has been introduced to the gut through diet. How oral tolerance develops isn’t fully understood, but involves several mechanisms that help immune cells to be effectively “switched off” so they don’t mistake certain foods for a threat.

But despite the change in advice to avoid peanuts, rates of peanut allergies did not fall.

A major UK review conducted in 2008 consequently showed there was no clear evidence that eating or not eating peanuts (or foods containing peanuts) during pregnancy, while breastfeeding or in early childhood had any effect on the chances of a child developing a peanut allergy. As such, the advice in the UK to avoid peanuts (and eggs) during pregnancy and early childhood was reversed in 2009.

A randomised trial conducted since this policy change came into place showed that among infants considered at high risk of allergy, consistent consumption of peanuts from 11 months of age resulted in an over 80% lower rate of peanut allergy by the age of five compared with children who had avoided peanuts.

Other studies confirmed these findings, which subsequently led to guidelines changing in the US in 2015.

Many questions remain

It’s now increasingly clear that the early introduction of potentially allergic foods may actually benefit us and reduce our risk of developing a life-changing allergy. Nonetheless, there’s much we still don’t understand.

For example, while the mechanisms underpinning oral tolerance are being elucidated, we still don’t know what the best window of age is for safely invoking it.

We also don’t understand why infants with atopic dermatitis are most at risk of developing a food allergy. The hypothesis is that early exposure to food proteins through a disrupted skin barrier is what leads to allergy, as the immune system becomes sensitised to the food.

It’s also important to note that overall, the incidence of food allergies is still increasing. While this recent US study offers hope for preventing some types of food allergies, questions still remain. For example, some people can develop food allergies during adolescence and adulthood. More must be done to understand why this happens.

There are also still barriers impeding access to diagnosis for severe food allergies. This means many at-risk patients have not been diagnosed, so they also have been prescribed potentially life-saving treatments. These trends are magnified for people living in more deprived areas of the country.

Much more needs to be done to answer these questions and tackle food allergies more broadly.

Sheena Cruickshank, Professor in Immunology, University of Manchester

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Three scientists have been awarded the 2025 Nobel prize in physiology or medicine for discovering how the body stops its own immune system from turning against itself.

Shimon Sakaguchi from Osaka University in Japan, Mary E. Brunkow from the Institute for System Biology and Fred Ramsdell from Sonoma Biotherapeutics, both in the USA, identified specialised “security guard” cells that keep our immune system in check. These discoveries have been important for understanding how to treat and prevent autoimmune conditions. The trio will share a prize sum of 11 million Swedish Kronor (£870,000).

An effective immune system is critical. It sculpts tissues as they grow and clears away old cells and debris. It also eliminates dangerous viruses, bacteria and fungi, keeping us healthy.

But the immune system faces a delicate challenge: it must attack thousands of different invading microbes each day, many of which have evolved to look remarkably similar to our own cells – yet it must never mistake our own tissue for the enemy.

So how does the immune system know what cells it should attack and which ones it shouldn’t?

This question has been studied by immunologists for decades. But it was the groundbreaking work by this year’s Nobel laureates that led to the discovery of the specialised immune cells – called regulatory T cells – which prevent immune cells from attacking our own body and keep the immune system running as it should.

For decades, immunologists weren’t certain why some immune cells functioned as they should, and why others went rogue and attacked the body’s own tissues. When this happens, it can result in autoimmune conditions – such as type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis.

For a long time, scientists believed the thymus – a small gland in the chest – was solely responsible for immune tolerance. Immune cells (specifically a type of cell called a T lymphocyte) that recognised the body’s own proteins too strongly were initially thought to be eliminated in the thymus in early life. Those immune cells that only showed mild reactivity were then released into the bloodstream to patrol the body.

But work conducted in the 1980s and 1990s by Sakaguchi showed that there was a specialised class of immune T cells that played a critical role in suppressing immune responses and preventing the immune system from attacking the body’s tissues.

In Sakaguchi’s first experiment, he surgically removed the thymus organ from newborn mice, then injected T cells into them from genetically similar mice. He hypothesised that the mice would have a weaker immune system and develop fewer T cells.

Instead, he discovered that there appeared to be T cells that protected the mice from developing autoimmune diseases.

Over the next decade, Sakaguchi set out to uncover whether there were different types of T cells that played different roles in immune response. In 1995, Sakaguchi published the paper that detailed a new class of T cell, called a “regulatory T cell”. It showed that T cells carrying a specific type of protein on their surface actually eliminated harmful T cells.

There was initial scepticism among scientists about the existence of regulatory T cells. But work from Brunkow and Ramsdell published in the 1990s and early 2000s showed how regulatory T cells work.

Brunkow and Ramsdell’s research showed that regulatory T cells prevent immune cells from attacking the body by secreting immune dampening proteins or by directly delivering anti-inflammatory signals.

They also discovered a specific protein that identified these regulatory T cells (called FoxP3). This meant scientists could work out when a cell was regulatory and also isolate them for study.

These discoveries showed how important regulatory T cells (also called T-regs for short) are in regulating other inflammatory immune cells in the body.

The work of this year’s Nobel laureates has also massively opened up the field of immunology, going far beyond merely understanding the process of immune tolerance.

Their work has revealed that immunity and inflammation is actively regulated. It has provided a raft of new ideas to control inflammatory disease, whether caused by infection, allergens, environmental pollutants or autoimmunity.

It has even provided new ideas to prevent rejection of transplants and has opened up new ways of improving immune responses to cancer treatments and vaccines.

• Tracy Hussell, Director of the Lydia Becker Institute of Immunology and Inflammation, University of Manchester
• This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

All colleagues are welcome to get involved in any of the activities, which will include showcase events, methodological workshops, and funding sandpits.

Our main event will be a Town Hall meeting on Monday 30 June from 10am – 4pm at the Hyatt hotel, where you can connect with colleagues from across the university, discover and be inspired by a range of insightful and impactful research, learn about various activities supported by the Healthier Futures research platform, and be part of the conversation about the platform’s future priorities. Please find the agenda here. To register for the event, please click here.

Other events will include:

• A workshop on Climate and Health on Wednesday 25 June, to identify future research priorities. This event is being coordinated by FBMH, MERI, the GDI, Sustainable Futures and Healthier Futures. Places are limited, but if you would be interested in learning more, please contact healthierfutures@manchester.ac.uk.
• A day long event, funded by the Manchester-Toronto research fund and organised by the team in the Department of Planning, Property and Environmental Management, Health, Environment and Inequalities: Exploring International Collaborative Research & Policy Solutions on Thursday, 26 June will bring together researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to explore pressing health and environmental challenges The workshop aims to foster dialogue and collaboration across sectors and geographies, with contributions from colleagues based in the UK, Canada, and beyond. Further details coming soon.
• An Innovation Lab in the afternoon of Thursday 26 June, facilitated by Future Everything, to develop research projects with external organisations with a focus on health inequalities. Academics will be approached to be involved on the basis of the challenges identified by our external partners, but if you would like to register an interest, again, please contact healthierfutures@manchester.ac.uk.
• A workshop on Navigating hidden methodological challenges in health-related research, led by Professor Kate Reed in SoSS on Tuesday 1 July. This event addresses some of the hidden methodological challenges of interdisciplinary health research focusing on 3 key areas: - navigating sensitive and emotionally demanding aspects of research - dealing with the complexity of research ethics - managing co-productive research with non-academic partners. To register for the event, please complete this form. 
• A Research Café led by Dr Omolade Allen on Faith, Community, and Social Determinants of Health: Translating Research into Action for Domestic Abuse Support in partnership with Creative Manchester on Wednesday 2 July. This event will encourage open conversations about the barriers to disclosure and help-seeking in ethnic minority communities, including immigration status, faith-based support, and social stigma. This will also allow us to explore how existing services can collaborate with faith-based organisations to improve access to support. Further details coming soon.
• GM Women's Health Research Delivery Showcase on Thursday 3 July at the Whitworth Art Gallery, celebrating Greater Manchester's collective expertise, research and innovation in the field of women's health. The event, (which will follow a month of weekly webinars launching on International Women's Health Day (28th May) will showcase the work of NIHR infrastructure, ecosystem partners and anchor institutions on women's health and wellbeing. Registration for the webinar series, and event to follow.

We are also hoping to have a networking session specifically for early career researchers, discussions around digital health equity and creative health, and several activities related to our recently funded Healthier Futures impact projects, along with other events to be confirmed.

We will be sharing updates on individual events as the programmes are finalised. You can find the outline programme for the fortnight here, with new activities being added as they are confirmed.

If you would be interested in including any events that are happening during this fortnight under the Healthier Futures umbrella, please do get in touch.

And if you have not already, please do affiliate yourself, and any relevant activities or publications, with Healthier Futures on PURE. You can also add yourself to our Teams channel for updates on the platform, or contact us at healthierfutures@manchester.ac.uk to sign up to our monthly newsletter.

Until now, COVID vaccines have been available to pregnant women as part of the twice-yearly booster programme, but this offer is being withdrawn.

The UK’s vaccine body, the Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), has recommended that from spring 2025, pregnant women will no longer be eligible for free COVID vaccines. This is a concern for several reasons.

First, there is the direct vaccine benefit of reducing the chance of COVID infection and the consequences of infection in pregnancy. Pregnant women are at higher risk of severe COVID infection than women who are not pregnant, which can be significantly reduced by vaccination.

Severe COVID infection in pregnancy also carries risks for the unborn baby, including miscarriage and stillbirth. Although the risk with the currently circulating virus variants is lower, the risk remains to both mother and baby from COVID. The good news is that vaccination not only protects the mother should she be infected, but also reduces the risk of both very preterm birth and stillbirth for her baby.

Second, there is the indirect benefit of vaccination in pregnancy in protecting newborns in those vital early months. Infants do not have fully developed immune systems, and a COVID infection is their first time meeting the virus. As such, they are very vulnerable to COVID infections, as they are to other respiratory infections. (Thankfully, there are safe and effective vaccines for flu, whooping cough and respiratory syncytial virus RSV.)

COVID vaccines for children under the age of four (from the age of six months), while approved for use in the UK, are not, nor have been, made available – in contrast to countries such as the US.

A recent study, co-authored by one of us (Christina Pagel), looked at all hospitalisations in England of children with a COVID diagnosis or positive test between August 2020 and 2023. Admissions where COVID did not contribute to the reason for being in hospital (such as swallowing a toy or breaking a limb) were excluded.

Overall, infants accounted for 43% of all admissions in children under 18 (19,700 out of 45,900), rising to 64% of admissions in the most recent era as older children saw some benefit of “acquired immunity” (protection from having had a previous infection).

Of these admitted infants, only 10% had any underlying conditions that would normally be considered risk factors for severe COVID infection. While most infants were in hospital for only a short time – about two days – a significant minority required intensive care. For instance, between August 2022-23, about 5% needed intensive care and eight babies died.

A new study, which has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, further categorised risks to different age groups for COVID hospital admissions in England. It showed that the risk for A&E attendance, hospital admission and severe hospital admission (requiring oxygen ventilation and hospitalisation for more than two days) was highest in babies under six months old – higher even than for people over 90 years old.

While much lower than for the youngest babies, the risk for babies aged six months to one year was also higher than most other age groups – comparable with adults in their 70s or 80s.

The good news is that babies can be protected from COVID in the first six months of life, if the mother has been recently vaccinated. This is because if the mother is vaccinated, she can pass on protective antibodies to the developing baby during pregnancy. These antibodies will wane over time, but if the mother is then able to breastfeed she can pass on antibodies that are found in breast milk.

These antibodies can make a massive difference. Data from the US showed that the overwhelming majority of infants hospitalised with COVID (95%) and all those who died from COVID were from unvaccinated mothers. It is for these reasons that vaccination against COVID during pregnancy has been recommended around the world, including in Ireland, the US and, until now, the UK.

JCVI’s workings not clear

It’s not clear how JCVI assessed the cost-effectiveness that has led to the change in recommendation to withdraw the COVID vaccine in pregnancy.

The cost-effectiveness model JCVI has been using for COVID vaccine decisions has only just been published, and is still in preprint form. JCVI’s criteria focus on preventing deaths, and the preprint only considered deaths in people 15 years and older, while the hospitalisation data used grouped children aged nought to four years. This age grouping masks the much higher vulnerability of very young babies that other papers have shown.

A further concern about the JCVI analysis is that it seems to prioritise preventing deaths above all other considerations. For its decision on pregnancy eligibility, the committee used unpublished data from the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre, which shows that there were no deaths in pregnancy in the last 18 months. Although this is excellent news, this data does not appear to include consideration of miscarriage, stillbirth and health risks to the baby.

While, of course, death matters a lot, and pregnant mothers and babies very rarely die from COVID, hospitalisation and severe hospitalisation are nonetheless also important outcomes to avoid.

COVID remains at significant levels throughout the year. We would urge the JCVI to look at the wider data sets published on infant health as well as mortality and either revise its criteria on vaccination in pregnancy, or provide a much more detailed and transparent explanation for why it has been discontinued.

Sheena Cruickshank, Professor in Immunology, University of Manchester and Christina Pagel, Professor of Operational Research, Director of the UCL Clinical Operational Research Unit, UCL

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The number of people in England with food allergies has more than doubled between 2008 and 2018, a new study reveals. The researchers, from Imperial College London, found that rates are highest among preschool children, with 4% having a “probable” food allergy.

They also found that a third of those people at risk of anaphylaxis – a life-threatening allergic reaction – don’t carry adrenaline autoinjector “pens”, such as EpiPens. People in deprived areas were found to be less likely to have been prescribed these life-saving injectors.

The true number of people with food allergies has been difficult to establish, with estimates varying between under 1% and over 9% of children. This is because several methods are used to estimate the frequency of food allergies, including using either the number of prescriptions of adrenaline pens, self-reporting, or blood tests to identify telltale antibodies.

Self-reporting is the least reliable method because many people confuse food intolerance with allergy, as is evident from a recent report by the UK’s Food Standards Agency.

Of the over 30% of adults who reported an adverse reaction to foods, only 6% were subsequently confirmed to have a true food allergy. To bridge this gap in understanding how common food allergies are, the new study from Imperial College took a much broader approach to better estimate the incidence of food allergy.

Population healthcare data from over 7.5 million people in England and a combination of clinical criteria were used to identify people with food allergies in these health records.

People were considered to have an allergy if doctors indicated they had either had a possible or probable allergy, or if they had been prescribed an adrenaline pen, or both. Using this combination, the number of people with food allergies was shown to have doubled in a decade. Curiously, since 2018, levels have plateaued somewhat at around 4% in preschool children, 2.4% in school-aged children, and under 1% in adults.

The study, published in The Lancet Public Health, used a broad range of criteria to identify people with food allergies. Not all cases were confirmed by medical professionals using additional tests, such as the presence of antibodies in blood or food-challenge tests where people are given increasing amounts of certain foods to see if an allergic reaction occurs.

Some types of food allergy may have been missed, such as pollen food allergy syndrome. This occurs when people with specific pollen allergies eat some raw foods, including certain stoned fruits, that cause mild irritant symptoms, such as itching of the mouth. Still, there are important questions as to why food allergies have been rising, and why they may now be plateauing.

Puzzling

The trend in the increased rate of allergies in developed countries has puzzled scientists for years. The “old friend’s hypothesis” is one theory that may account for the growing incidence of chronic conditions such as allergies.

This hypothesis considers the role of the microbiome (the collection of helpful bacteria, fungi and viruses that live in and on us), infections and the environment in shaping our immune response and causing it to misfire.

Evidence to support this theory is accumulating. For example, studies show that high use of antibiotics in early childhood as the immune system and microbiome are developing is linked to a greater likelihood of allergy in later life.

Pollution exposure can also enhance the risk of allergy and worsen the severity of symptoms.

The food we were exposed to in early life may be important in determining if we develop an allergy. Previous advice from the UK government about avoiding early exposure to peanuts and eggs may inadvertently be linked to the rise in food allergy to peanuts and eggs.

Conversely, studies show that early exposure before the age of five to peanuts and eggs is linked to a reduced likelihood of developing an allergy.

The advice in the UK to avoid peanuts and eggs during pregnancy and early childhood was changed in 2009, but the trials showing the positive effects of early exposure to eggs and peanuts were only published in 2015 and 2016. However, it is possible that the plateauing incidence of food allergy cases is linked to changes in advice and the published infant food exposure trials.

Diagnosis is only part of the story. People also need to be able to effectively manage their condition. This requires patients to have access to the right advice and support from experts, such as dietitians, as well as the drugs needed to halt an anaphylactic attack.

For babies diagnosed with a food allergy, there is now good evidence) that incrementally reintroducing the food that causes the allergy can retrain the immune system and might help the child overcome their allergy. However, this must only be done under the guidance of a medical team.

The new study showed that allergy care was largely managed at GP practices in England. However, GP clinics may lack the specialist resources needed for proper allergy support, such as safely re-introducing foods.

It is clear that people in the UK with allergies need better support.

Sheena Cruickshank, Professor in Immunology, University of Manchester

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

This summer has seen a large COVID wave – one which is showing potential to be bigger than the 2023 winter wave was.

The current wave has largely been driven by the so-called FLiRT variants, which have acquired greater immune evasion and ability to enter our cells. The rise in COVID cases across the UK has also been accompanied by a spike in hospitalisations.

COVID is not seasonal, as this current wave is stark evidence of. This is why vulnerable people are given spring boosters. Nonetheless, most respiratory infections (COVID included) are at high levels during the colder months. Having access to a COVID booster in the autumn is of great importance, as it protects those who are most vulnerable from severe COVID infections.

The Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) have just published their recommendations for the autumn vaccine campaign. Unfortunately, the recommendations they’ve made mean even fewer people will have access to vaccines for free on the NHS this autumn. And, the vaccines that will be made available may not be as effective against the current variants as newer formulations would be. This could leave more patients at risk of potentially serious infection.

The JCVI use a number of considerations in costing their recommendations for vaccine campaigns (although they have not fully released details of their costing model). What is clear is that the main concern is the cost of buying and delivering vaccines to prevent severe disease and deaths.

This year sees even fewer people able to access the vaccine for free on the NHS. The boosters will be offered to those over the age of 65, residents in old-age care homes and people who are at greater risk of catching COVID due to a compromised immune system. The JCVI haven’t advised offering the vaccine to frontline health and social care workers, staff in care homes and unpaid carers or household contacts of immunosuppressed people. Fortunately, the government has agreed to maintain the vaccine this year for frontline health workers.

Reduced vaccine coverage leaves those with regular, close access to vulnerable people unable to reduce their own risk of catching or spreading COVID. Although, it’s possible to purchase vaccines from many pharmacies, this is not cheap – with doses costing as much as £100. Many people may not have the resources to pay for one.

Vaccines don’t just lower the risk of severe infection. They may also lower the risk of developing long COVID after an infection by up to 52%. Recent data shows that the risk of developing long COVID from an infection has not disappeared. The most recent Office for National Statistics data also shows new cases of long COVID are still being reported in the UK. Although fewer new cases are emerging, it’s still a significant number.

Despite the benefit of vaccination on reducing long COVID risk, the JCVI say there’s not enough evidence showing boosters reduce the risk of the condition. This is why they did not factor the risk of long COVID into their cost-benefit analysis.

The autumn vaccine campaign will also provide eligible patients with left-over vaccines from the Autumn 2023 campaign instead of purchasing new vaccines.

Although using pre-procured doses means less money will be spent on the autumn booster programme, research shows older formulations of vaccines are less effective against variants which emerged after they were developed (such as the JN.1 variant). Modelling suggests they’ll be up to a third less protective against severe disease.

Indeed, the European Medicines Agency, in line with World Health Organization advice, have recommended boosters be updated to target the JN.1 variants. Several manufacturers have begun preparing updated formulas for mRNA and protein-based vaccines. The US’s Food and Drug Administration noted the upsurge in FLiRT variants and requested a modification to vaccines in order to target this variant as well.

But even with vaccine modifications being made to target this variant it may still be too late, given FLiRT variants are starting to dominate. Recent data suggests the virus is even evolving away from the FLiRT variants with even more evasive features.

The fact we’re in a position where we’re using vaccines that may be less effective against current variants is enormously frustrating. Ideally we would be looking to develop or acquire more durable vaccines that confer longer-lasting immunity – such as nasal vaccines or multi-variant universal vaccines that may be more resilient against the ever-evolving virus.

These could potentially have been developed in the UK’s vaccine manufacturing production centre. However, this centre was sold to a private US company in 2022. This leaves us lagging well behind other countries, such as the US, India and China, which are continuing to invest in developing the next generation of vaccines.

Vaccines, of course, aren’t the only tool we have. We can reduce the impact of infection by widening access to anti-viral COVID drugs (such as Paxlovid). Access to Paxlovid was to be expanded to cover many vulnerable groups who aren’t eligible for the vaccine (such as people who are obese or have diabetes). But the reality is there aren’t enough supplies and funding to cover the 15 million people that could become eligible – so these plans cannot yet be implemented. Patients currently eligible to access the drug have described difficulty getting hold of this valuable treatment.

Public health measures such as wearing masks and improving ventilation in buildings could also help lower risk of infection. But again, no money is being invested into making these measures more accessible.

COVID is not just another cold. It still has the potential to cause serious disease – and this threat is not going away anytime soon. Ignoring it isn’t an option, which is why ensuring people still have access to the latest, most effective vaccines is so important.

Sheena Cruickshank, Professor in Biomedical Sciences, University of Manchester

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Hearing loss and dementia both cause difficulties with listening, understanding and communicating. This can lead to breakdowns in relationships because something as simple as a conversation with a loved one can become impossible.

People with dementia often don’t know, or can’t communicate, that they have problems with their hearing. This means that a lot of the time, their carers don’t know either.

Crucially, many people with dementia, and especially those living in care homes, rely on carers to support their hearing needs. This might mean helping with hearing aids or other hearing devices, using communication techniques, writing things down or using flashcards and making sure background noise isn’t too loud.

When hearing care is given properly it can improve residents’ quality of life, mood and engagement with peers. Unfortunately, in a new study, my colleagues and I found that only 50% of residents with dementia in UK care homes are given help with their hearing loss.

Poorly supported hearing loss leaves residents at risk of emotional and behavioural problems, worsened confusion and difficulties communicating with important people in their life like family, friends, carers and healthcare professionals. In the same study, just 27% of care staff said that they check that residents’ hearing aids are working properly. This is a huge problem as most residents with dementia aren’t able to do this themselves.

Complicated reasons

The survey results also revealed that the reasons residents with dementia aren’t receiving help with their hearing are complicated. The biggest problem in care homes appears to be access to resources, such as enough time, enough staff or enough things like hearing aid batteries or flashcards. Staff who completed the survey said that not enough resources in the care homes made it difficult to provide hearing-related care to residents with dementia.

Another part of the problem is that care staff don’t always have the relevant knowledge and skills to help residents with their hearing problems. Just under 25% of staff reported having had any training on hearing loss (despite over 75% of residents having hearing loss), but almost all said that they wanted this training to be provided.

Hearing loss isn’t always prioritised in care homes. Compared to dehydration, infections or injuries, hearing and communication problems don’t cause immediate risk or physical harm to residents. So helping residents to hear well isn’t often a priority for staff, who have limited time and a heavy workload. That doesn’t mean that hearing and communicating aren’t essential for a person’s wellbeing and happiness.

Hearing loss isn’t always prioritised. belushi/Shutterstock

Results from our survey show that people with dementia living in care homes are not getting the care that they need and deserve to help them to hear, understand and communicate. Care home residents are often very vulnerable, and being able to hear well is essential to maintaining a good quality of life and engaging with mentally stimulating activities.

Hannah Cross, Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of Manchester

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Being ambulance staff can be a high-stress job. They encounter many situations in their daily line of work that can have a lasting impact on their mental health. According to MIND, around nine in ten emergency services staff have experienced poor mental health at some point in their career. Another study estimated that around 22% of ambulance staff have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Ambulance staff are often the first to attend the site of many difficult scenes, including deaths by suicide. We interviewed ambulance staff about the impact that responding to deaths by suicide has on their mental health. We found that not only did many feel ill-equipped to respond to these calls, these events also had a severe impact on their mental health.

Lasting impact

We carried out interviews with nine ambulance staff. They had all lost at least one colleague to suicide, and said that responding to suicide was a common part of their job. They described often being the first professionals at the scene of a suicide or attempted suicide, and how they undertook varied – and often conflicting – roles.

This often involved negotiating with people in crisis, informing families and friends of the death of a loved one, dealing with the intense emotional reactions of bereaved people, and protecting the site and the body of the deceased until police arrive to investigate the scene of the death.

Participants reported intense memories of these events even if the suicide was some time ago. One participant told us:

I wouldn’t believe anybody […] if they said that it didn’t affect them because it always affects you… I’ll go to bed and I’ll dream about it and I’ll have strange dreams and I’ll think about it… [suicide] affects you mentally in some other way whether you think that you’re over it or not.

All ambulance staff interviewed also said that the impact of attending a suicide did not seem to be recognised by their managers and they had received no guidance about how to cope.

Many said they felt pressure to continue working, because stress and trauma are “what the job’s all about”. Others felt there was a stigma in asking for help. Ambulance staff also told us there was little guidance on how to respond to suicides, or how to care for staff who may have been affected.

Many ambulance staff felt there was a stigma in asking for help. Ajit Wick/ Shutterstock

Research shows the job puts a heavy toll on ambulance staff, with mental health issues widespread. One US study found that 14% of respondents reported symptoms of depression, 28% had symptoms of anxiety, and 34% appeared to be high risk for suicide. Another study found that suicidal thinking was higher in emergency services personnel than other professionals. Paramedics also experience the highest levels of PTSD compared to other emergency service personnel. But our exploratory study is the first to examine the reasons why these mental health issues might be prevalent in this group.

Wider issue

The participants in our study also reported they had no training in how to respond to suicides, or how to support people at the scene who were bereaved by suicide. Their lack of training made them feel helpless, they said, especially given that these calls are a common part of the job.

This lack of training isn’t a unique issue among healthcare professionals of all kinds, who are often faced with situations they aren’t prepared or trained for. One of our study’s authors previously conducted interviews with GPs to find out what challenges they faced when dealing with parents bereaved by the suicide of adult children. The study found that many GPs also felt they hadn’t received sufficient training, and don’t have enough support in their practices to deal with this incredibly difficult part of their job.

As a result of our work, training has been developed for health and social care professionals about how to respond to people bereaved by suicide. This training is the first of its kind internationally, and involves increasing knowledge, skills and confidence in responding to the bereaved at the scene of deaths by suicide.

This training is also available for ambulance staff. But our study showed that ambulance staff have different emotional, practical and training needs compared to GPs and other mental health professionals. Part of this is because ambulance staff tend to be the first professional on site, which means they are exposed to both the scene of the suicide and the bereaved families. The current training programme gives training on responding to the bereaved family, but doesn’t currently focus on issues around trauma, managing the incident or balancing conflicting roles during a call.

There is still a need for better awareness by the general public of how to talk about suicide and how to help those struggling to help prevent these unnecessary deaths. Opening a dialogue about suicide and the impact that it can have may help reduce stigma in the future and allow those who most need help to be able to receive it.

If you have seriously harmed yourself, or you don’t feel that you can keep yourself safe right now seek immediate help by calling 999.

If you are experiencing suicidal thoughts and need support, you can also call your GP, NHS 111 or Direct, or a free helpline such as Samaritans (116 123), CALM, or Papyrus (0800 068 4141).

Carolyn Chew-Graham, Professor of General Practice Research, Director of Clinical Academic Training, Keele University; Pauline Nelson, Research fellow, University of Manchester, and Sharon Mcdonnell, Honorary research fellow, University of Manchester

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.