Supplement use is associated with health status and health-related behaviors in the 1946 British birth cohort.

Use of dietary supplements may be one of a number of health-related behaviors that cluster together. The current study investigated the underlying diet, health-related characteristics, and behaviors of users and nonusers of dietary supplements in a longitudinal study of health. Participants (n = 1776) completed a 5-d food diary including information on dietary supplement use (vitamins, minerals, and nutraceuticals) at age 53 y. Sociodemographic information and data on smoking, alcohol, and physical activity were obtained along with anthropometric measurements, blood pressure, and a blood sample (nonfasting subjects). A significantly greater percentage of women reported supplement use compared with men (45.1 vs. 25.2%). Supplement use was associated with lower BMI, lower waist circumference, higher plasma folate and plasma vitamin B-12 concentrations, nonsmoking, participation in physical activity, and nonmanual social class in women and with plasma folate concentrations and participation in physical activity in men. Nonsupplement users tended to be nonconsumers of breakfast cereals, fruit, fruit juice, yogurt, oily fish, and olive oil and had lower dietary intakes of potassium, magnesium, phosphorus, iron, and vitamin C even after adjustment for sociodemographic and behavioral factors. Overall, supplement users tended to differ from nonsupplement users on a range of health-related behaviors and health status indicators, although there were fewer significant associations in men. Similarly, dietary supplements users tended to have underlying diets that, were healthier and those taking supplements may be the least likely to need them. These results support the notion of a clustering of healthy behaviors and cardiovascular risk factors, particularly for women.<br /

Quantifying Microstructural Evolution in Moving Magma

Many of the grand challenges in volcanic and magmatic research are focused on understanding the dynamics of highly heterogeneous systems and the critical conditions that enable magmas to move or eruptions to initiate. From the formation and development of magma reservoirs, through propagation and arrest of magma, to the conditions in the conduit, gas escape, eruption dynamics, and beyond into the environmental impacts of that eruption, we are trying to define how processes occur, their rates and timings, and their causes and consequences. However, we are usually unable to observe the processes directly. Here we give a short synopsis of the new capabilities and highlight the potential insights that in situ observation can provide. We present the XRheo and Pele furnace experimental apparatus and analytical toolkit for the in situ X-ray tomography-based quantification of magmatic microstructural evolution during rheological testing. We present the first 3D data showing the evolving textural heterogeneity within a shearing magma, highlighting the dynamic changes to microstructure that occur from the initiation of shear, and the variability of the microstructural response to that shear as deformation progresses. The particular shear experiments highlighted here focus on the effect of shear on bubble coalescence with a view to shedding light on both magma transport and fragmentation processes. The XRheo system is intended to help us understand the microstructural controls on the complex and non-Newtonian evolution of magma rheology, and is therefore used to elucidate the many mobilization, transport, and eruption phenomena controlled by the rheological evolution of a multi-phase magmatic flows. The detailed, in situ characterization of sample textures presented here therefore represents the opening of a new field for the accurate parameterization of dynamic microstructural control on rheological behavior

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health