Thursday, July 2, 2026

Creatine shows promise for depression

 Walk into any gym supplement aisle and creatine is there, sold by the tub to people chasing bigger muscles. It is one of the most studied compounds in sports science. What far fewer people know is that the brain runs on much the same chemistry the muscles do, and that the energy creatine helps supply may matter just as much above the neck as below it. A new systematic review, published today in Brain Medicine, takes that quiet possibility seriously and asks a hard question. Can creatine help treat depression?

What the Researchers Looked At

The team behind the review, led by Bassam Jeryous Fares of the University of Ottawa, did not run a new trial. They gathered the ones that already existed. After screening the literature, they settled on six published reports describing five randomized controlled trials, the kind of study in which neither patient nor doctor knows who received the real compound and who received a placebo. Those trials had been conducted across five countries, in South Korea, the United States, Brazil, Israel, and India, and together they enrolled 238 participants at baseline, 126 on creatine and 112 on placebo. The average age was 36 years. Most participants were women. Two of the trials enrolled women only.

Four of the trials studied major depressive disorder. One studied people with bipolar disorder who were living through a depressive episode. Because the studies differed so widely in design, the authors did not pool the numbers into a single statistic. They summarized them in narrative instead, letting each trial speak for itself.

A Split Decision

Here is where the story refuses to resolve cleanly. Two of the five trials, both drawn from the same study of women with major depressive disorder, found real benefit. When five grams of creatine per day was added to the antidepressant escitalopram, depressive symptoms fell further than they did on placebo after eight weeks. The effect was large by the usual statistical yardsticks, with a Cohen's d of 1.13 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and more women reached remission. A separate trial paired creatine with cognitive behavioral therapy and saw a steeper drop in symptoms on a standard questionnaire than therapy plus placebo produced.

Then the picture darkens. The remaining three trials found nothing. One saw no effect of creatine, at five or ten grams daily, in people who had already failed to respond to medication. Another, testing several doses in adolescent girls, found no difference from placebo. The last looked at people with bipolar disorder in a depressive episode and again found no treatment benefit. Worse, two of those bipolar patients taking creatine developed hypomania or mania, a sober reminder that the same compound can behave very differently depending on the diagnosis.

Why Creatine Might Matter for the Brain

The logic behind the experiments is not far fetched. The brain is an expensive organ, burning energy at a rate out of all proportion to its size, and creatine helps cells rebuild adenosine triphosphate, the molecule that pays for that work. Studies of people with mood disorders have found altered creatine metabolism in the brain, and impaired energy production has been proposed as one root of depression. Creatine may also nudge the pathways that govern dopamine and serotonin, the neurotransmitters that most antidepressants target. The authors are careful here. They note that the link between brain creatine and mood remains correlational, not proven cause and effect, and that the biology of depression has many moving parts.

“The signal is interesting, but it is not a verdict,” said Bassam Jeryous Fares, first author of the review and a student in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Ottawa. “Two trials pointed one way and three pointed another. That is not the kind of evidence on which you change clinical practice. It is the kind that tells you the question is worth further exploration.”

Nicholas Fabiano, corresponding author and a psychiatry resident at the University of Ottawa, framed the work as a starting point rather than a conclusion. “Creatine appears to be a safe intervention. The adverse events we found were limited to mild gastrointestinal discomfort. We cannot yet reliably say that creatine helps with depressive symptoms or if the findings are generalizable to everyone.”

What Comes Next

The review does not pretend to settle the matter. The authors flag the obvious limitations. The trials were small. The sexes were unbalanced, with two studies enrolling only women. The quality varied, with two trials judged at low risk of bias and three carrying some concern, arising mostly from how patients were assigned and how missing data were handled. The findings, the authors stress, are not yet generalizable.

What they call for is more rigorous work. Larger trials. Longer ones, running past the eight week mark. Studies that test creatine alongside exercise, and studies that explore higher doses, while keeping in mind that more is not always better. There is even a tantalizing clue from animal research, where creatine altered depression like behavior differently in male and female rodents, which may help explain why the human trials with more women showed more promise. For now, creatine remains a promising lead rather than a proven remedy. The molecule that builds muscle has earned a closer look from the people who study the mind.

The peer-reviewed research article in Brain Medicine titled “Creatine as a treatment for depression,” is freely available via Open Access, starting on 30 June 2026 in Brain Medicine at the following hyperlink: https://doi.org/10.61373/bm026l.0039.

The full reference for citation purposes is: Jeryous Fares B, Zhou C, Fabiano N, Wong S. Creatine as a treatment for depression. Brain Medicine 2026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61373/bm026l.0039. Epub 2026 Jun 30.


Heart failure symptoms during and after pregnancy

 

Earlier diagnosis, prompt treatment and follow-up care after delivery are critical to help prevent life-threatening complications for pregnant and postpartum women with heart failure, according to a new American Heart Association scientific statement

Statement Highlights:

  • Current evidence indicates that nearly 1 in 4 women 20-44 years of age currently has some type of cardiovascular disease, and heart disease is now one of the leading causes of pregnancy-related death in the U.S.
  • Heart failure symptoms, such as shortness of breath, fatigue and swelling, often resemble common symptoms experienced during pregnancy and after delivery, which can delay heart failure diagnosis and treatment. This can have life-threatening consequences for both mother and baby.
  • The first year after delivery is a high-risk time for women to develop heart failure, and postpartum women need ongoing follow-up care after delivery.
  • Standard screening, prompt treatment and coordinated care between obstetricians and heart specialists may help improve maternal health and save lives.

Early detection and timely treatment of heart failure in pregnant or postpartum women are crucial to prevent serious complications, such as irregular heartbeat, stroke and death, according to a  new American Heart Association scientific statement, “Heart Failure Occurring in the Perinatal Period.”  

Heart failure is a serious condition in which the heart cannot pump enough blood well enough to meet the body’s needs. The true prevalence of heart failure during pregnancy and the postpartum period is unknown. However, according to a 2026 American Heart Association scientific statement Forecasting the Burden of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in Women, nearly 1 in 4 women 20-44 years of age currently have some type of cardiovascular disease. Data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System indicates that heart disease is now one of the leading causes of pregnancy-related death in the U.S.

A new scientific statement, published today in the American Heart Association’s flagship peer-reviewed scientific journal Circulation, highlights the challenges of recognizing heart failure in pregnant and postpartum women and emphasizes the need for prompt treatment as well as continued monitoring after delivery.

“Heart failure affects more than just the heart—it can affect the lungs, kidneys, brain and more,” said Demilade A. Adedinsewo, M.D., M.P.H., chair of the volunteer scientific statement writing group and an assistant professor in the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. “Because blood flow is reduced and fluid builds up, it can lead to breathing difficulties, kidney issues, irregular heartbeats and increased risk of stroke and death.”

What are the symptoms of heart failure during pregnancy and postpartum?

Symptoms of heart failure include shortness of breath, labored breathing, fatigue and weight gain with swelling in the legs and feet. Since these symptoms are also common in otherwise healthy pregnancies, heart failure in women who are pregnant or have recently given birth often goes unrecognized.

Peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM), also known as postpartum cardiomyopathy, is a form of heart muscle failure that can develop late in pregnancy or months after delivery. Women who develop PPCM may experience and report various heart failure symptoms due to fluid retention.

“Heart failure during and after pregnancy is often hiding in plain sight. By recognizing symptoms earlier and initiating appropriate treatment, especially in the postpartum period, clinicians and health systems have a powerful opportunity to prevent serious complications and save mothers’ lives,” said Adedinsewo.

What are the risk factors for heart failure?

Heart failure in the perinatal period can affect women who already have cardiovascular disease and those who do not. Risk factors for heart failure in general include high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, abnormal cholesterol, overweight/obesity or metabolic syndrome. During the perinatal period, unique risk factors include known heart disease prior to pregnancy, older maternal age, multiple gestation, known genetic variants for heart failure, use of assisted reproductive technology and prolonged use of tocolytic agents (medications used to suppress premature labor). Among women with known heart disease, heart failure is the most common complication, affecting 11% of women during pregnancy and in the postpartum period.

However, significant disparities exist in perinatal heart failure risk and outcomes in the U.S.:

  • Black adults have about a 19% higher risk of developing heart failure than white adults. 
  • Black women and Native American women were more frequently diagnosed with PPCM than white women. Black women with PPCM were also more likely to be diagnosed later compared to other racial groups.
  • Heart failure or abnormal cardiac function contributed to 14.5% of pregnancy-related deaths among American Indian/Alaska Native women and 14.2% among Black women.

What are the risks if heart failure is not diagnosed and treated promptly?

Heart failure poses substantial risks to the health of a mother and baby. Delays in recognizing and diagnosing heart failure during the perinatal period can be life-threatening. Data from a national database found that women who are pregnant and have heart failure are about 32 times more likely to die around the time of delivery compared to pregnant women who do not have heart failure.

Other risks for the mother include irregular heartbeat, stroke, worsening cardiac function, preterm delivery, caesarean delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, poor mental health and poor quality of life. Heart failure in the mother during pregnancy increases the risk of restricted fetal growth, premature birth, low birth weight, a prolonged stay in the pediatric intensive care unit, stillbirth or death in the first four weeks of an infant’s life.

How is heart failure diagnosed in pregnant and postpartum women?

Knowing the signs and symptoms of heart failure, as well as prompt medical evaluation and testing, are crucial first steps in improving women’s health. The statement emphasizes that it is important for clinicians to evaluate patients with any heart symptoms during pregnancy, particularly if they have other cardiovascular risk factors.

Diagnostic testing, such as electrocardiograms (ECG), blood tests for cardiac biomarkers and echocardiograms, can help clinicians distinguish between normal pregnancy changes and warning signs of heart failure.  

How is heart failure managed during pregnancy?

Although there is no cure for heart failure, it can be managed with medications and healthy lifestyle. Many women with new onset of heart failure in the perinatal period recover heart function with appropriate care. Treatment is guided by the severity of the disease. Medications to treat heart failure that may be considered safe in pregnancy include beta blockers, diuretics, vasodilators and anticoagulants (when appropriate). The priorities are to stabilize maternal heart function and ensure the fetus is receiving adequate blood flow. A multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics team to provide continuous monitoring and treatment is critical for optimal care.

Achieving optimal cardiovas­cular health, as outlined by the American Heart Associa­tion’s Life’s Essential 8 metrics, is increasingly recognized as important before, during and after pregnancy. People with heart failure who follow a healthy eating plan, engage in regular physical activity and get support from family and friends often report greater improvement in managing symptoms and emotional well-being.

Why is the postpartum period critical?

The postpartum period, which extends through the first year after delivery, is a particularly high-risk time for women to develop heart failure. Some women first experience symptoms within the first few days after childbirth, while others develop symptoms weeks or months after delivery. Referrals from obstetric care/maternal-fetal medicine specialists to other health care professionals, whether cardiology or primary care, are an essential component of high-quality postpartum care beyond the traditional 6-week postpartum period. Continued monitoring during the first year after delivery may include home visits and alternatives to in-person appointments, such as telemedicine and using digital technologies for remote monitoring and symptom assessments.

Counseling about contraception is also an important consideration for postpartum women. Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), specifically hormonal intrauterine devices, are the preferred method of contraception for women with cardiovascular disease including heart failure. Estrogen-containing methods are not recommended for women with moderate or severe heart failure due to the increased risk for thrombosis (blood clots in the veins and arteries).

“Improving postpartum care is essential to protecting maternal health. Standardized screening, listening carefully to patient concerns and improved access to care are crucial to help improve outcomes for mothers and their families,” said Adedinsewo.


Additional Resources:

Sugar substitutes disrupt gut health and metabolism

 

Since the first introduction of saccharin, an array of artificial and other non-nutritive (i.e., low-calorie or calorie-free) sweeteners have become ubiquitous in the US food supply. However, a growing body of research suggests that these compounds are not inert in the body and may be disrupting our metabolism.

A new review and meta-analysis by researchers from the Food is Medicine Institute at the Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, published in Current Atherosclerosis Reports, pulls together the best available evidence on how non-nutritive sweeteners affect health. Across 21 randomized clinical trials in adults, researchers observed that artificial and other low-calorie sweeteners, compared to non-caloric controls such as water or placebo, raised fasting insulin and HbA1c, a marker of long-term blood sugar control, and showed a trend toward worsening insulin sensitivity.  

“What makes our analysis notable is that by focusing on non-caloric comparators, we better isolated the direct physiological effects of the sweeteners themselves, not the calories they replace,” said first author Meng Wang, a research assistant professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. “When pooling findings from individual trials, we see signals that these compounds may have metabolic harms.”

One explanation based on the current evidence, the researchers say, involves the gut microbiome. Non-nutritive sweeteners generally pass through the gut and come into direct contact with these microbes. In one trial they reviewed that used detailed microbiome profiling along with experiments transferring microbes from humans to mice, certain low-calorie sweeteners were shown to alter both the composition and the function of the gut microbiota.  

In addition to randomized trials, the researchers reviewed large observational studies, which generally found that consuming non-nutritive sweeteners is linked to a higher risk of developing cardiometabolic diseases. The team notes that these studies have limitations as people already at risk for these conditions may be more likely to choose these products. Different sweeteners may also have different health effects, so grouping them together may obscure the full picture. Taken together with the clinical trial findings, however, the researchers say that the overall body of evidence raises concern. 

“The rapidly increasing use of these sweeteners has outpaced our understanding of their long-term health effects,” said study senior author Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and director of the Food is Medicine Institute. “Until we know more, caution is needed. If you’re replacing large amounts of added sugar in your diet, such as in multiple servings of soda, these low-calorie sweeteners may be a better alternative. But we can’t simply assume they are safe and innocuous, and avoiding them whenever possible appears a prudent choice.” 

Finally, the researchers highlight a gap in U.S. labeling policy that hinders the research. Current regulations require manufacturers to list non-nutritive sweeteners in the ingredient list, but not the amount included. This makes it difficult for researchers to accurately assess non-nutritive sweetener intake and generate more definitive evidence about their health risk in large community or population studies.  

The review underscores the need for additional carefully designed randomized controlled trials of both cardiometabolic risk factors and mechanistic pathways. 

When back pain won't quit: the power of self-management

Almost everyone will deal with back pain at some point in their lives. Most recover quickly — but for about 20% of people, acute pain becomes a chronic condition that interferes with daily life and keeps them out of the workforce.

Low back pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide, and more money is spent managing it in the United States than any other health condition. Despite that, the most effective way to prevent a short-term episode from becoming a long-term problem has not been clear — especially for people who are most at risk.

“Chronic low back pain prevention is a public health issue,” said Michael Schneider, D.C., Ph.D., professor in the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh and co-principal investigator of the Pitt arm of the study. “The 20% of patients who turn chronic account for 80% of the costs and the suffering. This paper shows that helping people self-manage their pain through a properly trained physical therapist or chiropractor is a great way to mitigate this public health problem.”

A randomized clinical trial published June 1, 2026, in JAMA Internal Medicine found that a personalized self-management program — delivered by physical therapists and chiropractors — was more effective at preventing the conversion to high impact chronic low back pain than standard medical care or hands-on spinal manipulation alone.

The trial, called PACBACK, enrolled 1,000 adults through Pitt and the University of Minnesota. It was one of the largest clinical trials ever to include spinal manipulation as one of its treatment arms.

Importantly, it didn't recruit just anyone with back pain. Participants had to have acute or subacute low back pain and score at moderate or high risk of developing chronic pain based on a validated screening tool that accounts for physical and psychological risk factors.

Clinical trial compared four treatment approaches for lower back pain

Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups for up to eight weeks of treatment and then followed for a full year:

  • Supported self-management (SSM): A personalized program combining pain education, physical exercises, relaxation techniques, strategies for reframing negative thought patterns and guidance for staying active in daily life — all supervised one-on-one by a physical therapist or chiropractor and designed for home use.
  • Spinal manipulation therapy (SMT): Hands-on manual therapy techniques commonly used by physical therapists and chiropractors, along with supportive methods like soft tissue mobilization and lumbar neural mobilization.
  • A combination of both (SSM + SMT).
  • Guideline-based medical care (MC): Individualized treatment from physicians or advanced practice providers, primarily using anti-inflammatory medications and muscle relaxants following current clinical guidelines.

Self-management improves long-term outcomes for chronic lower back pain

When researchers measured outcomes at 10 to 12 months, participants in the self-management group reported significantly lower pain impact scores compared to those receiving medical care alone. They were also more likely to see meaningful improvement: 64% of the self-management group had at least a 50% reduction in pain impact, compared to 55% in the medical care group.

Spinal manipulation was equally effective as medical care in its effect on pain impact, though combining spinal manipulation with self-management didn't seem to add any extra benefit over self-management alone.

The psychology behind the pain: Why self-management approach to treating chronic lower back pain worked

Perhaps the most striking finding was why the self-management approach worked. Three psychological factors — improved self-efficacy, reduced fear of movement and shifts away from unhelpful thinking patterns about pain — explained 76% of the treatment effect.

Carol Greco, Ph.D., emeritus associate professor of psychiatry at Pitt, led the development of the training materials that taught physical therapists and chiropractors how to guide patients through these psychological shifts.

“A lot of what we were doing was give and take with the patient, as opposed to, 'Here's the booklet, here's what we're going to teach you today, here's what you need to do,” Greco said. “It was very much tailored, and patient centered.”

Even the language clinicians used mattered. When showing patients the various home-based exercises that were part of the SSM approach, Greco trained providers to say “this is safe” rather than “this won't hurt you” — because the brain tends to latch onto the word “hurt” even when it's preceded by “won't.”

“Hurt does not equal harm — that was another mantra we used,” Schneider added.

Why fear of pain can limit back pain recovery — and what works better for high-risk patients

The researchers stress that spinal manipulation still works — just not for everyone.

“The dramatic responders to manipulation are people with acute pain who aren't afraid of their pain. They tend to get better quickly,” Schneider said. “But people with fear of movement and higher psychological risk — you can't just manipulate their spine and expect them to get better without addressing their fear of pain and movement. For those patients, supported self-management can be the winning strategy.”

How Pitt and UPMC are personalizing back pain treatment: Matching patients to what works best

Pitt is uniquely positioned to lead studies that bring chiropractic and physical therapy under the same research umbrella. The university now houses the first Doctor of Chiropractic program offered at a research-intensive public university in the U.S., alongside a top-ranked Doctor of Physical Therapy program. For patients, evidence-based complementary and integrative therapies for pain — including chiropractic care and acupuncture — are available locally through the UPMC Center for Integrative Medicine, where Ronald Glick, M.D., a co-investigator on the PACBACK trial, serves as medical director.

Next, the team plans to map participants' weekly pain over the full year and identify characteristics that distinguish responders from non-responders within each treatment group — work that could eventually help clinicians match patients with the approach most likely to help them and inform future guidelines for managing acute and subacute back pain. 

Melatonin may ease chronic pain

 

A sleep supplement widely used to treat insomnia could help reduce reliance on some of the most common and potentially harmful pain medications, new research from the University of Sydney suggests. 

 

Published in PAIN, the study found melatonin can reduce chronic musculoskeletal pain with effects in a similar range to medications such as opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and paracetamol. 

 

With musculoskeletal pain affecting up to 47 percent of people globally, the findings point to a low-cost, widely available option that could shift how chronic pain is managed. 

 

Melatonin for chronic pain

 

“Melatonin is already in people’s homes, it’s inexpensive, and we know it’s safe,” said lead author and PhD student Kangchao Wu from the Musculoskeletal Research Hub at the Charles Perkins Centre and the School of Health Sciences. 

 

“What’s exciting is that melatonin may also help manage chronic pain, opening the door to reducing reliance on medications that come with more risks.”

 

The research highlights the growing potential of drug repurposing – using existing treatments in new ways to deliver faster, more accessible health benefits. 

 

“We’re taking a medication we already understand and applying it to a problem that affects a huge proportion of the global population,” said co-author Professor Paulo Ferreira, Director of the Musculoskeletal Research Hub. 

 

The study analysed data from 2028 adults across 23 randomised controlled trials conducted in countries including the United States, Russia, Brazil, Egypt and China. Participants included people with conditions such as low back pain, osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia, as well as those recovering from surgeries including joint replacements and spinal procedures. 

 

On average, the study found that melatonin reduced pain by around nine points on a 0-100 scale, with the most rigorous trials showing reductions closer to 10 points, a similar magnitude to widely used pain medications. 

 

The supplement also improved sleep quality, reinforcing the well-established link between pain and sleep. 

 

“For many patients, pain doesn’t exist in isolation and is closely tied to poor sleep,” Mr Wu said. 

 

“Melatonin appears to target both, which makes it particularly useful for people managing chronic pain.”

 

Across the trials, the dose and timing of melatonin varied depending on the condition and setting. For chronic musculoskeletal pain, doses typically ranged from 3 to 10 mg, with 3 mg per day the most commonly used. For postoperative pain, doses ranged from 1 to 10 mg, with 5 to 6 mg most common. Melatonin was generally taken at bedtime or up to one hour before sleep. 

 

The researchers did not find evidence of a clear dose-response relationship, meaning no single “best” dose can be recommended from the current evidence. 

 

Melatonin safety, side effects and access in Australia

 

Melatonin is typically low cost – often less than $1.50 per tablet in Australia – and is generally well tolerated, with mild, short-term side effects and no evidence of dependence.

 

The most commonly reported side effects found in the study were nausea, dizziness and headaches. Overall rates were similar to placebo and no serious adverse events were reported. Melatonin is generally considered safe for short-term use of less than three months. 

 

In Australia, melatonin is not available as a standard over-the-counter supplement. Most products require a prescription, although low-dose melatonin (2 mg or less) can be supplied by a pharmacist without a prescription for short-term treatment of insomnia in adults aged 55 years and older. 

 

Researchers emphasise that patients should discuss melatonin with their doctor before use, especially if they are taking other medicines or have underlying health conditions. 

 

“Our advice isn’t for melatonin to replace every pain medication,” Mr Wu said. “Instead, after consultation with a doctor, it may be used as an adjunct to existing treatments, particularly for people who also experience sleep problems.” 

 

As concerns grow around long-term use of opioids and other pain treatments, the findings highlight a safer alternative that could be integrated into care relatively quicky. 

 

While the researchers say further large-scale studies will strengthen the evidence base, they emphasise the current findings are strong enough to support cautious uptake. 

 

“The level of pain relief we observed is comparable to some conventional treatments, but this does not mean melatonin should replace them,” Mr Wu said. “Rather, it may offer a safer additional option within a broader pain management plan.”

 


Wednesday, July 1, 2026

Baby-led weaning: A solid approach to infant nutrition

 

KEY TAKEAWAYS


  • New CSU research shows infants following baby-led weaning grow at the same pace as those following conventional weaning.
  • The scientific assessment is the first of its kind and provides evidence that baby-led weaning could support healthy growth and development.
  • The study addresses worry among many parents and caregivers about a weaning approach that has been popularized in part by social media.

When it’s time to add solid food to a baby’s diet, is it best to spoon feed purées – the conventional approach – or to allow the baby to feed herself soft finger foods?

The second path, called baby-led weaning, has exploded in popularity in the past decade, yet many parents and caregivers worry about whether it results in healthy growth or could have negative effects.

Colorado State University nutritionists are settling the question, with implications for an untold number of babies. The researchers assessed 150 infants from the age of 6 months to 1 year to compare baby-led weaning and a typical puréed weaning diet and found that babies in the two groups acquired similar calories and nutrition and grew at the same pace.

The study is the first to correlate dietary and growth data and to scientifically compare growth outcomes from the two weaning approaches. It did not assess specific health indicators, but findings suggest healthy growth and development are attainable if baby-led weaning relies on a variety of healthy foods.

 “These findings reassure parents and caregivers that babies following baby-led weaning grow at the same rate as babies following conventional weaning,” said Minghua Tang, a professor and the Lillian Fountain Smith Endowed Chair in Nutrition in CSU’s Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition.

Tang and her doctoral student, Kinzie Matzeller, conducted the research with colleagues at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and published their findings June 24 in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

“Baby-led weaning is so popular, but we didn’t have that much research-based evidence about whether it was superior to conventional weaning or whether it might do harm,” Tang said. “These findings are helping fill a gap by showing that babies following baby-led weaning grow at the same trajectory as those weaned with spoon feeding.”

It’s rewarding to provide parents and caregivers with evidence-based information rather than anecdotes, Matzeller said.

“I feel a relief to be able to rely on research and optimistic that parents might not have to worry about healthy growth if they opt for baby-led weaning,” she said.

Proponents of baby-led weaning, including social media influencers, note that the approach encourages babies to eat the same foods their families eat; to regulate their intake based on hunger cues, which can lead to healthy, long-term eating habits; and to improve fine-motor skills, which boost neurological development.

There are important caveats that make baby-fed weaning successful, Tang said. Among them: Babies must be developmentally ready to feed themselves, must eat sufficiently soft foods cut into small pieces to avoid choking and must be offered a healthy diet.

Solid food is typically introduced when a baby is about 6 months old, when the infant is still ingesting breast milk or formula to meet most of her nutritional needs. By age 10 months to 1 year, most babies get about half their nutrition from solid foods, Tang said.

The new study has several distinctive aspects:

  • It specifically defined baby-led weaning as relying on less than 10 percent puréed foods, rather than depending on general descriptions from parents and caregivers.
  • It analyzed dietary records to pinpoint calories and nutrition consumed per day.
  • It linked dietary intake with growth data each month of the study to understand and compare the effects of baby-fed weaning and conventional weaning.

This quantitative, or data-based, dietary assessment yielded objective findings that parents and caregivers may rely upon when making weaning decisions.

Although baby-led weaning has surged in popularity in recent years, it reflects the way most families fed babies before processed food became a norm, Matzeller noted. Now, blended baby food is commonly available in jars and pouches.

The baby-led weaning study is an outgrowth of a larger research project Tang leads called the Maternal and Infant Nutrition Trial, an 18-month investigation into how different protein-rich foods affect growth and gut health in babies. The trial is funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Currently approved mRNA vaccines are safe and effective


  • A comprehensive new review that assessed billions of doses of currently approved mRNA vaccines affirms that these vaccines provide protection against COVID-19, including severe COVID-19, across diverse populations, including children, pregnant women, and immunocompromised people. Booster doses extended and strengthened protection for existing SARS-CoV-2 subvariants through May 2023.
  • The review reinforces existing evidence that mRNA vaccines are safe; serious adverse events are rare and substantially outweighed by protection against severe disease, hospitalisation, and death.
  • The review also highlights that mRNA technologies have potential future uses for vaccines against influenza, RSV, and other infectious diseases, as well as for personalised cancer vaccines and RNA-based therapeutics.
  • The authors emphasise the importance of equitable access, strengthened and expanded manufacturing to low- and middle-income countries, and advanced storage and distribution for mRNA vaccines.
  • The authors also call for continued clear communication about mRNA vaccine safety and effectiveness to sustain public trust, improve vaccine uptake worldwide, and address ongoing misinformation about mRNA vaccines.

A comprehensive new review published in The Lancet affirms that currently approved mRNA vaccines are safe and highly effective at preventing infectious diseases, including COVID-19. The new review also suggests that mRNA vaccine technologies have potential as new options for treating and preventing other health conditions and diseases, including influenza, RSV, cancer, and autoimmune conditions.
 
Through detailed analysis of published data from laboratory research, clinical trials, and real-world surveillance of billions of mRNA vaccine doses, the authors assessed the science behind mRNA vaccines and their public health impact.
 
The review concludes that serious adverse side effects from mRNA vaccines remain exceedingly rare. For example, in real world surveillance, incidents of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart-related inflammation) following vaccination were higher among second-dose recipients, with rates of roughly 12.6 cases per million for Pfizer BioNTech’s BNT162b2 vaccine and about 35.6 cases per million for Moderna’s mRNA-1273. Importantly, the increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis from mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in males aged 12-19, was significantly lower than the risk of developing myocarditis or pericarditis from a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Other serious adverse events were also very rare. For example, the risk of anaphylaxis was 4.7 cases per million doses (Pfizer), and Guilain Barre Syndrome was 38 cases per million doses (AstraZeneca) [see table]. Most other side effects, such as sore arms, fatigue, or fever, were mild to moderate and subsided after a few days.
 
The analysis found that across various clinical trials and real-world data, mRNA vaccines are about 87% effective against any documented SARS‑CoV‑2 infection, 93% effective against hospitalisation, and 94% effective against mortality within 14–42 days after vaccination. Effectiveness waned over time and, in some analyses, was reduced by age and against the Omicron lineage (67% against infection and 72% against hospitalisation), but booster doses helped restore protection. Ongoing surveillance and real‑world monitoring continue to support the vaccines’ tolerability and effectiveness as new variants emerge, and booster programs are implemented to maintain protection.
 
“Our comprehensive review provides compelling evidence confirming that approved mRNA vaccines are safe and highly effective. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, mRNA vaccines demonstrated what rapid, science-driven collaboration can achieve by delivering safe, effective protection at an unprecedented scale. The key lessons from mRNA vaccine use during the COVID-19 pandemic are not only about manufacturing speed, but about the importance of sharing safety data, conducting ongoing rigorous real-world surveillance, and providing clear information about how new types of vaccines work and why they protect communities," said lead study author Dr Anna Blakney of the University of British Columbia (Canada).
 
mRNA platforms for future disease prevention and treatment
 
mRNA vaccines deliver genetic instructions to human cells to manufacture harmless viral proteins that train the immune system to recognise and fight the real virus. This process is temporary and ends once the body has learned to defend itself; it does not change a person’s DNA. The first FDA-approved mRNA vaccines were introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic [1], building upon decades of research to quickly scale up approval, production, and distribution.
 
Beyond COVID-19, the authors emphasise the versatility of the mRNA platform. Efforts are underway to develop vaccines against influenza, RSV, and other infectious diseases, as well as personalised cancer vaccines and RNA-based therapeutics (see figure 2 for trials underway). This breadth of potential applications signals a future in which mRNA technology could be tailored to individual patients and specific disease threats, offering rapid, flexible, and effective tools for public health.
 
“As the world continues to confront evolving infectious threats, our review underscores the need for sustained innovation, robust surveillance, and true global collaboration to maximise the life-saving benefits of this groundbreaking technology. mRNA vaccines have already transformed how we respond to emerging diseases, and with ongoing innovation and rigorous safety monitoring, they can drive progress in preventive medicine and cancer treatment for years to come,” said co-author Dr Manish Sadarangani of the University of British Columbia and BC Children’s Hospital Research Institute (Canada).
 
Expanding global access and equity
 

The authors also highlight that improvements in mRNA vaccine formulation and distribution enhance access and equity, as higher-temperature storage extends shelf life and lowers costs, broadening distribution.

Because mRNA vaccines are based on a common platform and can be adjusted to new targets much faster than other vaccine platforms, the manufacturing process is scalable and tightly controlled to keep the RNA pure and effective. Across the supply chain, vaccines are kept in specialised freezers and temperature-controlled settings, and newer storage options, such as higher-temperature storage and freeze-drying, are helping more vaccines reach remote places quickly and reduce waste. This combination helped speed up COVID-19 vaccine development and distribution.
 
"Expanding manufacturing capacity and ensuring equitable access in low- and middle-income countries is essential if mRNA vaccines are to fulfill their promise as a global public good. By investing in technology transfer, local production, and robust regulatory systems, we can shorten supply chains, reduce costs, and ensure that people everywhere benefit from safe, effective vaccines beyond pandemics," said co-author Dr Robin Shattock of Imperial College London (UK).
 
The authors note the importance of ongoing post-licensure safety monitoring and long-term follow-up to study post-marketing real-world performance of existing licensed mRNA vaccines. They also emphasise the importance of documenting all instances of side effects, no matter how rare, as some signals might be missed or misinterpreted in real-world observational studies. Additional study limitations include that the review’s findings come from many different countries and programs, so results may vary by population, vaccine product, and how safety data are collected. Finally, the ongoing evolution of viruses means that effectiveness might change with new variants.
 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(26)00512-X/fulltext