How to get the gonorrhoea vaccine as jab rolled out
The NHS has announced it is rolling out a 'world-first' gonorrhoea vaccine programme that will offer protection against the fast-spreading STI to thousands of people.
From today, sexual health clinics will be able to offer the free vaccine, which helps the immune system fight off the bacteria that cause gonorrhoea, to people living in England who are at the highest risk of infection
Earlier this year, it was revealed that cases of the STI had hit their highest point since records began in 1918, with more than 85,000 cases recorded in 2023.
The UKHSA also placed gonorrhoea on a list of infectious diseases with the greatest risk to public health, after recording a small but significant rise in antibiotic-resistant cases of the STI in England.
While sexually transmitted infections aren't typically everyone's favourite topic of conversation, it pays to know your stuff when it comes to gonorrhoea, as leaving it unchecked may lead to more serious health issues.
If you're keen to know more about the vaccine and your risk, we asked a gynaecologist to share all your gonorrhoea need-to-knows, from its symptoms to some of the biggest sexual health myths.
Who is eligible for the gonorrhoea vaccine?
The gonorrhoea jab is being made available for free to those who are at highest risk, including gay and bisexual men who have a recent history of multiple sexual partners and a bacterial STI in the previous 12 months.
The vaccine, which is free via the NHS, will be available in sexual health clinics across England from Monday 4 August.
It's estimated to be between 32.7% to 42% effective against gonorrhoea, which means it won't completely eliminate the risk of getting the disease, but will offer partial protection to sexually active adults.
The Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) estimates that the vaccine could prevent up to 100,000 new cases of gonorrhoea and save the NHS more than £7.9m over the next decade.
How is gonorrhoea spread?
Gonorrhoea is a bacterial infection that's spread through different types of sexual contact, and it can affect just about anyone who is sexually active. "As well as unprotected vaginal sex, you can also catch it from both oral or anal sex with an infected partner," Dr Priyanka Patel, consultant gynaecologist at London Gynaecology clarifies.
"Condoms can significantly reduce the risk when they're used consistently and correctly, as they protect against STIs like gonorrhoea that spread via discharge."
What are the symptoms of gonorrhoea?
While not everyone with gonorrhoea will have symptoms, it can present itself in a variety of unpleasant ways. "Signs in men include frequent urination, discharge from the penis, swelling or pain in the testicles, plus redness and swelling in the penis," notes Patel. "Look out for a persistent sore throat, too."
Symptoms in women, meanwhile, are more likely to show up as "vaginal discharge, pain or burning while urinating and urinating more frequently," Patel says. "Changes to your monthly bleed, pain during intercourse, abdominal pain, sore throat and fever can also be signs of the STI."
Gonorrhoea can also affect other parts of the body that come into contact with semen or vaginal fluid and can cause pain, itching and discharge from the anus and redness or pain in the eye, according to the NHS.
Is gonorrhoea difficult to treat?
Generally, no. Aside from the recent spate of antibiotic-resistant cases, gonorrhoea can usually be remedied with a short course of antibiotics from your GP or local sexual health clinic.
"If you have symptoms or you're concerned about having an STI, you should visit a sexual health clinic or your doctor to get tested," advises Patel. Most sexual health clinics offer urgent or walk-in appointments, but be mindful of the fact that some infections can take time to show up on sexual health screenings, so you may need to repeat a test if you screen right after having unprotected sex.
If you don't have symptoms but want to check your status for peace of mind, you can use a sexual health test kit and carry out the test in the comfort of your own home. These are available for free from some sexual-health clinics and pharmacies. You can also buy test kits in pharmacies.
If gonorrhoea is left untreated, it can cause complications, such as pelvic inflammatory disease, which can lead to infertility, and infections in the testicles or prostate, so it's important to get it treated as soon as possible.
Will the test be invasive and embarrassing?
Usually, the test is very quick and painless. Typically, you'll be asked to provide a urine sample, along with a swab from the part of your body that might be infected. This could be the urethra in men, the cervix in women, the rectum or the throat.
While these swabs are often taken by a healthcare provider, there may also be options to swab yourself. It's worth discussing any discomfort with the clinic beforehand, as staff at specialised sexual health clinics are usually trained to support people with concerns, anxiety or sexual trauma.
"It can often be daunting talking about sex, but healthcare professionals working in sexual health are trained to do this," Patel assures. "Do visit your sexual health service or doctor if you are worried or have questions related to STIs."
How can I avoid catching gonorrhoea in the first place?
With a recent study of UK adults by LloydsPharmacy finding that a third of people don't use any form of contraception, and a further two-thirds (60%) have never had an STI test, it's sensible to take your own sexual wellbeing seriously.
"The best way to protect yourself is by always using a condom during sex with new partners," Patel notes. "Taking an STI check with every new partner is an important step too, particularly if you're not using condoms or think you've been exposed to an STI."
Read more about sexual health:
I'm single and have great sex – this is what I've learnt (Red, 8-min read)
Scientists warn STIs could be deadly by 2040: What is AMR and how does it threaten our health?(Yahoo Life UK, 8-min read)
Non-genital STIs: All the areas of your body they can affect and how to prevent them (Yahoo Life UK, 4-min read)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
an hour ago
- Gizmodo
Diet Swap Study Reveals How Ultra-Processed Foods Can Derail Weight Loss
In case you needed more incentive to cut down on ultra-processed foods, a new diet swap study out today reveals that people experienced greater weight loss while eating minimally processed foods than they did when they ate a nutritionally similar, ultra-processed diet. In a six-month trial led by scientists at University College London, study participants were assigned one of the two diet regimes to follow for eight weeks, and then took a four week break before swapping to the other diet for another eight weeks. Participants lost more weight while eating the minimally processed diet than the ultra-processed one; they also shed more unhealthy fat. The findings, published Monday in Nature Medicine, suggest that, among other things, ultra-processed diets are especially good at stoking people's food cravings, the researchers said. Ultra-Processed Foods Have Disturbing Health Effects, Large Review Finds Although there is some debate over what constitutes an ultra-processed food, there are generally considered products or ingredients that have gone through high levels of industrialized processing, like breakfast sausages, candy, or sodas. There is a growing mountain of evidence that suggests a diet rich in ultra-processed foods is less healthy overall than a diet made up of mostly whole foods, and that ultra-processed foods may raise the risk of certain diseases. Most of this research, however, only shows a correlation between ultra-processed diets and poorer health outcomes, and not a direct cause-and-effect link. Clinical trials can provide stronger evidence, but they're notoriously difficult to do in the world of nutrition science for many reasons, particularly funding, the researchers said. A New Diet Study Confirms Your Worst Suspicions About Ultra-Processed Foods The results highlight the importance of following government dietary guidelines, Dicken said. But the study also indicates that people who want to lose weight may see the most benefit from sticking to minimally processed foods. As to why the ultra-processed foods are worse for dieting, the researchers have their educated guesses. Ultra-processed foods tend to have more appealing textures and artificially boosted flavors, which often means they are softer or easier to eat, and tastier. Their appearance and packaging might also make them more visually appealing to potential customers. Interestingly, the volunteers in this study reported that both diets were equally satisfying to eat on average, but they also reported having better control over their cravings while on the minimally processed diet. Dicken noted that the researchers weren't able to directly test these potential explanations in this trial, though, so more research is needed to know for sure. The team has already launched their next study, which is testing out a behavioral support program to reduce people's intake of ultra-processed foods. But Dicken cautioned that it will take widespread societal shifts, not individual scolding, to change our collective diets for the better.
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
Eating minimally processed meals doubles weight loss even when ultraprocessed foods are healthy, study finds
People in the United Kingdom lost twice as much weight eating meals typically made at home than they did when eating store-bought ultraprocessed food considered healthy, the latest research has found. 'This new study shows that even when an ultraprocessed diet meets nutritional guidelines, people will still lose more weight eating a minimally processed diet,' said coauthor Dr. Kevin Hall, a former senior investigator at the US National Institutes of Health who has conducted some of the world's only controlled clinical trials on ultraprocessed foods. 'This (study) is the largest and longest randomized controlled clinical trial of ultraprocessed foods to date,' Hall added. Hall's past research sequestered healthy volunteers inside a clinic for a month at a time, measuring the impact of ultraprocessed food on their weight, body fat and various biomarkers of health. In a 2019 study, he found people in the United States ate about 500 calories more each day and gained weight when on an ultraprocessed diet than when eating a minimally processed diet matched by calories and nutrients. The weight loss from minimally processed food in the new study was modest — only 2% of the person's baseline weight, said study first author Samuel Dicken, a research fellow at the department of behavioral science and health and the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London. 'Though a 2% reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their (food) intake,' Dicken said in a statement. 'If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we'd expect to see a 13% weight reduction in men and a 9% reduction in women.' Men typically have more lean muscle mass than women, which along with testosterone often gives them a quicker boost over women when it comes to weight loss, experts say. The study, published Monday in the journal Nature Medicine, provided free ultraprocessed or minimally processed meals and snacks to 55 overweight people in the UK for a total of eight weeks. After a short break, the groups switched to the opposite diet for another eight weeks. Study participants were told to eat as much or as little of the 4,000 daily calories as they liked and record their consumption in a diary. By the end of the study, 50 people had spent eight weeks on both diets. While the number of participants may seem small at first glance, providing 16 weeks of food and implementing randomized controlled clinical trials can be costly. For the first eight weeks, 28 people received daily deliveries of minimally processed meals and snacks, such as overnight oats and homemade spaghetti Bolognese. Minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs, are typically cooked from their natural state, according to NOVA, a recognized system of categorizing foods by their level of processing. Concurrently, another 27 people received a daily delivery of ultraprocessed foods — such as ready-to-eat breakfast bars or heat-and-eat lasagna — for eight weeks. Ultraprocessed foods, or UPFs, contain additives never or rarely used in kitchens and often undergo extensive industrial processing, according to the NOVA classification system. Because ultraprocessed foods are typically high in calories, added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat and low in fiber, they have been linked to weight gain and obesity and the development of chronic conditions including cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and depression. Such foods may even shorten life. Researchers in this study, however, did something unusual, said Christopher Gardner, Rehnborg Farquhar Professor of Medicine at Stanford University in California who directs the Stanford Prevention Research Center's Nutrition Studies Research Group. 'They tried to make a healthy ultraprocessed diet by picking ultraprocessed foods with the recommended number of fruits, veggies and fiber and lower levels of salt, sugar and saturated fats,' said Gardner, who was not involved in the study. Both the ultraprocessed and the minimally processed meals had to meet the nutritional requirements of the Eatwell Guide, the UK's official government guidance on how to eat a healthy, balanced diet. The United States has similar dietary guidelines, which are used to set federal nutritional standards. 'This is a very solid study, matching dietary interventions for nutrients and food group distribution, while varying only the contribution of ultra-processed foods,' said Dr. David Katz, a specialist in preventive and lifestyle medicine, in an email. Katz, who was not involved in the study, is the founder of the nonprofit True Health Initiative, a global coalition of experts dedicated to evidence-based lifestyle medicine. The study's goal was weight loss, which often comes with improved cardiovascular readings, such as lower blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels. That happened, but in rather odd and surprising ways, said Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, who was asked to write an editorial to be published with the study. Instead of gaining weight, people on the ultraprocessed diet chose to eat 120 fewer calories a day, thus losing a small amount of weight. People on the minimally processed diet, however, ate 290 fewer calories a day, thus losing even more weight and some body fat as well. 'One possible explanation is that (people on the minimally processed diet) did not like the 'healthy' meals as much as their usual diets,' Nestle, who was not involved in the research, wrote in the editorial. 'They deemed the minimally processed diet less tasty,' Nestle said. 'That diet emphasized 'real' fresh foods, whereas the ultra-processed diet featured commercially packaged 'healthy' ultra-processed food products such as fruit, nut, and protein bars; sandwiches and meals; drinking yoghurts, and plant-based milks.' Less than 1% of people in the UK follow all of the government's nutritional recommendations, according to the study, often choosing ultraprocessed foods as the basis of their normal daily intake. In the US, nearly 60% of an adult's calorie consumption is from ultraprocessed foods. 'People in this study were overweight or obese and were already eating a diet high in all kinds of ultraprocessed foods,' Gardner said. 'So the ultraprocessed diet in the study was healthier than their typical normal diet. Isn't that an odd twist?' People on the minimally processed diet had lower levels of triglycerides, a type of fat in the blood linked to an increased risk of heart disease and stroke, but other markers of heart health didn't vary much between the two diets, according to the study. There was one notable exception: low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, known as 'bad' cholesterol because it can build up in arteries and create blockages to the heart. 'Surprisingly, LDL cholesterol was reduced more on the ultra-processed diet,' said dietitian Dimitrios Koutoukidis, an associate professor of diet, obesity and behavioral sciences at the University of Oxford, who was not involved in the study. 'This might imply that processing is not as important for heart health if the foods already meet the standard UK healthy eating guidance,' Koutoukidis said in a statement. 'Further research is needed to better understand this.' According to Hall, the results fit quite nicely with preliminary results from his current study that is still underway. In that research, Hall and his team measured the impact of four configurations of ultraprocessed foods on the health of 36 volunteers. Each lived for a month in the Metabolic Clinical Research Unit of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. 'When you modify an ultraprocessed diet to have lower energy (calorie) density and fewer highly palatable foods, you can offset some of the effects of ultraprocessed foods in causing excess calorie intake and weight gain,' Hall said. In other words, choose healthier foods regardless of the levels of processing. 'People don't eat the best ultraprocessed foods, they eat the worst ones, so the take home here is to follow the national guidelines for nutrient quality,' Gardner said. 'Read your nutrient label and choose foods that are low in salt, fat, sugar and calories and high in fiber, and avoid foods with too many additives with unpronounceable names. That's the key to a healthier diet.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Want to lose weight? New study sheds light on how processed foods affect our health
People who cook minimally processed meals at home lose more weight than if they eat ready-made, ultra-processed meals – even if these foods are healthy, a new UK study has found. Food experts have long pointed to ultra-processed foods as a key driver of the obesity crisis, which affects about one in eight people worldwide. These foods are often high in saturated fats, sugar, and salt, for example crisps, frozen dinners, and processed meats. But they also include staples like wholemeal sliced bread and baked beans, meaning ultra-processed foods are not always unhealthy. That's prompted much debate over whether it's the ingredients or the processing itself that really matters when it comes to our health. The latest study, published in the journal Nature Medicine, indicates that minimally processed diets are better for weight loss – but that diets rich in ultra-processed foods can still be healthy as long as they meet nutritional guidelines. Related Butter linked to higher death risk while plant-based oils may boost health 'Completely cutting [ultra-processed foods] out of our diets isn't realistic for most of us,' Tracy Parker, nutrition lead at the British Heart Foundation, said in a statement. 'But including more minimally processed foods – like fresh or home cooked meals – alongside a balanced diet could offer added benefits too,' added Parker, who was not involved with the study. What the study found The findings are based on a small clinical trial involving 55 adults in England. Before the study, the participants tended to have poor nutrition diets made up largely of ultra-processed foods, and on average, they had a body mass index (BMI) of about 33, which is considered obese. The trial split adults into two groups. One group started on a diet of minimally processed foods like homemade spaghetti bolognese or overnight oats, while the other ate only ultra-processed foods like ready-made lasagnas or breakfast cereals. After a monthlong break, the two groups swapped, eating meals from the other diet for another eight weeks. Notably, both of these diets met the United Kingdom's guidelines for a healthy, balanced diet, which takes into account levels of saturated fat, protein, carbohydrates, salt, and fibre, as well as fruit and vegetable intake. The only difference was how processed these meals were. Related Diets rich in ultra-processed foods linked to higher risk of early death, new study warns By the end of the study, both groups lost weight – but adults lost twice as much weight when they were on the minimally-processed diets. They lost about 2 per cent of their weight on this diet, compared with about 1 per cent on the ultra-processed diet. 'Though a 2 per cent reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their intake,' said Samuel Dicken, a researcher who helped run the trial at University College London. 'Over time this would start to become a big difference,' he added. Over the course of a year, men on the minimally processed diet would be expected to lose 13 per cent of their weight, compared with 4 per cent on the ultra-processed diet, the researchers said. For women, the findings translate to a 9 per cent weight reduction on the minimally processed diet and a 4 per cent reduction on the ultra-processed diet. Dietary differences People tended to lose more weight on the minimally processed diet because of reductions in their fat mass and body water, which the researchers said suggested they had a healthier body composition overall. They also reported fewer food cravings on the minimally processed diet. There were no big differences between the two diets when it came to other health outcomes, such as blood pressure, heart rate, and blood markers that track liver function, blood sugar, cholesterol, and inflammation. The fact that people still lost weight while on ultra-processed diets indicates that these foods aren't all bad, independent experts said. 'The most interesting result of the study is that participants on both arms lost weight – which contradicts claims that ultra-processed foods result in weight gain,' Gunter Kuhnle, a professor of nutrition and food science at the University of Reading, said in a statement. The findings 'suggest that a diet meeting current dietary recommendations is not detrimental to weight maintenance, whether it is ultra-processed or not,' added Kuhnle, who was not involved with the study. Related Ultra-processed foods account for nearly half of calories eaten by UK toddlers, study finds The study also has some limitations, namely the fact that it included only 55 people who tried both diets. Independent researchers warned that it takes time for the body to get used to new eating habits, so longer studies with more people would be needed to understand exactly how ultra-processed foods affect our health. Even so, researchers said the results are in line with other studies showing that access to nutritious food is critical to our health and wellbeing. Dr Chris van Tulleken, one of the study's authors and a researcher studying how corporations affect human health at University College London, pointed to the 'wide availability of cheap, unhealthy food' as a key driver of obesity and poor health worldwide. He called for policy action to make unhealthy options less appealing, for example through warning labels, marketing restrictions, and taxes. The study, he said, 'underlines the need to shift the policy focus away from individual responsibility and on to the environmental drivers of obesity'.
