In a move that surprised many in the scientific community, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded $50 million to 13 research projects focused on the complex and credible causes of autism.

The grants were announced just days after top administration officials, including Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., publicly touted controversial theories linking the disorder to Vaccines and Tylenol use.

When the administration requested proposals for new autism research in late May, many researchers feared the selection process would be influenced by anti-vaccine politics, and funding for a broader range of research ideas might be limited, The New York Times said.

However, the 13 chosen projects - known as the Autism Data Science Initiative - are focused on how genetic and environmental factors determine a person's risk for autism. They are grounded in years of established science.

Alycia Halladay, chief science officer at the Autism Science Foundation, expressed relief and enthusiasm for the choices.

"We're very enthusiastic and very optimistic that these projects will lead to important answers, no matter what question they're looking at," she said.

The chosen projects represent a wide range of investigation, Halladay said, noting they "had to do with everything from toxicants to nutrition to early contextual factors like socioeconomic status."

Judith Miller, an associate professor at the Center for Autism Research at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, leads one of the funded teams.

She said it will use a large set of maternal and childhood health data to examine the interplay of genetics and environment, looking at things like changes in diagnostic criteria, poverty, and the quality of air and water.

"We have known there's a big genetic component, and that genetics account for about 80% of the identifiable causes of autism," Miller said, adding that knowing the genetic cause doesn't fully answer questions about a person's long-term outcome.

Jonathan Sebat, a leader in autism genetics at the University of California, San Diego, also received funding for his team's work. His project aims to use genetics to help understand the role of environmental exposures.

"The genetics of autism is a key piece of the puzzle that we have a good handle on," he said, adding that this helps "the other pieces, including the environment, fall into place."

For many autism experts, the quality of the NIH's selections stood in sharp contrast to the unproven claims made by administration figures.

Helen Tager-Flusberg, director of Boston University's Center for Autism Research Excellence and founder of the Coalition of Autism Scientists, expressed optimism.

"This is all very serious, forward-looking, exciting, rigorous, gold-standard science," she told The Times.

More information

The National Institute of Mental Health has more information on autism spectrum disorder.

SOURCE: The New York Times, Sept. 26, 2025

The landscape of modern medicine has always evolved with science, technology, and social change. But in 2025, the most aggressive force reshaping healthcare delivery has been political. This year, physicians worldwide have felt a tightening grip of political authority around their clinical autonomy. From reproductive care to mental health access, from Vaccine distribution to gender-related treatment policies, medicine is increasingly at the mercy of lawmakers. These aren't peripheral issues-they're core matters of patient care, ethics, and scientific integrity. The medical community is now reckoning with a difficult truth: politics is no longer outside the clinic; it's in the room with the patient.

In the United States, legislative battles around abortion have reached new levels of complexity. Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, over a dozen states have passed or expanded laws that criminalize doctors for performing or even recommending certain reproductive procedures, even in medically urgent situations. In 2025, several high-profile cases have shown physicians facing prosecution for providing standard miscarriage management or ectopic pregnancy care. The legal environment is now so precarious that hospitals in restrictive states often delay critical care while waiting for legal teams to weigh in. This creates moral distress for physicians, many of whom now practice in constant fear of lawsuits or even arrest-just for doing what they were trained to do.

Outside the U.S., similar trends are unfolding. In parts of Latin America and Eastern Europe, governments have tightened control over what is considered "acceptable" reproductive care, often under the guise of protecting national values or traditional family structures. Physicians in countries like Hungary and El Salvador report mounting pressure to withhold information or restrict access to contraception and abortion, even when it goes against clinical guidelines. Meanwhile, international NGOs trying to provide comprehensive reproductive health services are being blocked or defunded. These constraints have created a two-tiered healthcare system-one for those with means to travel and another for those left behind.

One of the most heated and politically charged areas in 2025 has been gender-affirming care. Several countries have enacted legislation banning or severely limiting this type of care for minors, while others are placing restrictions on adult services as well. As doctors, we're taught to respect patients and evidence-but this issue has become increasingly fraught. Some physicians, myself included, have genuine concerns about the long-term impacts of hormone therapy and surgical interventions in adolescents. We've seen cases where patients later regret transitioning or feel they were rushed into decisions without adequate psychological assessment. These concerns are not rooted in hatred, but in caution, ethics, and a responsibility to "do no harm." Yet raising such concerns today often leads to accusations of bias or professional misconduct. Political and institutional forces seem determined to silence even respectful debate within the medical field, leaving many physicians to navigate these dilemmas quietly, without guidance or support.

The politicization of public health has also disrupted our ability to respond effectively to infectious disease outbreaks. In several countries, Vaccine programs have stalled due to partisan interference. In India, for instance, regional governments have delayed the rollout of a new dengue Vaccine due to internal power struggles, despite surging infection rates. In the U.S., routine childhood vaccination rates continue to decline, fueled by political figures who cast doubt on their safety or necessity. Physicians are once again in the position of defending settled science in the face of misinformation, while battling mistrust from patients who view every public health recommendation as a political statement.

Another major impact of politics this year has been on mental health funding and policy. In the wake of post-COVID burnout, economic strain, and social polarization, demand for mental health services has skyrocketed. Yet several governments-particularly in the UK, Italy, and Australia-have cut funding for public mental health programs as part of broader austerity agendas. In practice, this has left general practitioners, emergency room physicians, and pediatricians scrambling to manage complex psychiatric cases without adequate support. Waiting lists have ballooned. Suicide rates have risen in several countries. And physicians are increasingly asked to take on roles they are not fully trained for, simply because the systems meant to support them are collapsing under political pressure.

Even international medical collaboration has suffered. Geopolitical tensions, especially among NATO, BRICS, and non-aligned states, have made global health data harder to access. Projects on infectious disease surveillance, antibiotic resistance, and climate-related health threats have stalled due to nationalism and protectionism. Several governments are now blocking cross-border data sharing unless certain political conditions are met. This slows response time during outbreaks, stifles innovation, and undermines trust among health professionals who once relied on international cooperation to advance their work.

Ultimately, what 2025 has taught us is that medicine cannot remain insulated from politics. Whether we like it or not, our clinical decisions, patient relationships, and professional obligations are now being shaped by external forces-sometimes subtly, sometimes overtly. Physicians must adapt to this new reality. We must stay informed, protect our ethical ground, and advocate where needed. And we must find ways to voice dissent, even within a system that increasingly prefers compliance. The health of our patients-and the integrity of our profession-depends on it.

The largest dengue outbreak ever recorded in the Americas (2023-2024) has provided crucial insights into predictors of severe disease, according to data presented at ESPID 2024. Researchers from Hospital Universitario del Valle (HUV) in Colombia conducted a prospective cohort study of 600 patients with virologically confirmed dengue to identify factors associated with critical dengue-defined as severe dengue or dengue with warning signs progressing to a severe course (e.g., vascular leakage, hemodynamic compromise, organ dysfunction).

Overall, 27% of patients developed critical dengue, most of whom were children and adolescents (median age: 13 years). Infection with serotype DENV2 emerged as a significant risk factor, especially in those with prior dengue exposure (OR 2.51; interaction P = 0.04). Additional independent predictors included living outside city limits and clinical presentation with bleeding or edema. The study also found a predominance of DENV2 (32%) and DENV3 (15%) among sequenced samples, highlighting the genetic diversity fueling this epidemic. Investigators stressed the importance of vaccines targeting DENV2 and early recognition of high-risk patients to reduce morbidity and mortality in future outbreaks...Read more

ESPID (OP059)

How feasible is early serotyping in low-resource settings to predict severity?

 Vaccines to protect against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in newborns and older adults are being more widely accepted by the American public, while confidence in other vaccines remains unchanged, according to the results of a new Annenberg Public Policy Center survey.

The survey, led by Kathleen Hall Jamieson and other researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, included a nationally representative sample of 1,771 U.S. adults and was conducted from Nov. 14 to 24, 2024.

More than half of U.S. adults (52 percent) think the vaccine given to pregnant individuals to protect infants from RSV is effective, up from 42 percent in October 2023, while 61 percent say the RSV vaccine is effective for adults aged 60 years and older, up from 54 percent in October 2023. In contrast, 86 percent of respondents say the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine is safe, up from 81 percent in October 2023 and similar to August 2022 (88 percent), and 83 percent say the flu vaccine is safe, unchanged from October 2023. Less than two-thirds of respondents (65 percent) say the COVID-19 vaccine is safe, unchanged from 2023. Respondents view the seasonal flu shot as more effective at reducing the risk for getting a severe illness (75 percent) compared with the COVID-19 booster for reducing the risk for getting a severe case of the disease (55 percent). Despite belief in safety and effectiveness, only 51 percent of respondents either received the seasonal flu shot (40 percent) or say they are very likely to receive it (11 percent) or the COVID-19 booster (38 percent received it and 9 percent are very likely to).

"Despite continuing attacks on the safety and efficacy of certain vaccines by some politicians, nine in 10 respondents say it is important for parents to get their children vaccinated," according to the authors of the report.

More Information

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

On March 7, 2025, thousands of scientists, healthcare professionals, and medical researchers gathered in Washington, D.C., and over 30 cities across the U.S. in a coordinated protest known as "Stand Up for Science 2025." The demonstrations were sparked by recent federal policy changes that significantly impact medical research, public health, and evidence-based medicine. Similar protests were held in France and other international locations, highlighting global concerns about the politicization of science.

One of the most controversial aspects of the new policies is the removal of funding for transgender healthcare studies, particularly those focusing on hormone therapy, surgical outcomes, and mental health support. Advocates stress that this research is crucial for improving medical care for transgender individuals and that eliminating funding could worsen health inequalities. Opponents, however, argue that federal funding should not support certain aspects of transgender healthcare, particularly for minors, making this issue highly divisive.

Protesters also criticized the dismissal of government scientists, particularly from agencies such as the CDC, NIH, and FDA, warning that these actions could erode public trust in science. Without independent experts guiding policy, many fear that scientific decision-making will be compromised, potentially affecting how the U.S. responds to future pandemics, Vaccine rollouts, and environmental health threats.

Additionally, significant cuts to cancer, mental health, and infectious disease research have raised alarm. Some speakers at the protests highlighted that drug development and disease prevention efforts could stall without adequate funding. They also warned that patients suffering from chronic illnesses and rare diseases could see fewer treatment options as a result.

Beyond the U.S., scientists and healthcare professionals in France, the U.K., and Canada joined the demonstrations in solidarity, emphasizing that the impact of politicizing science is not limited to one country. Some researchers argue that governments worldwide are increasingly undermining public health policies based on scientific evidence, particularly in areas such as climate change, reproductive health, and pandemic preparedness.

As medicine and science become increasingly entangled in political and ideological debates, physicians face a difficult choice: should they take a stand on policies affecting research and public health, or should they maintain neutrality to preserve the integrity of the medical profession? Some argue that staying silent allows misinformation and harmful policies to go unchallenged, while others fear that activism could further politicize healthcare and erode public trust in medical expertise. What is your take on this ?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the Capvaxive pneumococcal 21-valent conjugate vaccine for the prevention of invasive pneumococcal disease and pneumococcal pneumonia in adults.

Capvaxive is specifically designed to help protect adults against the serotypes that cause the majority of invasive pneumococcal disease cases, including Streptococcus pneumoniae serotypes 3, 6A, 7F, 8, 9N, 10A, 11A, 12F, 15A, 15B, 15C, 16F, 17F, 19A, 20A, 22F, 23A, 23B, 24F, 31, 33F, and 35B, in individuals ages 18 year and older, and for the prevention of pneumonia caused by S. pneumoniae serotypes 3, 6A, 7F, 8, 9N, 10A, 11A, 12F, 15A, 15C, 16F, 17F, 19A, 20A, 22F, 23A, 23B, 24F, 31, 33F, and 35B in individuals 18 years and older.

The priority review was based on the pivotal phase 3 STRIDE-3 trial, which compared Capvaxive to pneumococcal 20-valent conjugate vaccine in adults ages 18 years and older, who had not previously received a pneumococcal vaccine, as well as the phase 3 STRIDE-5 and STRIDE-6 trials, which evaluated Capvaxive in vaccine-naive and vaccine-experienced adults. Capvaxive includes eight unique serotypes not covered by other currently approved pneumococcal vaccines, but that are responsible for approximately 27 percent of invasive pneumococcal disease cases in adults ages 50 years and older and approximately 30 percent of cases in adults ages 65 years and older, according to epidemiological data. The company says the vaccine covers serotypes responsible for approximately 84 percent of invasive pneumococcal disease in adults ages 50 years and older.

"Today's approval is a testament to our population-specific strategy behind Capvaxive, which demonstrated robust immunogenicity in a range of adult populations and is driven by a deep understanding of pneumococcal disease," Dean Y. Li, M.D., Ph.D., from Merck Research Laboratories, said in a statement. "We are proud to provide Capvaxive as a new option specifically designed to help protect against the majority of invasive pneumococcal disease-causing serotypes in adults."

Approval of Capvaxive was granted to Merck.

More Information

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection have an increased risk for hospitalization, according to a study published online in the August issue of The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Ryan A. Smith, M.D., from University of Wisconsin in Madison, and colleagues sought to determine whether patients with IBD have an increased risk for a serious infection due to RSV. The analysis included data from 794 patients with IBD and 93,074 propensity-matched non-IBD patients with RSV.

The researchers found that the IBD-RSV cohort had an increased risk for hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.30; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1.06 to 1.59). There was no difference between the groups in the risk (aOR, 0.83; 95 percent CI, 0.58 to 1.19) for a composite outcome of hospitalization-related complications. There was an association between recent systemic corticosteroid use (less than three months) and an increased risk for hospitalization (aOR, 1.86; 95 percent CI, 1.30 to 2.59) in the IBD-RSV cohort.

"Adult patients with IBD and RSV infection are at an increased risk of hospitalization and may benefit from the new RSV vaccine recommended for adults aged 60 years and older," the authors write.

Several authors disclosed ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

Abstract/Full Text

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved. 

For patients with human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 (HPV16)-positive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 (CIN3), vaccination with a replication-incompetent Semliki Forest virus vaccine encoding HPV16 E6 and E7 is safe and shows clinical effectiveness, according to a study published online Jan. 24 in Clinical Cancer Research.

Anneke L. Eerkens, from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and colleagues examined the clinical efficacy of Vvax001 in patients with HPV16-positive CIN3. Participants received three immunizations of Vvax001 at a three-week interval and were monitored for regression of CIN3 for up to 19 weeks after the last immunization.

Eighteen patients were enrolled and fully immunized. The researchers found a reduction in CIN3 lesion sizes in 17 of 18 patients (94 percent), which was evident from three weeks onward after the last immunization. Nine of the patients (50 percent) had a histopathological complete response (regression to CIN1 or no dysplasia) and 63 percent of patients had HPV16 clearance. There was no clearance of other HPV types induced by Vvax001. No recurrences have been observed to date, with median and longest disease-free survival of 20 and 30 months, respectively. There were no serious adverse events reported.

"Our findings demonstrate that the therapeutic vaccine Vvax001 is safe, well-tolerated, and effective in eradicating HPV16-associated CIN3 lesions and clearing the underlying persistent HPV16 infection in newly diagnosed untreated patients," the authors write.

Several authors disclosed ties to the biopharmaceutical industry.

Abstract/Full Text (subscription or payment may be required)

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

At-school vaccination may be a useful tool to increase human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage among adolescents, according to a study published online May 23 in JAMA Network Open.

Nathalie Thilly, Ph.D., from Université de Lorraine in Nancy, France, and colleagues examined the effectiveness of a three-component intervention (education of adolescents and their parents, the training of providers, and free vaccination at school) on HPV vaccination coverage among adolescents (aged 11 to 14 years). The analysis included 30,739 adolescents.

The researchers found that the median vaccination coverage increased by 4.0 to 14.2 percentage points at two months after the intervention. There was a significant increase in vaccination coverage with at-school vaccination (5.50 percentage points). There was no effect on vaccine coverage with adolescents’ education and motivation (−0.08 percentage points) and general practitioners' (GPs') training (−1.46 percentage points). At-school vaccination had a higher effect when access to GPs was poor.

"Regarding the primary outcome, it is possible that the time horizon was too short to highlight the benefits of the education and motivation and GPs' training components," the authors write. "They require that parents schedule two visits with their GP (one for the vaccine prescription and one for the vaccination) and they may delay one or both visits until they have another reason to consult their GP."

Several authors disclosed ties to pharmaceutical companies.

Abstract/Full Text

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. faced a plethora of tough questions on vaccines, abortion and public health policy during his Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday as President Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Lawmakers pressed Kennedy, a longtime vaccine critic and former Democrat-turned-independent, on his qualifications to oversee HHS, a $1.7 trillion agency that would put him in charge of Medicare, Medicaid, funding for medical research, public health outreach and much more.

While he's expected to win Republican support, his responses left many unconvinced about his ability to run the nation's largest health agency.

Here are some top takeaways from the hearing, from national and international news agencies:

Vaccine stance sparks a heated debate

Kennedy’s long history of vaccine skepticism was a major focus. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat of Oregon, set the tone for his party with a deeply critical opening statement.

“Mr. Kennedy has embraced conspiracy theories, quacks, charlatans, especially when it comes to the safety and efficacy of vaccines,” Wyden said, as reported by USA Today.

Kennedy repeatedly claimed he was not anti-vaccine but "pro-safety."

Unsurprisingly, he was pressed about his past claims that COVID was made to target white and Black people while sparing Chinese people and Ashkenazi Jews and that Lyme disease was “highly likely” to have been a bioweapon.

“I probably did say that,” Kennedy said about Lyme disease, as reported by The New York Times. As for the COVID-19 claim, Kennedy stated that he had not said the virus was “deliberately targeted.”

Kennedy also said he supports the current childhood vaccination schedule and that he is not a conspiracy theorist.

"That's a pejorative that's applied to me to keep me from asking difficult questions about powerful interests," he told senators, as reported by BBC.

Medicare and Medicaid

Kennedy struggled to explain how he would manage Medicare and Medicaid, two major programs overseen by HHS.

Wyden argued that “from abortion to universal health care, Kennedy has changed his views so often it’s nearly impossible to know where he stands,” according to AP News.

Under questioning by Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who chairs the Senate Health Committee, Kennedy said he would like to integrate the two programs, The New York Times reported. Cassidy asked him how he would do it.

“I do not know the answer to that,” Kennedy said. “I look forward to, uh, exploring options with you.” He also said of Medicaid: “The premiums are too high, the deductibles are too high, and everybody’s getting sicker.” But except in very rare cases, Medicaid enrollees do not pay either premiums or deductibles.

Abortion stance leaves Democrats skeptical

Kennedy’s stance on abortion has shifted in recent years, aligning him more closely with Trump's.

He sidestepped questions about whether he would support attempts to restrict the abortion pill mifepristone, a goal of abortion opponents.

That led to a sharp response from Sen. Maggie Hassan, a New Hampshire Democrat. She noted that when Kennedy visited her state as a presidential candidate in 2023, he described himself as “pro-choice.” At that time, he also said the government did not have “any business telling people what they can or cannot do with their body,” Hassan recalled.

“When was it that you decided to sell out the values you’ve had your whole life in order to be given power by President Trump?” Hassan asked.

Kennedy sidestepped the question, The New York Times reported. “I agree with President Trump that every abortion is a tragedy," he said, in contrast to his past support for abortion access and reproductive rights.

Food policy and chronic disease prevention

On another note, there was some common ground when Kennedy outlined his plan to implement a nutrition-oriented disease prevention plan, CNN reported.

He received loud applause when he promised he would "make America healthy again."

"We will reverse the chronic disease epidemic and put the nation back on the road to health," Kennedy said, according to the BBC.

However, he reassured the public he wasn’t banning fast food.

"If you like a McDonald's cheeseburger or a Diet Coke - which my boss loves - you should be able to get them," he said, referring to Trump's well-known admiration for the fast-food giant.

More information

Learn more about the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

SOURCE: The New York Times, media report, Jan. 29, 2025; USA Today; media report, Jan. 29, 2025; Associated Press, media report, Jan. 29, 2025; BBC, media report, Jan. 29, 2025; CNN, media report, Jan. 29, 2025

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

On March 7, 2025, thousands of scientists, healthcare professionals, and medical researchers gathered in Washington, D.C., and over 30 cities across the U.S. in a coordinated protest known as "Stand Up for Science 2025." The demonstrations were sparked by recent federal policy changes that significantly impact medical research, public health, and evidence-based medicine. Similar protests were held in France and other international locations, highlighting global concerns about the politicization of science. One of the most controversial aspects of the new policies is the removal of funding for transgender healthcare studies, particularly those focusing on hormone therapy, surgical outcomes, and mental health support. Advocates stress that this research is crucial for improving medical care for transgender individuals and that eliminating funding could worsen health inequalities. Opponents, however, argue that federal funding should not support certain aspects of transgender healthcare, particularly for minors, making this issue highly divisive. Protesters also criticized the dismissal of government scientists, particularly from agencies such as the CDC, NIH, and FDA, warning that these actions could erode public trust in science. Without independent experts guiding policy, many fear that scientific decision-making will be compromised, potentially affecting how the U.S. responds to future pandemics, Vaccine rollouts, and environmental health threats. Additionally, significant cuts to cancer, mental health, and infectious disease research have raised alarm. Some speakers at the protests highlighted that drug development and disease prevention efforts could stall without adequate funding. They also warned that patients suffering from chronic illnesses and rare diseases could see fewer treatment options as a result. Beyond the U.S., scientists and healthcare professionals in France, the U.K., and Canada joined the demonstrations in solidarity, emphasizing that the impact of politicizing science is not limited to one country. Some researchers argue that governments worldwide are increasingly undermining public health policies based on scientific evidence, particularly in areas such as climate change, reproductive health, and pandemic preparedness. As medicine and science become increasingly entangled in political and ideological debates, physicians face a difficult choice: should they take a stand on policies affecting research and public health, or should they maintain neutrality to preserve the integrity of the medical profession? Some argue that staying silent allows misinformation and harmful policies to go unchallenged, while others fear that activism could further politicize healthcare and erode public trust in medical expertise. What is your take on this ?

People still see COVID-19 as an ongoing public health threat, even though the pandemic officially ended in 2023, according to a new HealthDay/Harris Poll.

Nearly 3 in 4 people (72%) agree COVID is still a serious public health issue, including more than a third (35%) who strongly agree, the poll found.

COVID has settled into the sort of ongoing health threat already posed by the seasonal flu, which had its turn as a pandemic back in 1918, Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said.

“You'll get hundreds of thousands of people hospitalized with influenza every year,” Offit told HealthDay TV. “You'll get tens of thousands of people who die every year from influenza. I think that's what COVID is now. I think this virus will be with us for decades, if not longer.”

People also are apt to respond to any symptoms they might develop, with nearly 3 in 4 (73%) saying they would take an at-home test or go to a doctor or pharmacy to get tested for COVID, the poll says.

“That 73% number is higher than I would have guessed,” Offit said.

People with symptoms of COVID -- fever, cough, sore throat, shortness of breath, runny nose, body aches -- would do better to stay home and take a rapid test, for everyone else’s sake, Offit said.

High-risk groups in particular should get tested, Offit added, so that they can receive antiviral Paxlovid to limit the severity of their infection.

“Although the pandemic is over, I think we have to understand that this is a serious infection,” Offit said. “I wish we felt the same about flu, which is also a serious infection, which people should also get vaccinated and take seriously, but we often don't.”

However, Offit also said that he doesn’t agree with recommendations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that everyone 6 months and older get a COVID vaccine.

“We're one of only two countries that do that,” Offit noted. “Most countries -- like countries in Western Europe, Australia, the World Health Organization, Scandinavian countries -- all pretty much target high-risk groups, meaning people who have obesity or chronic lung, chronic kidney disease or neurological diseases, people who are elderly really defined as greater than 75 and people who are pregnant.”

“I think those are the groups most likely to be hospitalized if they were infected with this virus,” Offit added.

The U.S. guidelines are probably as broad as they are due to a “messaging issue,” Offit said.

“The thinking is that if we recommend it for everybody, then those high-risk groups are more likely to get it,” Offit said. “But I mean, we do have other targeted recommendations. I agree with most other countries in this world, which is we should target high-risk groups.”

The HealthDay/Harris Poll also found that:

• Of those unlikely to test for COVID, about 42% wouldn't test if their symptoms weren’t serious or severe and 28% would assume they have some other infection or illness.

• Two in 3 (66%) people who would test for COVID cite the desire to protect friends and family, and more than half (56%) say they would want to make sure it’s not some other infection.

• More than 4 in 5 (85%) said if they tested positive for COVID, they would quarantine and wear a mask.

• However, more than half (56%) don’t know the current recommended quarantine period for COVID.

The CDC now recommends that people with COVID stay away from others until at least 24 hours after their fever has ended and their symptoms also have improved.

The recommendation also asks that people mask and keep their distance from others for five days afterward.

More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more about COVID-19.

SOURCE: HealthDay/Harris Poll, results, Jan. 30, 2025

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

THURSDAY, Jan. 12, 2023 (HealthDay News) -- Overall cancer mortality is continuing to decline, according to a study published online Jan. 12 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

Rebecca L. Siegel, M.P.H., from the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, and colleagues compiled the most recent data on population-based cancer occurrence and outcomes using data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

The researchers note that 1,958,310 new cancer cases and 609,820 cancer deaths are projected to occur in 2023 in the United States. For prostate cancer, incidence increased by 3 percent annually from 2014 to 2019 after two decades of decline, resulting in 99,000 new cases; otherwise, incidence trends were more favorable for men than women. Lung cancer decreased at a lower pace in women than men from 2015 to 2019 (1.1 versus 2.6 percent annually); breast and uterine corpus cancers continued to increase, as did liver cancer and melanoma, both of which stabilized and decreased in men aged 50 years and older and younger men, respectively. During 2012 through 2019, there was a 65 percent decrease in cervical cancer incidence among women in their early 20s; this was the first cohort to receive the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. From 2019 to 2020, the cancer death rate continued to decline (by 1.5 percent), contributing to a 33 percent decrease since 1991, with prevention of an estimated 3.8 million deaths.

"The large drop in cervical cancer incidence is extremely exciting because this is the first group of women to receive the HPV vaccine, and it probably foreshadows steep reductions in other HPV-associated cancers," Siegel said in a statement.

Cancer Statistics, 2023

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

THURSDAY, June 1, 2023 (HealthDay News) -- Older adults have a second vaccine option for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of a Pfizer vaccine on Wednesday.

The other shot for adults 60 years and older is made by GlaxoSmithKline. It was approved May 3. Both should be available by fall, before the seasonal spread of RSV, The New York Times reported.

The Pfizer vaccine, known as Abrysvo, has effectiveness of nearly 67 percent when a patient has two symptoms of RSV, such as a sore throat and cough. It is 86 percent effective when three or more symptoms surface. Its GSK competitor -- named Arexvy -- was about 83 percent effective against severe RSV, The Times reported.

The study on the Pfizer vaccine did include a concern about autoimmune syndromes. One patient among the 34,000 who received the vaccine in the study developed a life-threatening case of Guillain-Barré syndrome a week after receiving the shot. Another developed Miller Fisher syndrome, a subtype of Guillain-Barré. That means the incidence rate for these syndromes is one in 9,000, higher than the one in 100,000 seen in the general population.

FDA advisers voted 7 to 4 in favor of the vaccine's safety and efficacy. The panel had voted 10 to 2 for the GSK vaccine, which was linked to similar cases.

Advisers for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will meet this month to talk about their recommendations for health care providers. They have suggested that the vaccines may be recommended for those aged 65 years and older, according to The Times.

The New York Times Article

More Information

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

MONDAY, March 20, 2023 (HealthDay News) -- Messenger RNA severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination leads to transient antibody response, with more sustained response for mRNA-1273 than BNT162b2, for those experiencing vaccine-associated symptoms, and for those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to a study published online Feb. 4 in Vaccines.

Kevin D. Dieckhaus, M.D., from UConn Health in Farmington, Connecticut, and colleagues examined the dynamics between vaccine products, prior SARS-CoV-2 illness, and incidence of vaccine-associated adverse reactions on antibody decay over time in health care workers at a university medical center. A cohort of 296 health care workers received standard two-dose vaccination with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 and were assessed after two, six, and nine months. Participants were classified according to antibody decay curve into steep and gentle decliners.

The researchers found that compared with vaccination with BNT162b2, vaccination with mRNA-1273 led to more sustained antibody responses. The likelihood of experiencing a more prolonged neutralizing antibody response was increased among individuals experiencing vaccine-associated symptoms. Individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to experience vaccination-associated symptoms after first vaccination and were also more likely to have a more blunted decay of antibodies.

"Prior infection with COVID meant you were more likely to have a sustained immune response," Dieckhaus said in a statement. "It definitely set your immune system to respond in a more vigorous way to the vaccination."

Abstract/Full Text

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

THURSDAY, Jan. 26, 2023 (HealthDay News) -- Bivalent vaccines seem to provide additional protection against symptomatic BA.5 and XBB/XBB.1.5 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) omicron sublineages, according to research published in the Jan. 27 issue of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Ruth Link-Gelles, Ph.D., from the CDC in Atlanta, and colleagues analyzed data from the Increasing Community Access to Testing national pharmacy program for SARS-CoV-2 testing to estimate the vaccine effectiveness of updated (bivalent) mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic infection caused by BA.5-related and XBB/XBB.1.5-related sublineages among adults during Dec. 1, 2022, to Jan. 13, 2023. A total of 29,175 nucleic acid amplification tests were included from adults who had previously received two to four monovalent COVID-19 vaccine doses.

The researchers found that for adults aged 18 to 49 years, the relative vaccine effectiveness of a bivalent booster given two to three months earlier was 52 and 48 percent against symptomatic BA.5 infection and against symptomatic XBB/XBB.1.5 infection, respectively, compared with no bivalent booster.

"All persons should stay up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccines, including receiving a bivalent booster dose when eligible," the authors write.

Abstract/Full Text

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Four cases of the more infectious variant of mpox have been reported in the U.K., making it the first cluster of infections that have surfaced outside of Africa.

British authorities announced the first case in that country last week, saying the person was being treated at a London hospital after recently traveling to countries in Africa where there are ongoing outbreaks.

"This is the first time we have detected this clade of mpox in the U.K., though other cases have been confirmed abroad," Susan Hopkins, chief medical adviser at the UK Health Security Agency, said in a health alert issued at the time. "The risk to the UK population remains low, and we are working rapidly to trace close contacts and reduce the risk of any potential spread."

This week, the agency issued an update saying it has identified three more cases in people who lived in the same home as the first patient. They are now being treated at a hospital in London.

“Mpox is very infectious in households with close contact, and so it is not unexpected to see further cases within the same household,” Hopkins noted in the updated alert.

Still, health officials at the National Health Service (NHS) said that they are ready to do more if needed.

"While the risk of catching mpox in the UK remains low, if required the NHS has plans in place to expand the rollout of vaccines quickly in line with supply," Steve Russell, NHS national director for vaccination and screening, noted in the health alert.

This new variant of mpox was first detected earlier this year in eastern Congo. It has also caused outbreaks in Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda, while single cases in travelers have been reported in Sweden, India, Germany and Thailand, the Associated Press reported.

To date, there have been about 43,000 suspected cases of mpox in Africa, including more than 1,000 deaths, mostly in Congo, the AP said.

In response to the ongoing outbreak, the World Health Organization announced on Wednesday that it had allocated 899,900 vaccine doses to the nine African countries that are struggling mightily with the spread of mpox.

"In recent weeks, limited vaccination has begun in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda," the WHO said in its announcement. "This allocation to the 9 countries marks a significant step towards a coordinated and targeted deployment of vaccines to stop the mpox outbreaks."

In an early sign that the outbreak in Africa might be ebbing, some health officials reported earlier this week that case counts seem to be stabilizing in the Congo, the epicenter of the outbreak.

The World Health Organization first declared the mpox outbreak a global health emergency in August, but recent WHO data has shown the Congo has reported about 200 to 300 lab-confirmed mpox cases every week, down from nearly 400 cases a week in July, the AP reported.

Still, the WHO acknowledged that only 40% to 50% of suspected infections in Congo were being tested and the virus continues to spread elsewhere on the continent, the AP reported.

While doctors are encouraged by the drop in infections in some parts of Congo, they are worried by the small number of vaccine doses the central African nation has received so far to fight the outbreak, the AP reported. WHO has estimated that only 50,000 people have been immunized in Congo, which has a population of 110 million.

“If we miss this opportunity, the likelihood of another significant outbreak increases substantially,” Dr. Zakary Rhissa, who heads operations in Congo for the charity Alima, told the AP.

The Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated Congo needs at least 3 million mpox vaccines to stop the virus, and another 7 million are needed for the rest of the continent.

“We’ve seen how past outbreaks, such as the one in Nigeria in 2017, can lead to larger global events if not effectively contained,” Rhissa noted. That 2017 Nigerian outbreak triggered the 2022 global outbreak of mpox that affected more than 100 countries.

In this latest outbreak, less than half of the people who are most at risk in the Congo have been vaccinated, Heather Kerr, Congo director for the International Rescue Committee, told the AP.

“We only have a tiny amount of vaccines, and nothing for the kids,” she said.

What's most worrying about the new outbreak is that the death rate linked to the new strain of the disease appears higher: About 3 percent of those infected have died, instead of the 0.2 percent observed in the 2022 outbreak.

In 2023, scientists discovered that the mpox virus has gained mutations allowing it to spread more easily between people. Sexual transmission, often through heterosexual prostitution, is a main conduit for infection in Africa.

Dr. Nicole Lurie is executive director for preparedness and response at the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, a nonprofit that finances vaccine development.

Speaking to the New York Times recently, she said, “this outbreak has been smoldering for quite a long time, and we continually have missed opportunities to shut it down. I’m really glad that everybody is now paying attention and focusing their efforts on this.”

More information

Find out more about mpox at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

SOURCE: UK Health Security Agency, health alert, Nov. 6, 2024; Associated Press; WHO, news releases, Nov. 6, 2024 and Aug. 26, 2024; New York Times

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

TUESDAY, June 13, 2023 (HealthDay News) -- The live attenuated vaccine candidate for active immunization and prevention of disease caused by chikungunya virus, VLA1553, induces a strong immune response and seroprotective titers in almost all vaccinated persons, according to a study published online June 12 in The Lancet.

Martina Schneider, Ph.D., from Valneva Austria in Vienna, and colleagues conducted a randomized, phase 3 trial involving healthy volunteers aged 18 years and older to examine safety and immunogenicity data up to day 180 after vaccination with VLA1553. Participants were randomly assigned to receive VLA1553 or placebo in a 3:1 ratio (3,093 and 1,035 participants, respectively). The per-protocol population for immunogenicity analysis included 362 participants: 266 and 96 in the VLA1553 and placebo groups, respectively.

The researchers found that VLA1553 induced seroprotective chikungunya virus neutralizing antibody levels in 98.9 percent of the VLA1553 group at 28 days after a single vaccination, independent of age. VLA1553 was generally safe; the adverse event profile was similar to other licensed vaccines and was tolerated equally well in younger and older adults. Overall, 1.5 and 0.8 percent exposed to VLA1553 and placebo, respectively, reported serious adverse events. Only two serious adverse events were considered related to VLA1553 treatment; both participants recovered fully.

"The generation of protective titers in virtually all vaccinated participants independent of age positions VLA1553 as an excellent candidate for the prevention of chikungunya," the authors write.

Several authors disclosed ties to Valneva, which developed VLA1553 and funded the study.

Abstract/Full Text

Editorial (subscription or payment may be required)

Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.