Infectious Diseases

Keith Poulsen’s jaw dropped when farmers showed him images on their cellphones at the World Dairy Expo in Wisconsin in October. A livestock veterinarian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Poulsen had seen sick cows before, with their noses dripping and udders slack.

But the scale of the farmers’ efforts to treat the sick cows stunned him. They showed videos of systems they built to hydrate hundreds of cattle at once. In 14-hour shifts, dairy workers pumped gallons of electrolyte-rich fluids into ailing cows through metal tubes inserted into the esophagus.

“It was like watching a field hospital on an active battlefront treating hundreds of wounded soldiers,” he said.

Nearly a year into the first outbreak of the bird flu among cattle, the virus shows no sign of slowing. The US government failed to eliminate the virus on dairy farms when it was confined to a handful of states, by quickly identifying infected cows and taking measures to keep their infections from spreading. Now at least 875 herds across 16 states have tested positive.

Experts say they have lost faith in the government’s ability to contain the outbreak.

“We are in a terrible situation and going into a worse situation,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. “I don’t know if the bird flu will become a pandemic, but if it does, we are screwed.”

To understand how the bird flu got out of hand, KFF Health News interviewed nearly 70 government officials, farmers and farmworkers, and researchers with expertise in virology, pandemics, veterinary medicine, and more.

Together with emails obtained from local health departments through public records requests, this investigation revealed key problems, including deference to the farm industry, eroded public health budgets, neglect for the safety of agriculture workers, and the sluggish pace of federal interventions.

Case in point: The US Department of Agriculture this month announced a federal order to test milk nationwide. Researchers welcomed the news but said it should have happened months ago — before the virus was so entrenched.

“It’s disheartening to see so many of the same failures that emerged during the COVID-19 crisis reemerge,” said Tom Bollyky, director of the Global Health Program at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Far more bird flu damage is inevitable, but the extent of it will be left to the Trump administration and Mother Nature. Already, the USDA has funneled more than $1.7 billion into tamping down the bird flu on poultry farms since 2022, which includes reimbursing farmers who’ve had to cull their flocks, and more than $430 million into combating the bird flu on dairy farms. In coming years, the bird flu may cost billions of dollars more in expenses and losses. Dairy industry experts say the virus kills roughly 2%-5% of infected dairy cows and reduces a herd’s milk production by about 20%.

Worse, the outbreak poses the threat of a pandemic. More than 60 people in the US have been infected, mainly by cows or poultry, but cases could skyrocket if the virus evolves to spread efficiently from person to person. And the recent news of a person critically ill in Louisiana with the bird flu shows that the virus can be dangerous.

Just a few mutations could allow the bird flu to spread between people. Because viruses mutate within human and animal bodies, each infection is like a pull of a slot machine lever.

“Even if there’s only a 5% chance of a bird flu pandemic happening, we’re talking about a pandemic that probably looks like 2020 or worse,” said Tom Peacock, a bird flu researcher at the Pirbright Institute in the United Kingdom, referring to COVID. “The US knows the risk but hasn’t done anything to slow this down,” he added.

Beyond the bird flu, the federal government’s handling of the outbreak reveals cracks in the US health security system that would allow other risky new pathogens to take root. “This virus may not be the one that takes off,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, director of the emerging diseases group at the World Health Organization. “But this is a real-fire exercise right now, and it demonstrates what needs to be improved.”

 

A Slow Start

It may have been a grackle, a goose, or some other wild bird that infected a cow in northern Texas. In February, the state’s dairy farmers took note when cows stopped making milk. They worked alongside veterinarians to figure out why. In less than two months, veterinary researchers identified the highly pathogenic H5N1 bird flu virus as the culprit.

Long listed among pathogens with pandemic potential, the bird flu’s unprecedented spread among cows marked a worrying shift. It had evolved to thrive in animals that are more like people biologically than birds.

After the USDA announced the dairy outbreak on March 25, control shifted from farmers, veterinarians, and local officials to state and federal agencies. Collaboration disintegrated almost immediately.

Farmers worried the government might block their milk sales or even demand sick cows be killed, as poultry are, said Kay Russo, a livestock veterinarian in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Instead, Russo and other veterinarians said, they were dismayed by inaction. The USDA didn’t respond to their urgent requests to support studies on dairy farms — and for money and confidentiality policies to protect farmers from financial loss if they agreed to test animals.

The USDA announced that it would conduct studies itself. But researchers grew anxious as weeks passed without results. “Probably the biggest mistake from the USDA was not involving the boots-on-the-ground veterinarians,” Russo said.

Will Clement, a USDA senior adviser for communications, said in an email: “Since first learning of H5N1 in dairy cattle in late March 2024, USDA has worked swiftly and diligently to assess the prevalence of the virus in US dairy herds.” The agency provided research funds to state and national animal health labs beginning in April, he added.

The USDA didn’t require lactating cows to be tested before interstate travel until April 29. By then, the outbreak had spread to eight other states. Farmers often move cattle across great distances, for calving in one place, raising in warm, dry climates, and milking in cooler ones. Analyses of the virus’s genes implied that it spread between cows rather than repeatedly jumping from birds into herds.

Milking equipment was a likely source of infection, and there were hints of other possibilities, such as through the air as cows coughed or in droplets on objects, like work boots. But not enough data had been collected to know how exactly it was happening. Many farmers declined to test their herds, despite an announcement of funds to compensate them for lost milk production in May.

“There is a fear within the dairy farmer community that if they become officially listed as an affected farm, they may lose their milk market,” said Jamie Jonker, chief science officer at the National Milk Producers Federation, an organization that represents dairy farmers. To his knowledge, he added, this hasn’t happened.

Speculation filled knowledge gaps. Zach Riley, head of the Colorado Livestock Association, said he suspected that wild birds may be spreading the virus to herds across the country, despite scientific data suggesting otherwise. Riley said farmers were considering whether to install “floppy inflatable men you see outside of car dealerships” to ward off the birds.

Advisories from agriculture departments to farmers were somewhat speculative, too. Officials recommended biosecurity measures such as disinfecting equipment and limiting visitors. As the virus kept spreading throughout the summer, USDA senior official Eric Deeble said at a press briefing, “The response is adequate.”

The USDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration presented a united front at these briefings, calling it a “One Health” approach. In reality, agriculture agencies took the lead.

This was explicit in an email from a local health department in Colorado to the county’s commissioners. “The State is treating this primarily as an agriculture issue (rightly so) and the public health part is secondary,” wrote Jason Chessher, public health director in Weld County, Colorado. The state’s leading agriculture county, Weld’s livestock and poultry industry produces about $1.9 billion in sales each year.

 

Patchy Surveillance

In July, the bird flu spread from dairies in Colorado to poultry farms. To contain it, two poultry operations employed about 650 temporary workers — Spanish-speaking immigrants as young as 15 — to cull flocks. Inside hot barns, they caught infected birds, gassed them with carbon dioxide, and disposed of the carcasses. Many did the hazardous job without goggles, face masks, and gloves.

By the time Colorado’s health department asked if workers felt sick, five women and four men had been infected. They all had red, swollen eyes — conjunctivitis — and several had such symptoms as fevers, body aches, and nausea.

State health departments posted online notices offering farms protective gear, but dairy workers in several states told KFF Health News that they had none. They also hadn’t heard about the bird flu, never mind tests for it.

Studies in Colorado, Michigan, and Texas would later show that bird flu cases had gone under the radar. In one analysis, eight dairy workers who hadn’t been tested — 7% of those studied — had antibodies against the virus, a sign that they had been infected.

Missed cases made it impossible to determine how the virus jumped into people and whether it was growing more infectious or dangerous. “I have been distressed and depressed by the lack of epidemiologic data and the lack of surveillance,” said Nicole Lurie, an executive director at the international organization the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, who served as assistant secretary for preparedness and response in the Obama administration.

Citing “insufficient data,” the British government raised its assessment of the risk posed by the US dairy outbreak in July from three to four on a six-tier scale.

Virologists around the world said they were flabbergasted by how poorly the United States was tracking the situation. “You are surrounded by highly pathogenic viruses in the wild and in farm animals,” said Marion Koopmans, head of virology at Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands. “If 3 months from now we are at the start of the pandemic, it is nobody’s surprise.”

Although the bird flu is not yet spreading swiftly between people, a shift in that direction could cause immense suffering. The CDC has repeatedly described the cases among farmworkers this year as mild — they weren’t hospitalized. But that doesn’t mean symptoms are a breeze, or that the virus can’t cause worse.

“It does not look pleasant,” wrote Sean Roberts, an emergency services specialist at the Tulare County, California, health department in an email to colleagues in May. He described photographs of an infected dairy worker in another state: “Apparently, the conjunctivitis that this is causing is not a mild one, but rather ruptured blood vessels and bleeding conjunctiva.”

Over the past 30 years, half of around 900 people diagnosed with bird flu around the world have died. Even if the case fatality rate is much lower for this strain of the bird flu, COVID showed how devastating a 1% death rate can be when a virus spreads easily.

Like other cases around the world, the person now hospitalized with the bird flu in Louisiana appears to have gotten the virus directly from birds. After the case was announced, the CDC released a statement saying, “A sporadic case of severe H5N1 bird flu illness in a person is not unexpected.”

 

‘The Cows Are More Valuable Than Us’

Local health officials were trying hard to track infections, according to hundreds of emails from county health departments in five states. But their efforts were stymied. Even if farmers reported infected herds to the USDA and agriculture agencies told health departments where the infected cows were, health officials had to rely on farm owners for access.

“The agriculture community has dictated the rules of engagement from the start,” said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. “That was a big mistake.”

Some farmers told health officials not to visit and declined to monitor their employees for signs of sickness. Sending workers to clinics for testing could leave them shorthanded when cattle needed care. “Producer refuses to send workers to Sunrise [clinic] to get tested since they’re too busy. He has pink eye, too,” said an email from the Weld, Colorado, health department.

“We know of 386 persons exposed — but we know this is far from the total,” said an email from a public health specialist to officials at Tulare’s health department recounting a call with state health officials. “Employers do not want to run this through worker’s compensation. Workers are hesitant to get tested due to cost,” she wrote.

Jennifer Morse, medical director of the Mid-Michigan District Health Department, said local health officials have been hesitant to apply pressure after the backlash many faced at the peak of COVID. Describing the 19 rural counties she serves as “very minimal government–minded,” she said, “if you try to work against them, it will not go well.”

Rural health departments are also stretched thin. Organizations that specialize in outreach to farmworkers offered to assist health officials early in the outbreak, but months passed without contracts or funding. During the first years of COVID, lagging government funds for outreach to farmworkers and other historically marginalized groups led to a disproportionate toll of the disease among people of color.

Kevin Griffis, director of communications at the CDC, said the agency worked with the National Center for Farmworker Health throughout the summer “to reach every farmworker impacted by H5N1.” But Bethany Boggess Alcauter, the center’s director of public health programs, said it didn’t receive a CDC grant for bird flu outreach until October, to the tune of $4 million. Before then, she said, the group had very limited funds for the task. “We are certainly not reaching ‘every farmworker,’” she added.

Farmworker advocates also pressed the CDC for money to offset workers’ financial concerns about testing, including paying for medical care, sick leave, and the risk of being fired. This amounted to an offer of $75 each. “Outreach is clearly not a huge priority,” Boggess said. “I hear over and over from workers, ‘The cows are more valuable than us.’ ”

The USDA has so far put more than $2.1 billion into reimbursing poultry and dairy farmers for losses due to the bird flu and other measures to control the spread on farms. Federal agencies have also put $292 million into developing and stockpiling bird flu vaccines for animals and people. In a controversial decision, the CDC has advised against offering the ones on hand to farmworkers.

“If you want to keep this from becoming a human pandemic, you focus on protecting farmworkers, since that’s the most likely way that this will enter the human population,” said Peg Seminario, an occupational health researcher in Bethesda, Maryland. “The fact that this isn’t happening drives me crazy.”

Nirav Shah, principal deputy director of the CDC, said the agency aims to keep workers safe. “Widespread awareness does take time,” he said. “And that’s the work we’re committed to doing.”

As President-elect Donald Trump comes into office in January, farmworkers may be even less protected. Trump’s pledge of mass deportations will have repercussions whether they happen or not, said Tania Pacheco-Werner, director of the Central Valley Health Policy Institute in California.

Many dairy and poultry workers are living in the United States without authorization or on temporary visas linked to their employers. Such precarity made people less willing to see doctors about COVID symptoms or complain about unsafe working conditions in 2020. Pacheco-Werner said, “Mass deportation is an astronomical challenge for public health.”

 

Not ‘Immaculate Conception’

A switch flipped in September among experts who study pandemics as national security threats. A patient in Missouri had the bird flu, and no one knew why. “Evidence points to this being a one-off case,” Shah said at a briefing with journalists. About a month later, the agency revealed it was not.

Antibody tests found that a person who lived with the patient had been infected, too. The CDC didn’t know how the two had gotten the virus, and the possibility of human transmission couldn’t be ruled out.

Nonetheless, at an October briefing, Shah said the public risk remained low and Deeble said he was optimistic that the dairy outbreak could be eliminated.

Experts were perturbed by such confident statements in the face of uncertainty, especially as California’s outbreak spiked and a child was mysteriously infected by the same strain of virus found on dairy farms.

“This wasn’t just immaculate conception,” said Stephen Morrison, director of the Global Health Policy Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It came from somewhere and we don’t know where, but that hasn’t triggered any kind of reset in approach — just the same kind of complacency and low energy.”

Sam Scarpino, a disease surveillance specialist in the Boston area, wondered how many other mysterious infections had gone undetected. Surveillance outside of farms was even patchier than on them, and bird flu tests have been hard to get.

Although pandemic experts had identified the CDC’s singular hold on testing for new viruses as a key explanation for why America was hit so hard by COVID in 2020, the system remained the same. Bird flu tests could be run only by the CDC and public health labs until this month, even though commercial and academic diagnostic laboratories had inquired about running tests since April. The CDC and FDA should have tried to help them along months ago, said Ali Khan, a former top CDC official who now leads the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health.

As winter sets in, the bird flu becomes harder to spot because patient symptoms may be mistaken for the seasonal flu. Flu season also raises a risk that the two flu viruses could swap genes if they infect a person simultaneously. That could form a hybrid bird flu that spreads swiftly through coughs and sneezes.

A sluggish response to emerging outbreaks may simply be a new, unfortunate norm for America, said Bollyky, at the Council on Foreign Relations. If so, the nation has gotten lucky that the bird flu still can’t spread easily between people. Controlling the virus will be much harder and costlier than it would have been when the outbreak was small. But it’s possible.

Agriculture officials could start testing every silo of bulk milk, in every state, monthly, said Poulsen, the livestock veterinarian. “Not one and done,” he added. If they detect the virus, they’d need to determine the affected farm in time to stop sick cows from spreading infections to the rest of the herd — or at least to other farms. Cows can spread the bird flu before they’re sick, he said, so speed is crucial.

Curtailing the virus on farms is the best way to prevent human infections, said Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University, but human surveillance must be stepped up, too. Every clinic serving communities where farmworkers live should have easy access to bird flu tests — and be encouraged to use them. Funds for farmworker outreach must be boosted. And, she added, the CDC should change its position and offer farmworkers bird flu vaccines to protect them and ward off the chance of a hybrid bird flu that spreads quickly.

The rising number of cases not linked to farms signals a need for more testing in general. When patients are positive on a general flu test — a common diagnostic that indicates human, swine, or bird flu — clinics should probe more deeply, Nuzzo said.

The alternative is a wait-and-see approach in which the nation responds only after enormous damage to lives or businesses. This tack tends to rely on mass vaccination. But an effort analogous to Trump’s Operation Warp Speed is not assured, and neither is rollout like that for the first COVID shots, given a rise in vaccine skepticism among Republican lawmakers.

Change may instead need to start from the bottom up — on dairy farms, still the most common source of human infections, said Poulsen. He noticed a shift in attitudes among farmers at the Dairy Expo: “They’re starting to say, ‘How do I save my dairy for the next generation?’ They recognize how severe this is, and that it’s not just going away.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

 

Keith Poulsen’s jaw dropped when farmers showed him images on their cellphones at the World Dairy Expo in Wisconsin in October. A livestock veterinarian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Poulsen had seen sick cows before, with their noses dripping and udders slack.

But the scale of the farmers’ efforts to treat the sick cows stunned him. They showed videos of systems they built to hydrate hundreds of cattle at once. In 14-hour shifts, dairy workers pumped gallons of electrolyte-rich fluids into ailing cows through metal tubes inserted into the esophagus.

“It was like watching a field hospital on an active battlefront treating hundreds of wounded soldiers,” he said.

Nearly a year into the first outbreak of the bird flu among cattle, the virus shows no sign of slowing. The US government failed to eliminate the virus on dairy farms when it was confined to a handful of states, by quickly identifying infected cows and taking measures to keep their infections from spreading. Now at least 875 herds across 16 states have tested positive.

Experts say they have lost faith in the government’s ability to contain the outbreak.

“We are in a terrible situation and going into a worse situation,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. “I don’t know if the bird flu will become a pandemic, but if it does, we are screwed.”

To understand how the bird flu got out of hand, KFF Health News interviewed nearly 70 government officials, farmers and farmworkers, and researchers with expertise in virology, pandemics, veterinary medicine, and more.

Together with emails obtained from local health departments through public records requests, this investigation revealed key problems, including deference to the farm industry, eroded public health budgets, neglect for the safety of agriculture workers, and the sluggish pace of federal interventions.

Case in point: The US Department of Agriculture this month announced a federal order to test milk nationwide. Researchers welcomed the news but said it should have happened months ago — before the virus was so entrenched.

“It’s disheartening to see so many of the same failures that emerged during the COVID-19 crisis reemerge,” said Tom Bollyky, director of the Global Health Program at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Far more bird flu damage is inevitable, but the extent of it will be left to the Trump administration and Mother Nature. Already, the USDA has funneled more than $1.7 billion into tamping down the bird flu on poultry farms since 2022, which includes reimbursing farmers who’ve had to cull their flocks, and more than $430 million into combating the bird flu on dairy farms. In coming years, the bird flu may cost billions of dollars more in expenses and losses. Dairy industry experts say the virus kills roughly 2%-5% of infected dairy cows and reduces a herd’s milk production by about 20%.

Worse, the outbreak poses the threat of a pandemic. More than 60 people in the US have been infected, mainly by cows or poultry, but cases could skyrocket if the virus evolves to spread efficiently from person to person. And the recent news of a person critically ill in Louisiana with the bird flu shows that the virus can be dangerous.

Just a few mutations could allow the bird flu to spread between people. Because viruses mutate within human and animal bodies, each infection is like a pull of a slot machine lever.

“Even if there’s only a 5% chance of a bird flu pandemic happening, we’re talking about a pandemic that probably looks like 2020 or worse,” said Tom Peacock, a bird flu researcher at the Pirbright Institute in the United Kingdom, referring to COVID. “The US knows the risk but hasn’t done anything to slow this down,” he added.

Beyond the bird flu, the federal government’s handling of the outbreak reveals cracks in the US health security system that would allow other risky new pathogens to take root. “This virus may not be the one that takes off,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, director of the emerging diseases group at the World Health Organization. “But this is a real-fire exercise right now, and it demonstrates what needs to be improved.”

 

A Slow Start

It may have been a grackle, a goose, or some other wild bird that infected a cow in northern Texas. In February, the state’s dairy farmers took note when cows stopped making milk. They worked alongside veterinarians to figure out why. In less than two months, veterinary researchers identified the highly pathogenic H5N1 bird flu virus as the culprit.

Long listed among pathogens with pandemic potential, the bird flu’s unprecedented spread among cows marked a worrying shift. It had evolved to thrive in animals that are more like people biologically than birds.

After the USDA announced the dairy outbreak on March 25, control shifted from farmers, veterinarians, and local officials to state and federal agencies. Collaboration disintegrated almost immediately.

Farmers worried the government might block their milk sales or even demand sick cows be killed, as poultry are, said Kay Russo, a livestock veterinarian in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Instead, Russo and other veterinarians said, they were dismayed by inaction. The USDA didn’t respond to their urgent requests to support studies on dairy farms — and for money and confidentiality policies to protect farmers from financial loss if they agreed to test animals.

The USDA announced that it would conduct studies itself. But researchers grew anxious as weeks passed without results. “Probably the biggest mistake from the USDA was not involving the boots-on-the-ground veterinarians,” Russo said.

Will Clement, a USDA senior adviser for communications, said in an email: “Since first learning of H5N1 in dairy cattle in late March 2024, USDA has worked swiftly and diligently to assess the prevalence of the virus in US dairy herds.” The agency provided research funds to state and national animal health labs beginning in April, he added.

The USDA didn’t require lactating cows to be tested before interstate travel until April 29. By then, the outbreak had spread to eight other states. Farmers often move cattle across great distances, for calving in one place, raising in warm, dry climates, and milking in cooler ones. Analyses of the virus’s genes implied that it spread between cows rather than repeatedly jumping from birds into herds.

Milking equipment was a likely source of infection, and there were hints of other possibilities, such as through the air as cows coughed or in droplets on objects, like work boots. But not enough data had been collected to know how exactly it was happening. Many farmers declined to test their herds, despite an announcement of funds to compensate them for lost milk production in May.

“There is a fear within the dairy farmer community that if they become officially listed as an affected farm, they may lose their milk market,” said Jamie Jonker, chief science officer at the National Milk Producers Federation, an organization that represents dairy farmers. To his knowledge, he added, this hasn’t happened.

Speculation filled knowledge gaps. Zach Riley, head of the Colorado Livestock Association, said he suspected that wild birds may be spreading the virus to herds across the country, despite scientific data suggesting otherwise. Riley said farmers were considering whether to install “floppy inflatable men you see outside of car dealerships” to ward off the birds.

Advisories from agriculture departments to farmers were somewhat speculative, too. Officials recommended biosecurity measures such as disinfecting equipment and limiting visitors. As the virus kept spreading throughout the summer, USDA senior official Eric Deeble said at a press briefing, “The response is adequate.”

The USDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration presented a united front at these briefings, calling it a “One Health” approach. In reality, agriculture agencies took the lead.

This was explicit in an email from a local health department in Colorado to the county’s commissioners. “The State is treating this primarily as an agriculture issue (rightly so) and the public health part is secondary,” wrote Jason Chessher, public health director in Weld County, Colorado. The state’s leading agriculture county, Weld’s livestock and poultry industry produces about $1.9 billion in sales each year.

 

Patchy Surveillance

In July, the bird flu spread from dairies in Colorado to poultry farms. To contain it, two poultry operations employed about 650 temporary workers — Spanish-speaking immigrants as young as 15 — to cull flocks. Inside hot barns, they caught infected birds, gassed them with carbon dioxide, and disposed of the carcasses. Many did the hazardous job without goggles, face masks, and gloves.

By the time Colorado’s health department asked if workers felt sick, five women and four men had been infected. They all had red, swollen eyes — conjunctivitis — and several had such symptoms as fevers, body aches, and nausea.

State health departments posted online notices offering farms protective gear, but dairy workers in several states told KFF Health News that they had none. They also hadn’t heard about the bird flu, never mind tests for it.

Studies in Colorado, Michigan, and Texas would later show that bird flu cases had gone under the radar. In one analysis, eight dairy workers who hadn’t been tested — 7% of those studied — had antibodies against the virus, a sign that they had been infected.

Missed cases made it impossible to determine how the virus jumped into people and whether it was growing more infectious or dangerous. “I have been distressed and depressed by the lack of epidemiologic data and the lack of surveillance,” said Nicole Lurie, an executive director at the international organization the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, who served as assistant secretary for preparedness and response in the Obama administration.

Citing “insufficient data,” the British government raised its assessment of the risk posed by the US dairy outbreak in July from three to four on a six-tier scale.

Virologists around the world said they were flabbergasted by how poorly the United States was tracking the situation. “You are surrounded by highly pathogenic viruses in the wild and in farm animals,” said Marion Koopmans, head of virology at Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands. “If 3 months from now we are at the start of the pandemic, it is nobody’s surprise.”

Although the bird flu is not yet spreading swiftly between people, a shift in that direction could cause immense suffering. The CDC has repeatedly described the cases among farmworkers this year as mild — they weren’t hospitalized. But that doesn’t mean symptoms are a breeze, or that the virus can’t cause worse.

“It does not look pleasant,” wrote Sean Roberts, an emergency services specialist at the Tulare County, California, health department in an email to colleagues in May. He described photographs of an infected dairy worker in another state: “Apparently, the conjunctivitis that this is causing is not a mild one, but rather ruptured blood vessels and bleeding conjunctiva.”

Over the past 30 years, half of around 900 people diagnosed with bird flu around the world have died. Even if the case fatality rate is much lower for this strain of the bird flu, COVID showed how devastating a 1% death rate can be when a virus spreads easily.

Like other cases around the world, the person now hospitalized with the bird flu in Louisiana appears to have gotten the virus directly from birds. After the case was announced, the CDC released a statement saying, “A sporadic case of severe H5N1 bird flu illness in a person is not unexpected.”

 

‘The Cows Are More Valuable Than Us’

Local health officials were trying hard to track infections, according to hundreds of emails from county health departments in five states. But their efforts were stymied. Even if farmers reported infected herds to the USDA and agriculture agencies told health departments where the infected cows were, health officials had to rely on farm owners for access.

“The agriculture community has dictated the rules of engagement from the start,” said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. “That was a big mistake.”

Some farmers told health officials not to visit and declined to monitor their employees for signs of sickness. Sending workers to clinics for testing could leave them shorthanded when cattle needed care. “Producer refuses to send workers to Sunrise [clinic] to get tested since they’re too busy. He has pink eye, too,” said an email from the Weld, Colorado, health department.

“We know of 386 persons exposed — but we know this is far from the total,” said an email from a public health specialist to officials at Tulare’s health department recounting a call with state health officials. “Employers do not want to run this through worker’s compensation. Workers are hesitant to get tested due to cost,” she wrote.

Jennifer Morse, medical director of the Mid-Michigan District Health Department, said local health officials have been hesitant to apply pressure after the backlash many faced at the peak of COVID. Describing the 19 rural counties she serves as “very minimal government–minded,” she said, “if you try to work against them, it will not go well.”

Rural health departments are also stretched thin. Organizations that specialize in outreach to farmworkers offered to assist health officials early in the outbreak, but months passed without contracts or funding. During the first years of COVID, lagging government funds for outreach to farmworkers and other historically marginalized groups led to a disproportionate toll of the disease among people of color.

Kevin Griffis, director of communications at the CDC, said the agency worked with the National Center for Farmworker Health throughout the summer “to reach every farmworker impacted by H5N1.” But Bethany Boggess Alcauter, the center’s director of public health programs, said it didn’t receive a CDC grant for bird flu outreach until October, to the tune of $4 million. Before then, she said, the group had very limited funds for the task. “We are certainly not reaching ‘every farmworker,’” she added.

Farmworker advocates also pressed the CDC for money to offset workers’ financial concerns about testing, including paying for medical care, sick leave, and the risk of being fired. This amounted to an offer of $75 each. “Outreach is clearly not a huge priority,” Boggess said. “I hear over and over from workers, ‘The cows are more valuable than us.’ ”

The USDA has so far put more than $2.1 billion into reimbursing poultry and dairy farmers for losses due to the bird flu and other measures to control the spread on farms. Federal agencies have also put $292 million into developing and stockpiling bird flu vaccines for animals and people. In a controversial decision, the CDC has advised against offering the ones on hand to farmworkers.

“If you want to keep this from becoming a human pandemic, you focus on protecting farmworkers, since that’s the most likely way that this will enter the human population,” said Peg Seminario, an occupational health researcher in Bethesda, Maryland. “The fact that this isn’t happening drives me crazy.”

Nirav Shah, principal deputy director of the CDC, said the agency aims to keep workers safe. “Widespread awareness does take time,” he said. “And that’s the work we’re committed to doing.”

As President-elect Donald Trump comes into office in January, farmworkers may be even less protected. Trump’s pledge of mass deportations will have repercussions whether they happen or not, said Tania Pacheco-Werner, director of the Central Valley Health Policy Institute in California.

Many dairy and poultry workers are living in the United States without authorization or on temporary visas linked to their employers. Such precarity made people less willing to see doctors about COVID symptoms or complain about unsafe working conditions in 2020. Pacheco-Werner said, “Mass deportation is an astronomical challenge for public health.”

 

Not ‘Immaculate Conception’

A switch flipped in September among experts who study pandemics as national security threats. A patient in Missouri had the bird flu, and no one knew why. “Evidence points to this being a one-off case,” Shah said at a briefing with journalists. About a month later, the agency revealed it was not.

Antibody tests found that a person who lived with the patient had been infected, too. The CDC didn’t know how the two had gotten the virus, and the possibility of human transmission couldn’t be ruled out.

Nonetheless, at an October briefing, Shah said the public risk remained low and Deeble said he was optimistic that the dairy outbreak could be eliminated.

Experts were perturbed by such confident statements in the face of uncertainty, especially as California’s outbreak spiked and a child was mysteriously infected by the same strain of virus found on dairy farms.

“This wasn’t just immaculate conception,” said Stephen Morrison, director of the Global Health Policy Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It came from somewhere and we don’t know where, but that hasn’t triggered any kind of reset in approach — just the same kind of complacency and low energy.”

Sam Scarpino, a disease surveillance specialist in the Boston area, wondered how many other mysterious infections had gone undetected. Surveillance outside of farms was even patchier than on them, and bird flu tests have been hard to get.

Although pandemic experts had identified the CDC’s singular hold on testing for new viruses as a key explanation for why America was hit so hard by COVID in 2020, the system remained the same. Bird flu tests could be run only by the CDC and public health labs until this month, even though commercial and academic diagnostic laboratories had inquired about running tests since April. The CDC and FDA should have tried to help them along months ago, said Ali Khan, a former top CDC official who now leads the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health.

As winter sets in, the bird flu becomes harder to spot because patient symptoms may be mistaken for the seasonal flu. Flu season also raises a risk that the two flu viruses could swap genes if they infect a person simultaneously. That could form a hybrid bird flu that spreads swiftly through coughs and sneezes.

A sluggish response to emerging outbreaks may simply be a new, unfortunate norm for America, said Bollyky, at the Council on Foreign Relations. If so, the nation has gotten lucky that the bird flu still can’t spread easily between people. Controlling the virus will be much harder and costlier than it would have been when the outbreak was small. But it’s possible.

Agriculture officials could start testing every silo of bulk milk, in every state, monthly, said Poulsen, the livestock veterinarian. “Not one and done,” he added. If they detect the virus, they’d need to determine the affected farm in time to stop sick cows from spreading infections to the rest of the herd — or at least to other farms. Cows can spread the bird flu before they’re sick, he said, so speed is crucial.

Curtailing the virus on farms is the best way to prevent human infections, said Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University, but human surveillance must be stepped up, too. Every clinic serving communities where farmworkers live should have easy access to bird flu tests — and be encouraged to use them. Funds for farmworker outreach must be boosted. And, she added, the CDC should change its position and offer farmworkers bird flu vaccines to protect them and ward off the chance of a hybrid bird flu that spreads quickly.

The rising number of cases not linked to farms signals a need for more testing in general. When patients are positive on a general flu test — a common diagnostic that indicates human, swine, or bird flu — clinics should probe more deeply, Nuzzo said.

The alternative is a wait-and-see approach in which the nation responds only after enormous damage to lives or businesses. This tack tends to rely on mass vaccination. But an effort analogous to Trump’s Operation Warp Speed is not assured, and neither is rollout like that for the first COVID shots, given a rise in vaccine skepticism among Republican lawmakers.

Change may instead need to start from the bottom up — on dairy farms, still the most common source of human infections, said Poulsen. He noticed a shift in attitudes among farmers at the Dairy Expo: “They’re starting to say, ‘How do I save my dairy for the next generation?’ They recognize how severe this is, and that it’s not just going away.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

 

Keith Poulsen’s jaw dropped when farmers showed him images on their cellphones at the World Dairy Expo in Wisconsin in October. A livestock veterinarian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Poulsen had seen sick cows before, with their noses dripping and udders slack.

But the scale of the farmers’ efforts to treat the sick cows stunned him. They showed videos of systems they built to hydrate hundreds of cattle at once. In 14-hour shifts, dairy workers pumped gallons of electrolyte-rich fluids into ailing cows through metal tubes inserted into the esophagus.

“It was like watching a field hospital on an active battlefront treating hundreds of wounded soldiers,” he said.

Nearly a year into the first outbreak of the bird flu among cattle, the virus shows no sign of slowing. The US government failed to eliminate the virus on dairy farms when it was confined to a handful of states, by quickly identifying infected cows and taking measures to keep their infections from spreading. Now at least 875 herds across 16 states have tested positive.

Experts say they have lost faith in the government’s ability to contain the outbreak.

“We are in a terrible situation and going into a worse situation,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. “I don’t know if the bird flu will become a pandemic, but if it does, we are screwed.”

To understand how the bird flu got out of hand, KFF Health News interviewed nearly 70 government officials, farmers and farmworkers, and researchers with expertise in virology, pandemics, veterinary medicine, and more.

Together with emails obtained from local health departments through public records requests, this investigation revealed key problems, including deference to the farm industry, eroded public health budgets, neglect for the safety of agriculture workers, and the sluggish pace of federal interventions.

Case in point: The US Department of Agriculture this month announced a federal order to test milk nationwide. Researchers welcomed the news but said it should have happened months ago — before the virus was so entrenched.

“It’s disheartening to see so many of the same failures that emerged during the COVID-19 crisis reemerge,” said Tom Bollyky, director of the Global Health Program at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Far more bird flu damage is inevitable, but the extent of it will be left to the Trump administration and Mother Nature. Already, the USDA has funneled more than $1.7 billion into tamping down the bird flu on poultry farms since 2022, which includes reimbursing farmers who’ve had to cull their flocks, and more than $430 million into combating the bird flu on dairy farms. In coming years, the bird flu may cost billions of dollars more in expenses and losses. Dairy industry experts say the virus kills roughly 2%-5% of infected dairy cows and reduces a herd’s milk production by about 20%.

Worse, the outbreak poses the threat of a pandemic. More than 60 people in the US have been infected, mainly by cows or poultry, but cases could skyrocket if the virus evolves to spread efficiently from person to person. And the recent news of a person critically ill in Louisiana with the bird flu shows that the virus can be dangerous.

Just a few mutations could allow the bird flu to spread between people. Because viruses mutate within human and animal bodies, each infection is like a pull of a slot machine lever.

“Even if there’s only a 5% chance of a bird flu pandemic happening, we’re talking about a pandemic that probably looks like 2020 or worse,” said Tom Peacock, a bird flu researcher at the Pirbright Institute in the United Kingdom, referring to COVID. “The US knows the risk but hasn’t done anything to slow this down,” he added.

Beyond the bird flu, the federal government’s handling of the outbreak reveals cracks in the US health security system that would allow other risky new pathogens to take root. “This virus may not be the one that takes off,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, director of the emerging diseases group at the World Health Organization. “But this is a real-fire exercise right now, and it demonstrates what needs to be improved.”

 

A Slow Start

It may have been a grackle, a goose, or some other wild bird that infected a cow in northern Texas. In February, the state’s dairy farmers took note when cows stopped making milk. They worked alongside veterinarians to figure out why. In less than two months, veterinary researchers identified the highly pathogenic H5N1 bird flu virus as the culprit.

Long listed among pathogens with pandemic potential, the bird flu’s unprecedented spread among cows marked a worrying shift. It had evolved to thrive in animals that are more like people biologically than birds.

After the USDA announced the dairy outbreak on March 25, control shifted from farmers, veterinarians, and local officials to state and federal agencies. Collaboration disintegrated almost immediately.

Farmers worried the government might block their milk sales or even demand sick cows be killed, as poultry are, said Kay Russo, a livestock veterinarian in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Instead, Russo and other veterinarians said, they were dismayed by inaction. The USDA didn’t respond to their urgent requests to support studies on dairy farms — and for money and confidentiality policies to protect farmers from financial loss if they agreed to test animals.

The USDA announced that it would conduct studies itself. But researchers grew anxious as weeks passed without results. “Probably the biggest mistake from the USDA was not involving the boots-on-the-ground veterinarians,” Russo said.

Will Clement, a USDA senior adviser for communications, said in an email: “Since first learning of H5N1 in dairy cattle in late March 2024, USDA has worked swiftly and diligently to assess the prevalence of the virus in US dairy herds.” The agency provided research funds to state and national animal health labs beginning in April, he added.

The USDA didn’t require lactating cows to be tested before interstate travel until April 29. By then, the outbreak had spread to eight other states. Farmers often move cattle across great distances, for calving in one place, raising in warm, dry climates, and milking in cooler ones. Analyses of the virus’s genes implied that it spread between cows rather than repeatedly jumping from birds into herds.

Milking equipment was a likely source of infection, and there were hints of other possibilities, such as through the air as cows coughed or in droplets on objects, like work boots. But not enough data had been collected to know how exactly it was happening. Many farmers declined to test their herds, despite an announcement of funds to compensate them for lost milk production in May.

“There is a fear within the dairy farmer community that if they become officially listed as an affected farm, they may lose their milk market,” said Jamie Jonker, chief science officer at the National Milk Producers Federation, an organization that represents dairy farmers. To his knowledge, he added, this hasn’t happened.

Speculation filled knowledge gaps. Zach Riley, head of the Colorado Livestock Association, said he suspected that wild birds may be spreading the virus to herds across the country, despite scientific data suggesting otherwise. Riley said farmers were considering whether to install “floppy inflatable men you see outside of car dealerships” to ward off the birds.

Advisories from agriculture departments to farmers were somewhat speculative, too. Officials recommended biosecurity measures such as disinfecting equipment and limiting visitors. As the virus kept spreading throughout the summer, USDA senior official Eric Deeble said at a press briefing, “The response is adequate.”

The USDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration presented a united front at these briefings, calling it a “One Health” approach. In reality, agriculture agencies took the lead.

This was explicit in an email from a local health department in Colorado to the county’s commissioners. “The State is treating this primarily as an agriculture issue (rightly so) and the public health part is secondary,” wrote Jason Chessher, public health director in Weld County, Colorado. The state’s leading agriculture county, Weld’s livestock and poultry industry produces about $1.9 billion in sales each year.

 

Patchy Surveillance

In July, the bird flu spread from dairies in Colorado to poultry farms. To contain it, two poultry operations employed about 650 temporary workers — Spanish-speaking immigrants as young as 15 — to cull flocks. Inside hot barns, they caught infected birds, gassed them with carbon dioxide, and disposed of the carcasses. Many did the hazardous job without goggles, face masks, and gloves.

By the time Colorado’s health department asked if workers felt sick, five women and four men had been infected. They all had red, swollen eyes — conjunctivitis — and several had such symptoms as fevers, body aches, and nausea.

State health departments posted online notices offering farms protective gear, but dairy workers in several states told KFF Health News that they had none. They also hadn’t heard about the bird flu, never mind tests for it.

Studies in Colorado, Michigan, and Texas would later show that bird flu cases had gone under the radar. In one analysis, eight dairy workers who hadn’t been tested — 7% of those studied — had antibodies against the virus, a sign that they had been infected.

Missed cases made it impossible to determine how the virus jumped into people and whether it was growing more infectious or dangerous. “I have been distressed and depressed by the lack of epidemiologic data and the lack of surveillance,” said Nicole Lurie, an executive director at the international organization the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, who served as assistant secretary for preparedness and response in the Obama administration.

Citing “insufficient data,” the British government raised its assessment of the risk posed by the US dairy outbreak in July from three to four on a six-tier scale.

Virologists around the world said they were flabbergasted by how poorly the United States was tracking the situation. “You are surrounded by highly pathogenic viruses in the wild and in farm animals,” said Marion Koopmans, head of virology at Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands. “If 3 months from now we are at the start of the pandemic, it is nobody’s surprise.”

Although the bird flu is not yet spreading swiftly between people, a shift in that direction could cause immense suffering. The CDC has repeatedly described the cases among farmworkers this year as mild — they weren’t hospitalized. But that doesn’t mean symptoms are a breeze, or that the virus can’t cause worse.

“It does not look pleasant,” wrote Sean Roberts, an emergency services specialist at the Tulare County, California, health department in an email to colleagues in May. He described photographs of an infected dairy worker in another state: “Apparently, the conjunctivitis that this is causing is not a mild one, but rather ruptured blood vessels and bleeding conjunctiva.”

Over the past 30 years, half of around 900 people diagnosed with bird flu around the world have died. Even if the case fatality rate is much lower for this strain of the bird flu, COVID showed how devastating a 1% death rate can be when a virus spreads easily.

Like other cases around the world, the person now hospitalized with the bird flu in Louisiana appears to have gotten the virus directly from birds. After the case was announced, the CDC released a statement saying, “A sporadic case of severe H5N1 bird flu illness in a person is not unexpected.”

 

‘The Cows Are More Valuable Than Us’

Local health officials were trying hard to track infections, according to hundreds of emails from county health departments in five states. But their efforts were stymied. Even if farmers reported infected herds to the USDA and agriculture agencies told health departments where the infected cows were, health officials had to rely on farm owners for access.

“The agriculture community has dictated the rules of engagement from the start,” said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. “That was a big mistake.”

Some farmers told health officials not to visit and declined to monitor their employees for signs of sickness. Sending workers to clinics for testing could leave them shorthanded when cattle needed care. “Producer refuses to send workers to Sunrise [clinic] to get tested since they’re too busy. He has pink eye, too,” said an email from the Weld, Colorado, health department.

“We know of 386 persons exposed — but we know this is far from the total,” said an email from a public health specialist to officials at Tulare’s health department recounting a call with state health officials. “Employers do not want to run this through worker’s compensation. Workers are hesitant to get tested due to cost,” she wrote.

Jennifer Morse, medical director of the Mid-Michigan District Health Department, said local health officials have been hesitant to apply pressure after the backlash many faced at the peak of COVID. Describing the 19 rural counties she serves as “very minimal government–minded,” she said, “if you try to work against them, it will not go well.”

Rural health departments are also stretched thin. Organizations that specialize in outreach to farmworkers offered to assist health officials early in the outbreak, but months passed without contracts or funding. During the first years of COVID, lagging government funds for outreach to farmworkers and other historically marginalized groups led to a disproportionate toll of the disease among people of color.

Kevin Griffis, director of communications at the CDC, said the agency worked with the National Center for Farmworker Health throughout the summer “to reach every farmworker impacted by H5N1.” But Bethany Boggess Alcauter, the center’s director of public health programs, said it didn’t receive a CDC grant for bird flu outreach until October, to the tune of $4 million. Before then, she said, the group had very limited funds for the task. “We are certainly not reaching ‘every farmworker,’” she added.

Farmworker advocates also pressed the CDC for money to offset workers’ financial concerns about testing, including paying for medical care, sick leave, and the risk of being fired. This amounted to an offer of $75 each. “Outreach is clearly not a huge priority,” Boggess said. “I hear over and over from workers, ‘The cows are more valuable than us.’ ”

The USDA has so far put more than $2.1 billion into reimbursing poultry and dairy farmers for losses due to the bird flu and other measures to control the spread on farms. Federal agencies have also put $292 million into developing and stockpiling bird flu vaccines for animals and people. In a controversial decision, the CDC has advised against offering the ones on hand to farmworkers.

“If you want to keep this from becoming a human pandemic, you focus on protecting farmworkers, since that’s the most likely way that this will enter the human population,” said Peg Seminario, an occupational health researcher in Bethesda, Maryland. “The fact that this isn’t happening drives me crazy.”

Nirav Shah, principal deputy director of the CDC, said the agency aims to keep workers safe. “Widespread awareness does take time,” he said. “And that’s the work we’re committed to doing.”

As President-elect Donald Trump comes into office in January, farmworkers may be even less protected. Trump’s pledge of mass deportations will have repercussions whether they happen or not, said Tania Pacheco-Werner, director of the Central Valley Health Policy Institute in California.

Many dairy and poultry workers are living in the United States without authorization or on temporary visas linked to their employers. Such precarity made people less willing to see doctors about COVID symptoms or complain about unsafe working conditions in 2020. Pacheco-Werner said, “Mass deportation is an astronomical challenge for public health.”

 

Not ‘Immaculate Conception’

A switch flipped in September among experts who study pandemics as national security threats. A patient in Missouri had the bird flu, and no one knew why. “Evidence points to this being a one-off case,” Shah said at a briefing with journalists. About a month later, the agency revealed it was not.

Antibody tests found that a person who lived with the patient had been infected, too. The CDC didn’t know how the two had gotten the virus, and the possibility of human transmission couldn’t be ruled out.

Nonetheless, at an October briefing, Shah said the public risk remained low and Deeble said he was optimistic that the dairy outbreak could be eliminated.

Experts were perturbed by such confident statements in the face of uncertainty, especially as California’s outbreak spiked and a child was mysteriously infected by the same strain of virus found on dairy farms.

“This wasn’t just immaculate conception,” said Stephen Morrison, director of the Global Health Policy Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It came from somewhere and we don’t know where, but that hasn’t triggered any kind of reset in approach — just the same kind of complacency and low energy.”

Sam Scarpino, a disease surveillance specialist in the Boston area, wondered how many other mysterious infections had gone undetected. Surveillance outside of farms was even patchier than on them, and bird flu tests have been hard to get.

Although pandemic experts had identified the CDC’s singular hold on testing for new viruses as a key explanation for why America was hit so hard by COVID in 2020, the system remained the same. Bird flu tests could be run only by the CDC and public health labs until this month, even though commercial and academic diagnostic laboratories had inquired about running tests since April. The CDC and FDA should have tried to help them along months ago, said Ali Khan, a former top CDC official who now leads the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health.

As winter sets in, the bird flu becomes harder to spot because patient symptoms may be mistaken for the seasonal flu. Flu season also raises a risk that the two flu viruses could swap genes if they infect a person simultaneously. That could form a hybrid bird flu that spreads swiftly through coughs and sneezes.

A sluggish response to emerging outbreaks may simply be a new, unfortunate norm for America, said Bollyky, at the Council on Foreign Relations. If so, the nation has gotten lucky that the bird flu still can’t spread easily between people. Controlling the virus will be much harder and costlier than it would have been when the outbreak was small. But it’s possible.

Agriculture officials could start testing every silo of bulk milk, in every state, monthly, said Poulsen, the livestock veterinarian. “Not one and done,” he added. If they detect the virus, they’d need to determine the affected farm in time to stop sick cows from spreading infections to the rest of the herd — or at least to other farms. Cows can spread the bird flu before they’re sick, he said, so speed is crucial.

Curtailing the virus on farms is the best way to prevent human infections, said Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University, but human surveillance must be stepped up, too. Every clinic serving communities where farmworkers live should have easy access to bird flu tests — and be encouraged to use them. Funds for farmworker outreach must be boosted. And, she added, the CDC should change its position and offer farmworkers bird flu vaccines to protect them and ward off the chance of a hybrid bird flu that spreads quickly.

The rising number of cases not linked to farms signals a need for more testing in general. When patients are positive on a general flu test — a common diagnostic that indicates human, swine, or bird flu — clinics should probe more deeply, Nuzzo said.

The alternative is a wait-and-see approach in which the nation responds only after enormous damage to lives or businesses. This tack tends to rely on mass vaccination. But an effort analogous to Trump’s Operation Warp Speed is not assured, and neither is rollout like that for the first COVID shots, given a rise in vaccine skepticism among Republican lawmakers.

Change may instead need to start from the bottom up — on dairy farms, still the most common source of human infections, said Poulsen. He noticed a shift in attitudes among farmers at the Dairy Expo: “They’re starting to say, ‘How do I save my dairy for the next generation?’ They recognize how severe this is, and that it’s not just going away.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

 

TOPLINE:

Virtual visits for urinary tract infections (UTIs) increased by more than 600% from 2015 to 2022, with overall UTI encounters growing by 325.9%. The rate of antibiotic dispensation climbed by 227.3% per 1000 patients, outpacing the 159.8% increase in positive urine cultures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study analyzing 1,220,698 UTI encounters among 428,855 nonpregnant women aged ≥ 18 years at Kaiser Permanente Southern California from 2015 to 2022.
• Analysis included outpatient UTI encounters in ambulatory and urgent care settings, excluding emergency and inpatient visits.
• Data collection encompassed demographic information, urine tests, antibiotic dispensation, and UTI diagnoses using International Classification of Diseases, 9th and 10th Revision codes.
• Encounters conducted by physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and registered nurses through in-person, phone, video, and health portal platforms were evaluated.

TAKEAWAY:

• Virtual encounters grew by 603.2% compared with a 122.8% increase for in-person visits, with virtual visits accounting for 60% (733,263) of all UTI encounters.
• The rate of UTI encounters per 1000 adult female patients increased by 241.6%, while membership in the health system grew by only 24.4%.
• Antibiotics were prescribed without urine testing in 42.5% (519,135) of encounters, and among encounters with both antibiotic dispensation and urine testing, 57.1% (278,903) had a positive culture.
• According to the authors, the increasing rate of antibiotic dispensation surpassed the growth in positive urine culture rates, suggesting increased use of empiric antibiotics.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore the importance of balancing telemedicine’s accessibility with maintaining antibiotic stewardship and highlight the need for updated guidelines,” wrote the authors of the study. An accompanying editorial said, “Unfortunately, our misguided conceptual model has led to several decades of UTI research focusing on bad bugs rather than investigating the natural host defenses, how we might boost these, what perturbs the ecosystem, and how microbial defense occurs within the bladder.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ghanshyam Yadav, MD, Kaiser Permanente Southern California in San Diego. It was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology. The editorial, written by Nazema Y. Siddiqui, MD, MHSc, from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, was also published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design and analysis at the encounter level did not allow for control of patient and clinician clustering. The study was limited to a single health maintenance organization, which may affect the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This research received support through a grant from the Regional Research Committee of Kaiser Permanente Southern California (RRC grant number: KP-RRC-20221002). Heidi Brown and Jasmine Tan-Kim disclosed receiving royalties from UpToDate. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Virtual visits for urinary tract infections (UTIs) increased by more than 600% from 2015 to 2022, with overall UTI encounters growing by 325.9%. The rate of antibiotic dispensation climbed by 227.3% per 1000 patients, outpacing the 159.8% increase in positive urine cultures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study analyzing 1,220,698 UTI encounters among 428,855 nonpregnant women aged ≥ 18 years at Kaiser Permanente Southern California from 2015 to 2022.
• Analysis included outpatient UTI encounters in ambulatory and urgent care settings, excluding emergency and inpatient visits.
• Data collection encompassed demographic information, urine tests, antibiotic dispensation, and UTI diagnoses using International Classification of Diseases, 9th and 10th Revision codes.
• Encounters conducted by physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and registered nurses through in-person, phone, video, and health portal platforms were evaluated.

TAKEAWAY:

• Virtual encounters grew by 603.2% compared with a 122.8% increase for in-person visits, with virtual visits accounting for 60% (733,263) of all UTI encounters.
• The rate of UTI encounters per 1000 adult female patients increased by 241.6%, while membership in the health system grew by only 24.4%.
• Antibiotics were prescribed without urine testing in 42.5% (519,135) of encounters, and among encounters with both antibiotic dispensation and urine testing, 57.1% (278,903) had a positive culture.
• According to the authors, the increasing rate of antibiotic dispensation surpassed the growth in positive urine culture rates, suggesting increased use of empiric antibiotics.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore the importance of balancing telemedicine’s accessibility with maintaining antibiotic stewardship and highlight the need for updated guidelines,” wrote the authors of the study. An accompanying editorial said, “Unfortunately, our misguided conceptual model has led to several decades of UTI research focusing on bad bugs rather than investigating the natural host defenses, how we might boost these, what perturbs the ecosystem, and how microbial defense occurs within the bladder.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ghanshyam Yadav, MD, Kaiser Permanente Southern California in San Diego. It was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology. The editorial, written by Nazema Y. Siddiqui, MD, MHSc, from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, was also published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design and analysis at the encounter level did not allow for control of patient and clinician clustering. The study was limited to a single health maintenance organization, which may affect the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This research received support through a grant from the Regional Research Committee of Kaiser Permanente Southern California (RRC grant number: KP-RRC-20221002). Heidi Brown and Jasmine Tan-Kim disclosed receiving royalties from UpToDate. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Virtual visits for urinary tract infections (UTIs) increased by more than 600% from 2015 to 2022, with overall UTI encounters growing by 325.9%. The rate of antibiotic dispensation climbed by 227.3% per 1000 patients, outpacing the 159.8% increase in positive urine cultures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study analyzing 1,220,698 UTI encounters among 428,855 nonpregnant women aged ≥ 18 years at Kaiser Permanente Southern California from 2015 to 2022.
• Analysis included outpatient UTI encounters in ambulatory and urgent care settings, excluding emergency and inpatient visits.
• Data collection encompassed demographic information, urine tests, antibiotic dispensation, and UTI diagnoses using International Classification of Diseases, 9th and 10th Revision codes.
• Encounters conducted by physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and registered nurses through in-person, phone, video, and health portal platforms were evaluated.

TAKEAWAY:

• Virtual encounters grew by 603.2% compared with a 122.8% increase for in-person visits, with virtual visits accounting for 60% (733,263) of all UTI encounters.
• The rate of UTI encounters per 1000 adult female patients increased by 241.6%, while membership in the health system grew by only 24.4%.
• Antibiotics were prescribed without urine testing in 42.5% (519,135) of encounters, and among encounters with both antibiotic dispensation and urine testing, 57.1% (278,903) had a positive culture.
• According to the authors, the increasing rate of antibiotic dispensation surpassed the growth in positive urine culture rates, suggesting increased use of empiric antibiotics.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore the importance of balancing telemedicine’s accessibility with maintaining antibiotic stewardship and highlight the need for updated guidelines,” wrote the authors of the study. An accompanying editorial said, “Unfortunately, our misguided conceptual model has led to several decades of UTI research focusing on bad bugs rather than investigating the natural host defenses, how we might boost these, what perturbs the ecosystem, and how microbial defense occurs within the bladder.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ghanshyam Yadav, MD, Kaiser Permanente Southern California in San Diego. It was published online in Obstetrics & Gynecology. The editorial, written by Nazema Y. Siddiqui, MD, MHSc, from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, was also published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design and analysis at the encounter level did not allow for control of patient and clinician clustering. The study was limited to a single health maintenance organization, which may affect the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This research received support through a grant from the Regional Research Committee of Kaiser Permanente Southern California (RRC grant number: KP-RRC-20221002). Heidi Brown and Jasmine Tan-Kim disclosed receiving royalties from UpToDate. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

We often see urinary tract infections in primary care, so these guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis and management of urinary tract infection (UTI) are very helpful to reaffirm our knowledge in the areas where know what we’re doing and update our knowledge in areas of uncertainty. These guidelines are from a new group called the WikiGuidelines group. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t have considered reviewing one of these guidelines, but this one was published in JAMA Network Open. It is evidence based and covers the topic really well. 

Diagnosis. Order a urinalysis or a urine culture only if the patient is having symptoms of a UTI. This may seem obvious, but particularly among older individuals, in whom asymptomatic bacteriuria is very common and should not be treated, nonspecific symptoms such as just not feeling well for a day do not warrant obtaining a urinalysis and culture. With no clear way to distinguish between asymptomatic bacteriuria and a true UTI, the first step in making the diagnosis of a UTI accurately is ordering urine studies only in people who have a reasonable chance of having an infection.

The guideline suggests that the diagnosis of UTI should be primarily based on clinical symptoms. A urinalysis can provide further information, but the authors caution us against relying solely on the urinalysis. This is an incredibly important evidence-based recommendation. If you think about it, this supports the common practice of treating UTIs over the phone without having to see the patient or check a urinalysis. 

The rationale for this recommendation is that urinalysis is neither a sensitive nor specific test for UTI. The sensitivity of leukocyte esterase is only about 80%, and the specificity is even lower. For positive nitrite on urinalysis, the sensitivity is below 50%, meaning the test would be negative more than half the time when someone actually has a UTI. The specificity of urine nitrate is very high (more than 90%), so if the patient is nitrite positive, they clearly have a UTI. This means that a patient’s report of classic UTI symptoms — urinary burning, frequency, and urgency — is about as good if not a better indicator of a UTI than a urinalysis. 

The guidelines also say that in simple uncomplicated cystitis in healthy nonpregnant patients, routine urine cultures are not necessary. A fascinating meta-analysis in JAMA showed that, for women presenting to outpatient clinics with at least two symptoms of UTI and absence of vaginal discharge, there was a greater than 90% likelihood of having acute cystitis. A reminder here, however: If a woman is sexually active and at risk for sexually transmitted infections, then consider testing for STIs as well, because the symptoms of an STI can mimic those of a UTI.

Treatment. Treatment for UTI is usually empiric, with treatment initiated before the culture results are known and with cultures being done only for people with complicated infections, such as pyelonephritis, or with recurrent infections. Decisions about what to use for treatment can be influenced by local patterns of resistance and an individual’s risk factors for antimicrobial resistance. As a general rule, for uncomplicated cystitis, nitrofurantoin for 5 days is a reasonable first-line agent. Evidence of efficacy is good, and the risk for antimicrobial resistance is lower vs using antibiotics for other systemic infections. 

Other reasonable first-line agents for uncomplicated cystitis include trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) for 3 days; fosfomycin (oral) single dose; or a beta-lactam (most commonly a first generation cephalosporin), although evidence for duration is unclear. Also mentioned are two unfamiliar antibiotics: pivmecillinam (a beta-lactam agent recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA], given for 3 days) and gepotidacin (from a new class of antibiotic that is currently under FDA review). Fluoroquinolones should not usually be first-line agents unless other treatment options are not appropriate. 

It’s important to distinguish between uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis. For pyelonephritis (infection of the upper urinary tract), the first decision has to do with setting for care, depending on how sick someone is, and the likelihood of gram-negative bacteremia — all of which help whether the patient needs to be hospitalized for intravenous antibiotics, or can be treated as an outpatient. Determine if they need to be admitted for intravenous antibiotics or whether they can be treated as an outpatient. For outpatient treatment of pyelonephritis, the guideline suggests that TMP-SMX or a first-generation cephalosporin are both reasonable first-line agents, with fluoroquinolones being a reasonable choice as well. Ceftriaxone is recommended for first-line therapy for patients who require intravenous treatment. 

People often forget that we can do a lot to prevent UTIs, particularly among women with recurrent UTIs. The prevention of UTIs has both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic approaches.

Nonpharmacologic prevention. One nonpharmacologic strategy is increasing water intake. A randomized controlled trial in women with recurrent cystitis who drank less than 1.5 L of fluid a day showed that the women randomized to consume an additional 1.5 L of water daily had significantly reduced cystitis frequency — approximately 50%. Because this was the only randomized trial to show this effect, this is not a strong recommendation, but there is very little downside in healthy women, so increasing water intake is a reasonable recommendation.

Another commonly discussed intervention is the use of cranberry products. As it turns out, most prospective studies have shown that cranberry products can reduce the risk for symptomatic UTIs in women with recurrent UTI. 

Pharmacologic prevention. For postmenopausal women with recurrent UTI, topical vaginal estrogen has a strong base of evidence — more than 30 randomized trials — supporting its effectiveness in UTI: a 50%-90% reduction in the incidence of recurrent UTIs. Topical estrogen has minimal systemic absorption, and there are no concerning safety signals with respect to either thromboembolic disease or cancer (endometrial or breast). 

Methenamine hippurate is also recommended and is FDA-approved for prevention of UTIs. It works by releasing formaldehyde in the urine, leading to bacteriostasis, which is how it leads to a decrease in UTIs. Finally, postcoital or daily administration of TMP-SMX, nitrofurantoin, norfloxacin, and ciprofloxacin all have comparable efficacy for prophylaxis, with a meta-analysis showing a decrease in recurrence rate of approximately 85%. The guideline states that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of either probiotics or D-mannose to prevent UTIs. 

This is a wonderful update on a common problem. We all have a lot of clinical experience here.

Dr Skolnik, Department of Family Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia; Associate Director, Department of Family Medicine, Abington Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

We often see urinary tract infections in primary care, so these guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis and management of urinary tract infection (UTI) are very helpful to reaffirm our knowledge in the areas where know what we’re doing and update our knowledge in areas of uncertainty. These guidelines are from a new group called the WikiGuidelines group. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t have considered reviewing one of these guidelines, but this one was published in JAMA Network Open. It is evidence based and covers the topic really well. 

Diagnosis. Order a urinalysis or a urine culture only if the patient is having symptoms of a UTI. This may seem obvious, but particularly among older individuals, in whom asymptomatic bacteriuria is very common and should not be treated, nonspecific symptoms such as just not feeling well for a day do not warrant obtaining a urinalysis and culture. With no clear way to distinguish between asymptomatic bacteriuria and a true UTI, the first step in making the diagnosis of a UTI accurately is ordering urine studies only in people who have a reasonable chance of having an infection.

The guideline suggests that the diagnosis of UTI should be primarily based on clinical symptoms. A urinalysis can provide further information, but the authors caution us against relying solely on the urinalysis. This is an incredibly important evidence-based recommendation. If you think about it, this supports the common practice of treating UTIs over the phone without having to see the patient or check a urinalysis. 

The rationale for this recommendation is that urinalysis is neither a sensitive nor specific test for UTI. The sensitivity of leukocyte esterase is only about 80%, and the specificity is even lower. For positive nitrite on urinalysis, the sensitivity is below 50%, meaning the test would be negative more than half the time when someone actually has a UTI. The specificity of urine nitrate is very high (more than 90%), so if the patient is nitrite positive, they clearly have a UTI. This means that a patient’s report of classic UTI symptoms — urinary burning, frequency, and urgency — is about as good if not a better indicator of a UTI than a urinalysis. 

The guidelines also say that in simple uncomplicated cystitis in healthy nonpregnant patients, routine urine cultures are not necessary. A fascinating meta-analysis in JAMA showed that, for women presenting to outpatient clinics with at least two symptoms of UTI and absence of vaginal discharge, there was a greater than 90% likelihood of having acute cystitis. A reminder here, however: If a woman is sexually active and at risk for sexually transmitted infections, then consider testing for STIs as well, because the symptoms of an STI can mimic those of a UTI.

Treatment. Treatment for UTI is usually empiric, with treatment initiated before the culture results are known and with cultures being done only for people with complicated infections, such as pyelonephritis, or with recurrent infections. Decisions about what to use for treatment can be influenced by local patterns of resistance and an individual’s risk factors for antimicrobial resistance. As a general rule, for uncomplicated cystitis, nitrofurantoin for 5 days is a reasonable first-line agent. Evidence of efficacy is good, and the risk for antimicrobial resistance is lower vs using antibiotics for other systemic infections. 

Other reasonable first-line agents for uncomplicated cystitis include trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) for 3 days; fosfomycin (oral) single dose; or a beta-lactam (most commonly a first generation cephalosporin), although evidence for duration is unclear. Also mentioned are two unfamiliar antibiotics: pivmecillinam (a beta-lactam agent recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA], given for 3 days) and gepotidacin (from a new class of antibiotic that is currently under FDA review). Fluoroquinolones should not usually be first-line agents unless other treatment options are not appropriate. 

It’s important to distinguish between uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis. For pyelonephritis (infection of the upper urinary tract), the first decision has to do with setting for care, depending on how sick someone is, and the likelihood of gram-negative bacteremia — all of which help whether the patient needs to be hospitalized for intravenous antibiotics, or can be treated as an outpatient. Determine if they need to be admitted for intravenous antibiotics or whether they can be treated as an outpatient. For outpatient treatment of pyelonephritis, the guideline suggests that TMP-SMX or a first-generation cephalosporin are both reasonable first-line agents, with fluoroquinolones being a reasonable choice as well. Ceftriaxone is recommended for first-line therapy for patients who require intravenous treatment. 

People often forget that we can do a lot to prevent UTIs, particularly among women with recurrent UTIs. The prevention of UTIs has both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic approaches.

Nonpharmacologic prevention. One nonpharmacologic strategy is increasing water intake. A randomized controlled trial in women with recurrent cystitis who drank less than 1.5 L of fluid a day showed that the women randomized to consume an additional 1.5 L of water daily had significantly reduced cystitis frequency — approximately 50%. Because this was the only randomized trial to show this effect, this is not a strong recommendation, but there is very little downside in healthy women, so increasing water intake is a reasonable recommendation.

Another commonly discussed intervention is the use of cranberry products. As it turns out, most prospective studies have shown that cranberry products can reduce the risk for symptomatic UTIs in women with recurrent UTI. 

Pharmacologic prevention. For postmenopausal women with recurrent UTI, topical vaginal estrogen has a strong base of evidence — more than 30 randomized trials — supporting its effectiveness in UTI: a 50%-90% reduction in the incidence of recurrent UTIs. Topical estrogen has minimal systemic absorption, and there are no concerning safety signals with respect to either thromboembolic disease or cancer (endometrial or breast). 

Methenamine hippurate is also recommended and is FDA-approved for prevention of UTIs. It works by releasing formaldehyde in the urine, leading to bacteriostasis, which is how it leads to a decrease in UTIs. Finally, postcoital or daily administration of TMP-SMX, nitrofurantoin, norfloxacin, and ciprofloxacin all have comparable efficacy for prophylaxis, with a meta-analysis showing a decrease in recurrence rate of approximately 85%. The guideline states that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of either probiotics or D-mannose to prevent UTIs. 

This is a wonderful update on a common problem. We all have a lot of clinical experience here.

Dr Skolnik, Department of Family Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia; Associate Director, Department of Family Medicine, Abington Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

We often see urinary tract infections in primary care, so these guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis and management of urinary tract infection (UTI) are very helpful to reaffirm our knowledge in the areas where know what we’re doing and update our knowledge in areas of uncertainty. These guidelines are from a new group called the WikiGuidelines group. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t have considered reviewing one of these guidelines, but this one was published in JAMA Network Open. It is evidence based and covers the topic really well. 

Diagnosis. Order a urinalysis or a urine culture only if the patient is having symptoms of a UTI. This may seem obvious, but particularly among older individuals, in whom asymptomatic bacteriuria is very common and should not be treated, nonspecific symptoms such as just not feeling well for a day do not warrant obtaining a urinalysis and culture. With no clear way to distinguish between asymptomatic bacteriuria and a true UTI, the first step in making the diagnosis of a UTI accurately is ordering urine studies only in people who have a reasonable chance of having an infection.

The guideline suggests that the diagnosis of UTI should be primarily based on clinical symptoms. A urinalysis can provide further information, but the authors caution us against relying solely on the urinalysis. This is an incredibly important evidence-based recommendation. If you think about it, this supports the common practice of treating UTIs over the phone without having to see the patient or check a urinalysis. 

The rationale for this recommendation is that urinalysis is neither a sensitive nor specific test for UTI. The sensitivity of leukocyte esterase is only about 80%, and the specificity is even lower. For positive nitrite on urinalysis, the sensitivity is below 50%, meaning the test would be negative more than half the time when someone actually has a UTI. The specificity of urine nitrate is very high (more than 90%), so if the patient is nitrite positive, they clearly have a UTI. This means that a patient’s report of classic UTI symptoms — urinary burning, frequency, and urgency — is about as good if not a better indicator of a UTI than a urinalysis. 

The guidelines also say that in simple uncomplicated cystitis in healthy nonpregnant patients, routine urine cultures are not necessary. A fascinating meta-analysis in JAMA showed that, for women presenting to outpatient clinics with at least two symptoms of UTI and absence of vaginal discharge, there was a greater than 90% likelihood of having acute cystitis. A reminder here, however: If a woman is sexually active and at risk for sexually transmitted infections, then consider testing for STIs as well, because the symptoms of an STI can mimic those of a UTI.

Treatment. Treatment for UTI is usually empiric, with treatment initiated before the culture results are known and with cultures being done only for people with complicated infections, such as pyelonephritis, or with recurrent infections. Decisions about what to use for treatment can be influenced by local patterns of resistance and an individual’s risk factors for antimicrobial resistance. As a general rule, for uncomplicated cystitis, nitrofurantoin for 5 days is a reasonable first-line agent. Evidence of efficacy is good, and the risk for antimicrobial resistance is lower vs using antibiotics for other systemic infections. 

Other reasonable first-line agents for uncomplicated cystitis include trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) for 3 days; fosfomycin (oral) single dose; or a beta-lactam (most commonly a first generation cephalosporin), although evidence for duration is unclear. Also mentioned are two unfamiliar antibiotics: pivmecillinam (a beta-lactam agent recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA], given for 3 days) and gepotidacin (from a new class of antibiotic that is currently under FDA review). Fluoroquinolones should not usually be first-line agents unless other treatment options are not appropriate. 

It’s important to distinguish between uncomplicated cystitis and pyelonephritis. For pyelonephritis (infection of the upper urinary tract), the first decision has to do with setting for care, depending on how sick someone is, and the likelihood of gram-negative bacteremia — all of which help whether the patient needs to be hospitalized for intravenous antibiotics, or can be treated as an outpatient. Determine if they need to be admitted for intravenous antibiotics or whether they can be treated as an outpatient. For outpatient treatment of pyelonephritis, the guideline suggests that TMP-SMX or a first-generation cephalosporin are both reasonable first-line agents, with fluoroquinolones being a reasonable choice as well. Ceftriaxone is recommended for first-line therapy for patients who require intravenous treatment. 

People often forget that we can do a lot to prevent UTIs, particularly among women with recurrent UTIs. The prevention of UTIs has both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic approaches.

Nonpharmacologic prevention. One nonpharmacologic strategy is increasing water intake. A randomized controlled trial in women with recurrent cystitis who drank less than 1.5 L of fluid a day showed that the women randomized to consume an additional 1.5 L of water daily had significantly reduced cystitis frequency — approximately 50%. Because this was the only randomized trial to show this effect, this is not a strong recommendation, but there is very little downside in healthy women, so increasing water intake is a reasonable recommendation.

Another commonly discussed intervention is the use of cranberry products. As it turns out, most prospective studies have shown that cranberry products can reduce the risk for symptomatic UTIs in women with recurrent UTI. 

Pharmacologic prevention. For postmenopausal women with recurrent UTI, topical vaginal estrogen has a strong base of evidence — more than 30 randomized trials — supporting its effectiveness in UTI: a 50%-90% reduction in the incidence of recurrent UTIs. Topical estrogen has minimal systemic absorption, and there are no concerning safety signals with respect to either thromboembolic disease or cancer (endometrial or breast). 

Methenamine hippurate is also recommended and is FDA-approved for prevention of UTIs. It works by releasing formaldehyde in the urine, leading to bacteriostasis, which is how it leads to a decrease in UTIs. Finally, postcoital or daily administration of TMP-SMX, nitrofurantoin, norfloxacin, and ciprofloxacin all have comparable efficacy for prophylaxis, with a meta-analysis showing a decrease in recurrence rate of approximately 85%. The guideline states that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of either probiotics or D-mannose to prevent UTIs. 

This is a wonderful update on a common problem. We all have a lot of clinical experience here.

Dr Skolnik, Department of Family Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia; Associate Director, Department of Family Medicine, Abington Jefferson Health, Abington, Pennsylvania, disclosed ties with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An electronic nudge explaining the cardiovascular benefits of the influenza vaccine increased vaccination rates, particularly among people who had previously had a heart attack, showed the NUDGE FLU series of clinical trials.

Influenza has the potential to be a dangerous infection on its own, but it increases the risk for cardiovascular events among people with a history of heart attack, said the study’s lead author, Ankeet Bhatt, MD, a cardiologist at Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco.

“Yearly influenza vaccines help prevent influenza infection and, in patients with a heart attack, are potentially cardioprotective,” he said during his presentation at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2024 in Chicago. The NUDGE FLU results were simultaneously published online in JAMA Cardiology.

In Denmark, where the trials were conducted, about 80% of older adults get flu shots, but only about 40% of younger adults with chronic diseases do, Bhatt reported. In the United States, about 45% of adults and 55% of children received at least one dose of the flu vaccine in the 2023/24 flu season, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

 

The NUDGE FLU Trials

Bhatt and his colleagues conducted three related clinical trials during the 2022/23 and 2023/24 flu seasons: NUDGE-FLU and NUDGE-FLU-2 targeted older adults, whereas NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC targeted younger adults with chronic diseases. Nearly 2 million people were involved in the three trials.

Participants were randomized to receive one of a series of different behavioral-science-informed letters, delivered through a government-run electronic communication system, or no reminder.

People who received any of the nudges had higher rates of vaccination; among heart attack survivors, there was a 1.8% improvement and among adults without a history of heart attack, there was a 1.3% improvement. But a nudge that explained the potential cardiovascular benefits of flu shots was even more effective, leading to a 3.9% increase among people with a history of heart attack and a 2% increase among those with no heart attack history.

“A simple sentence resulted in a durable improvement in the vaccination rate,” said Bhatt.

The effect was even greater among those who had not been vaccinated in the previous flu season. Among heart attack survivors, nearly 14% more people got the vaccine compared with just 1.5% more survivors who were previously vaccinated. And it was most effective among younger adults who had experienced a recent heart attack, resulting in a 26% increase.

“The impact was larger in patients with a history of acute myocardial infarction, in those who were vaccine-hesitant, and in younger people” — all groups with the most to gain from vaccination in terms of cardiovascular protection — Bhatt reported.

About 25% of people in the United States are unsure about whether to get a flu shot, said Orly Vardeny, PharmD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, who was not involved in the study. The fact that previously unvaccinated people were convinced by the nudges is reassuring. “That’s the group where this intervention is most likely to move the needle,” she said.

Around half of all people hospitalized for flu in the United States have cardiovascular disease, CDC data showed, so “even a small increase in the number of patients who get vaccinated has substantial public health benefits,” Vardeny said.

The NUDGE FLU series showed that nudges like this should be employed as a simple tool to improve vaccination rates, but the system would be much more difficult to implement in the United States, Bhatt said.

Denmark has a national health service and a preexisting government electronic communication system, whereas the US system is privately run and more fractured. It would be possible to make it work, he pointed out, but would take some effort.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An electronic nudge explaining the cardiovascular benefits of the influenza vaccine increased vaccination rates, particularly among people who had previously had a heart attack, showed the NUDGE FLU series of clinical trials.

Influenza has the potential to be a dangerous infection on its own, but it increases the risk for cardiovascular events among people with a history of heart attack, said the study’s lead author, Ankeet Bhatt, MD, a cardiologist at Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco.

“Yearly influenza vaccines help prevent influenza infection and, in patients with a heart attack, are potentially cardioprotective,” he said during his presentation at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2024 in Chicago. The NUDGE FLU results were simultaneously published online in JAMA Cardiology.

In Denmark, where the trials were conducted, about 80% of older adults get flu shots, but only about 40% of younger adults with chronic diseases do, Bhatt reported. In the United States, about 45% of adults and 55% of children received at least one dose of the flu vaccine in the 2023/24 flu season, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

 

The NUDGE FLU Trials

Bhatt and his colleagues conducted three related clinical trials during the 2022/23 and 2023/24 flu seasons: NUDGE-FLU and NUDGE-FLU-2 targeted older adults, whereas NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC targeted younger adults with chronic diseases. Nearly 2 million people were involved in the three trials.

Participants were randomized to receive one of a series of different behavioral-science-informed letters, delivered through a government-run electronic communication system, or no reminder.

People who received any of the nudges had higher rates of vaccination; among heart attack survivors, there was a 1.8% improvement and among adults without a history of heart attack, there was a 1.3% improvement. But a nudge that explained the potential cardiovascular benefits of flu shots was even more effective, leading to a 3.9% increase among people with a history of heart attack and a 2% increase among those with no heart attack history.

“A simple sentence resulted in a durable improvement in the vaccination rate,” said Bhatt.

The effect was even greater among those who had not been vaccinated in the previous flu season. Among heart attack survivors, nearly 14% more people got the vaccine compared with just 1.5% more survivors who were previously vaccinated. And it was most effective among younger adults who had experienced a recent heart attack, resulting in a 26% increase.

“The impact was larger in patients with a history of acute myocardial infarction, in those who were vaccine-hesitant, and in younger people” — all groups with the most to gain from vaccination in terms of cardiovascular protection — Bhatt reported.

About 25% of people in the United States are unsure about whether to get a flu shot, said Orly Vardeny, PharmD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, who was not involved in the study. The fact that previously unvaccinated people were convinced by the nudges is reassuring. “That’s the group where this intervention is most likely to move the needle,” she said.

Around half of all people hospitalized for flu in the United States have cardiovascular disease, CDC data showed, so “even a small increase in the number of patients who get vaccinated has substantial public health benefits,” Vardeny said.

The NUDGE FLU series showed that nudges like this should be employed as a simple tool to improve vaccination rates, but the system would be much more difficult to implement in the United States, Bhatt said.

Denmark has a national health service and a preexisting government electronic communication system, whereas the US system is privately run and more fractured. It would be possible to make it work, he pointed out, but would take some effort.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An electronic nudge explaining the cardiovascular benefits of the influenza vaccine increased vaccination rates, particularly among people who had previously had a heart attack, showed the NUDGE FLU series of clinical trials.

Influenza has the potential to be a dangerous infection on its own, but it increases the risk for cardiovascular events among people with a history of heart attack, said the study’s lead author, Ankeet Bhatt, MD, a cardiologist at Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco.

“Yearly influenza vaccines help prevent influenza infection and, in patients with a heart attack, are potentially cardioprotective,” he said during his presentation at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2024 in Chicago. The NUDGE FLU results were simultaneously published online in JAMA Cardiology.

In Denmark, where the trials were conducted, about 80% of older adults get flu shots, but only about 40% of younger adults with chronic diseases do, Bhatt reported. In the United States, about 45% of adults and 55% of children received at least one dose of the flu vaccine in the 2023/24 flu season, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

 

The NUDGE FLU Trials

Bhatt and his colleagues conducted three related clinical trials during the 2022/23 and 2023/24 flu seasons: NUDGE-FLU and NUDGE-FLU-2 targeted older adults, whereas NUDGE-FLU-CHRONIC targeted younger adults with chronic diseases. Nearly 2 million people were involved in the three trials.

Participants were randomized to receive one of a series of different behavioral-science-informed letters, delivered through a government-run electronic communication system, or no reminder.

People who received any of the nudges had higher rates of vaccination; among heart attack survivors, there was a 1.8% improvement and among adults without a history of heart attack, there was a 1.3% improvement. But a nudge that explained the potential cardiovascular benefits of flu shots was even more effective, leading to a 3.9% increase among people with a history of heart attack and a 2% increase among those with no heart attack history.

“A simple sentence resulted in a durable improvement in the vaccination rate,” said Bhatt.

The effect was even greater among those who had not been vaccinated in the previous flu season. Among heart attack survivors, nearly 14% more people got the vaccine compared with just 1.5% more survivors who were previously vaccinated. And it was most effective among younger adults who had experienced a recent heart attack, resulting in a 26% increase.

“The impact was larger in patients with a history of acute myocardial infarction, in those who were vaccine-hesitant, and in younger people” — all groups with the most to gain from vaccination in terms of cardiovascular protection — Bhatt reported.

About 25% of people in the United States are unsure about whether to get a flu shot, said Orly Vardeny, PharmD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School in Minneapolis, who was not involved in the study. The fact that previously unvaccinated people were convinced by the nudges is reassuring. “That’s the group where this intervention is most likely to move the needle,” she said.

Around half of all people hospitalized for flu in the United States have cardiovascular disease, CDC data showed, so “even a small increase in the number of patients who get vaccinated has substantial public health benefits,” Vardeny said.

The NUDGE FLU series showed that nudges like this should be employed as a simple tool to improve vaccination rates, but the system would be much more difficult to implement in the United States, Bhatt said.

Denmark has a national health service and a preexisting government electronic communication system, whereas the US system is privately run and more fractured. It would be possible to make it work, he pointed out, but would take some effort.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) offer important protection against severe illness for pregnant people and their babies.¹ However, vaccination coverage estimates among pregnant people remain suboptimal.^2-5 Additionally, some measures indicate that vaccine hesitancy among pregnant people is increasing; for example, 17.5% of surveyed pregnant women reported being very hesitant about influenza vaccination during pregnancy in 2019-2020, compared with 24.7% in 2022-2023.⁶As fall and winter virus season continues, consider opportunities for you and your staff to help communicate the importance of prenatal vaccination to pregnant patients in your care. Explore updated provider toolkits and prenatal vaccination patient education resources, including fact sheets, social media assets, posters, and short videos on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Tdap, COVID-19, influenza, and hepatitis B.

In an interview, CDC’s Haben Debessai, MD, an adjunct instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, contextualizes the data to help healthcare professionals communicate effectively with their pregnant patients. 

 

What can practitioners communicate to patients about why it is important to get vaccinated during their pregnancy?

When communicating with their patients, practitioners can consider opportunities to discuss how vaccines work during pregnancy, emphasizing that prenatal vaccinations are beneficial for both the pregnant person and the fetus. It can be helpful to educate patients on how a pregnant person’s immune system can develop antibodies that will then pass to the fetus during the pregnancy and confer protection during the infant’s early months of life — when they are highly susceptible to illnesses that can be severe, such as RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections. It can also be useful to discuss pregnancy’s impact on the immune system, which contributes to pregnant people being at higher risk for severe illness from infections like COVID-19 and flu, if contracted. The outcomes of severe illness can be dire for both the pregnant person and their pregnancy, which is why vaccination is the best mitigation option. It can also be beneficial to share with patients that some vaccines, like RSV and Tdap, are specifically for neonatal benefit, which could help patients understand why some vaccines are recommended at a specific gestational age and in each pregnancy or subsequent pregnancies. 

What is known about pregnant populations that experience disparities in vaccination coverage? 

While vaccination coverage among pregnant people is suboptimal, coverage estimates are often lowest among Black pregnant people, some of whom report experiencing mistreatment and discrimination during pregnancy and delivery.⁷ It is important to recognize that there are many intersecting factors that may impact vaccination coverage. Systemic and structural factors may prohibit some patient populations from accessing vaccinations (eg, transportation barriers, difficulty accessing adequate healthcare for those on government assistance, language barriers). To be responsive to the intersectional lived realities of each of these communities, the medical and public health community continually strives to increase trustworthiness, which can lead to increased uptake of vaccinations in these populations. 

What vaccines are available and recommended for pregnant people?

Four vaccines are routinely recommended during pregnancy: Tdap, COVID-19, influenza (seasonal), and RSV (seasonal). CDC recommends getting a Tdap vaccine between the 27th and 36th week of each pregnancy, preferably during the earlier part of this time period. CDC recommends that everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people, stay up to date on COVID-19 vaccines. A COVID-19 vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. CDC recommends an annual flu vaccine during each flu season (fall/winter) for everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people. A flu vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. For individuals who will be between 32 and 36 weeks pregnant during September through January, CDC recommends getting an RSV vaccine. RSV season and timing of vaccination may vary depending on geography. If a pregnant patient does not get the RSV vaccine during their pregnancy, CDC recommends that their baby receive an RSV monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) to provide additional protection during the infant’s first RSV season, if they are younger than 8 months. At this time, pregnant people who received an RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy (last year) are not recommended to receive another RSV vaccine during pregnancy. The current recommendation is for babies born during subsequent pregnancies to receive nirsevimab. Some pregnant people may also need other vaccines, such as hepatitis B. 

How can practitioners approach conversations about vaccination during pregnancy amid increasing vaccine hesitancy?

Many pregnant people who do get vaccinated describe their provider’s recommendation as an important motivator toward vaccination.^8-11 Communications research suggests that practitioners can further increase trustworthiness by openly discussing potential side effects of prenatal vaccinations and providing patients with a rationale for why each vaccine is recommended. Practitioners can also utilize opportunities to communicate that the risk for severe illness from whooping cough, COVID-19, flu, and RSV in pregnancy and among neonates in the first few months of life is often higher than the risk for an adverse reaction from receiving ACIP-recommended vaccines. Finally, practitioners can consider sharing tested and refined patient education resources at least one appointment prior to the recommended administration of each vaccine, providing individuals with time to process the information they need to facilitate their vaccine decision-making process.

Some patients may be more comfortable with older, well-known prenatal vaccinations but have skepticism about newer vaccines like COVID-19 and RSV. How can practitioners respond to these concerns?

As pregnant people navigate the challenges of making health decisions that could impact their developing baby, practitioners can build trust through empathetically responding to safety concerns and questions, particularly with respect to newly authorized vaccines. Vaccine confidence may be strengthened by communicating to patients that all recommended vaccinations, including those that have been newly authorized, have been rigorously tested prior to being recommended for pregnant people. Additionally, in my clinical practice, I see that patients are often more comfortable accepting vaccines when the benefit for the baby is clearly communicated. I have been pleasantly surprised that most patients I have counseled on the new maternal RSV vaccine have been receptive, making statements like, “If this will help protect my baby from getting sick, then yes, I will get it.”

As you and your staff care for pregnant patients during fall and winter virus season, remember that a provider recommendation remains one of the strongest known predictors of vaccination uptake.¹² As a trusted source of information about prenatal vaccination, consider further incorporating patient education resources to help communicate how prenatal vaccination helps pregnant people share important protection against severe illnesses with their babies. 

Haben Debessai, MD, is a Gilstrap Fellow at the CDC Foundation. Debessai also serves as an Emory Obstetrics/Gynecology Adjunct Instructor at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 741: Maternal Immunization. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e214-e217. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002662

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Flu, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women – United States, April 2024. 2024 Sep 23. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Respiratory syncytial virus (rsv) vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19.6. Razzaghi H et al. IMMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:1065-1071. Published 2023 Sep 29. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7239a4

7. Mohamoud YA et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:961-967. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7235e1.

8. Kiefer MK et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022;4:100603. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100603

9. Spires B et al. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2023;50:401-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2023.02.013

10. Wales DP et al. Public Health. 2020;179:38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.10.001

11. Zimmerman M et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2023;115:362-376. doi:10.1016/j.jnma.2023.04.003

12. Castillo E et al. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;76:83-95. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.03.008

Vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) offer important protection against severe illness for pregnant people and their babies.¹ However, vaccination coverage estimates among pregnant people remain suboptimal.^2-5 Additionally, some measures indicate that vaccine hesitancy among pregnant people is increasing; for example, 17.5% of surveyed pregnant women reported being very hesitant about influenza vaccination during pregnancy in 2019-2020, compared with 24.7% in 2022-2023.⁶As fall and winter virus season continues, consider opportunities for you and your staff to help communicate the importance of prenatal vaccination to pregnant patients in your care. Explore updated provider toolkits and prenatal vaccination patient education resources, including fact sheets, social media assets, posters, and short videos on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Tdap, COVID-19, influenza, and hepatitis B.

In an interview, CDC’s Haben Debessai, MD, an adjunct instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, contextualizes the data to help healthcare professionals communicate effectively with their pregnant patients. 

 

What can practitioners communicate to patients about why it is important to get vaccinated during their pregnancy?

When communicating with their patients, practitioners can consider opportunities to discuss how vaccines work during pregnancy, emphasizing that prenatal vaccinations are beneficial for both the pregnant person and the fetus. It can be helpful to educate patients on how a pregnant person’s immune system can develop antibodies that will then pass to the fetus during the pregnancy and confer protection during the infant’s early months of life — when they are highly susceptible to illnesses that can be severe, such as RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections. It can also be useful to discuss pregnancy’s impact on the immune system, which contributes to pregnant people being at higher risk for severe illness from infections like COVID-19 and flu, if contracted. The outcomes of severe illness can be dire for both the pregnant person and their pregnancy, which is why vaccination is the best mitigation option. It can also be beneficial to share with patients that some vaccines, like RSV and Tdap, are specifically for neonatal benefit, which could help patients understand why some vaccines are recommended at a specific gestational age and in each pregnancy or subsequent pregnancies. 

What is known about pregnant populations that experience disparities in vaccination coverage? 

While vaccination coverage among pregnant people is suboptimal, coverage estimates are often lowest among Black pregnant people, some of whom report experiencing mistreatment and discrimination during pregnancy and delivery.⁷ It is important to recognize that there are many intersecting factors that may impact vaccination coverage. Systemic and structural factors may prohibit some patient populations from accessing vaccinations (eg, transportation barriers, difficulty accessing adequate healthcare for those on government assistance, language barriers). To be responsive to the intersectional lived realities of each of these communities, the medical and public health community continually strives to increase trustworthiness, which can lead to increased uptake of vaccinations in these populations. 

What vaccines are available and recommended for pregnant people?

Four vaccines are routinely recommended during pregnancy: Tdap, COVID-19, influenza (seasonal), and RSV (seasonal). CDC recommends getting a Tdap vaccine between the 27th and 36th week of each pregnancy, preferably during the earlier part of this time period. CDC recommends that everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people, stay up to date on COVID-19 vaccines. A COVID-19 vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. CDC recommends an annual flu vaccine during each flu season (fall/winter) for everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people. A flu vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. For individuals who will be between 32 and 36 weeks pregnant during September through January, CDC recommends getting an RSV vaccine. RSV season and timing of vaccination may vary depending on geography. If a pregnant patient does not get the RSV vaccine during their pregnancy, CDC recommends that their baby receive an RSV monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) to provide additional protection during the infant’s first RSV season, if they are younger than 8 months. At this time, pregnant people who received an RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy (last year) are not recommended to receive another RSV vaccine during pregnancy. The current recommendation is for babies born during subsequent pregnancies to receive nirsevimab. Some pregnant people may also need other vaccines, such as hepatitis B. 

How can practitioners approach conversations about vaccination during pregnancy amid increasing vaccine hesitancy?

Many pregnant people who do get vaccinated describe their provider’s recommendation as an important motivator toward vaccination.^8-11 Communications research suggests that practitioners can further increase trustworthiness by openly discussing potential side effects of prenatal vaccinations and providing patients with a rationale for why each vaccine is recommended. Practitioners can also utilize opportunities to communicate that the risk for severe illness from whooping cough, COVID-19, flu, and RSV in pregnancy and among neonates in the first few months of life is often higher than the risk for an adverse reaction from receiving ACIP-recommended vaccines. Finally, practitioners can consider sharing tested and refined patient education resources at least one appointment prior to the recommended administration of each vaccine, providing individuals with time to process the information they need to facilitate their vaccine decision-making process.

Some patients may be more comfortable with older, well-known prenatal vaccinations but have skepticism about newer vaccines like COVID-19 and RSV. How can practitioners respond to these concerns?

As pregnant people navigate the challenges of making health decisions that could impact their developing baby, practitioners can build trust through empathetically responding to safety concerns and questions, particularly with respect to newly authorized vaccines. Vaccine confidence may be strengthened by communicating to patients that all recommended vaccinations, including those that have been newly authorized, have been rigorously tested prior to being recommended for pregnant people. Additionally, in my clinical practice, I see that patients are often more comfortable accepting vaccines when the benefit for the baby is clearly communicated. I have been pleasantly surprised that most patients I have counseled on the new maternal RSV vaccine have been receptive, making statements like, “If this will help protect my baby from getting sick, then yes, I will get it.”

As you and your staff care for pregnant patients during fall and winter virus season, remember that a provider recommendation remains one of the strongest known predictors of vaccination uptake.¹² As a trusted source of information about prenatal vaccination, consider further incorporating patient education resources to help communicate how prenatal vaccination helps pregnant people share important protection against severe illnesses with their babies. 

Haben Debessai, MD, is a Gilstrap Fellow at the CDC Foundation. Debessai also serves as an Emory Obstetrics/Gynecology Adjunct Instructor at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 741: Maternal Immunization. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e214-e217. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002662

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Flu, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women – United States, April 2024. 2024 Sep 23. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Respiratory syncytial virus (rsv) vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19.6. Razzaghi H et al. IMMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:1065-1071. Published 2023 Sep 29. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7239a4

7. Mohamoud YA et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:961-967. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7235e1.

8. Kiefer MK et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022;4:100603. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100603

9. Spires B et al. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2023;50:401-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2023.02.013

10. Wales DP et al. Public Health. 2020;179:38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.10.001

11. Zimmerman M et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2023;115:362-376. doi:10.1016/j.jnma.2023.04.003

12. Castillo E et al. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;76:83-95. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.03.008

Vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) offer important protection against severe illness for pregnant people and their babies.¹ However, vaccination coverage estimates among pregnant people remain suboptimal.^2-5 Additionally, some measures indicate that vaccine hesitancy among pregnant people is increasing; for example, 17.5% of surveyed pregnant women reported being very hesitant about influenza vaccination during pregnancy in 2019-2020, compared with 24.7% in 2022-2023.⁶As fall and winter virus season continues, consider opportunities for you and your staff to help communicate the importance of prenatal vaccination to pregnant patients in your care. Explore updated provider toolkits and prenatal vaccination patient education resources, including fact sheets, social media assets, posters, and short videos on respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), Tdap, COVID-19, influenza, and hepatitis B.

In an interview, CDC’s Haben Debessai, MD, an adjunct instructor in obstetrics and gynecology at Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, contextualizes the data to help healthcare professionals communicate effectively with their pregnant patients. 

 

What can practitioners communicate to patients about why it is important to get vaccinated during their pregnancy?

When communicating with their patients, practitioners can consider opportunities to discuss how vaccines work during pregnancy, emphasizing that prenatal vaccinations are beneficial for both the pregnant person and the fetus. It can be helpful to educate patients on how a pregnant person’s immune system can develop antibodies that will then pass to the fetus during the pregnancy and confer protection during the infant’s early months of life — when they are highly susceptible to illnesses that can be severe, such as RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infections. It can also be useful to discuss pregnancy’s impact on the immune system, which contributes to pregnant people being at higher risk for severe illness from infections like COVID-19 and flu, if contracted. The outcomes of severe illness can be dire for both the pregnant person and their pregnancy, which is why vaccination is the best mitigation option. It can also be beneficial to share with patients that some vaccines, like RSV and Tdap, are specifically for neonatal benefit, which could help patients understand why some vaccines are recommended at a specific gestational age and in each pregnancy or subsequent pregnancies. 

What is known about pregnant populations that experience disparities in vaccination coverage? 

While vaccination coverage among pregnant people is suboptimal, coverage estimates are often lowest among Black pregnant people, some of whom report experiencing mistreatment and discrimination during pregnancy and delivery.⁷ It is important to recognize that there are many intersecting factors that may impact vaccination coverage. Systemic and structural factors may prohibit some patient populations from accessing vaccinations (eg, transportation barriers, difficulty accessing adequate healthcare for those on government assistance, language barriers). To be responsive to the intersectional lived realities of each of these communities, the medical and public health community continually strives to increase trustworthiness, which can lead to increased uptake of vaccinations in these populations. 

What vaccines are available and recommended for pregnant people?

Four vaccines are routinely recommended during pregnancy: Tdap, COVID-19, influenza (seasonal), and RSV (seasonal). CDC recommends getting a Tdap vaccine between the 27th and 36th week of each pregnancy, preferably during the earlier part of this time period. CDC recommends that everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people, stay up to date on COVID-19 vaccines. A COVID-19 vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. CDC recommends an annual flu vaccine during each flu season (fall/winter) for everyone 6 months or older in the United States, including pregnant people. A flu vaccine can be given during any trimester of pregnancy. For individuals who will be between 32 and 36 weeks pregnant during September through January, CDC recommends getting an RSV vaccine. RSV season and timing of vaccination may vary depending on geography. If a pregnant patient does not get the RSV vaccine during their pregnancy, CDC recommends that their baby receive an RSV monoclonal antibody (nirsevimab) to provide additional protection during the infant’s first RSV season, if they are younger than 8 months. At this time, pregnant people who received an RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy (last year) are not recommended to receive another RSV vaccine during pregnancy. The current recommendation is for babies born during subsequent pregnancies to receive nirsevimab. Some pregnant people may also need other vaccines, such as hepatitis B. 

How can practitioners approach conversations about vaccination during pregnancy amid increasing vaccine hesitancy?

Many pregnant people who do get vaccinated describe their provider’s recommendation as an important motivator toward vaccination.^8-11 Communications research suggests that practitioners can further increase trustworthiness by openly discussing potential side effects of prenatal vaccinations and providing patients with a rationale for why each vaccine is recommended. Practitioners can also utilize opportunities to communicate that the risk for severe illness from whooping cough, COVID-19, flu, and RSV in pregnancy and among neonates in the first few months of life is often higher than the risk for an adverse reaction from receiving ACIP-recommended vaccines. Finally, practitioners can consider sharing tested and refined patient education resources at least one appointment prior to the recommended administration of each vaccine, providing individuals with time to process the information they need to facilitate their vaccine decision-making process.

Some patients may be more comfortable with older, well-known prenatal vaccinations but have skepticism about newer vaccines like COVID-19 and RSV. How can practitioners respond to these concerns?

As pregnant people navigate the challenges of making health decisions that could impact their developing baby, practitioners can build trust through empathetically responding to safety concerns and questions, particularly with respect to newly authorized vaccines. Vaccine confidence may be strengthened by communicating to patients that all recommended vaccinations, including those that have been newly authorized, have been rigorously tested prior to being recommended for pregnant people. Additionally, in my clinical practice, I see that patients are often more comfortable accepting vaccines when the benefit for the baby is clearly communicated. I have been pleasantly surprised that most patients I have counseled on the new maternal RSV vaccine have been receptive, making statements like, “If this will help protect my baby from getting sick, then yes, I will get it.”

As you and your staff care for pregnant patients during fall and winter virus season, remember that a provider recommendation remains one of the strongest known predictors of vaccination uptake.¹² As a trusted source of information about prenatal vaccination, consider further incorporating patient education resources to help communicate how prenatal vaccination helps pregnant people share important protection against severe illnesses with their babies. 

Haben Debessai, MD, is a Gilstrap Fellow at the CDC Foundation. Debessai also serves as an Emory Obstetrics/Gynecology Adjunct Instructor at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 741: Maternal Immunization. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:e214-e217. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002662

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Flu, Tdap, and COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women – United States, April 2024. 2024 Sep 23. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Respiratory syncytial virus (rsv) vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza vaccination coverage, pregnant persons. 2024 Nov 19.6. Razzaghi H et al. IMMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:1065-1071. Published 2023 Sep 29. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7239a4

7. Mohamoud YA et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023;72:961-967. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7235e1.

8. Kiefer MK et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022;4:100603. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100603

9. Spires B et al. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2023;50:401-419. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2023.02.013

10. Wales DP et al. Public Health. 2020;179:38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.10.001

11. Zimmerman M et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2023;115:362-376. doi:10.1016/j.jnma.2023.04.003

12. Castillo E et al. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;76:83-95. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.03.008

Ringworm (also known as tinea, jock itch, or athlete’s foot) is a common infection caused by dermatophyte fungi, known to affect skin, hair, or nails. It causes skin infections that are typically mild and are often treated with topical antifungals.

However, in recent years, newly emerging dermatophyte strains have been causing more severe and harder-to-treat ringworm. Notably, one emerging strain, Trichophyton mentagrophytes genotype VII(TMVII), is associated with sexual contact. In recent years, TMVII infections linked to sexual contact have been reported among men who have sex with men in Europe and in travelers returning from Southeast Asia. The first US case of TMVII was reported in June 2024, after which public health authorities were alerted to additional cases; all were associated with recent sexual contact. Other dermatophyte species have also been reported to cause ringworm transmitted through sexual contact. 

Here are some key points to know about sexually transmitted ringworm. 

Tell me more about sexually transmitted ringworm: What is causing it?

Skin-to-skin contact is a common mode of ringworm transmission. In recent years, transmission of ringworm via intimate or sexual contact has been increasingly recognized. However, clinicians may not immediately consider ringworm when evaluating genital, facial, or perianal lesions. Infections with sexually transmitted TMVII commonly cause lesions on anatomical sites that may be exposed during intimate or sexual contact, such as the face, genitals, and perianal region. Sexual transmission of TMVII has been reported in Europe, predominantly among men who have sex with men, for several years. Other dermatophyte strains have been reported in association with sexual contact, including the emerging strain Trichophyton indotineae. However, sexual transmission is not the main mode of transmission for T indotineae and other dermatophyte strains. 

When should clinicians suspect a potential case of sexually transmitted ringworm?

Providers should consider sexually transmitted ringworm when seeing ringworm in locations associated with intimate contact (for example, a rash on or around the genitals, perianal area, or mouth). 

The typical appearance of ringworm is a raised, ring-like, erythematous rash with a scaly border that grows over time. The rash may appear pink, brown, or gray on different types of skin. Patients may note itching and flaking of the rash. In areas with hair such as the beard area, ringworm can present as pustules and be associated with hair loss.

Emerging ringworm infections can present in atypical or more severe ways, including a highly inflammatory (painful, scarring, or otherwise severe) rash, a rash affecting a large area or multiple sites, nodules, and pustules. 

Sexually transmitted ringworm may be considered based on sexual history and recent sexual contact with someone with known TMVII. Recent history of travel to a region with reported sexually transmitted ringworm may increase suspicion of TMVII. In patients with a travel history to South Asia, T indotineae should be considered, especially if the rash does not improve with oral terbinafine. 

How can testing help guide the diagnosis of sexually transmitted ringworm infection?

When evaluating a rash that may represent ringworm, providers should use a confirmatory test such as potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparation when possible. KOH prep can confirm the presence of a fungus that causes ringworm, but it does not identify the species or type of ringworm. Testing such as fungal culture and molecular testing can help identify specific types of ringworm, but these tests are not often performed and may take a long time to yield results.

Routine fungal cultures cannot identify TMVII and T indotineae; these tests may identify the genus Trichophyton, but only advanced molecular testing, which is available at selected US laboratories, can identify TMVII and T indotineae. 

We recommend confirmatory testing because ringworm can easily be misdiagnosed as skin conditions such as psoriasis or eczema. The use of topical steroids can worsen a ringworm infection, so clinicians should be cautious about treating a rash with topical steroids if the etiology is unclear. Treatment should not be delayed if testing is not available. 

Clinicians who suspect a case of TMVII infection or infection with another emerging type of severe or antifungal-resistant ringworm can contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at fungaloutbreaks@cdc.gov. More details on how clinicians can pursue testing to identify emerging strains of ringworm can be found on the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) emerging diseases task force website. 

How should clinicians treat and manage sexually transmitted ringworm? 

If TMVII infection is suspected, providers can consider starting empirical treatment with oral terbinafine. Although data are limited, experience from case series suggests that TMVII may require oral antifungal treatment because it can cause severe skin infections and often does not improve with topical antifungals. Clinicians should advise patients that they may need prolonged treatment courses until the rash resolves, with possible need for treatment courses of 6-8 weeks or longer. 

Any diagnosis of a sexually transmitted infection is an opportunity to engage patients in comprehensive sexual health services. Patients with suspected sexually transmitted ringworm should be evaluated for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, including syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea; clinicians should discuss and facilitate access to other preventive services, such as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis if the patient is HIV negative and at risk for HIV. Patients should also notify their partner(s) about the diagnosis. 

Is sexually transmitted ringworm a public health concern? 

It is important to know that very few cases of TMVII have been reported in the United States thus far. CDC continues to monitor emerging dermatophyte strains because these types of ringworm can cause more severe or difficult-to-treat infections. Clinicians should be aware of the potential severity of sexually transmitted ringworm infections and of how diagnosis and treatment of these infections may differ from typical management of ringworm.

So far, TMVII, the dermatophyte strain most associated with spread through sexual contact, has not been documented to have antifungal resistance. More rarely, sexually transmitted ringworm may be caused by other emerging dermatophyte strains that are antifungal resistant, such as T indotineae. Itraconazole is the recommended first-line treatment for T indotineae infections. 

How can clinicians counsel patients with sexually transmitted ringworm?

Ringworm can spread with skin-to-skin contact, so patients should avoid such contact with others while they have a rash. They should also avoid sharing personal items (such as razors or towels) and clothing, and launder their clothing, towels, and bedding in a high heat cycle. 

People can reduce their risk of getting all types of ringworm infection by keeping their skin clean and dry, changing their socks and underwear daily, and wearing sandals in public locker rooms and other public spaces. People should avoid skin-to-skin contact with anyone with ringworm or an unexplained rash. Before having sex, people can check in with their partners and be aware of unexplained rashes on their partners’ bodies.

Where can clinicians go to learn more about sexually transmitted and other emerging types of ringworm?

CDC has partnered with the AAD to create set of online resources for clinicians for diagnosing and managing emerging dermatophyte infections. Clinicians who suspect or confirm antimicrobial resistant ringworm infection are also encouraged to submit cases to the AAD’s Emerging Diseases Registry. Clinicians wanting further guidance on how to manage suspected or confirmed ringworm infection with an emerging dermatophyte strain can also contact the CDC at fungaloutbreaks@cdc.gov. Useful information on emerging dermatophyte infections for providers and patients is also available on CDC’s website.

Relevant Reading

Zucker J et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2024;73:985-988.Spivack S et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2024;30:807-809.Jabet A et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2023;29:1411-1414.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

Dr Anand is Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Dr Gold is Medical Officer, Mycotic Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr Quilter is Medical Officer, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. None reported any relevant conflicts of interest. 

Ringworm (also known as tinea, jock itch, or athlete’s foot) is a common infection caused by dermatophyte fungi, known to affect skin, hair, or nails. It causes skin infections that are typically mild and are often treated with topical antifungals.

However, in recent years, newly emerging dermatophyte strains have been causing more severe and harder-to-treat ringworm. Notably, one emerging strain, Trichophyton mentagrophytes genotype VII(TMVII), is associated with sexual contact. In recent years, TMVII infections linked to sexual contact have been reported among men who have sex with men in Europe and in travelers returning from Southeast Asia. The first US case of TMVII was reported in June 2024, after which public health authorities were alerted to additional cases; all were associated with recent sexual contact. Other dermatophyte species have also been reported to cause ringworm transmitted through sexual contact. 

Here are some key points to know about sexually transmitted ringworm. 

Tell me more about sexually transmitted ringworm: What is causing it?

Skin-to-skin contact is a common mode of ringworm transmission. In recent years, transmission of ringworm via intimate or sexual contact has been increasingly recognized. However, clinicians may not immediately consider ringworm when evaluating genital, facial, or perianal lesions. Infections with sexually transmitted TMVII commonly cause lesions on anatomical sites that may be exposed during intimate or sexual contact, such as the face, genitals, and perianal region. Sexual transmission of TMVII has been reported in Europe, predominantly among men who have sex with men, for several years. Other dermatophyte strains have been reported in association with sexual contact, including the emerging strain Trichophyton indotineae. However, sexual transmission is not the main mode of transmission for T indotineae and other dermatophyte strains. 

When should clinicians suspect a potential case of sexually transmitted ringworm?

Providers should consider sexually transmitted ringworm when seeing ringworm in locations associated with intimate contact (for example, a rash on or around the genitals, perianal area, or mouth). 

The typical appearance of ringworm is a raised, ring-like, erythematous rash with a scaly border that grows over time. The rash may appear pink, brown, or gray on different types of skin. Patients may note itching and flaking of the rash. In areas with hair such as the beard area, ringworm can present as pustules and be associated with hair loss.

Emerging ringworm infections can present in atypical or more severe ways, including a highly inflammatory (painful, scarring, or otherwise severe) rash, a rash affecting a large area or multiple sites, nodules, and pustules. 

Sexually transmitted ringworm may be considered based on sexual history and recent sexual contact with someone with known TMVII. Recent history of travel to a region with reported sexually transmitted ringworm may increase suspicion of TMVII. In patients with a travel history to South Asia, T indotineae should be considered, especially if the rash does not improve with oral terbinafine. 

How can testing help guide the diagnosis of sexually transmitted ringworm infection?

When evaluating a rash that may represent ringworm, providers should use a confirmatory test such as potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparation when possible. KOH prep can confirm the presence of a fungus that causes ringworm, but it does not identify the species or type of ringworm. Testing such as fungal culture and molecular testing can help identify specific types of ringworm, but these tests are not often performed and may take a long time to yield results.

Routine fungal cultures cannot identify TMVII and T indotineae; these tests may identify the genus Trichophyton, but only advanced molecular testing, which is available at selected US laboratories, can identify TMVII and T indotineae. 

We recommend confirmatory testing because ringworm can easily be misdiagnosed as skin conditions such as psoriasis or eczema. The use of topical steroids can worsen a ringworm infection, so clinicians should be cautious about treating a rash with topical steroids if the etiology is unclear. Treatment should not be delayed if testing is not available. 

Clinicians who suspect a case of TMVII infection or infection with another emerging type of severe or antifungal-resistant ringworm can contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at fungaloutbreaks@cdc.gov. More details on how clinicians can pursue testing to identify emerging strains of ringworm can be found on the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) emerging diseases task force website. 

How should clinicians treat and manage sexually transmitted ringworm? 

If TMVII infection is suspected, providers can consider starting empirical treatment with oral terbinafine. Although data are limited, experience from case series suggests that TMVII may require oral antifungal treatment because it can cause severe skin infections and often does not improve with topical antifungals. Clinicians should advise patients that they may need prolonged treatment courses until the rash resolves, with possible need for treatment courses of 6-8 weeks or longer. 

Any diagnosis of a sexually transmitted infection is an opportunity to engage patients in comprehensive sexual health services. Patients with suspected sexually transmitted ringworm should be evaluated for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, including syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea; clinicians should discuss and facilitate access to other preventive services, such as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis if the patient is HIV negative and at risk for HIV. Patients should also notify their partner(s) about the diagnosis. 

Is sexually transmitted ringworm a public health concern? 

It is important to know that very few cases of TMVII have been reported in the United States thus far. CDC continues to monitor emerging dermatophyte strains because these types of ringworm can cause more severe or difficult-to-treat infections. Clinicians should be aware of the potential severity of sexually transmitted ringworm infections and of how diagnosis and treatment of these infections may differ from typical management of ringworm.

So far, TMVII, the dermatophyte strain most associated with spread through sexual contact, has not been documented to have antifungal resistance. More rarely, sexually transmitted ringworm may be caused by other emerging dermatophyte strains that are antifungal resistant, such as T indotineae. Itraconazole is the recommended first-line treatment for T indotineae infections. 

How can clinicians counsel patients with sexually transmitted ringworm?

Ringworm can spread with skin-to-skin contact, so patients should avoid such contact with others while they have a rash. They should also avoid sharing personal items (such as razors or towels) and clothing, and launder their clothing, towels, and bedding in a high heat cycle. 

People can reduce their risk of getting all types of ringworm infection by keeping their skin clean and dry, changing their socks and underwear daily, and wearing sandals in public locker rooms and other public spaces. People should avoid skin-to-skin contact with anyone with ringworm or an unexplained rash. Before having sex, people can check in with their partners and be aware of unexplained rashes on their partners’ bodies.

Where can clinicians go to learn more about sexually transmitted and other emerging types of ringworm?

CDC has partnered with the AAD to create set of online resources for clinicians for diagnosing and managing emerging dermatophyte infections. Clinicians who suspect or confirm antimicrobial resistant ringworm infection are also encouraged to submit cases to the AAD’s Emerging Diseases Registry. Clinicians wanting further guidance on how to manage suspected or confirmed ringworm infection with an emerging dermatophyte strain can also contact the CDC at fungaloutbreaks@cdc.gov. Useful information on emerging dermatophyte infections for providers and patients is also available on CDC’s website.

Relevant Reading

Zucker J et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2024;73:985-988.Spivack S et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2024;30:807-809.Jabet A et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2023;29:1411-1414.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

Dr Anand is Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Dr Gold is Medical Officer, Mycotic Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr Quilter is Medical Officer, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. None reported any relevant conflicts of interest. 

Ringworm (also known as tinea, jock itch, or athlete’s foot) is a common infection caused by dermatophyte fungi, known to affect skin, hair, or nails. It causes skin infections that are typically mild and are often treated with topical antifungals.

However, in recent years, newly emerging dermatophyte strains have been causing more severe and harder-to-treat ringworm. Notably, one emerging strain, Trichophyton mentagrophytes genotype VII(TMVII), is associated with sexual contact. In recent years, TMVII infections linked to sexual contact have been reported among men who have sex with men in Europe and in travelers returning from Southeast Asia. The first US case of TMVII was reported in June 2024, after which public health authorities were alerted to additional cases; all were associated with recent sexual contact. Other dermatophyte species have also been reported to cause ringworm transmitted through sexual contact. 

Here are some key points to know about sexually transmitted ringworm. 

Tell me more about sexually transmitted ringworm: What is causing it?

Skin-to-skin contact is a common mode of ringworm transmission. In recent years, transmission of ringworm via intimate or sexual contact has been increasingly recognized. However, clinicians may not immediately consider ringworm when evaluating genital, facial, or perianal lesions. Infections with sexually transmitted TMVII commonly cause lesions on anatomical sites that may be exposed during intimate or sexual contact, such as the face, genitals, and perianal region. Sexual transmission of TMVII has been reported in Europe, predominantly among men who have sex with men, for several years. Other dermatophyte strains have been reported in association with sexual contact, including the emerging strain Trichophyton indotineae. However, sexual transmission is not the main mode of transmission for T indotineae and other dermatophyte strains. 

When should clinicians suspect a potential case of sexually transmitted ringworm?

Providers should consider sexually transmitted ringworm when seeing ringworm in locations associated with intimate contact (for example, a rash on or around the genitals, perianal area, or mouth). 

The typical appearance of ringworm is a raised, ring-like, erythematous rash with a scaly border that grows over time. The rash may appear pink, brown, or gray on different types of skin. Patients may note itching and flaking of the rash. In areas with hair such as the beard area, ringworm can present as pustules and be associated with hair loss.

Emerging ringworm infections can present in atypical or more severe ways, including a highly inflammatory (painful, scarring, or otherwise severe) rash, a rash affecting a large area or multiple sites, nodules, and pustules. 

Sexually transmitted ringworm may be considered based on sexual history and recent sexual contact with someone with known TMVII. Recent history of travel to a region with reported sexually transmitted ringworm may increase suspicion of TMVII. In patients with a travel history to South Asia, T indotineae should be considered, especially if the rash does not improve with oral terbinafine. 

How can testing help guide the diagnosis of sexually transmitted ringworm infection?

When evaluating a rash that may represent ringworm, providers should use a confirmatory test such as potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparation when possible. KOH prep can confirm the presence of a fungus that causes ringworm, but it does not identify the species or type of ringworm. Testing such as fungal culture and molecular testing can help identify specific types of ringworm, but these tests are not often performed and may take a long time to yield results.

Routine fungal cultures cannot identify TMVII and T indotineae; these tests may identify the genus Trichophyton, but only advanced molecular testing, which is available at selected US laboratories, can identify TMVII and T indotineae. 

We recommend confirmatory testing because ringworm can easily be misdiagnosed as skin conditions such as psoriasis or eczema. The use of topical steroids can worsen a ringworm infection, so clinicians should be cautious about treating a rash with topical steroids if the etiology is unclear. Treatment should not be delayed if testing is not available. 

Clinicians who suspect a case of TMVII infection or infection with another emerging type of severe or antifungal-resistant ringworm can contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at fungaloutbreaks@cdc.gov. More details on how clinicians can pursue testing to identify emerging strains of ringworm can be found on the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) emerging diseases task force website. 

How should clinicians treat and manage sexually transmitted ringworm? 

If TMVII infection is suspected, providers can consider starting empirical treatment with oral terbinafine. Although data are limited, experience from case series suggests that TMVII may require oral antifungal treatment because it can cause severe skin infections and often does not improve with topical antifungals. Clinicians should advise patients that they may need prolonged treatment courses until the rash resolves, with possible need for treatment courses of 6-8 weeks or longer. 

Any diagnosis of a sexually transmitted infection is an opportunity to engage patients in comprehensive sexual health services. Patients with suspected sexually transmitted ringworm should be evaluated for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, including syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea; clinicians should discuss and facilitate access to other preventive services, such as HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis if the patient is HIV negative and at risk for HIV. Patients should also notify their partner(s) about the diagnosis. 

Is sexually transmitted ringworm a public health concern? 

It is important to know that very few cases of TMVII have been reported in the United States thus far. CDC continues to monitor emerging dermatophyte strains because these types of ringworm can cause more severe or difficult-to-treat infections. Clinicians should be aware of the potential severity of sexually transmitted ringworm infections and of how diagnosis and treatment of these infections may differ from typical management of ringworm.

So far, TMVII, the dermatophyte strain most associated with spread through sexual contact, has not been documented to have antifungal resistance. More rarely, sexually transmitted ringworm may be caused by other emerging dermatophyte strains that are antifungal resistant, such as T indotineae. Itraconazole is the recommended first-line treatment for T indotineae infections. 

How can clinicians counsel patients with sexually transmitted ringworm?

Ringworm can spread with skin-to-skin contact, so patients should avoid such contact with others while they have a rash. They should also avoid sharing personal items (such as razors or towels) and clothing, and launder their clothing, towels, and bedding in a high heat cycle. 

People can reduce their risk of getting all types of ringworm infection by keeping their skin clean and dry, changing their socks and underwear daily, and wearing sandals in public locker rooms and other public spaces. People should avoid skin-to-skin contact with anyone with ringworm or an unexplained rash. Before having sex, people can check in with their partners and be aware of unexplained rashes on their partners’ bodies.

Where can clinicians go to learn more about sexually transmitted and other emerging types of ringworm?

CDC has partnered with the AAD to create set of online resources for clinicians for diagnosing and managing emerging dermatophyte infections. Clinicians who suspect or confirm antimicrobial resistant ringworm infection are also encouraged to submit cases to the AAD’s Emerging Diseases Registry. Clinicians wanting further guidance on how to manage suspected or confirmed ringworm infection with an emerging dermatophyte strain can also contact the CDC at fungaloutbreaks@cdc.gov. Useful information on emerging dermatophyte infections for providers and patients is also available on CDC’s website.

Relevant Reading

Zucker J et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2024;73:985-988.Spivack S et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2024;30:807-809.Jabet A et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2023;29:1411-1414.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

Dr Anand is Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Dr Gold is Medical Officer, Mycotic Diseases Branch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr Quilter is Medical Officer, Division of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. None reported any relevant conflicts of interest. 

The story of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), particularly in tackling antibiotic resistance, has been one of false dawns and unfulfilled promises. But perhaps a new generation of “smarter” compounds could see them find a wider role in clinical practice, said experts.

AMPs may be small molecules, consisting of short chains of amino acids, but these naturally occurring compounds have an important function: They are the “frontline defense” against invasive bacteria, said Henrik Franzyk, MSc Engineering, associate professor in the Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

 

Multifunction Line of Defense

AMPs are cationic, meaning they are positively charged. “The reason why nature has maintained these molecules is that all the microbes out there have a negative surface charge,” explained Hans-Georg Sahl, PhD, emeritus professor of pharmaceutical microbiology at the University of Bonn in Germany.

While AMPs are also hydrophobic, they are often amphipathic, with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions that allow them to target cell membranes and cause them to rupture similarly to how detergent acts. 

“Thus, the content of a cell gets released, and it destroys the pathogen,” explained Paulina Szymczak, a PhD candidate in the Institute of AI for Health at Helmholtz Munich, Neuherberg, Germany.

“There are variations of that theme,” said Eefjan Breukink, PhD, professor of microbial membranes and antibiotics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. “And then it depends on the sequence of the particular peptide,” as some can cross the cell membrane and damage the bacterium internally.

Szymczak explained that AMPs can, in this way, target the cell DNA, as both the membrane and the DNA are negatively charged. “That’s also what makes them so powerful because they don’t have just one mechanism of action, as opposed to conventional antibiotics.” 

 

Indiscriminate Killers

But they also have another crucial function. They activate the innate immune system via so-called resident immune cells that are “sitting in the tissues and waiting for bacteria to turn up,” explained Franzyk.

“The problem with antibodies is that they typically need to replicate,” he continued, which takes between 4 and 7 days — a timeline that is much better suited to tackling a viral infection. Bacteria, on the other hand, have a replication cycle of just 30 minutes.

Another big problem is that AMPs kill cells indiscriminately, including our own.

“But the human body is clever in that it only produces these antimicrobial peptides where the bacteria are, so they are not circulating in the blood,” said Franzyk. If a small part of tissue becomes infected, the innate immune cells start producing AMPs, which may kill the bacteria, or call on other immune cells to help.

As part of this process, “they will also kill part of our own tissue, but that’s the price we have to pay,” he said.

 

Local Applications

It is this aspect that has, so far, limited the use of AMPs in clinical practice, certainly as a replacement for conventional antibiotics limited by bacterial resistance. The trials conducted so far have been, by and large, negative, which has dampened enthusiasm and led to the perception that the risk they pose is too great for large-scale investment.

AMPs “are not made for what we need from antibiotics in the first place,” explained Sahl. “That is, a nice, easy distribution in the body, going into abscesses” and throughout the tissues.

He continued that AMPs are “more about controlling the flora in our bodies,” and they are “really not made for being used systemically.” 

Szymczak and colleagues are now working on designing active peptides with a strong antibacterial profile but limited toxicity for systematic use.

However, the “downside with these peptides is that they are not orally available, so you can’t take a pill,” Breukink said, but instead they need to be administered intravenously.

There are, nevertheless, some antibiotics in clinical use that have the same molecular features as AMPs. These include colistin, a last-resort treatment for multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria, and daptomycin, which is used in the treatment of systemic infections caused by gram-positive species.

Szymczak added that there have been successes in using AMPs in a more targeted way, such as using a topical cream. Another potentially promising avenue is lung infections, which are being studied in mouse models.

 

Less Prone to Resistance

Crucially, AMPs are markedly less prone to bacterial resistance than conventional antibiotics, partly because of their typical target: the cell membrane.

“Biologically and evolutionarily, it is a very costly operation to rebuild the membrane and change its charge,” Szymczak explained. “It’s quite hard for bacteria to learn this because it’s not a single protein that you have to mutate but the whole membrane.”

This is seen in the laboratory, where it takes around five generations, or passages, for bacteria to develop resistance when grown in the presence of antibiotics, but up to 40 passages when cultured with an AMP.

The limits of the ability of AMPs to withstand the development of bacterial resistance have been tested in the real world.

Colistin has been used widely in Asia as a growth promoter, especially in pig farming. Franzyk explained that farmers have used enormous quantities of this AMP-based antibiotic, which has indeed led to the development of resistance, including contamination of meat for human consumption, leading to resistance spreading to other parts of the world.

“The bad thing about this is it’s not something each individual bacteria needs to acquire,” he said. Because resistance is stored on small, cyclic DNA called plasmids, it “can be transferred from one bacterial species to another.”

 

Novel Avenues

Franzyk suggested that AMPs could nevertheless be used in combination with, or to modify, existing antibiotics to revitalize those for which there is already bacterial resistance, or to allow antibiotics that ordinarily target only gram-positive bacteria to also treat gram-negative infections, for example.

Szymczak and her colleagues are using artificial intelligence to design novel AMP candidates. Instead of manually going through compounds and checking their activity profiles in the lab, those steps are carried out computationally “so that, in the end, you synthesize as few candidates as possible” and can proceed to a mouse model “as fast as possible.”

She personally is looking at the issue of strain-specific activity to design a compound that would target, for example, only multidrug-resistant strains. “What we can do now is something that will target everything, so a kind of last resort peptide. But we are trying to make them smarter in their targets.”

Szymczak also pointed out that cancer cells are “negatively charged, similarly to bacterial cells, as opposed to mammalian cells, which are neutral.”

“So in theory, maybe we could design something that will target cancer cells but not our host cells, and that would be extremely exciting.” However, she underlined that, first, they are trying to tackle antimicrobial resistance before looking at other spaces.

Finally, Breukink is screening for small antibacterial compounds in fungi that are around half the size of a normal peptide and more hydrophobic, meaning there is a much greater chance of them being orally available.

But “you first have to test, of course,” he said, as “if you don’t have specific targets, then you will get problems with toxicity, or other issues that you do not foresee.” 

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The story of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), particularly in tackling antibiotic resistance, has been one of false dawns and unfulfilled promises. But perhaps a new generation of “smarter” compounds could see them find a wider role in clinical practice, said experts.

AMPs may be small molecules, consisting of short chains of amino acids, but these naturally occurring compounds have an important function: They are the “frontline defense” against invasive bacteria, said Henrik Franzyk, MSc Engineering, associate professor in the Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

 

Multifunction Line of Defense

AMPs are cationic, meaning they are positively charged. “The reason why nature has maintained these molecules is that all the microbes out there have a negative surface charge,” explained Hans-Georg Sahl, PhD, emeritus professor of pharmaceutical microbiology at the University of Bonn in Germany.

While AMPs are also hydrophobic, they are often amphipathic, with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions that allow them to target cell membranes and cause them to rupture similarly to how detergent acts. 

“Thus, the content of a cell gets released, and it destroys the pathogen,” explained Paulina Szymczak, a PhD candidate in the Institute of AI for Health at Helmholtz Munich, Neuherberg, Germany.

“There are variations of that theme,” said Eefjan Breukink, PhD, professor of microbial membranes and antibiotics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. “And then it depends on the sequence of the particular peptide,” as some can cross the cell membrane and damage the bacterium internally.

Szymczak explained that AMPs can, in this way, target the cell DNA, as both the membrane and the DNA are negatively charged. “That’s also what makes them so powerful because they don’t have just one mechanism of action, as opposed to conventional antibiotics.” 

 

Indiscriminate Killers

But they also have another crucial function. They activate the innate immune system via so-called resident immune cells that are “sitting in the tissues and waiting for bacteria to turn up,” explained Franzyk.

“The problem with antibodies is that they typically need to replicate,” he continued, which takes between 4 and 7 days — a timeline that is much better suited to tackling a viral infection. Bacteria, on the other hand, have a replication cycle of just 30 minutes.

Another big problem is that AMPs kill cells indiscriminately, including our own.

“But the human body is clever in that it only produces these antimicrobial peptides where the bacteria are, so they are not circulating in the blood,” said Franzyk. If a small part of tissue becomes infected, the innate immune cells start producing AMPs, which may kill the bacteria, or call on other immune cells to help.

As part of this process, “they will also kill part of our own tissue, but that’s the price we have to pay,” he said.

 

Local Applications

It is this aspect that has, so far, limited the use of AMPs in clinical practice, certainly as a replacement for conventional antibiotics limited by bacterial resistance. The trials conducted so far have been, by and large, negative, which has dampened enthusiasm and led to the perception that the risk they pose is too great for large-scale investment.

AMPs “are not made for what we need from antibiotics in the first place,” explained Sahl. “That is, a nice, easy distribution in the body, going into abscesses” and throughout the tissues.

He continued that AMPs are “more about controlling the flora in our bodies,” and they are “really not made for being used systemically.” 

Szymczak and colleagues are now working on designing active peptides with a strong antibacterial profile but limited toxicity for systematic use.

However, the “downside with these peptides is that they are not orally available, so you can’t take a pill,” Breukink said, but instead they need to be administered intravenously.

There are, nevertheless, some antibiotics in clinical use that have the same molecular features as AMPs. These include colistin, a last-resort treatment for multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria, and daptomycin, which is used in the treatment of systemic infections caused by gram-positive species.

Szymczak added that there have been successes in using AMPs in a more targeted way, such as using a topical cream. Another potentially promising avenue is lung infections, which are being studied in mouse models.

 

Less Prone to Resistance

Crucially, AMPs are markedly less prone to bacterial resistance than conventional antibiotics, partly because of their typical target: the cell membrane.

“Biologically and evolutionarily, it is a very costly operation to rebuild the membrane and change its charge,” Szymczak explained. “It’s quite hard for bacteria to learn this because it’s not a single protein that you have to mutate but the whole membrane.”

This is seen in the laboratory, where it takes around five generations, or passages, for bacteria to develop resistance when grown in the presence of antibiotics, but up to 40 passages when cultured with an AMP.

The limits of the ability of AMPs to withstand the development of bacterial resistance have been tested in the real world.

Colistin has been used widely in Asia as a growth promoter, especially in pig farming. Franzyk explained that farmers have used enormous quantities of this AMP-based antibiotic, which has indeed led to the development of resistance, including contamination of meat for human consumption, leading to resistance spreading to other parts of the world.

“The bad thing about this is it’s not something each individual bacteria needs to acquire,” he said. Because resistance is stored on small, cyclic DNA called plasmids, it “can be transferred from one bacterial species to another.”

 

Novel Avenues

Franzyk suggested that AMPs could nevertheless be used in combination with, or to modify, existing antibiotics to revitalize those for which there is already bacterial resistance, or to allow antibiotics that ordinarily target only gram-positive bacteria to also treat gram-negative infections, for example.

Szymczak and her colleagues are using artificial intelligence to design novel AMP candidates. Instead of manually going through compounds and checking their activity profiles in the lab, those steps are carried out computationally “so that, in the end, you synthesize as few candidates as possible” and can proceed to a mouse model “as fast as possible.”

She personally is looking at the issue of strain-specific activity to design a compound that would target, for example, only multidrug-resistant strains. “What we can do now is something that will target everything, so a kind of last resort peptide. But we are trying to make them smarter in their targets.”

Szymczak also pointed out that cancer cells are “negatively charged, similarly to bacterial cells, as opposed to mammalian cells, which are neutral.”

“So in theory, maybe we could design something that will target cancer cells but not our host cells, and that would be extremely exciting.” However, she underlined that, first, they are trying to tackle antimicrobial resistance before looking at other spaces.

Finally, Breukink is screening for small antibacterial compounds in fungi that are around half the size of a normal peptide and more hydrophobic, meaning there is a much greater chance of them being orally available.

But “you first have to test, of course,” he said, as “if you don’t have specific targets, then you will get problems with toxicity, or other issues that you do not foresee.” 

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The story of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), particularly in tackling antibiotic resistance, has been one of false dawns and unfulfilled promises. But perhaps a new generation of “smarter” compounds could see them find a wider role in clinical practice, said experts.

AMPs may be small molecules, consisting of short chains of amino acids, but these naturally occurring compounds have an important function: They are the “frontline defense” against invasive bacteria, said Henrik Franzyk, MSc Engineering, associate professor in the Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.

 

Multifunction Line of Defense

AMPs are cationic, meaning they are positively charged. “The reason why nature has maintained these molecules is that all the microbes out there have a negative surface charge,” explained Hans-Georg Sahl, PhD, emeritus professor of pharmaceutical microbiology at the University of Bonn in Germany.

While AMPs are also hydrophobic, they are often amphipathic, with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions that allow them to target cell membranes and cause them to rupture similarly to how detergent acts. 

“Thus, the content of a cell gets released, and it destroys the pathogen,” explained Paulina Szymczak, a PhD candidate in the Institute of AI for Health at Helmholtz Munich, Neuherberg, Germany.

“There are variations of that theme,” said Eefjan Breukink, PhD, professor of microbial membranes and antibiotics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. “And then it depends on the sequence of the particular peptide,” as some can cross the cell membrane and damage the bacterium internally.

Szymczak explained that AMPs can, in this way, target the cell DNA, as both the membrane and the DNA are negatively charged. “That’s also what makes them so powerful because they don’t have just one mechanism of action, as opposed to conventional antibiotics.” 

 

Indiscriminate Killers

But they also have another crucial function. They activate the innate immune system via so-called resident immune cells that are “sitting in the tissues and waiting for bacteria to turn up,” explained Franzyk.

“The problem with antibodies is that they typically need to replicate,” he continued, which takes between 4 and 7 days — a timeline that is much better suited to tackling a viral infection. Bacteria, on the other hand, have a replication cycle of just 30 minutes.

Another big problem is that AMPs kill cells indiscriminately, including our own.

“But the human body is clever in that it only produces these antimicrobial peptides where the bacteria are, so they are not circulating in the blood,” said Franzyk. If a small part of tissue becomes infected, the innate immune cells start producing AMPs, which may kill the bacteria, or call on other immune cells to help.

As part of this process, “they will also kill part of our own tissue, but that’s the price we have to pay,” he said.

 

Local Applications

It is this aspect that has, so far, limited the use of AMPs in clinical practice, certainly as a replacement for conventional antibiotics limited by bacterial resistance. The trials conducted so far have been, by and large, negative, which has dampened enthusiasm and led to the perception that the risk they pose is too great for large-scale investment.

AMPs “are not made for what we need from antibiotics in the first place,” explained Sahl. “That is, a nice, easy distribution in the body, going into abscesses” and throughout the tissues.

He continued that AMPs are “more about controlling the flora in our bodies,” and they are “really not made for being used systemically.” 

Szymczak and colleagues are now working on designing active peptides with a strong antibacterial profile but limited toxicity for systematic use.

However, the “downside with these peptides is that they are not orally available, so you can’t take a pill,” Breukink said, but instead they need to be administered intravenously.

There are, nevertheless, some antibiotics in clinical use that have the same molecular features as AMPs. These include colistin, a last-resort treatment for multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria, and daptomycin, which is used in the treatment of systemic infections caused by gram-positive species.

Szymczak added that there have been successes in using AMPs in a more targeted way, such as using a topical cream. Another potentially promising avenue is lung infections, which are being studied in mouse models.

 

Less Prone to Resistance

Crucially, AMPs are markedly less prone to bacterial resistance than conventional antibiotics, partly because of their typical target: the cell membrane.

“Biologically and evolutionarily, it is a very costly operation to rebuild the membrane and change its charge,” Szymczak explained. “It’s quite hard for bacteria to learn this because it’s not a single protein that you have to mutate but the whole membrane.”

This is seen in the laboratory, where it takes around five generations, or passages, for bacteria to develop resistance when grown in the presence of antibiotics, but up to 40 passages when cultured with an AMP.

The limits of the ability of AMPs to withstand the development of bacterial resistance have been tested in the real world.

Colistin has been used widely in Asia as a growth promoter, especially in pig farming. Franzyk explained that farmers have used enormous quantities of this AMP-based antibiotic, which has indeed led to the development of resistance, including contamination of meat for human consumption, leading to resistance spreading to other parts of the world.

“The bad thing about this is it’s not something each individual bacteria needs to acquire,” he said. Because resistance is stored on small, cyclic DNA called plasmids, it “can be transferred from one bacterial species to another.”

 

Novel Avenues

Franzyk suggested that AMPs could nevertheless be used in combination with, or to modify, existing antibiotics to revitalize those for which there is already bacterial resistance, or to allow antibiotics that ordinarily target only gram-positive bacteria to also treat gram-negative infections, for example.

Szymczak and her colleagues are using artificial intelligence to design novel AMP candidates. Instead of manually going through compounds and checking their activity profiles in the lab, those steps are carried out computationally “so that, in the end, you synthesize as few candidates as possible” and can proceed to a mouse model “as fast as possible.”

She personally is looking at the issue of strain-specific activity to design a compound that would target, for example, only multidrug-resistant strains. “What we can do now is something that will target everything, so a kind of last resort peptide. But we are trying to make them smarter in their targets.”

Szymczak also pointed out that cancer cells are “negatively charged, similarly to bacterial cells, as opposed to mammalian cells, which are neutral.”

“So in theory, maybe we could design something that will target cancer cells but not our host cells, and that would be extremely exciting.” However, she underlined that, first, they are trying to tackle antimicrobial resistance before looking at other spaces.

Finally, Breukink is screening for small antibacterial compounds in fungi that are around half the size of a normal peptide and more hydrophobic, meaning there is a much greater chance of them being orally available.

But “you first have to test, of course,” he said, as “if you don’t have specific targets, then you will get problems with toxicity, or other issues that you do not foresee.” 

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Early treatment with oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission was associated with fewer severe clinical outcomes, such as worsening pulmonary disease, need for invasive ventilation, organ failure, and in-hospital death in adults hospitalized with influenza. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The 2018 guidelines from the Infectious Disease Society of America recommend prompt administration of oseltamivir to hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed influenza, regardless of the time of symptom onset; however, variations in treatment practices and circulating virus strains may affect the effectiveness of this practice guideline.
• Researchers conducted a multicenter observational study across 24 hospitals in the United States during the 2022-2023 flu season to assess the benefits of initiating oseltamivir treatment on the same day as hospital admission for adults with acute influenza, compared with late or no treatment.
• They included 840 adults (age, ≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed influenza, of which 415 patients initiated oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission (early treatment).
• Among the 425 patients in the late/no treatment group, most (78%) received oseltamivir 1 day after admission, while 124 did not receive oseltamivir at all.
• The primary outcome was the peak pulmonary disease severity level that patients experienced during hospitalization, and secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, ICU admission, initiation of extrapulmonary organ support using vasopressors or kidney replacement therapy, and in-hospital death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the early treatment group were less likely to experience progression and severe progression of pulmonary disease after the day of hospital admission, compared with those in the late or no treatment group (P < .001 and P = .027, respectively).
• Patients who received early oseltamivir treatment had 40% lower peak pulmonary disease severity than those who received late or no treatment (proportional adjusted odds ratio [paOR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.72).
• They also showed lower odds of ICU admission (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.49) and use of acute kidney replacement therapy or vasopressors (aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67).
• Those in the early treatment group also had a shorter hospital length of stay (median, 4 days vs 4 days) and faced a 64% lower risk for in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.69) compared with those in the late or no treatment group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support current recommendations, such as the IDSA [Infectious Disease Society of America] Influenza Clinical Practice Guidelines and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidance, to initiate oseltamivir treatment as soon as possible for adult patients hospitalized with influenza,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Nathaniel M. Lewis, PhD, Influenza Division, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia, and was published online  in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

This study may not be generalizable to seasons when influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 or B viruses are predominant as it was conducted during an influenza A(H3N2) virus–predominant season. The study lacked sufficient power to examine various oseltamivir treatment initiation timepoints or identify a potential maximum time-to-treatment threshold for effectiveness. Moreover, variables such as outpatient antiviral treatment before hospital admission and other treatments using macrolides, statins, corticosteroids, or immunomodulators before or during hospitalization were not collected, which may have influenced the study findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the CDC and the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Some authors reported receiving research support, consulting fees, funding, grants, or fees for participation in an advisory board and having other ties with certain institutions and pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Early treatment with oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission was associated with fewer severe clinical outcomes, such as worsening pulmonary disease, need for invasive ventilation, organ failure, and in-hospital death in adults hospitalized with influenza. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The 2018 guidelines from the Infectious Disease Society of America recommend prompt administration of oseltamivir to hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed influenza, regardless of the time of symptom onset; however, variations in treatment practices and circulating virus strains may affect the effectiveness of this practice guideline.
• Researchers conducted a multicenter observational study across 24 hospitals in the United States during the 2022-2023 flu season to assess the benefits of initiating oseltamivir treatment on the same day as hospital admission for adults with acute influenza, compared with late or no treatment.
• They included 840 adults (age, ≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed influenza, of which 415 patients initiated oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission (early treatment).
• Among the 425 patients in the late/no treatment group, most (78%) received oseltamivir 1 day after admission, while 124 did not receive oseltamivir at all.
• The primary outcome was the peak pulmonary disease severity level that patients experienced during hospitalization, and secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, ICU admission, initiation of extrapulmonary organ support using vasopressors or kidney replacement therapy, and in-hospital death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the early treatment group were less likely to experience progression and severe progression of pulmonary disease after the day of hospital admission, compared with those in the late or no treatment group (P < .001 and P = .027, respectively).
• Patients who received early oseltamivir treatment had 40% lower peak pulmonary disease severity than those who received late or no treatment (proportional adjusted odds ratio [paOR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.72).
• They also showed lower odds of ICU admission (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.49) and use of acute kidney replacement therapy or vasopressors (aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67).
• Those in the early treatment group also had a shorter hospital length of stay (median, 4 days vs 4 days) and faced a 64% lower risk for in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.69) compared with those in the late or no treatment group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support current recommendations, such as the IDSA [Infectious Disease Society of America] Influenza Clinical Practice Guidelines and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidance, to initiate oseltamivir treatment as soon as possible for adult patients hospitalized with influenza,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Nathaniel M. Lewis, PhD, Influenza Division, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia, and was published online  in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

This study may not be generalizable to seasons when influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 or B viruses are predominant as it was conducted during an influenza A(H3N2) virus–predominant season. The study lacked sufficient power to examine various oseltamivir treatment initiation timepoints or identify a potential maximum time-to-treatment threshold for effectiveness. Moreover, variables such as outpatient antiviral treatment before hospital admission and other treatments using macrolides, statins, corticosteroids, or immunomodulators before or during hospitalization were not collected, which may have influenced the study findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the CDC and the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Some authors reported receiving research support, consulting fees, funding, grants, or fees for participation in an advisory board and having other ties with certain institutions and pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Early treatment with oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission was associated with fewer severe clinical outcomes, such as worsening pulmonary disease, need for invasive ventilation, organ failure, and in-hospital death in adults hospitalized with influenza. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The 2018 guidelines from the Infectious Disease Society of America recommend prompt administration of oseltamivir to hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed influenza, regardless of the time of symptom onset; however, variations in treatment practices and circulating virus strains may affect the effectiveness of this practice guideline.
• Researchers conducted a multicenter observational study across 24 hospitals in the United States during the 2022-2023 flu season to assess the benefits of initiating oseltamivir treatment on the same day as hospital admission for adults with acute influenza, compared with late or no treatment.
• They included 840 adults (age, ≥ 18 years) with laboratory-confirmed influenza, of which 415 patients initiated oseltamivir on the same day as hospital admission (early treatment).
• Among the 425 patients in the late/no treatment group, most (78%) received oseltamivir 1 day after admission, while 124 did not receive oseltamivir at all.
• The primary outcome was the peak pulmonary disease severity level that patients experienced during hospitalization, and secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, ICU admission, initiation of extrapulmonary organ support using vasopressors or kidney replacement therapy, and in-hospital death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the early treatment group were less likely to experience progression and severe progression of pulmonary disease after the day of hospital admission, compared with those in the late or no treatment group (P < .001 and P = .027, respectively).
• Patients who received early oseltamivir treatment had 40% lower peak pulmonary disease severity than those who received late or no treatment (proportional adjusted odds ratio [paOR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.49-0.72).
• They also showed lower odds of ICU admission (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.49) and use of acute kidney replacement therapy or vasopressors (aOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67).
• Those in the early treatment group also had a shorter hospital length of stay (median, 4 days vs 4 days) and faced a 64% lower risk for in-hospital mortality (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.69) compared with those in the late or no treatment group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support current recommendations, such as the IDSA [Infectious Disease Society of America] Influenza Clinical Practice Guidelines and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidance, to initiate oseltamivir treatment as soon as possible for adult patients hospitalized with influenza,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Nathaniel M. Lewis, PhD, Influenza Division, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia, and was published online  in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

This study may not be generalizable to seasons when influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 or B viruses are predominant as it was conducted during an influenza A(H3N2) virus–predominant season. The study lacked sufficient power to examine various oseltamivir treatment initiation timepoints or identify a potential maximum time-to-treatment threshold for effectiveness. Moreover, variables such as outpatient antiviral treatment before hospital admission and other treatments using macrolides, statins, corticosteroids, or immunomodulators before or during hospitalization were not collected, which may have influenced the study findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the CDC and the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Some authors reported receiving research support, consulting fees, funding, grants, or fees for participation in an advisory board and having other ties with certain institutions and pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The updated COVID vaccines for 2024-2025 are officially here, designed to target the latest variants and offer robust protection — but getting Americans to roll up their sleeves could prove harder than ever. With COVID cases on the decline, many people feel the urgency has passed.

As of December 2, the CDC reports that COVID test positivity remains low, rising slightly to 4.5% for the week ending November 23, compared with 4.2% the previous week. That’s a far cry from the early days of 2022, when positivity rates soared above 30%. Emergency room visits for COVID now make up just 0.5%, and deaths are down to 0.8% of total weekly fatalities, compared to 1% the previous week.

This steady improvement in the numbers may explain why a recent Pew Research Center survey revealed that 6 in 10 US adults have no plans to get the updated vaccine this year.

As of December 2, according to the CDC, just 19.7% of the US adult population and 9.4% of children had gotten the updated vaccine. The age group most likely? Adults ages 65 and older, with 41.6% getting the updated shot.

Despite the good news about declining cases, our pandemic history suggests a pre-holiday increase is likely. On November 20, the CDC warned it expects levels of both COVID and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) to rise in the coming weeks — the familiar post-Thanksgiving, pre-Christmas, and Hanukkah increase.

Here’s what to know about the 2024-2025 vaccines — what’s available, how the updated versions are tested, how well each protects you, side effects and other safety information, the best time to get them, and where.



 

What’s Available?

Three updated vaccines, which work two different ways, are authorized or licensed by the FDA for the 2024-2025 season:

Novavax. A protein subunit vaccine, Novavax is authorized for emergency use by the FDA in people ages 12 and older. The vaccine makes a protein that mimics the SARS-CoV-2 virus’ version of the spike protein and combines it with an adjuvant or “booster” to stimulate a protective immune response. This year’s version targets the JN.1 variant.

Pfizer/BioNTech. Its Comirnaty is a fully licensed vaccine for people ages 12 and older. Its mechanism of action is by messenger RNA (mRNA). It works by instructing cells to produce viral proteins, triggering an immune response. Pfizer’s COVID vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children ages 6 months to 11 years. This year’s version targets KP.2.

Moderna. Its Spikevax is a fully licensed vaccine for people ages 12 and older. It is also an mRNA vaccine. Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children ages 6 months to 11 years. This year’s version targets KP.2.

 

How Effective Are They?

Before being approved for this year’s use, each company had to show its updated vaccine is effective against the currently circulating variants. For the 2 weeks ending November 23, KP.3.1.1 and XEC, from the Omicron lineage, made up the majority of cases, according to CDC data.

How do the vaccine makers know their updated vaccines are targeting the circulating variants? The companies use “pre-clinical” data, which means the updated versions have not yet been tested in people but in other ways, such as animal studies. But they do have to prove to the FDA that their updated vaccine can neutralize the circulating variants.

Companies continue to monitor their updated vaccines as new variants appear. Later in the season, there will be more specific information about how well each vaccine protects in people after tracking real-world data.

 

What About Side Effects?

The CDC lists comparable side effects for both mRNA and protein COVID vaccines, including pain and soreness from the needle, fatigue, headache, muscle pain joint pain, chills, fever, nausea, and vomiting.

Severe allergic reactions are rare, the CDC says, but cautions to be alert for low blood pressure, swelling of the lips, tongue, or throat, or difficulty breathing.

 

Which One Is Best?

“I consider the three currently available COVID vaccines — Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax — interchangeable,’’ said Scott Roberts, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and assistant professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. “There have not been head-to-head studies, and the initial vaccine studies for each were performed at different phases of the pandemic, so we do not have great data to guide which one is better than another.”

He does point out the different mechanisms of action, which may make a difference in people’s choice of vaccines. “So if someone has a reaction to one of them, they can switch to a different brand.”

 

Best Time to Get It?

“We have consistently seen COVID rates rise quite significantly in the winter season, especially around the holidays. So if anyone is on the fence and hasn’t gotten the updated vaccine yet, now is a great time to get it to maximize immunity for the holidays,” he said.

What’s next? In late October, the CDC recommended a second dose of the 2024-2025 vaccine 6 months after the first one for those age 65 and above and those 6 months old and older who are moderately or severely immunocompromised.

Now, while it’s tempting to think rates are down and will continue to drop steadily, Roberts reminds people that pandemic history suggests otherwise.

 

Coverage

Most people can get COVID-19 vaccines at no cost through their private health insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare. For the uninsured, there’s also the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program or access through state and local health departments and some health centers. Find details on the CDC website.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

The updated COVID vaccines for 2024-2025 are officially here, designed to target the latest variants and offer robust protection — but getting Americans to roll up their sleeves could prove harder than ever. With COVID cases on the decline, many people feel the urgency has passed.

As of December 2, the CDC reports that COVID test positivity remains low, rising slightly to 4.5% for the week ending November 23, compared with 4.2% the previous week. That’s a far cry from the early days of 2022, when positivity rates soared above 30%. Emergency room visits for COVID now make up just 0.5%, and deaths are down to 0.8% of total weekly fatalities, compared to 1% the previous week.

This steady improvement in the numbers may explain why a recent Pew Research Center survey revealed that 6 in 10 US adults have no plans to get the updated vaccine this year.

As of December 2, according to the CDC, just 19.7% of the US adult population and 9.4% of children had gotten the updated vaccine. The age group most likely? Adults ages 65 and older, with 41.6% getting the updated shot.

Despite the good news about declining cases, our pandemic history suggests a pre-holiday increase is likely. On November 20, the CDC warned it expects levels of both COVID and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) to rise in the coming weeks — the familiar post-Thanksgiving, pre-Christmas, and Hanukkah increase.

Here’s what to know about the 2024-2025 vaccines — what’s available, how the updated versions are tested, how well each protects you, side effects and other safety information, the best time to get them, and where.



 

What’s Available?

Three updated vaccines, which work two different ways, are authorized or licensed by the FDA for the 2024-2025 season:

Novavax. A protein subunit vaccine, Novavax is authorized for emergency use by the FDA in people ages 12 and older. The vaccine makes a protein that mimics the SARS-CoV-2 virus’ version of the spike protein and combines it with an adjuvant or “booster” to stimulate a protective immune response. This year’s version targets the JN.1 variant.

Pfizer/BioNTech. Its Comirnaty is a fully licensed vaccine for people ages 12 and older. Its mechanism of action is by messenger RNA (mRNA). It works by instructing cells to produce viral proteins, triggering an immune response. Pfizer’s COVID vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children ages 6 months to 11 years. This year’s version targets KP.2.

Moderna. Its Spikevax is a fully licensed vaccine for people ages 12 and older. It is also an mRNA vaccine. Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children ages 6 months to 11 years. This year’s version targets KP.2.

 

How Effective Are They?

Before being approved for this year’s use, each company had to show its updated vaccine is effective against the currently circulating variants. For the 2 weeks ending November 23, KP.3.1.1 and XEC, from the Omicron lineage, made up the majority of cases, according to CDC data.

How do the vaccine makers know their updated vaccines are targeting the circulating variants? The companies use “pre-clinical” data, which means the updated versions have not yet been tested in people but in other ways, such as animal studies. But they do have to prove to the FDA that their updated vaccine can neutralize the circulating variants.

Companies continue to monitor their updated vaccines as new variants appear. Later in the season, there will be more specific information about how well each vaccine protects in people after tracking real-world data.

 

What About Side Effects?

The CDC lists comparable side effects for both mRNA and protein COVID vaccines, including pain and soreness from the needle, fatigue, headache, muscle pain joint pain, chills, fever, nausea, and vomiting.

Severe allergic reactions are rare, the CDC says, but cautions to be alert for low blood pressure, swelling of the lips, tongue, or throat, or difficulty breathing.

 

Which One Is Best?

“I consider the three currently available COVID vaccines — Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax — interchangeable,’’ said Scott Roberts, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and assistant professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. “There have not been head-to-head studies, and the initial vaccine studies for each were performed at different phases of the pandemic, so we do not have great data to guide which one is better than another.”

He does point out the different mechanisms of action, which may make a difference in people’s choice of vaccines. “So if someone has a reaction to one of them, they can switch to a different brand.”

 

Best Time to Get It?

“We have consistently seen COVID rates rise quite significantly in the winter season, especially around the holidays. So if anyone is on the fence and hasn’t gotten the updated vaccine yet, now is a great time to get it to maximize immunity for the holidays,” he said.

What’s next? In late October, the CDC recommended a second dose of the 2024-2025 vaccine 6 months after the first one for those age 65 and above and those 6 months old and older who are moderately or severely immunocompromised.

Now, while it’s tempting to think rates are down and will continue to drop steadily, Roberts reminds people that pandemic history suggests otherwise.

 

Coverage

Most people can get COVID-19 vaccines at no cost through their private health insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare. For the uninsured, there’s also the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program or access through state and local health departments and some health centers. Find details on the CDC website.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.

The updated COVID vaccines for 2024-2025 are officially here, designed to target the latest variants and offer robust protection — but getting Americans to roll up their sleeves could prove harder than ever. With COVID cases on the decline, many people feel the urgency has passed.

As of December 2, the CDC reports that COVID test positivity remains low, rising slightly to 4.5% for the week ending November 23, compared with 4.2% the previous week. That’s a far cry from the early days of 2022, when positivity rates soared above 30%. Emergency room visits for COVID now make up just 0.5%, and deaths are down to 0.8% of total weekly fatalities, compared to 1% the previous week.

This steady improvement in the numbers may explain why a recent Pew Research Center survey revealed that 6 in 10 US adults have no plans to get the updated vaccine this year.

As of December 2, according to the CDC, just 19.7% of the US adult population and 9.4% of children had gotten the updated vaccine. The age group most likely? Adults ages 65 and older, with 41.6% getting the updated shot.

Despite the good news about declining cases, our pandemic history suggests a pre-holiday increase is likely. On November 20, the CDC warned it expects levels of both COVID and RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) to rise in the coming weeks — the familiar post-Thanksgiving, pre-Christmas, and Hanukkah increase.

Here’s what to know about the 2024-2025 vaccines — what’s available, how the updated versions are tested, how well each protects you, side effects and other safety information, the best time to get them, and where.



 

What’s Available?

Three updated vaccines, which work two different ways, are authorized or licensed by the FDA for the 2024-2025 season:

Novavax. A protein subunit vaccine, Novavax is authorized for emergency use by the FDA in people ages 12 and older. The vaccine makes a protein that mimics the SARS-CoV-2 virus’ version of the spike protein and combines it with an adjuvant or “booster” to stimulate a protective immune response. This year’s version targets the JN.1 variant.

Pfizer/BioNTech. Its Comirnaty is a fully licensed vaccine for people ages 12 and older. Its mechanism of action is by messenger RNA (mRNA). It works by instructing cells to produce viral proteins, triggering an immune response. Pfizer’s COVID vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children ages 6 months to 11 years. This year’s version targets KP.2.

Moderna. Its Spikevax is a fully licensed vaccine for people ages 12 and older. It is also an mRNA vaccine. Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine is authorized for emergency use in children ages 6 months to 11 years. This year’s version targets KP.2.

 

How Effective Are They?

Before being approved for this year’s use, each company had to show its updated vaccine is effective against the currently circulating variants. For the 2 weeks ending November 23, KP.3.1.1 and XEC, from the Omicron lineage, made up the majority of cases, according to CDC data.

How do the vaccine makers know their updated vaccines are targeting the circulating variants? The companies use “pre-clinical” data, which means the updated versions have not yet been tested in people but in other ways, such as animal studies. But they do have to prove to the FDA that their updated vaccine can neutralize the circulating variants.

Companies continue to monitor their updated vaccines as new variants appear. Later in the season, there will be more specific information about how well each vaccine protects in people after tracking real-world data.

 

What About Side Effects?

The CDC lists comparable side effects for both mRNA and protein COVID vaccines, including pain and soreness from the needle, fatigue, headache, muscle pain joint pain, chills, fever, nausea, and vomiting.

Severe allergic reactions are rare, the CDC says, but cautions to be alert for low blood pressure, swelling of the lips, tongue, or throat, or difficulty breathing.

 

Which One Is Best?

“I consider the three currently available COVID vaccines — Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax — interchangeable,’’ said Scott Roberts, MD, an infectious diseases specialist and assistant professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. “There have not been head-to-head studies, and the initial vaccine studies for each were performed at different phases of the pandemic, so we do not have great data to guide which one is better than another.”

He does point out the different mechanisms of action, which may make a difference in people’s choice of vaccines. “So if someone has a reaction to one of them, they can switch to a different brand.”

 

Best Time to Get It?

“We have consistently seen COVID rates rise quite significantly in the winter season, especially around the holidays. So if anyone is on the fence and hasn’t gotten the updated vaccine yet, now is a great time to get it to maximize immunity for the holidays,” he said.

What’s next? In late October, the CDC recommended a second dose of the 2024-2025 vaccine 6 months after the first one for those age 65 and above and those 6 months old and older who are moderately or severely immunocompromised.

Now, while it’s tempting to think rates are down and will continue to drop steadily, Roberts reminds people that pandemic history suggests otherwise.

 

Coverage

Most people can get COVID-19 vaccines at no cost through their private health insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare. For the uninsured, there’s also the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program or access through state and local health departments and some health centers. Find details on the CDC website.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.