Many With Posttraumatic Headache Go Undiagnosed, Untreated
MINNEAPOLIS — Posttraumatic headache (PTH) is frequently misdiagnosed and undertreated in nonspecialist settings, highlighting a critical gap in diagnostic accuracy, treatment access, and integrated care for this complex condition, new research showed.
Investigators found that patients with the condition are frequently misdiagnosed and undertreated in nonspecialist settings. Further, most are only correctly diagnosed with a migraine phenotype after evaluation by a headache specialist.
'A central message of our work is that the diagnosis of 'headache' is too often treated as a monolith — an endpoint rather than the beginning of a diagnostic journey,' study investigator Natalia Murinova, MD, clinical professor of neurology, and director of the headache clinic at the University of Washington (UW), Seattle, told Medscape Medical News .
The results of the retrospective analysis were presented at the American Headache Society (AHS) Annual Meeting 2025.
Precision in Diagnosis Essential
Chronic PTH is a secondary headache disorder caused by a primary condition such as head injury. The condition is also characterized by comorbidities that include psychiatric and sleep disorders, which can worsen headache symptoms. Further, chronic PTH can mimic other primary headache disorders such as chronic migraine and chronic tension-type headache.
'For patients with posttraumatic headache, particularly those whose symptoms persist and evolve into a chronic phenotype, it is imperative to move beyond the nonspecific label of 'headache' and identify the precise headache disorder using ICHD [International Classification of Headache Disorders]-3 criteria,' Murinova said.
The retrospective analysis included 2552 patients diagnosed with chronic PTH at the UW Medical Center. Researchers identified a subset of 728 patients and 1817 who were seen in non-headache clinics.
In both groups, they assessed the prevalence of comorbid migraine and headache phenotypes, psychiatric disorders — including major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder — and sleep disorders such as insomnia and obstructive sleep apnea.
They also analyzed the use of preventive medications, including beta-blockers, antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies, preventive gepants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and memantine.
Results showed that 662 patients (90.94%) at the headache clinic and 599 patients (33.96%) at the non-headache clinic were diagnosed with episodic migraine. In addition, 598 patients (82.14%) at the headache clinic and 285 patients (15.69%) at the non-headache clinic were diagnosed with chronic migraine.
Compared with patients at the non-headache clinic, their counterparts attending the headache clinic were also more likely to be diagnosed with chronic PTH phenotypes such as medication overuse headache (25.55% vs 4.46%), chronic tension headache (10.58% vs 5.89%), episodic tension headache (7.97% vs 5.94%), cluster headache (1.92% vs 1.43%), hemicrania continua (1.37% vs 0.50%), and headaches related to cerebrospinal fluid leak (0.55% vs 0.72%).
The most common psychiatric and sleep-related comorbidities were depression (27.50%), anxiety (25.74%), insomnia (9.25%), posttraumatic stress disorder (8.06%), and obstructive sleep apnea (2.62%).
Missed Therapeutic Opportunities
More than 50% of patients at the non-headache clinic received no other headache diagnosis, while very few patients at the headache clinic had no additional headache diagnosis (58.94% vs 5.36%).
'This likely reflects a combination of factors: Gaps in access to headache-trained clinicians, underrecognition of chronic posttraumatic headache as a treatable neurological disorder, and a fragmented approach to posttrauma care,' Murinova explained.
'It's also possible that some patients received nonpharmacologic interventions such as physical therapy, behavioral therapy, or complementary modalities, but these were not consistently documented in the EMR [electronic health record].'
'Nonetheless, the underutilization of preventive pharmacotherapy underscores a broader issue of missed therapeutic opportunities, especially in patients with treatable phenotypes,' she added.
Most patients (71.11%) at the non-headache clinic were not taking preventative medications, but among those who were, beta-blockers (9.19%), TCAs (9.36%), SNRIs (9.41%), AEDs (8.26%), and memantine (4.73%) were the most commonly prescribed medications.
Patients in the non-headache clinic were also taking antihypertensive medications (4.68%), CGRP inhibitors, preventive gepants (2.04%), cyproheptadine (0.06%), and onabotulinumtoxinA (1.10%).
At the headache clinic, patients were less likely to be prescribed TCAs (3.43%) and more likely to be prescribed memantine (40.80%), CGRP inhibitors (17.17%), and onabotulinumtoxinA (11.40%) than patients at the non-headache clinic.
Why Headache Classification Matters
The distinction between headache types is not academic. It directly informs treatment eligibility,' said Murinova.
If a patient is diagnosed with chronic migraine as a phenotype of PTH, they may be eligible to receive treatments like onabotulinumtoxinA or anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies, while patients with a more ambiguous diagnosis may not have access to these therapies, she explained.
'Diagnostic specificity is both a clinical and systems-level imperative,' Murinova said.
In an ideal scenario, patients with chronic PTH would be treated by an interdisciplinary team — including a neurologist, rehabilitation medicine specialist, physical therapist, and behavioral health provider — who would evaluate the headache phenotype and address comorbidities such as sleep disturbances, mood symptoms, and autonomic dysregulation, Murinova said.
'By establishing structured care pathways and triage algorithms, institutions can streamline referrals and reduce diagnostic delays,' she added.
More than 50% of patients at the non-headache clinic received no other headache diagnosis, while very few patients at the headache clinic had no additional headache diagnosis (58.94% vs 5.36%).
Need for Collaboration, Network Building
Commenting on the research, Hope O'Brien, MD, MBA, founder and chief executive officer of the Headache Center of Hope in Cincinnati, who was not involved in the research, said the results of the study were not surprising.
Despite efforts from specialists to educate providers treating patients with chronic conditions, chronic PTH remains undiagnosed and undertreated,' O'Brien told Medscape Medical News .
Previous research has shown that an accurate diagnosis is more likely with a headache specialist than a non-headache specialist, despite diagnostic tools to provide that diagnosis, O'Brien noted.
'It's very simple, but unfortunately most providers who see patients with headaches are unaware that these exist, or they believe that it takes too much time to use the tools to make these diagnoses,' she added.
Also commenting for Medscape Medical News , Amaal J. Starling, MD, associate professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, who was not involved in the study, noted that treating PTH is particularly challenging, as the FDA has not approved any treatments specifically for the condition due to a lack of supporting evidence.
While headache specialists have expertise in managing conditions like PTH, the limited number of specialists makes it impractical for them to treat all patients. Instead, they can play a collaborative role in managing more complex cases, Starling noted. 'However,' she added, 'I do agree that creating standardized evaluation protocols and flow charts for the management of PTH may be helpful for the non-headache clinicians.'
Comorbidities such as depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and insomnia 'not only complicate the clinical picture, but they can also perpetuate or exacerbate headache symptoms, and it can contribute to the chronicity and functional impairment of patients,' O'Brien noted.
Both experts emphasized that effective management of concussion and PTH requires a multidisciplinary, patient-centered approach. Starling highlighted the importance of building collaborative networks with specialists in areas such as sleep and psychiatry to ensure coordinated care.
O'Brien underscored that the high rate of underdiagnosis and complex comorbidities among patients with PTH further reinforces the need for integrative care models that support long-term recovery.
'We need to learn to adopt a patient-centered approach, and as clinicians and providers who see these patients, we need to better manage them and recognize that they're complex with their comorbid conditions. Ultimately, we need to have a more sustainable, meaningful plan to encourage recovery,' said O'Brien.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Geek Wire
4 days ago
- Geek Wire
University of Washington celebrates Rubin Observatory's debut — and looks ahead
University of Washington astronomer Zeljko Ivezic talks about the Rubin Observatory — a project in which he played a leading role — with an image of the facility displayed behind him. (GeekWire Photo / Alan Boyle) It's been more than two decades since the University of Washington helped kick off the effort to get the Vera C. Rubin Observatory built in Chile — and now that it's finished, UW astronomers are gearing up to get in on the first decade of discoveries. The university's role in the past, present and future of the Rubin Observatory and its 10-year Legacy Survey of Space and Time, or LSST, literally took center stage in front of a packed house at UW's Kane Hall on Thursday night. UW astronomer Zeljko Ivezic, who served as director of Rubin construction and is shifting his focus to his role as head of science operations for LSST, recalled the night of April 15, when Rubin's first test images came in for fine tuning. 'We were all so happy, and we are still happy,' he said. 'We had been dreaming about this night for two decades, and it finally arrived. And not only that, we quickly obtained beautiful data, but also we continued to do so, and every new image was better and better. The observatory is performing beyond all our expectations.' Ivezic showed off the images of swirling galaxies and colorful nebulas that he first unveiled earlier in the week at a ceremony in Washington, D.C. And he talked up an online tool called Skyviewer that allows users to click around the observatory's 3,200-megapixel images and zoom in on details. 'It's an easy-to-use app,' he told the audience. 'When you go home tonight, then you can spend the next few hours just going around. Turn off the light in your room and then look at your screen, and it will be fantastic.' University of Washington Zeljko Ivezic shows off his Rubin Observatory necktie and matching nail polish. The tie is on sale via the Startorialist website. (GeekWire Photo / Alan Boyle) The University of Washington's involvement in the Rubin Observatory goes back to the early 2000s, when astronomers began considering how a next-generation sky survey might be accomplished. In its early years, the project was known as the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (which set the precedent for the LSST acronym). UW was one of four founding partners of the LSST Corporation, an entity that was set up to get the project started. (That nonprofit group, which was subsequently renamed the LSST Discovery Alliance, now has 40 member institutions.) In 2008, the project got a huge boost from Microsoft billionaires Bill Gates and Charles Simonyi — who donated $10 million and $20 million, respectively, to support early work on the telescope's 8.4-meter-wide (28-foot-wide) mirror. As the years went on, support for the project grew, fueled by a high rating in the National Research Council's 2010 Decadal Survey. Eventually, the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science allocated hundreds of millions of dollars for building the observatory in Chile, where dry air and dark skies made for optimal viewing conditions. In 2019, the observatory was officially named in honor of astronomer Vera Rubin, who analyzed galactic rotation rates to nail down the first convincing evidence for the existence of dark matter. The survey telescope, meanwhile, was named after Simonyi's family in recognition of his early gift. Today, UW's Rubin Observatory team consists of about 75 faculty members and graduate students, plus scores of undergraduates. University of Washington astronomer Mario Juric, the team's principal investigator, noted that UW played an essential role in getting the observatory up and running. 'None of this would be possible without the Rubin team right here at UW,' he told Thursday night's audience. Members of the University of Washington's team for the Rubin Observatory's Legacy Survey of Space and Time pose for a group picture after a presentation at UW's Kane Hall. (GeekWire Photo / Alan Boyle) That essential role will continue into the next decade. In partnership with Princeton University, UW's team is responsible for the software that processes the trillions of bytes of image data that are generated by the observatory on a nightly basis. That work meshes with the leading roles in Rubin operations that are performed by the National Science Foundation's NOIRLab and the Department of Energy's SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. 'We're here to figure out how to build algorithms to get the most out of data, how to make the software work as well as it can,' Juric told GeekWire. Andrew Connolly, another UW astronomer who is the director of the university's eScience Institute, said the university's researchers are relying on machine learning and other artificial intelligence strategies 'to accelerate our discoveries.' 'We build AI that allows us to study the variability in time series data. We build new tools at U Dub to search for the signatures of a distant planet in the outskirts of our solar system,' he said. 'We even use AI to improve the image quality and the sharpness of the images that you see.' Astronomers expect the data from Rubin to reveal millions of previously undetected asteroids in our own solar system, shed light on the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy, track phenomena including gamma-ray bursts and supernovas, and capture images of billions of galaxies repeatedly over the coming decade. James Davenport — who is the newly named director of the university's DiRAC Institute, taking a handoff from Juric — said it's going to be an exciting 10 years. 'We are going to discover things we don't expect,' he said.
Atlantic
4 days ago
- Atlantic
America's Coming Smoke Epidemic
For 49 straight days, everyone in Seeley Lake was breathing smoke. A wildfire had ignited outside the small rural community in Montana, and the plume of smoke had parked itself over the houses. Air quality plummeted. At several moments, the concentration of particulate matter in the air exceeded the upper limit of what monitors could measure. Christopher Migliaccio, an associate professor of immunology at the University of Montana, saw an opportunity to do what few have ever done: study what happens after people get exposed to wildfire smoke. He and his team quickly cobbled together funding and drove out to Seeley Lake to get data. That was in 2017. The researchers followed up with residents for two years after the fires, checking on their lung function. To their surprise, the worst effects didn't show up immediately, despite the heavy dose of smoke. Instead, people's lung function seemed to deteriorate later. Right after the fires, about 10 percent of the cohort had lung function that fell below the lower limit of normal. By the one-year mark, about 46 percent did. At the two-year mark, most of those people still had abnormally poor lung function. 'We were very surprised,' Migliaccio told me. He and his colleagues had intended to follow the residents for a third year, but then COVID hit. Instead, they tried exposing mice to wildfire smoke in a controlled lab environment. Their results pointed to a similar outcome: The worst effects took time to present. Migliaccio's work can speak to only a single smoke event. But it is the type of event that more people in the United States are dealing with, over and over again. Until recently, wildfires that exposed large populations to smoke were a relatively rare occurrence. But that's changing: More frequent and intense wildfires are erasing or even reversing decades of gains made in American air quality in the majority of U.S. states. Across the country, from 2012 to 2022, the number of people exposed to unhealthy air from wildfire smoke increased 27-fold; one out of every four unhealthy air days in parts of the country is now a smoke day. 'It is the exposure that is impacting air quality across the U.S. now more than any other pollution source,' Joan Casey, an environmental epidemiologist at the University of Washington whose work helped show a link between wildfire-smoke exposure and increased risk of dementia, told me. Yet science—to say nothing of policy—has hardly caught up with what that means for human health. 'We're in the preschool stage of development,' Casey said. What cumulative smoke exposure can do to a body and mind remains largely a mystery, but the few studies that do exist point to nothing good. Plenty of research shows that respiratory distress and heart attacks spike in the event of smoke exposure; acute impacts of breathing smoke send people to the hospital and make them miss work and school. Those risks can linger for months afterward, or, in the case of the Seeley Lake cohort, for years. Now that more people are regularly breathing smoky air over their lifetime, though, the relevant concern may no longer be what happens when a person gets one big dose of smoke; rather, it may be what happens when they are exposed many times. How much does anyone know about the long-term consequences of exposure to smoke or, worse, the long-term consequences of long-term exposure to smoke? 'Very little,' Marianthi-Anna Kioumourtzoglou, an environmental engineer and epidemiologist at—as of next week—Brown University, told me. The best model for assessing wildfire-smoke exposure was developed only recently, Kioumourtzoglou and Casey told me, and, because of satellite imagery and monitoring limitations, goes back to only 2006. That means researchers have at most 20 years of data to look at in determining whether smoke could have contributed to a population's incidence of a particular illness. Latency periods for plenty of diseases, including some cancers, can be longer. Plus, every fire is its own unique nightmare, chemically speaking. The Seeley Lake fire burned mostly trees. Add to that whole neighborhoods of cars and houses and parking lots, and the toxicity profile of the smoke changes significantly. During the Los Angeles fires in January, which burned down entire neighborhoods, noxious compounds from burning plastics and other man-made materials swirled through the air. Scientists know a lot about the harms of regular ambient air pollution (such as the particulate matter that spews from tailpipes and factories), but wildfire smoke is chemically different—and likely worse, from a health standpoint. Its complexity is also daunting from a research perspective: Even the types of trees burned appear to affect the smoke's toxicity. In a lab study, for instance, researchers burned peat, pine needles, and several types of wood to simulate different regional forests. They found that pinewood smoke was the most mutagenic, suggesting that it might be more likely to cause cancer than other woods, and that eucalyptus smoke was the most toxic to lungs. How long the smoke stays in the air may matter too. Some research suggests that smoke becomes more toxic as it ages, which is bad news for people living downwind from smoke—in parts of the U.S. during Canadian wildfires, for instance. And unlike our relatively steady exposure to ambient air pollution, exposure to wildfire smoke is spiky, coming in bursts, with pauses in between. That makes it hard to model, Kioumourtzoglou told me, and also introduces many questions, each of which needs research attention: Is the health impact worse if a person breathes a very high level of smoke for three days, or if they breathe a lower level for three weeks? How does the point in life at which they are exposed—as an adult with asthma, a child whose lungs were still developing, a fetus in utero—change how the smoke affects them? Many of the attempts to even start to answer these questions depend on chance and the swift action of researchers like Migliaccio, who seize on the chance to study a fire close at hand. In the summer of 2008, for instance, Lisa Miller, who studies pulmonary immunology and toxicology at UC Davis, was in her office as wildfires sent smoke settling over the region. The air outside her office looked like thick winter fog. She suddenly thought about the rhesus monkeys she studied at the primate research center; they had been outside in their habitat the whole time. These primates were great models for human health, so they became a case study for what happens to a smoke-exposed body. Miller and her team studied the monkeys for the next 15 years. They found that those that were exposed to wildfire smoke as infants became adolescents with smaller, stiffer lungs than their peers born the following year, which resulted in poorer lung function and worse immune regulation. When the researchers exposed blood samples from both populations of adolescent monkeys to bacterial infection, the samples from the smoke-exposed animals responded more weakly, indicating that their immune system wasn't working as well. The smoke-exposed monkeys also slept far less, she told me: 'It was absolutely stunning.' Some research suggests that smoke can affect humans the same way: In 2022, a large study in China concluded that human children who had been exposed to air pollution early in life also had poorer-quality sleep. High-quality sleep is important to neurodevelopment in children, and poor sleep is associated with a range of negative health consequences across a lifetime. What we can learn from Miller's monkeys is limited; they spend 24 hours a day outdoors, unlike humans, and they get constant medical care and perfectly tailored diets, also unlike humans. Still, rhesus monkeys are some of the closest animals to us, physiologically, and on a basic level, smoke exposure in infancy seems to have affected these monkeys' health for their entire life, Miller said. Standard air pollution is known to have a negative impact on virtually all aspects of fertility, and for people who wish to conceive children, smoke may pose a hazard too. After wildfires in Oregon prompted an air-quality emergency in Portland in 2020, researchers looked at the sperm quality of 30 people who had their semen analyzed at a fertility clinic before and after the fires. The study was small, but the trend was clear: Motility—how well the sperm swims—went down for most of the participants. A nearly identical study in Seattle, which is still awaiting peer review, yielded a similar result. And Luke Montrose, an environmental toxicologist at Colorado State University, told me that he's seen similar results in bull sperm: He and his colleagues got records from a cattle-breeding facility in Colorado that tests bull sperm with many of the same metrics used for human sperm at a fertility clinic. Sperm that isn't up to shape gets discarded by the facility; after a wildfire in the area, more of the cattle sperm got thrown out, Montrose found. Quality must have gone down. The results on the bull sperm are preliminary and are awaiting peer review. But in the meantime, Montrose is enrolling male firefighters in a study to learn whether their fertility is affected by their job (which forces them to breathe much higher doses of smoke than the general population). When Montrose and his colleagues exposed mice to a very high dose of wood smoke in a lab—simulating what they estimate would be the equivalent of 15 years on the job for a wildland firefighter—the mouse sperm was significantly altered at the epigenomic level, where gene expression is altered without changing the underlying DNA sequence. 'Normally, in a study like this, you see a handful of sites being changed,' Montrose told me; he and his colleagues found changes at more than 3,000 different sites, reflecting about 2,000 different genes. Montrose wonders what this far higher level means for the mice's fertility and for their offspring. Whether these changes are positive or negative, it appears that smoke can alter, on a deep level, the very cells involved in reproduction. 'It's intriguing, but we still don't quite know what it means,' Montrose said. If smoke can affect health early in life, it also can affect life's end. Breathing smoke can cause inflammation, which is a key pathway for many neurological disorders, and research is now turning up associations between smoke and conditions that strike older people, such as Parkinson's, Casey told me. Smoke also causes premature death: more than 50,000 people in California died prematurely from wildfire smoke between 2008 and 2018, according to one estimate, and more than 11,000 people in the U.S. do so each year, according to another. Climate change is only accelerating those dynamics. As I've written before, the National Bureau of Economic Research found last year that in a worst-case warming scenario, deaths from wildfire-smoke exposure in the U.S. could top 27,000 a year by the middle of the century. That is, smoke could kill 700,000 people from now until 2055. Burning fossil fuels has locked us into a downward spiral: Warmer temperatures mean more fires. Already, summer 2025 is poised to be a fiery one in California, only half a year after fires devastated Los Angeles. Canada has already been burning for weeks, sending smoke billowing down through the U.S. The smoke is coming for us all—each of us is now more likely to encounter it in the coming years. That terrible reality means that researchers will have more opportunities to understand what smoke does to us. Susan Cheng, a cardiologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, in Los Angeles, is now part of a major multi-institutional study of people exposed to the L.A. fires. As a cardiologist, she's well aware of the extreme heart risks associated with smoke inhalation. Breathing regular pollution over a long period can accelerate heart disease by prematurely aging blood vessels and accelerating plaque buildup in the coronary artery; at least one recent study found that people's risk of heart failure and other serious cardiac problems can persist for months after smoke exposure. If that's any indication, fire smoke is a major heart hazard. 'We really need to be closely tracking and following this,' Cheng told me. 'Otherwise, we will be facing a major information gap, and trying to, in hindsight, put the pieces together.' She pictures asking, years down the line, 'How did people get this way? How did our patients end up with these accelerated aging processes, accelerated development of these different chronic conditions?' Studies like hers—which began in January and will follow a cohort of more than 13,000 Angelenos for the next 10 years—aim to answer those questions now, before even more of the country starts having to ask them.
Boston Globe
6 days ago
- Boston Globe
Millions of children at risk from stalling global vaccinations, study says
The study said that while global coverage for key vaccines, including those against measles, polio, and tuberculosis, almost doubled between 1980 and 2023, progress slowed in many countries and territories between 2010 and 2019, and has even reversed in some cases in recent years. Advertisement The trend was also seen in wealthier parts of the world, with declines in at least one key vaccine in 21 of 36 high-income countries and territories. The coronavirus pandemic 'exacerbated these challenges, with global rates for these vaccines declining sharply since 2020, and still not returning to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels as of 2023,' the study said, causing tens millions of children to miss doses of routine vaccines and 'increasing their risk for preventable disease and death.' 'Despite the monumental efforts of the past 50 years, progress has been far from universal. Large numbers of children remain under- and un-vaccinated,' senior study author Jonathan Mosser of University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation said in a news release. Advertisement 'Routine childhood vaccinations are among the most powerful and cost-effective public health interventions available, but persistent global inequalities, challenges from the COVID pandemic, and the growth of vaccine misinformation and hesitancy have all contributed to faltering immunization progress,' he added. In many countries, these trends have led to outbreaks of diseases that can be prevented by vaccination, such as measles, polio, and diphtheria, the study said. Kate O'Brien, WHO director for immunization, vaccines, and biologicals, said in an emailed statement that 'despite incredible progress' brought about by vaccines, 'we are now confronting a painful reality: Progress has stalled and in some countries is being lost. Immunization rates have plateaued, and year after year, we are reaching the same proportion of children without extending their reach to those left behind.' 'Unless we intensify efforts to reach more children through equitable routine immunization programmes, increase domestic investment, and strengthen vaccine confidence and demand, we risk undoing years of hard-won progress — leading to a future where more children suffer from preventable illnesses and premature death,' she added. An increase in vaccine hesitancy, as well as misinformation — which the WHO signaled as a leading threat to global public health even before the pandemic — have impacted immunization, the study noted. Conflict is another factor. The outbreak of civil war in Sudan in 2023 led to one key coverage measurement — the number of children receiving the first dose of the DTP vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis — falling from almost 90 percent to about half of that, according to the study. Planned budget cuts to vaccines 'are likely to disproportionately affect low-income and middle income countries,' the study said, but richer countries are also likely to be affected by higher costs caused by increasing outbreaks. Advertisement The study's findings echo a warning this spring from the head of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who noted outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases were increasing around the world, 'putting lives at risk and exposing countries to increased costs in treating diseases and responding to outbreaks.' He urged countries with limited resources to 'invest in the highest-impact interventions — and that includes vaccines.' The study, which was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, was published in the Lancet medical journal. Last month, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he may stop government scientists from publishing in the Lancet and several other top peer-reviewed journals, accusing them — without evidence — of being 'corrupt.' Shortly after returning to office in January, President Trump announced the United States' withdrawal from the WHO. Two months later, a USAID document showed that the administration planned funding cuts for Gavi, which provides lifesaving vaccinations for millions of people in the world's poorest countries. Domestically, following the deaths of two children in Texas from measles — with a total of 23 outbreaks recorded across the US with more than 1,000 confirmed cases — Kennedy has given mixed messages on measles immunization and caused controversy by announcing placebo testing for new vaccines. David L. Heymann, professor of infectious-disease epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and who was not involved in the research, said in a telephone interview Wednesday that public trust is a key part of vaccination success. He urged governments to 'take a great interest in this and to make sure that they're getting the right messages to their people,' and emphasized the importance of evidence-based recommendations from trusted organizations like the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Advertisement Professor Andrew Pollard, director of the Oxford Vaccine Group and a professor at the University of Oxford, who also was not involved in the research, in a statement called the findings a 'worrying trend' that is 'set to deteriorate' amid global health funding cuts. In a separate email Wednesday, he accused the Trump administration of 'undermining' parents' confidence in vaccines, risking further drops in coverage. 'This combined with a catastrophic reduction of global health funding, rejection of scientific evidence on vaccines and challenges to credible scientific leadership on immunisation policy means that the once trusted voice of America on vaccines is diminished,' he said.
