Read AMA Morning Rounds®’ most popular stories in medicine and public health from the week of Jan. 5, 2026–Jan. 9, 2026.
Infants who receive delayed doses of routine vaccines more likely to not have an MMR shot by age two, study finds
MedPage Today (1/2, Rudd) reported a study found that “children who received their 2- and 4-month-old doses of routine childhood vaccines late were most likely to have received no measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination by age 2 years.” Researchers observed that “in the post-COVID-19 pandemic period, infants who were late to receive their age-2-month doses of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib); diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DTaP); pneumococcal conjugate (PCV); inactivated poliovirus (IPV); and rotavirus vaccines were nearly seven times more likely than those who got their doses as scheduled to not have an MMR shot by age 2 years.” Furthermore, “those who received their age-4-month doses of that five-vaccine primary series were 6.16 times more likely to miss out on MMR vaccination by 2 years.” The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
You may also be interested in: How to answer patients’ FAQs on vaccines.
CDC overhauls childhood vaccination schedule, reduces number of recommended shots
The Washington Post (1/5, A1, Sun, Cunningham) reports the CDC is “overhauling the list of routine shots recommended for all babies and children in the United States.” Effective immediately, the CDC will “no longer recommend every child receive vaccines for rotavirus, influenza, meningococcal disease, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), hepatitis A and hepatitis B, according to materials released Monday by the Department of Health and Human Services.
The New York Times (1/5, Mandavilli) reports the CDC’s new schedule “continues to recommend vaccines against some diseases, including measles, polio and whooping cough, for all children,” but immunization for six other illnesses “will be recommended for only some high-risk groups or after consultation with a health care provider.” The new schedule also “circumvents the detailed and methodical evidence-based process that has underpinned vaccine recommendations in the nation for decades.” Public health experts “expressed outrage at the sweeping revisions, saying federal officials did not present evidence to support the changes or incorporate input from vaccine experts.”
The AP (1/5, Swenson, Neergaard) reports that officials “said the overhaul...won’t result in families who want the vaccines losing access to them, and said insurance will continue to pay. But medical experts said the decision creates confusion for parents and could increase preventable diseases.” The change also comes as U.S. vaccination rates are declining and “the share of children with exemptions has reached an all-time high, according to federal data.”
Editor’s note: Read the AMA’s statement on the changes to the childhood immunization schedule.
Survey highlights confusion over “shared clinical decision-making” in revised immunization schedule
Medical Economics (1/6, Littrell) reports the CDC on Monday “announced the routine childhood immunization schedule would be scaled back to 11 diseases, down from 17,” with several vaccines moving to “high-risk” or “shared clinical decision-making categories.” Recent polling indicates many Americans either misunderstand or don’t know what the term “shared decision-making” means, “raising concerns that the CDC’s revised schedule could add to confusion for both parents and physicians.” Survey results released by the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) show that 68% of respondents “understood that shared decision-making means reviewing their or their child’s medical history with a health care provider before deciding whether the vaccine is appropriate.” Yet “more than 1 in 10 said they were not sure what the term means at all—13% for a new vaccine, and 12% for a COVID-19 vaccine for children.”
Dried blood collection shows potential for Alzheimer’s biomarker testing
HealthDay (1/7, Gotkine) reports, “Dried blood collection derived from capillary blood shows potential for Alzheimer disease (AD) biomarker testing, according to a study.” Researchers “examined the potential of dried plasma spot (DPS) and dried blood spot (DBS) analysis, derived from capillary blood, for detecting AD biomarkers, including phosphorylated tau at amino acid 217 (p-tau217), glial fibrillary acidic protein, and neurofilament light.” The investigators “identified strong correlations between DPS p-tau217 and venous plasma p-tau217. There was a progressive increase in DPS p-tau217 with increasing disease severity, with good accuracy for predicting cerebrospinal fluid biomarker positivity.” By “using paired venous plasma samples, glial fibrillary acidic protein and neurofilament light were successfully detected, with strong correlations between DBS and DPS, respectively.” The findings were published in Nature Medicine.
You may also be interested in: How to screen for, reduce risk of and treat Alzheimer’s disease.
Study finds no meaningful difference between exercise, psychological therapy in alleviating depressive symptoms
HCPlive (1/8, Derman) reports, “A new study found no meaningful difference between exercise and psychological therapy in alleviating depressive symptoms.” The “new meta-analysis suggests exercise may be” as effective as antidepressants or psychological therapy, “updating reviews from 2008 and 2013.” The researchers said, “This updated review includes 35 additional trials (2526 additional participants), with conclusions that are similar to the previous version of the review.” The findings were published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
AMA Morning Rounds news coverage is developed in affiliation with Bulletin Healthcare LLC. Subscribe to Morning Rounds Daily.
