Clinical Psychiatry News

Older Canadian schoolchildren who spent the most time looking at screens during the COVID-19 pandemic experienced higher levels of anxiety and depression, while their younger counterparts had more conduct problems, researchers have found. However, the study doesn’t definitively prove that screen time is harmful, and an expert challenged the conclusions.

Still, the findings highlight the potential harms of excessive screen time, especially in the context of pandemic-era virtual learning. Clinicians “really need to advocate for policies that would be protective for children to reduce their screen time and social isolation and increase their involvement with school, sports, and academic activities,” Catherine S. Birken, MD, a pediatrician at the University of Toronto and study coauthor said in an interview.

The study appeared Dec. 28, 2021, in the journal JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.40875).

Dr. Birken and colleagues launched the study to examine whether heightened levels of screen time during the pandemic disrupted mental health in kids. In particular, they wanted to break down different types of screen time, such as virtual learning, watching television, and playing video games.

“The bulk of the literature is supportive of a strong relationship between screen time and mental health symptoms like anxiety,” Dr. Birken said.

For the study, the researchers surveyed parents to track the screen time of 2,026 children between May 2020 and April 2021.

In a cohort of 532 younger children (average age, 5.9 years; 52% male; 58% of European ancestry), the researchers linked each extra daily hour of TV or use of digital media to worse behavior, as measured by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: 0.22 in an adjusted model for children aged 2-4;(95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.35; P < .001) and 0.07 in an adjusted model in those aged 4 and older (95% CI, 0.02-0.11; P = .007).

However, the researchers observed no statistically significant links to more anxiety/depression or hyperactivity/inattention in this group of children.

Among 1,494 older kids (mean age, 11.3; 57% male; 58% of European ancestry), researchers linked greater daily use of TV or digital media to higher levels of depression symptoms in a dose-dependent relationship, Dr. Birken said (1 hour: beta, 0.21; 95% CI, –1.28 to 0.78; 2-3 hours: beta, 1.81; 95% CI, 0.29-3.33; 4-5 hours: beta, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.15-4.44; 6-8 hours: beta, 5.16; 95% CI, 3.32-7.01; 9 hours: beta, 5.42; 95% CI, 3.30-7.54; overall P < .001).

“Similarly, higher TV or digital media time per day was associated with higher levels of anxiety symptoms,” the researchers reported. “TV or digital media time per day was also significantly associated with differences in symptoms of irritability, inattention, and hyperactivity/inattention.”

More time spent learning virtually was associated with higher levels of depression and anxiety in both groups of children, according to the researchers. Whether this finding reflects an effect of screens themselves or because the children most exposed to virtual learning may also have been the most exposed to the stressful disruptiveness of the pandemic is unclear.

The researchers also found “insufficient evidence” to link more virtual learning to irritability, inattention and hyperactivity, inattention, and hyperactivity/impulsivity in adjusted models.

Video chatting did not appear to have a protective effect, Dr. Birken said. The researchers also specifically analyzed children with autism and found no link between more screen time and various mental health/conduct problems.

Is it possible that kids with more anxiety, depression, and isolation simply turn to screens because they’re anxious, depressed, and isolated? Dr. Birken said the researchers adjusted the findings to account for previous mental health problems. And she noted that the study linked more pandemic-era virtual learning to more depression/anxiety. It’s “hard to imagine” how more mental health problems would cause more virtual learning.
 

Bad news or bad stats?

Chris Ferguson, PhD, a professor of psychology at Stetson University. DeLand, Fla., who studies screen time, criticized the study in an interview. “The observed effects are so tiny, it’s impossible to know if they are real or a false-positive artifact common to social science research,” he said. “Ultimately, this study is better evidence about how many scholars are bad at statistics than anything having to do with kids and screens.”

Dr. Ferguson said that the results may be confounded because kids turn to screens to reduce their anxiety. “For the most part, screens were a godsend during COVID-19,” he said. “They helped kids stay inside and gave them something to do while social distancing and allowed them to keep in touch with friends and families. Honestly, what else were we expecting kids to do, stare at the wallpaper?”

Children with depression and anxiety often retreat into screens or books to escape the unpleasantries of real life. “That doesn’t mean the screens or books are the culprits,” he said.

Instead of focusing on screen time, Dr. Ferguson suggested parents consider these factors: “Keeping in mind not every kid is a genius, is your kid doing about as well in school as you’d expect, given their natural ability? Are they getting at least some exercise every day? Are they getting adequate sleep? Are they able to socialize with friends in some context, either in real life or online? Are they happy?”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Center for Brain & Mental Health at The Hospital for Sick Children, the Ontario Ministry of Health, and the Miner’s Lamp Innovation Fund in Prevention and Early Detection of Severe Mental Illness at the University of Toronto. The study authors reported various financial relationships. Dr. Ferguson reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Older Canadian schoolchildren who spent the most time looking at screens during the COVID-19 pandemic experienced higher levels of anxiety and depression, while their younger counterparts had more conduct problems, researchers have found. However, the study doesn’t definitively prove that screen time is harmful, and an expert challenged the conclusions.

Still, the findings highlight the potential harms of excessive screen time, especially in the context of pandemic-era virtual learning. Clinicians “really need to advocate for policies that would be protective for children to reduce their screen time and social isolation and increase their involvement with school, sports, and academic activities,” Catherine S. Birken, MD, a pediatrician at the University of Toronto and study coauthor said in an interview.

The study appeared Dec. 28, 2021, in the journal JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.40875).

Dr. Birken and colleagues launched the study to examine whether heightened levels of screen time during the pandemic disrupted mental health in kids. In particular, they wanted to break down different types of screen time, such as virtual learning, watching television, and playing video games.

“The bulk of the literature is supportive of a strong relationship between screen time and mental health symptoms like anxiety,” Dr. Birken said.

For the study, the researchers surveyed parents to track the screen time of 2,026 children between May 2020 and April 2021.

In a cohort of 532 younger children (average age, 5.9 years; 52% male; 58% of European ancestry), the researchers linked each extra daily hour of TV or use of digital media to worse behavior, as measured by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: 0.22 in an adjusted model for children aged 2-4;(95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.35; P < .001) and 0.07 in an adjusted model in those aged 4 and older (95% CI, 0.02-0.11; P = .007).

However, the researchers observed no statistically significant links to more anxiety/depression or hyperactivity/inattention in this group of children.

Among 1,494 older kids (mean age, 11.3; 57% male; 58% of European ancestry), researchers linked greater daily use of TV or digital media to higher levels of depression symptoms in a dose-dependent relationship, Dr. Birken said (1 hour: beta, 0.21; 95% CI, –1.28 to 0.78; 2-3 hours: beta, 1.81; 95% CI, 0.29-3.33; 4-5 hours: beta, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.15-4.44; 6-8 hours: beta, 5.16; 95% CI, 3.32-7.01; 9 hours: beta, 5.42; 95% CI, 3.30-7.54; overall P < .001).

“Similarly, higher TV or digital media time per day was associated with higher levels of anxiety symptoms,” the researchers reported. “TV or digital media time per day was also significantly associated with differences in symptoms of irritability, inattention, and hyperactivity/inattention.”

More time spent learning virtually was associated with higher levels of depression and anxiety in both groups of children, according to the researchers. Whether this finding reflects an effect of screens themselves or because the children most exposed to virtual learning may also have been the most exposed to the stressful disruptiveness of the pandemic is unclear.

The researchers also found “insufficient evidence” to link more virtual learning to irritability, inattention and hyperactivity, inattention, and hyperactivity/impulsivity in adjusted models.

Video chatting did not appear to have a protective effect, Dr. Birken said. The researchers also specifically analyzed children with autism and found no link between more screen time and various mental health/conduct problems.

Is it possible that kids with more anxiety, depression, and isolation simply turn to screens because they’re anxious, depressed, and isolated? Dr. Birken said the researchers adjusted the findings to account for previous mental health problems. And she noted that the study linked more pandemic-era virtual learning to more depression/anxiety. It’s “hard to imagine” how more mental health problems would cause more virtual learning.
 

Bad news or bad stats?

Chris Ferguson, PhD, a professor of psychology at Stetson University. DeLand, Fla., who studies screen time, criticized the study in an interview. “The observed effects are so tiny, it’s impossible to know if they are real or a false-positive artifact common to social science research,” he said. “Ultimately, this study is better evidence about how many scholars are bad at statistics than anything having to do with kids and screens.”

Dr. Ferguson said that the results may be confounded because kids turn to screens to reduce their anxiety. “For the most part, screens were a godsend during COVID-19,” he said. “They helped kids stay inside and gave them something to do while social distancing and allowed them to keep in touch with friends and families. Honestly, what else were we expecting kids to do, stare at the wallpaper?”

Children with depression and anxiety often retreat into screens or books to escape the unpleasantries of real life. “That doesn’t mean the screens or books are the culprits,” he said.

Instead of focusing on screen time, Dr. Ferguson suggested parents consider these factors: “Keeping in mind not every kid is a genius, is your kid doing about as well in school as you’d expect, given their natural ability? Are they getting at least some exercise every day? Are they getting adequate sleep? Are they able to socialize with friends in some context, either in real life or online? Are they happy?”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Center for Brain & Mental Health at The Hospital for Sick Children, the Ontario Ministry of Health, and the Miner’s Lamp Innovation Fund in Prevention and Early Detection of Severe Mental Illness at the University of Toronto. The study authors reported various financial relationships. Dr. Ferguson reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Older Canadian schoolchildren who spent the most time looking at screens during the COVID-19 pandemic experienced higher levels of anxiety and depression, while their younger counterparts had more conduct problems, researchers have found. However, the study doesn’t definitively prove that screen time is harmful, and an expert challenged the conclusions.

Still, the findings highlight the potential harms of excessive screen time, especially in the context of pandemic-era virtual learning. Clinicians “really need to advocate for policies that would be protective for children to reduce their screen time and social isolation and increase their involvement with school, sports, and academic activities,” Catherine S. Birken, MD, a pediatrician at the University of Toronto and study coauthor said in an interview.

The study appeared Dec. 28, 2021, in the journal JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.40875).

Dr. Birken and colleagues launched the study to examine whether heightened levels of screen time during the pandemic disrupted mental health in kids. In particular, they wanted to break down different types of screen time, such as virtual learning, watching television, and playing video games.

“The bulk of the literature is supportive of a strong relationship between screen time and mental health symptoms like anxiety,” Dr. Birken said.

For the study, the researchers surveyed parents to track the screen time of 2,026 children between May 2020 and April 2021.

In a cohort of 532 younger children (average age, 5.9 years; 52% male; 58% of European ancestry), the researchers linked each extra daily hour of TV or use of digital media to worse behavior, as measured by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: 0.22 in an adjusted model for children aged 2-4;(95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.35; P < .001) and 0.07 in an adjusted model in those aged 4 and older (95% CI, 0.02-0.11; P = .007).

However, the researchers observed no statistically significant links to more anxiety/depression or hyperactivity/inattention in this group of children.

Among 1,494 older kids (mean age, 11.3; 57% male; 58% of European ancestry), researchers linked greater daily use of TV or digital media to higher levels of depression symptoms in a dose-dependent relationship, Dr. Birken said (1 hour: beta, 0.21; 95% CI, –1.28 to 0.78; 2-3 hours: beta, 1.81; 95% CI, 0.29-3.33; 4-5 hours: beta, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.15-4.44; 6-8 hours: beta, 5.16; 95% CI, 3.32-7.01; 9 hours: beta, 5.42; 95% CI, 3.30-7.54; overall P < .001).

“Similarly, higher TV or digital media time per day was associated with higher levels of anxiety symptoms,” the researchers reported. “TV or digital media time per day was also significantly associated with differences in symptoms of irritability, inattention, and hyperactivity/inattention.”

More time spent learning virtually was associated with higher levels of depression and anxiety in both groups of children, according to the researchers. Whether this finding reflects an effect of screens themselves or because the children most exposed to virtual learning may also have been the most exposed to the stressful disruptiveness of the pandemic is unclear.

The researchers also found “insufficient evidence” to link more virtual learning to irritability, inattention and hyperactivity, inattention, and hyperactivity/impulsivity in adjusted models.

Video chatting did not appear to have a protective effect, Dr. Birken said. The researchers also specifically analyzed children with autism and found no link between more screen time and various mental health/conduct problems.

Is it possible that kids with more anxiety, depression, and isolation simply turn to screens because they’re anxious, depressed, and isolated? Dr. Birken said the researchers adjusted the findings to account for previous mental health problems. And she noted that the study linked more pandemic-era virtual learning to more depression/anxiety. It’s “hard to imagine” how more mental health problems would cause more virtual learning.
 

Bad news or bad stats?

Chris Ferguson, PhD, a professor of psychology at Stetson University. DeLand, Fla., who studies screen time, criticized the study in an interview. “The observed effects are so tiny, it’s impossible to know if they are real or a false-positive artifact common to social science research,” he said. “Ultimately, this study is better evidence about how many scholars are bad at statistics than anything having to do with kids and screens.”

Dr. Ferguson said that the results may be confounded because kids turn to screens to reduce their anxiety. “For the most part, screens were a godsend during COVID-19,” he said. “They helped kids stay inside and gave them something to do while social distancing and allowed them to keep in touch with friends and families. Honestly, what else were we expecting kids to do, stare at the wallpaper?”

Children with depression and anxiety often retreat into screens or books to escape the unpleasantries of real life. “That doesn’t mean the screens or books are the culprits,” he said.

Instead of focusing on screen time, Dr. Ferguson suggested parents consider these factors: “Keeping in mind not every kid is a genius, is your kid doing about as well in school as you’d expect, given their natural ability? Are they getting at least some exercise every day? Are they getting adequate sleep? Are they able to socialize with friends in some context, either in real life or online? Are they happy?”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Center for Brain & Mental Health at The Hospital for Sick Children, the Ontario Ministry of Health, and the Miner’s Lamp Innovation Fund in Prevention and Early Detection of Severe Mental Illness at the University of Toronto. The study authors reported various financial relationships. Dr. Ferguson reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Federal officials will allow some flexibility in meeting new requirements on covering the costs of clinical trials for people enrolled in Medicaid, seeking to accommodate states where legislatures will not meet in time to make needed changes in rules.

Congress in 2020 ordered U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

The mandate went into effect on Jan. 1, but the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will allow accommodations in terms of implementation time for states that have not yet been able to make needed legislative changes, Daniel Tsai, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, wrote in a Dec. 7 letter. Mr. Tsai’s letter doesn’t mention specific states. The CMS did not immediately respond to a request seeking information on the states expected to apply for waivers.

Medicaid has in recent years been a rare large U.S. insurance program that does not cover the costs of clinical trials. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 mandated this coverage for people in private insurance plans. The federal government in 2000 decided that Medicare would do so.

‘A hidden opportunity’

A perspective article last May in the New England Journal of Medicine referred to the new Medicaid mandate on clinical trials as a “hidden opportunity,” referring to its genesis as an add-on in a massive federal spending package enacted in December 2020.

In the article, Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, MSHP, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthors noted that rates of participation in clinical trials remain low for racial and ethnic minority groups, due in part to the lack of Medicaid coverage.

“For example, non-Hispanic White patients are nearly twice as likely as Black patients and three times as likely as Hispanic patients to enroll in cancer clinical trials – a gap that has widened over time,” Dr. Takvorian and coauthors wrote. “Inequities in enrollment have also manifested during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disproportionately affected non-White patients, without their commensurate representation in trials of COVID-19 therapeutics.”

In October, researchers from the Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Ohio State University, Columbus, published results of a retrospective study of patients with stage I-IV pancreatic cancer that also found inequities in enrollment. Mariam F. Eskander, MD, MPH, and coauthors reported what they found by examining records for 1,127 patients (0.4%) enrolled in clinical trials and 301,340 (99.6%) who did not enroll. They found that enrollment in trials increased over the study period, but not for Black patients or patients on Medicaid.

In an interview, Dr. Eskander said the new Medicaid policy will remove a major obstacle to participation in clinical trials. An oncologist, Dr. Eskander said she is looking forward to being able to help more of her patients get access to experimental medicines and treatments.

But that may not be enough to draw more people with low incomes into these studies, said Dr. Eskander, who is now at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey in New Brunswick. She urges greater use of patient navigators to help people on Medicaid understand the resources available to them, as well as broad use of Medicaid’s nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) benefit.

“Some patients will be offered clinical trial enrollment and some will accept, but I really worry about the challenges low-income people face with things like transportation and getting time off work,” she said.

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

Federal officials will allow some flexibility in meeting new requirements on covering the costs of clinical trials for people enrolled in Medicaid, seeking to accommodate states where legislatures will not meet in time to make needed changes in rules.

Congress in 2020 ordered U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

The mandate went into effect on Jan. 1, but the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will allow accommodations in terms of implementation time for states that have not yet been able to make needed legislative changes, Daniel Tsai, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, wrote in a Dec. 7 letter. Mr. Tsai’s letter doesn’t mention specific states. The CMS did not immediately respond to a request seeking information on the states expected to apply for waivers.

Medicaid has in recent years been a rare large U.S. insurance program that does not cover the costs of clinical trials. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 mandated this coverage for people in private insurance plans. The federal government in 2000 decided that Medicare would do so.

‘A hidden opportunity’

A perspective article last May in the New England Journal of Medicine referred to the new Medicaid mandate on clinical trials as a “hidden opportunity,” referring to its genesis as an add-on in a massive federal spending package enacted in December 2020.

In the article, Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, MSHP, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthors noted that rates of participation in clinical trials remain low for racial and ethnic minority groups, due in part to the lack of Medicaid coverage.

“For example, non-Hispanic White patients are nearly twice as likely as Black patients and three times as likely as Hispanic patients to enroll in cancer clinical trials – a gap that has widened over time,” Dr. Takvorian and coauthors wrote. “Inequities in enrollment have also manifested during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disproportionately affected non-White patients, without their commensurate representation in trials of COVID-19 therapeutics.”

In October, researchers from the Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Ohio State University, Columbus, published results of a retrospective study of patients with stage I-IV pancreatic cancer that also found inequities in enrollment. Mariam F. Eskander, MD, MPH, and coauthors reported what they found by examining records for 1,127 patients (0.4%) enrolled in clinical trials and 301,340 (99.6%) who did not enroll. They found that enrollment in trials increased over the study period, but not for Black patients or patients on Medicaid.

In an interview, Dr. Eskander said the new Medicaid policy will remove a major obstacle to participation in clinical trials. An oncologist, Dr. Eskander said she is looking forward to being able to help more of her patients get access to experimental medicines and treatments.

But that may not be enough to draw more people with low incomes into these studies, said Dr. Eskander, who is now at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey in New Brunswick. She urges greater use of patient navigators to help people on Medicaid understand the resources available to them, as well as broad use of Medicaid’s nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) benefit.

“Some patients will be offered clinical trial enrollment and some will accept, but I really worry about the challenges low-income people face with things like transportation and getting time off work,” she said.

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

Federal officials will allow some flexibility in meeting new requirements on covering the costs of clinical trials for people enrolled in Medicaid, seeking to accommodate states where legislatures will not meet in time to make needed changes in rules.

Congress in 2020 ordered U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

The mandate went into effect on Jan. 1, but the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will allow accommodations in terms of implementation time for states that have not yet been able to make needed legislative changes, Daniel Tsai, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, wrote in a Dec. 7 letter. Mr. Tsai’s letter doesn’t mention specific states. The CMS did not immediately respond to a request seeking information on the states expected to apply for waivers.

Medicaid has in recent years been a rare large U.S. insurance program that does not cover the costs of clinical trials. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 mandated this coverage for people in private insurance plans. The federal government in 2000 decided that Medicare would do so.

‘A hidden opportunity’

A perspective article last May in the New England Journal of Medicine referred to the new Medicaid mandate on clinical trials as a “hidden opportunity,” referring to its genesis as an add-on in a massive federal spending package enacted in December 2020.

In the article, Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, MSHP, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthors noted that rates of participation in clinical trials remain low for racial and ethnic minority groups, due in part to the lack of Medicaid coverage.

“For example, non-Hispanic White patients are nearly twice as likely as Black patients and three times as likely as Hispanic patients to enroll in cancer clinical trials – a gap that has widened over time,” Dr. Takvorian and coauthors wrote. “Inequities in enrollment have also manifested during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disproportionately affected non-White patients, without their commensurate representation in trials of COVID-19 therapeutics.”

In October, researchers from the Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Ohio State University, Columbus, published results of a retrospective study of patients with stage I-IV pancreatic cancer that also found inequities in enrollment. Mariam F. Eskander, MD, MPH, and coauthors reported what they found by examining records for 1,127 patients (0.4%) enrolled in clinical trials and 301,340 (99.6%) who did not enroll. They found that enrollment in trials increased over the study period, but not for Black patients or patients on Medicaid.

In an interview, Dr. Eskander said the new Medicaid policy will remove a major obstacle to participation in clinical trials. An oncologist, Dr. Eskander said she is looking forward to being able to help more of her patients get access to experimental medicines and treatments.

But that may not be enough to draw more people with low incomes into these studies, said Dr. Eskander, who is now at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey in New Brunswick. She urges greater use of patient navigators to help people on Medicaid understand the resources available to them, as well as broad use of Medicaid’s nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) benefit.

“Some patients will be offered clinical trial enrollment and some will accept, but I really worry about the challenges low-income people face with things like transportation and getting time off work,” she said.

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

It was a freezing December day, and two young brothers were playing outside near a swimming pool when the younger boy, a 3-year-old toddler, fell into the water.

The 7-year-old immediately jumped into the pool to save his brother and was able to pull the toddler to the pool steps where the boy’s head was above water. But the icy temperatures overcame the older brother and he drifted underwater.

“Despite being at the forefront of medicine, what we don’t understand often exceeds what we do understand,” said Harley Rotbart, MD, author of “Miracles We Have Seen” (Health Communications: Deerfield Beach, Fla., 2016).

Paramedics arrived to find both boys unconscious and rushed them to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. The younger boy regained consciousness in the ICU and recovered. The 7-year-old, however, was unresponsive and remained in a coma, said Dr. Rotbart a pediatrician and author based in Denver.

Family members stayed at the boy’s bedside and prayed. But after several weeks, the child’s condition remained unchanged. His parents began to discuss ending life support and organ donation. Then late one night, as Dr. Rotbart sat reading to the unconscious patient, the little boy squeezed his hand. In disbelief, Dr. Rotbart told all of his colleagues about the squeeze the next morning. Everyone attributed the movement to an involuntary muscle spasm, he said. After all, every test and scan showed the boy had no brain function.

But later that day, the child grasped another staff member’s hand. Shortly after that, he squeezed in response to a command. Dr. Rotbart and his staff were stunned, but cautious about feeling too much hope. 

Days later, the child opened his eyes. Then, he smiled. His parents were overjoyed. 

“When he walked out of the hospital more than 2 months after the near-drowning and his heroic rescue of his little brother, we all cheered and cried,” Dr. Rotbart wrote in his book. “We cried many times in the weeks preceding, and I still cry whenever I recall this story.”

The experience, which happened years ago when Dr. Rotbart was a trainee, has stayed with the pediatrician his entire career. 

“His awakening was seemingly impossible – and then it happened,” Dr. Rotbart said. “Despite being at the forefront of medicine and science, what we don’t understand often exceeds what we do understand. And even when we think we understand, we are frequently proven wrong.”

For many, Dr. Rotbart’s experience raises questions about the existence of medical miracles. Although the term can have different definitions, a “medical miracle” generally refers to an unexpected recovery despite a dire prognosis. Frequently, the phrase has a religious connotation and is used to describe a supernatural or paranormal healing.

Do physicians believe in medical miracles? The answers are diverse.

“I have no doubt that extraordinary outcomes happen where patients who are overwhelmingly expected not to survive, do,” says Eric Beam, MD, a hospitalist based in San Diego. “That’s one of the reasons we choose our words very carefully in our conversations with patients and their families and remember that nothing is 0%, and nothing is 100%. But doctors tend to treat situations that are 99.9% as absolute. I don’t think you can practice medicine with the hope or expectation that every case you see has the potential to beat the odds – or be a medical miracle.”
 

Disappearing cancer hailed as ‘miracle’

In 2003, physicians projected that Joseph Rick, 40, had just a few months to live. His mucosal melanoma had spread throughout his body, progressing even after several surgeries, radiation therapy, and a combination of chemotherapy agents, recalled Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, an oncologist and director of the tumor immunology program at Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles.

Mr. Rick’s melanoma had spread to his intestines with traces on his stomach and bladder. Tumors were present on his liver, lungs, and pancreas. Rick bought a grave and prepared for the worst, he recounted in a Cancer Research Institute video. But his fate took a turn when he enrolled in an experimental drug trial in December 2003. The phase 1 trial was for a new immune modulating antibody, called an anti–CTLA-4 antibody, said Dr. Ribas, who conducted the trial. 

Over the next few weeks and months, all areas of Rick’s melanoma metastases disappeared. By 2009, he was in remission. He has lived the rest of his life with no evidence of melanoma, according to Dr. Ribas.

Mr. Rick’s case has been referenced throughout literature and news stories as a “medical miracle” and a “cancer miracle.”

Does Dr. Ribas think the case was a medical miracle?

“The response in Joseph Rick was what happened in 10%-15% of patients who received anti-CTLA-4 therapy,” Dr. Ribas said. “These were not miracles. These patients responded because their immune system trying to attack the cancer had been stuck at the CTLA-4 checkpoint. Blocking this checkpoint allowed their immune system to proceed to attack and kill cancer cells anywhere in the body.”

The scientific basis of this therapy was work by University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center immunologist James Allison, PhD, that had been done 5 years earlier in mouse models, where giving an anti–CTLA-4 antibody to mice allowed them to reject several implanted cancers, Dr. Ribas explained. Dr. Allison received the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for this work, subsequently opening the door for what we now call “immune checkpoint blockade therapy for cancer.” Dr. Ribas added.

“We tend to call miracles good things that we do not understand how they happened,” Dr. Ribas said. “From the human observation perspective, there have been plenty of medical miracles. However, each one has a specific biological mechanism that led to improvement in a patient. In cancer treatment, early studies using the immune system resulted in occasional patients having tumor responses and long-term benefits.

“With the increased understanding of how the immune system interacts with cancers, which is based on remarkable progress in understanding how the immune system works generated over the past several decades, these ‘miracles’ become specific mechanisms leading to response to cancer, which can then be replicated in other patients.”
 

Patient defies odds after 45 minutes without heartbeat

Florida ob.gyn. Michael Fleischer, MD, had just performed a routine repeat cesarean birth, delivering a healthy baby girl. His patient, Ruby, had a history of high blood pressure but medication taken during the pregnancy had kept her levels stabilized.

In the waiting room, Dr. Fleischer informed Ruby’s large family of the good news. He was planning to head home early that day when he heard his name being called over the hospital’s loudspeaker. Ruby had stopped breathing.

“The anesthesiologist was with her and had immediately intubated her,” Dr. Fleischer said. “We checked to make sure there was no problems or bleeding from the C-section, but everything was completely fine. However, we couldn’t keep her blood pressure stable.”

Dr. Fleischer suspected the respiratory arrest was caused by either an amniotic fluid embolism or a pulmonary embolism. Intubation continued and physicians gave Ruby medication to stabilize her blood pressure. Then suddenly, Ruby’s heart stopped.

Dr. Fleischer and other doctors began compressions, which they continued for 30 minutes. They shocked Ruby with defibrillator paddles multiple times, but there was no change.

“I was already thinking, this is hopeless, there’s nothing we can do,” he said. “The writing is on the wall. She’s going to die.”

Dr. Fleischer spoke to Ruby’s family and explained the tragic turn of events. Relatives were distraught and tearfully visited Ruby to say their goodbyes. They prayed and cried. Eventually, physicians ceased compressions. Ruby had gone 45 minutes without a pulse. The EKG was still showing some irregularity, FDr. leischer said, but no rhythm. Physicians kept Ruby intubated as they waited for the background electrical activity to fade. As they watched the screen in anguish, there was suddenly a blip on the heart rate monitor. Then another and another. Within seconds, Ruby’s heart went back into sinus rhythm.

“We were in disbelief,” Dr. Fleischer said. “We did some tests and put her in the ICU, and she was fine. Usually, after doing compressions on anyone, you’d have bruising or broken ribs. She had nothing. She just woke up and said: ‘What am I doing here? Let me go see my baby.’ ”

Ruby fully recovered, and 3 days later, she went home with her newborn.

While the recovery was unbelievable, Dr. Fleischer stopped short of calling it a medical miracle. There were scientific contributors to her survival: she was immediately intubated when she stopped breathing and compressions were started as soon as her heart stopped.

However, Dr. Fleischer said the fact that lifesaving measures had ended, and Ruby revived on her own was indeed, miraculous.

“It wasn’t like we were doing compressions and brought her back,” he said. “I can scientifically explain things in my mind, except for that. That when we finally stopped and took our hands off her, that’s when something changed. That’s when she came back.”
 

How do ‘medical miracles’ impact physicians?

When Dr. Rotbart was writing his book, which includes physician essays from across the world, he was struck by how many of the events happened decades earlier.

“This is another testament to the powerful impact these experiences have on those witnessing them,” he said. “In many cases, physicians describing events occurring years ago noted that those early memories served to give them hope as they encountered new, seemingly hopeless cases in subsequent years. Some contributors wrote that the ‘miracle experience’ actually directed them in their choice of specialty and has influenced much of their professional decision-making throughout their careers. Others draw on those miraculous moments at times when they themselves feel hopeless in the face of adversity and tragedy.”

Dr. Fleischer said that, although Ruby’s story has stayed with him, his mindset or practice style didn’t necessarily change after the experience.

“I’m not sure if it’s affected me because I haven’t been in that situation again,” he said. “I’m in the middle. I would never rule out anything, but I’m not going to base how I practice on the hope for a medical miracle.”

In a recent opinion piece for the New York Times, pulmonary and critical care physician, Daniela Lamas, MD, wrote about the sometimes negative effects of miracle cases on physicians. Such experiences for instance, can lead to a greater drive to beat the odds in future cases, which can sometimes lead to false hope, protracted critical care admissions, and futile procedures. 

“After all, in most cases in the ICU, our initial prognoses are correct,” she wrote. “So there’s a risk to standing at the bedside, thinking about that one patient who made it home despite our predictions. We can give that experience too much weight in influencing our decisions and recommendations.”

Dr. Beam said unexpected outcomes – particularly in the age of COVID-19 – can certainly make physicians think differently about life-sustaining measures and when to discuss end-of-life care with family members. In his own practice, Dr. Beam has encountered unexpected COVID recoveries. Now, he generally gives extremely ill COVID patients a little more time to see if their bodies recover.

“It remains true that people who are really sick with COVID, who are on ventilated or who are requiring a lot of up respiratory support, they don’t do well on average,” he said. “But it is [also] true that there are a handful of people who get to that point and do come back to 80% or 90% of where they were. It makes you think twice.”
 

What to do when parents hope for a miracle

In his palliative care practice, Nashville, Tenn., surgeon Myrick Shinall Jr., MD, PhD, regularly encounters families and patients who wish for a medical miracle. 

“It happens pretty often from a palliative care perspective,” he said. “What I have experienced the most is a patient with a severe brain injury who we don’t believe is recoverable. The medical team is discussing with the family that it is probably time to discontinue the ventilator. In those situations, families will often talk about wanting us to continue on [our life-sustaining efforts] in the hopes that a miracle will happen.”

Dr. Shinall and Trevor Bibler, PhD, recently authored two articles about best practices for responding to patients who hope for a miracle. The first one, published in the American Journal of Bioethics, is directed toward bioethicists; the second article, in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, targets clinicians.

A primary takeaway from the papers is that health professionals should recognize that hope for a miracle may mean different things to different people, said Dr. Bibler, an ethicist and assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. Some patients may have an innocuous hope for a miracle without a religious connotation, whereas others may have a firm conviction in their idea of God, their spirituality, and a concrete vision of the miracle.

“To hear that a family or patient is hoping for a miracle, one shouldn’t assume they already know what the patient or the family might mean by that,” Dr. Bibler said. “If a patient were to say, ‘I hope for a miracle,’ you might ask: ‘What do you mean by a miracle?’ Health professionals should feel empowered to ask that question.”

Health care professionals should explore a patient’s hope for a miracle, be nonjudgmental, ask clarifying questions, restate what the patient has said, and delve into the patient’s world view on death and dying, according to Dr. Bibler’s analyses. In some cases, it may be helpful to include a chaplain or the presence of a theology outsider in discussions. 

When his patients and their families raise the subject of miracles, Dr. Shinall said he inquires what a miracle would look like in their opinion and tries to gauge how much of the assertion is a general hope compared with a firm belief. 

“I try to work with them to make sure they understand doctors’ decisions and recommendations are based on what we know and can predict from our medical experience,” he said. “And that there’s nothing we’re going to do to prevent a miracle from happening, but that that can’t be our medical plan – to wait for a miracle.”

Despite the many patients and families Dr. Shinall has encountered who hope for a miracle, he has never experienced a case that he would describe as a medical miracle, he said. 

Dr. Rotbart believes all physicians struggle with finding balance in how far to push in hope of a miracle and when to let go.

“Miracles, whether they happen to us, or we hear of them from colleagues or we read about them, should humble us as physicians,” he said. “I have come to believe that what we don’t know or don’t understand about medicine, medical miracles, or life in general, isn‘t necessarily cause for fear, and can even be reason for hope.

“Medicine has come a long way since Hippocrates’ theory of The Four Humors and The Four Temperaments, yet we still have much to learn about the workings of the human body. As physicians, we should take comfort in how much we don’t know because that allows us to share hope with our patients and, occasionally, makes medical miracles possible.”

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

It was a freezing December day, and two young brothers were playing outside near a swimming pool when the younger boy, a 3-year-old toddler, fell into the water.

The 7-year-old immediately jumped into the pool to save his brother and was able to pull the toddler to the pool steps where the boy’s head was above water. But the icy temperatures overcame the older brother and he drifted underwater.

“Despite being at the forefront of medicine, what we don’t understand often exceeds what we do understand,” said Harley Rotbart, MD, author of “Miracles We Have Seen” (Health Communications: Deerfield Beach, Fla., 2016).

Paramedics arrived to find both boys unconscious and rushed them to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. The younger boy regained consciousness in the ICU and recovered. The 7-year-old, however, was unresponsive and remained in a coma, said Dr. Rotbart a pediatrician and author based in Denver.

Family members stayed at the boy’s bedside and prayed. But after several weeks, the child’s condition remained unchanged. His parents began to discuss ending life support and organ donation. Then late one night, as Dr. Rotbart sat reading to the unconscious patient, the little boy squeezed his hand. In disbelief, Dr. Rotbart told all of his colleagues about the squeeze the next morning. Everyone attributed the movement to an involuntary muscle spasm, he said. After all, every test and scan showed the boy had no brain function.

But later that day, the child grasped another staff member’s hand. Shortly after that, he squeezed in response to a command. Dr. Rotbart and his staff were stunned, but cautious about feeling too much hope. 

Days later, the child opened his eyes. Then, he smiled. His parents were overjoyed. 

“When he walked out of the hospital more than 2 months after the near-drowning and his heroic rescue of his little brother, we all cheered and cried,” Dr. Rotbart wrote in his book. “We cried many times in the weeks preceding, and I still cry whenever I recall this story.”

The experience, which happened years ago when Dr. Rotbart was a trainee, has stayed with the pediatrician his entire career. 

“His awakening was seemingly impossible – and then it happened,” Dr. Rotbart said. “Despite being at the forefront of medicine and science, what we don’t understand often exceeds what we do understand. And even when we think we understand, we are frequently proven wrong.”

For many, Dr. Rotbart’s experience raises questions about the existence of medical miracles. Although the term can have different definitions, a “medical miracle” generally refers to an unexpected recovery despite a dire prognosis. Frequently, the phrase has a religious connotation and is used to describe a supernatural or paranormal healing.

Do physicians believe in medical miracles? The answers are diverse.

“I have no doubt that extraordinary outcomes happen where patients who are overwhelmingly expected not to survive, do,” says Eric Beam, MD, a hospitalist based in San Diego. “That’s one of the reasons we choose our words very carefully in our conversations with patients and their families and remember that nothing is 0%, and nothing is 100%. But doctors tend to treat situations that are 99.9% as absolute. I don’t think you can practice medicine with the hope or expectation that every case you see has the potential to beat the odds – or be a medical miracle.”
 

Disappearing cancer hailed as ‘miracle’

In 2003, physicians projected that Joseph Rick, 40, had just a few months to live. His mucosal melanoma had spread throughout his body, progressing even after several surgeries, radiation therapy, and a combination of chemotherapy agents, recalled Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, an oncologist and director of the tumor immunology program at Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles.

Mr. Rick’s melanoma had spread to his intestines with traces on his stomach and bladder. Tumors were present on his liver, lungs, and pancreas. Rick bought a grave and prepared for the worst, he recounted in a Cancer Research Institute video. But his fate took a turn when he enrolled in an experimental drug trial in December 2003. The phase 1 trial was for a new immune modulating antibody, called an anti–CTLA-4 antibody, said Dr. Ribas, who conducted the trial. 

Over the next few weeks and months, all areas of Rick’s melanoma metastases disappeared. By 2009, he was in remission. He has lived the rest of his life with no evidence of melanoma, according to Dr. Ribas.

Mr. Rick’s case has been referenced throughout literature and news stories as a “medical miracle” and a “cancer miracle.”

Does Dr. Ribas think the case was a medical miracle?

“The response in Joseph Rick was what happened in 10%-15% of patients who received anti-CTLA-4 therapy,” Dr. Ribas said. “These were not miracles. These patients responded because their immune system trying to attack the cancer had been stuck at the CTLA-4 checkpoint. Blocking this checkpoint allowed their immune system to proceed to attack and kill cancer cells anywhere in the body.”

The scientific basis of this therapy was work by University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center immunologist James Allison, PhD, that had been done 5 years earlier in mouse models, where giving an anti–CTLA-4 antibody to mice allowed them to reject several implanted cancers, Dr. Ribas explained. Dr. Allison received the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for this work, subsequently opening the door for what we now call “immune checkpoint blockade therapy for cancer.” Dr. Ribas added.

“We tend to call miracles good things that we do not understand how they happened,” Dr. Ribas said. “From the human observation perspective, there have been plenty of medical miracles. However, each one has a specific biological mechanism that led to improvement in a patient. In cancer treatment, early studies using the immune system resulted in occasional patients having tumor responses and long-term benefits.

“With the increased understanding of how the immune system interacts with cancers, which is based on remarkable progress in understanding how the immune system works generated over the past several decades, these ‘miracles’ become specific mechanisms leading to response to cancer, which can then be replicated in other patients.”
 

Patient defies odds after 45 minutes without heartbeat

Florida ob.gyn. Michael Fleischer, MD, had just performed a routine repeat cesarean birth, delivering a healthy baby girl. His patient, Ruby, had a history of high blood pressure but medication taken during the pregnancy had kept her levels stabilized.

In the waiting room, Dr. Fleischer informed Ruby’s large family of the good news. He was planning to head home early that day when he heard his name being called over the hospital’s loudspeaker. Ruby had stopped breathing.

“The anesthesiologist was with her and had immediately intubated her,” Dr. Fleischer said. “We checked to make sure there was no problems or bleeding from the C-section, but everything was completely fine. However, we couldn’t keep her blood pressure stable.”

Dr. Fleischer suspected the respiratory arrest was caused by either an amniotic fluid embolism or a pulmonary embolism. Intubation continued and physicians gave Ruby medication to stabilize her blood pressure. Then suddenly, Ruby’s heart stopped.

Dr. Fleischer and other doctors began compressions, which they continued for 30 minutes. They shocked Ruby with defibrillator paddles multiple times, but there was no change.

“I was already thinking, this is hopeless, there’s nothing we can do,” he said. “The writing is on the wall. She’s going to die.”

Dr. Fleischer spoke to Ruby’s family and explained the tragic turn of events. Relatives were distraught and tearfully visited Ruby to say their goodbyes. They prayed and cried. Eventually, physicians ceased compressions. Ruby had gone 45 minutes without a pulse. The EKG was still showing some irregularity, FDr. leischer said, but no rhythm. Physicians kept Ruby intubated as they waited for the background electrical activity to fade. As they watched the screen in anguish, there was suddenly a blip on the heart rate monitor. Then another and another. Within seconds, Ruby’s heart went back into sinus rhythm.

“We were in disbelief,” Dr. Fleischer said. “We did some tests and put her in the ICU, and she was fine. Usually, after doing compressions on anyone, you’d have bruising or broken ribs. She had nothing. She just woke up and said: ‘What am I doing here? Let me go see my baby.’ ”

Ruby fully recovered, and 3 days later, she went home with her newborn.

While the recovery was unbelievable, Dr. Fleischer stopped short of calling it a medical miracle. There were scientific contributors to her survival: she was immediately intubated when she stopped breathing and compressions were started as soon as her heart stopped.

However, Dr. Fleischer said the fact that lifesaving measures had ended, and Ruby revived on her own was indeed, miraculous.

“It wasn’t like we were doing compressions and brought her back,” he said. “I can scientifically explain things in my mind, except for that. That when we finally stopped and took our hands off her, that’s when something changed. That’s when she came back.”
 

How do ‘medical miracles’ impact physicians?

When Dr. Rotbart was writing his book, which includes physician essays from across the world, he was struck by how many of the events happened decades earlier.

“This is another testament to the powerful impact these experiences have on those witnessing them,” he said. “In many cases, physicians describing events occurring years ago noted that those early memories served to give them hope as they encountered new, seemingly hopeless cases in subsequent years. Some contributors wrote that the ‘miracle experience’ actually directed them in their choice of specialty and has influenced much of their professional decision-making throughout their careers. Others draw on those miraculous moments at times when they themselves feel hopeless in the face of adversity and tragedy.”

Dr. Fleischer said that, although Ruby’s story has stayed with him, his mindset or practice style didn’t necessarily change after the experience.

“I’m not sure if it’s affected me because I haven’t been in that situation again,” he said. “I’m in the middle. I would never rule out anything, but I’m not going to base how I practice on the hope for a medical miracle.”

In a recent opinion piece for the New York Times, pulmonary and critical care physician, Daniela Lamas, MD, wrote about the sometimes negative effects of miracle cases on physicians. Such experiences for instance, can lead to a greater drive to beat the odds in future cases, which can sometimes lead to false hope, protracted critical care admissions, and futile procedures. 

“After all, in most cases in the ICU, our initial prognoses are correct,” she wrote. “So there’s a risk to standing at the bedside, thinking about that one patient who made it home despite our predictions. We can give that experience too much weight in influencing our decisions and recommendations.”

Dr. Beam said unexpected outcomes – particularly in the age of COVID-19 – can certainly make physicians think differently about life-sustaining measures and when to discuss end-of-life care with family members. In his own practice, Dr. Beam has encountered unexpected COVID recoveries. Now, he generally gives extremely ill COVID patients a little more time to see if their bodies recover.

“It remains true that people who are really sick with COVID, who are on ventilated or who are requiring a lot of up respiratory support, they don’t do well on average,” he said. “But it is [also] true that there are a handful of people who get to that point and do come back to 80% or 90% of where they were. It makes you think twice.”
 

What to do when parents hope for a miracle

In his palliative care practice, Nashville, Tenn., surgeon Myrick Shinall Jr., MD, PhD, regularly encounters families and patients who wish for a medical miracle. 

“It happens pretty often from a palliative care perspective,” he said. “What I have experienced the most is a patient with a severe brain injury who we don’t believe is recoverable. The medical team is discussing with the family that it is probably time to discontinue the ventilator. In those situations, families will often talk about wanting us to continue on [our life-sustaining efforts] in the hopes that a miracle will happen.”

Dr. Shinall and Trevor Bibler, PhD, recently authored two articles about best practices for responding to patients who hope for a miracle. The first one, published in the American Journal of Bioethics, is directed toward bioethicists; the second article, in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, targets clinicians.

A primary takeaway from the papers is that health professionals should recognize that hope for a miracle may mean different things to different people, said Dr. Bibler, an ethicist and assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. Some patients may have an innocuous hope for a miracle without a religious connotation, whereas others may have a firm conviction in their idea of God, their spirituality, and a concrete vision of the miracle.

“To hear that a family or patient is hoping for a miracle, one shouldn’t assume they already know what the patient or the family might mean by that,” Dr. Bibler said. “If a patient were to say, ‘I hope for a miracle,’ you might ask: ‘What do you mean by a miracle?’ Health professionals should feel empowered to ask that question.”

Health care professionals should explore a patient’s hope for a miracle, be nonjudgmental, ask clarifying questions, restate what the patient has said, and delve into the patient’s world view on death and dying, according to Dr. Bibler’s analyses. In some cases, it may be helpful to include a chaplain or the presence of a theology outsider in discussions. 

When his patients and their families raise the subject of miracles, Dr. Shinall said he inquires what a miracle would look like in their opinion and tries to gauge how much of the assertion is a general hope compared with a firm belief. 

“I try to work with them to make sure they understand doctors’ decisions and recommendations are based on what we know and can predict from our medical experience,” he said. “And that there’s nothing we’re going to do to prevent a miracle from happening, but that that can’t be our medical plan – to wait for a miracle.”

Despite the many patients and families Dr. Shinall has encountered who hope for a miracle, he has never experienced a case that he would describe as a medical miracle, he said. 

Dr. Rotbart believes all physicians struggle with finding balance in how far to push in hope of a miracle and when to let go.

“Miracles, whether they happen to us, or we hear of them from colleagues or we read about them, should humble us as physicians,” he said. “I have come to believe that what we don’t know or don’t understand about medicine, medical miracles, or life in general, isn‘t necessarily cause for fear, and can even be reason for hope.

“Medicine has come a long way since Hippocrates’ theory of The Four Humors and The Four Temperaments, yet we still have much to learn about the workings of the human body. As physicians, we should take comfort in how much we don’t know because that allows us to share hope with our patients and, occasionally, makes medical miracles possible.”

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

It was a freezing December day, and two young brothers were playing outside near a swimming pool when the younger boy, a 3-year-old toddler, fell into the water.

The 7-year-old immediately jumped into the pool to save his brother and was able to pull the toddler to the pool steps where the boy’s head was above water. But the icy temperatures overcame the older brother and he drifted underwater.

“Despite being at the forefront of medicine, what we don’t understand often exceeds what we do understand,” said Harley Rotbart, MD, author of “Miracles We Have Seen” (Health Communications: Deerfield Beach, Fla., 2016).

Paramedics arrived to find both boys unconscious and rushed them to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. The younger boy regained consciousness in the ICU and recovered. The 7-year-old, however, was unresponsive and remained in a coma, said Dr. Rotbart a pediatrician and author based in Denver.

Family members stayed at the boy’s bedside and prayed. But after several weeks, the child’s condition remained unchanged. His parents began to discuss ending life support and organ donation. Then late one night, as Dr. Rotbart sat reading to the unconscious patient, the little boy squeezed his hand. In disbelief, Dr. Rotbart told all of his colleagues about the squeeze the next morning. Everyone attributed the movement to an involuntary muscle spasm, he said. After all, every test and scan showed the boy had no brain function.

But later that day, the child grasped another staff member’s hand. Shortly after that, he squeezed in response to a command. Dr. Rotbart and his staff were stunned, but cautious about feeling too much hope. 

Days later, the child opened his eyes. Then, he smiled. His parents were overjoyed. 

“When he walked out of the hospital more than 2 months after the near-drowning and his heroic rescue of his little brother, we all cheered and cried,” Dr. Rotbart wrote in his book. “We cried many times in the weeks preceding, and I still cry whenever I recall this story.”

The experience, which happened years ago when Dr. Rotbart was a trainee, has stayed with the pediatrician his entire career. 

“His awakening was seemingly impossible – and then it happened,” Dr. Rotbart said. “Despite being at the forefront of medicine and science, what we don’t understand often exceeds what we do understand. And even when we think we understand, we are frequently proven wrong.”

For many, Dr. Rotbart’s experience raises questions about the existence of medical miracles. Although the term can have different definitions, a “medical miracle” generally refers to an unexpected recovery despite a dire prognosis. Frequently, the phrase has a religious connotation and is used to describe a supernatural or paranormal healing.

Do physicians believe in medical miracles? The answers are diverse.

“I have no doubt that extraordinary outcomes happen where patients who are overwhelmingly expected not to survive, do,” says Eric Beam, MD, a hospitalist based in San Diego. “That’s one of the reasons we choose our words very carefully in our conversations with patients and their families and remember that nothing is 0%, and nothing is 100%. But doctors tend to treat situations that are 99.9% as absolute. I don’t think you can practice medicine with the hope or expectation that every case you see has the potential to beat the odds – or be a medical miracle.”
 

Disappearing cancer hailed as ‘miracle’

In 2003, physicians projected that Joseph Rick, 40, had just a few months to live. His mucosal melanoma had spread throughout his body, progressing even after several surgeries, radiation therapy, and a combination of chemotherapy agents, recalled Antoni Ribas, MD, PhD, an oncologist and director of the tumor immunology program at Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles.

Mr. Rick’s melanoma had spread to his intestines with traces on his stomach and bladder. Tumors were present on his liver, lungs, and pancreas. Rick bought a grave and prepared for the worst, he recounted in a Cancer Research Institute video. But his fate took a turn when he enrolled in an experimental drug trial in December 2003. The phase 1 trial was for a new immune modulating antibody, called an anti–CTLA-4 antibody, said Dr. Ribas, who conducted the trial. 

Over the next few weeks and months, all areas of Rick’s melanoma metastases disappeared. By 2009, he was in remission. He has lived the rest of his life with no evidence of melanoma, according to Dr. Ribas.

Mr. Rick’s case has been referenced throughout literature and news stories as a “medical miracle” and a “cancer miracle.”

Does Dr. Ribas think the case was a medical miracle?

“The response in Joseph Rick was what happened in 10%-15% of patients who received anti-CTLA-4 therapy,” Dr. Ribas said. “These were not miracles. These patients responded because their immune system trying to attack the cancer had been stuck at the CTLA-4 checkpoint. Blocking this checkpoint allowed their immune system to proceed to attack and kill cancer cells anywhere in the body.”

The scientific basis of this therapy was work by University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center immunologist James Allison, PhD, that had been done 5 years earlier in mouse models, where giving an anti–CTLA-4 antibody to mice allowed them to reject several implanted cancers, Dr. Ribas explained. Dr. Allison received the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for this work, subsequently opening the door for what we now call “immune checkpoint blockade therapy for cancer.” Dr. Ribas added.

“We tend to call miracles good things that we do not understand how they happened,” Dr. Ribas said. “From the human observation perspective, there have been plenty of medical miracles. However, each one has a specific biological mechanism that led to improvement in a patient. In cancer treatment, early studies using the immune system resulted in occasional patients having tumor responses and long-term benefits.

“With the increased understanding of how the immune system interacts with cancers, which is based on remarkable progress in understanding how the immune system works generated over the past several decades, these ‘miracles’ become specific mechanisms leading to response to cancer, which can then be replicated in other patients.”
 

Patient defies odds after 45 minutes without heartbeat

Florida ob.gyn. Michael Fleischer, MD, had just performed a routine repeat cesarean birth, delivering a healthy baby girl. His patient, Ruby, had a history of high blood pressure but medication taken during the pregnancy had kept her levels stabilized.

In the waiting room, Dr. Fleischer informed Ruby’s large family of the good news. He was planning to head home early that day when he heard his name being called over the hospital’s loudspeaker. Ruby had stopped breathing.

“The anesthesiologist was with her and had immediately intubated her,” Dr. Fleischer said. “We checked to make sure there was no problems or bleeding from the C-section, but everything was completely fine. However, we couldn’t keep her blood pressure stable.”

Dr. Fleischer suspected the respiratory arrest was caused by either an amniotic fluid embolism or a pulmonary embolism. Intubation continued and physicians gave Ruby medication to stabilize her blood pressure. Then suddenly, Ruby’s heart stopped.

Dr. Fleischer and other doctors began compressions, which they continued for 30 minutes. They shocked Ruby with defibrillator paddles multiple times, but there was no change.

“I was already thinking, this is hopeless, there’s nothing we can do,” he said. “The writing is on the wall. She’s going to die.”

Dr. Fleischer spoke to Ruby’s family and explained the tragic turn of events. Relatives were distraught and tearfully visited Ruby to say their goodbyes. They prayed and cried. Eventually, physicians ceased compressions. Ruby had gone 45 minutes without a pulse. The EKG was still showing some irregularity, FDr. leischer said, but no rhythm. Physicians kept Ruby intubated as they waited for the background electrical activity to fade. As they watched the screen in anguish, there was suddenly a blip on the heart rate monitor. Then another and another. Within seconds, Ruby’s heart went back into sinus rhythm.

“We were in disbelief,” Dr. Fleischer said. “We did some tests and put her in the ICU, and she was fine. Usually, after doing compressions on anyone, you’d have bruising or broken ribs. She had nothing. She just woke up and said: ‘What am I doing here? Let me go see my baby.’ ”

Ruby fully recovered, and 3 days later, she went home with her newborn.

While the recovery was unbelievable, Dr. Fleischer stopped short of calling it a medical miracle. There were scientific contributors to her survival: she was immediately intubated when she stopped breathing and compressions were started as soon as her heart stopped.

However, Dr. Fleischer said the fact that lifesaving measures had ended, and Ruby revived on her own was indeed, miraculous.

“It wasn’t like we were doing compressions and brought her back,” he said. “I can scientifically explain things in my mind, except for that. That when we finally stopped and took our hands off her, that’s when something changed. That’s when she came back.”
 

How do ‘medical miracles’ impact physicians?

When Dr. Rotbart was writing his book, which includes physician essays from across the world, he was struck by how many of the events happened decades earlier.

“This is another testament to the powerful impact these experiences have on those witnessing them,” he said. “In many cases, physicians describing events occurring years ago noted that those early memories served to give them hope as they encountered new, seemingly hopeless cases in subsequent years. Some contributors wrote that the ‘miracle experience’ actually directed them in their choice of specialty and has influenced much of their professional decision-making throughout their careers. Others draw on those miraculous moments at times when they themselves feel hopeless in the face of adversity and tragedy.”

Dr. Fleischer said that, although Ruby’s story has stayed with him, his mindset or practice style didn’t necessarily change after the experience.

“I’m not sure if it’s affected me because I haven’t been in that situation again,” he said. “I’m in the middle. I would never rule out anything, but I’m not going to base how I practice on the hope for a medical miracle.”

In a recent opinion piece for the New York Times, pulmonary and critical care physician, Daniela Lamas, MD, wrote about the sometimes negative effects of miracle cases on physicians. Such experiences for instance, can lead to a greater drive to beat the odds in future cases, which can sometimes lead to false hope, protracted critical care admissions, and futile procedures. 

“After all, in most cases in the ICU, our initial prognoses are correct,” she wrote. “So there’s a risk to standing at the bedside, thinking about that one patient who made it home despite our predictions. We can give that experience too much weight in influencing our decisions and recommendations.”

Dr. Beam said unexpected outcomes – particularly in the age of COVID-19 – can certainly make physicians think differently about life-sustaining measures and when to discuss end-of-life care with family members. In his own practice, Dr. Beam has encountered unexpected COVID recoveries. Now, he generally gives extremely ill COVID patients a little more time to see if their bodies recover.

“It remains true that people who are really sick with COVID, who are on ventilated or who are requiring a lot of up respiratory support, they don’t do well on average,” he said. “But it is [also] true that there are a handful of people who get to that point and do come back to 80% or 90% of where they were. It makes you think twice.”
 

What to do when parents hope for a miracle

In his palliative care practice, Nashville, Tenn., surgeon Myrick Shinall Jr., MD, PhD, regularly encounters families and patients who wish for a medical miracle. 

“It happens pretty often from a palliative care perspective,” he said. “What I have experienced the most is a patient with a severe brain injury who we don’t believe is recoverable. The medical team is discussing with the family that it is probably time to discontinue the ventilator. In those situations, families will often talk about wanting us to continue on [our life-sustaining efforts] in the hopes that a miracle will happen.”

Dr. Shinall and Trevor Bibler, PhD, recently authored two articles about best practices for responding to patients who hope for a miracle. The first one, published in the American Journal of Bioethics, is directed toward bioethicists; the second article, in the Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, targets clinicians.

A primary takeaway from the papers is that health professionals should recognize that hope for a miracle may mean different things to different people, said Dr. Bibler, an ethicist and assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. Some patients may have an innocuous hope for a miracle without a religious connotation, whereas others may have a firm conviction in their idea of God, their spirituality, and a concrete vision of the miracle.

“To hear that a family or patient is hoping for a miracle, one shouldn’t assume they already know what the patient or the family might mean by that,” Dr. Bibler said. “If a patient were to say, ‘I hope for a miracle,’ you might ask: ‘What do you mean by a miracle?’ Health professionals should feel empowered to ask that question.”

Health care professionals should explore a patient’s hope for a miracle, be nonjudgmental, ask clarifying questions, restate what the patient has said, and delve into the patient’s world view on death and dying, according to Dr. Bibler’s analyses. In some cases, it may be helpful to include a chaplain or the presence of a theology outsider in discussions. 

When his patients and their families raise the subject of miracles, Dr. Shinall said he inquires what a miracle would look like in their opinion and tries to gauge how much of the assertion is a general hope compared with a firm belief. 

“I try to work with them to make sure they understand doctors’ decisions and recommendations are based on what we know and can predict from our medical experience,” he said. “And that there’s nothing we’re going to do to prevent a miracle from happening, but that that can’t be our medical plan – to wait for a miracle.”

Despite the many patients and families Dr. Shinall has encountered who hope for a miracle, he has never experienced a case that he would describe as a medical miracle, he said. 

Dr. Rotbart believes all physicians struggle with finding balance in how far to push in hope of a miracle and when to let go.

“Miracles, whether they happen to us, or we hear of them from colleagues or we read about them, should humble us as physicians,” he said. “I have come to believe that what we don’t know or don’t understand about medicine, medical miracles, or life in general, isn‘t necessarily cause for fear, and can even be reason for hope.

“Medicine has come a long way since Hippocrates’ theory of The Four Humors and The Four Temperaments, yet we still have much to learn about the workings of the human body. As physicians, we should take comfort in how much we don’t know because that allows us to share hope with our patients and, occasionally, makes medical miracles possible.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s decision to shorten the length of isolation time for asymptomatic Americans with COVID-19, regardless of their vaccination status, to 5 days from 10 days is confusing. I hope the agency reconsiders this decision.

After all, one of the CDC’s key messages during this pandemic has been that even people with asymptomatic COVID who have been vaccinated and boosted can transmit the disease. So it seems to me that the Dec. 27, 2021, recommendation about shortening the isolation time for COVID-19–positive people, like the agency’s earlier guidance encouraging people who are vaccinated to stop wearing masks while in indoor settings, runs contrary to good public health principles.

As an expert in human behavior, I am worried about the impact of these confusing messages on the psyche of people in general, as well as on our patients.
 

Mental health impact

Soon after the United States went on lockdown in March 2020, I wrote about the likelihood of a pandemic of PTSD, anxiety, and depression that would occur in the wake of rising COVID-19 rates. Well, it happened.

Many people have felt a sense of existential despair, depression, and anxiety. As we head into year No. 3 of disruption of our daily lives – and face the loss of more than 825,000 Americans to COVID – we continue to navigate this uncertainty. And now we must deal with Omicron, a variant that is so highly transmissible that it is apparently able to, in some cases, evade two-dose regimens of mRNA vaccines, boosters, and immunity from past infections, according to a report from Imperial College London. Yet, we are being told by some that Omicron might be less severe, compared with other variants. I worry that this assessment is misleading. In that same report, the Imperial College said it “found no evidence” that Omicron is less virulent than Delta, based on the risk of hospitalization and symptom status.

Meanwhile, animal studies suggest that the Omicron variant might lead to less lung damage than previous variants. A preprint article that is being considered for publication by a Nature Portfolio journal suggests that hamsters and mice infected with the Omicron variant do not have as much lung damage as those infected with other variants. More data need to come in for us to get a true understanding of Omicron’s virulence and transmissibility. We should keep an eye on Israel, which is launching a clinical trial of a second booster, or fourth mRNA shot.

As clinicians, we should give our patients and other people with whom we come in contact a sense of hope. In addition to urging people to get boosters, let’s tell them to err on the side of safety when it comes to this pandemic. That means encouraging them to remain isolated for longer than 5 days – until they test negative for COVID. It also means encouraging patients to wear high-quality face masks while inside public spaces – even in the absence of mandates. I have found it heartbreaking to watch televised broadcasts of sporting events held at some stadiums across the country where masks are not being worn. This absence of face coverings is counterintuitive at a time when some Broadway shows are closing. Even the great Radio City Rockettes shut down their holiday shows early in December 2021 because of COVID.

And, as I’ve argued before, we must not give up on unvaccinated people. I have had success in changing the minds of a few patients and some acquaintances with gentle, respectful prodding and vaccine education.

I would also like to see public health principles implemented in our schools and colleges. To protect the health of our children and young adults, we must continue to be nimble – which means school districts should implement layered prevention strategies, as the CDC recommends. This includes not only encouraging eligible staff members and students to get vaccinated, but requiring face masks inside school facilities, maintaining a physical distance of at least 3 feet, “screening testing, ventilation, handwashing, and staying home when sick.”

Furthermore, in deciding whether schools should remain open or be closed after positive COVID cases are discovered, officials should look at the vaccine demographics of that particular school. For example, if 15% of students are vaccinated in one school and 70% are vaccinated in another, the judgment would be different. Of course, it’s clearly best for schools to remain open, but perhaps closing them temporarily – perhaps for a week or 10 days – should be on the table if infection rates reach a certain level.

Now that we know more and have the benefit of getting more than 200 million Americans fully vaccinated, we can be far more selective about closings and openings. An important part of our strategy must be to communicate honestly with the public about which measures are best for safety. As a key tenet of cognitive-behavioral therapy tells us, “all-or-nothing” thinking is not productive. That should also be the case with our approach to managing COVID-19.

We don’t know the future of the pandemic. Yes, it will end, and possibly COVID will become endemic – like the flu. However, in the meantime, in addition to promoting vaccinations and boosters, we must rigorously encourage our patients to follow public health standards of masking, social distancing, and closing down businesses – and schools – temporarily.

This pandemic has taken a horrendous mental health toll on all of us – especially our patients and frontline health care workers. I’ve spoken with numerous people who were anxious, depressed, and showed signs of PTSD in early 2020; after they got vaccinated, COVID spread diminished, and as public health protocols began to lift, so did their spirits. Clearly for some, the benefit of psychiatric/psychological care centering on the pandemic has proven invaluable. In some ways, the pandemic has brought to the surface the importance of mental health care and removed some of the stigma from mental illness. And that’s a good thing.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist who has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s decision to shorten the length of isolation time for asymptomatic Americans with COVID-19, regardless of their vaccination status, to 5 days from 10 days is confusing. I hope the agency reconsiders this decision.

After all, one of the CDC’s key messages during this pandemic has been that even people with asymptomatic COVID who have been vaccinated and boosted can transmit the disease. So it seems to me that the Dec. 27, 2021, recommendation about shortening the isolation time for COVID-19–positive people, like the agency’s earlier guidance encouraging people who are vaccinated to stop wearing masks while in indoor settings, runs contrary to good public health principles.

As an expert in human behavior, I am worried about the impact of these confusing messages on the psyche of people in general, as well as on our patients.
 

Mental health impact

Soon after the United States went on lockdown in March 2020, I wrote about the likelihood of a pandemic of PTSD, anxiety, and depression that would occur in the wake of rising COVID-19 rates. Well, it happened.

Many people have felt a sense of existential despair, depression, and anxiety. As we head into year No. 3 of disruption of our daily lives – and face the loss of more than 825,000 Americans to COVID – we continue to navigate this uncertainty. And now we must deal with Omicron, a variant that is so highly transmissible that it is apparently able to, in some cases, evade two-dose regimens of mRNA vaccines, boosters, and immunity from past infections, according to a report from Imperial College London. Yet, we are being told by some that Omicron might be less severe, compared with other variants. I worry that this assessment is misleading. In that same report, the Imperial College said it “found no evidence” that Omicron is less virulent than Delta, based on the risk of hospitalization and symptom status.

Meanwhile, animal studies suggest that the Omicron variant might lead to less lung damage than previous variants. A preprint article that is being considered for publication by a Nature Portfolio journal suggests that hamsters and mice infected with the Omicron variant do not have as much lung damage as those infected with other variants. More data need to come in for us to get a true understanding of Omicron’s virulence and transmissibility. We should keep an eye on Israel, which is launching a clinical trial of a second booster, or fourth mRNA shot.

As clinicians, we should give our patients and other people with whom we come in contact a sense of hope. In addition to urging people to get boosters, let’s tell them to err on the side of safety when it comes to this pandemic. That means encouraging them to remain isolated for longer than 5 days – until they test negative for COVID. It also means encouraging patients to wear high-quality face masks while inside public spaces – even in the absence of mandates. I have found it heartbreaking to watch televised broadcasts of sporting events held at some stadiums across the country where masks are not being worn. This absence of face coverings is counterintuitive at a time when some Broadway shows are closing. Even the great Radio City Rockettes shut down their holiday shows early in December 2021 because of COVID.

And, as I’ve argued before, we must not give up on unvaccinated people. I have had success in changing the minds of a few patients and some acquaintances with gentle, respectful prodding and vaccine education.

I would also like to see public health principles implemented in our schools and colleges. To protect the health of our children and young adults, we must continue to be nimble – which means school districts should implement layered prevention strategies, as the CDC recommends. This includes not only encouraging eligible staff members and students to get vaccinated, but requiring face masks inside school facilities, maintaining a physical distance of at least 3 feet, “screening testing, ventilation, handwashing, and staying home when sick.”

Furthermore, in deciding whether schools should remain open or be closed after positive COVID cases are discovered, officials should look at the vaccine demographics of that particular school. For example, if 15% of students are vaccinated in one school and 70% are vaccinated in another, the judgment would be different. Of course, it’s clearly best for schools to remain open, but perhaps closing them temporarily – perhaps for a week or 10 days – should be on the table if infection rates reach a certain level.

Now that we know more and have the benefit of getting more than 200 million Americans fully vaccinated, we can be far more selective about closings and openings. An important part of our strategy must be to communicate honestly with the public about which measures are best for safety. As a key tenet of cognitive-behavioral therapy tells us, “all-or-nothing” thinking is not productive. That should also be the case with our approach to managing COVID-19.

We don’t know the future of the pandemic. Yes, it will end, and possibly COVID will become endemic – like the flu. However, in the meantime, in addition to promoting vaccinations and boosters, we must rigorously encourage our patients to follow public health standards of masking, social distancing, and closing down businesses – and schools – temporarily.

This pandemic has taken a horrendous mental health toll on all of us – especially our patients and frontline health care workers. I’ve spoken with numerous people who were anxious, depressed, and showed signs of PTSD in early 2020; after they got vaccinated, COVID spread diminished, and as public health protocols began to lift, so did their spirits. Clearly for some, the benefit of psychiatric/psychological care centering on the pandemic has proven invaluable. In some ways, the pandemic has brought to the surface the importance of mental health care and removed some of the stigma from mental illness. And that’s a good thing.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist who has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s decision to shorten the length of isolation time for asymptomatic Americans with COVID-19, regardless of their vaccination status, to 5 days from 10 days is confusing. I hope the agency reconsiders this decision.

After all, one of the CDC’s key messages during this pandemic has been that even people with asymptomatic COVID who have been vaccinated and boosted can transmit the disease. So it seems to me that the Dec. 27, 2021, recommendation about shortening the isolation time for COVID-19–positive people, like the agency’s earlier guidance encouraging people who are vaccinated to stop wearing masks while in indoor settings, runs contrary to good public health principles.

As an expert in human behavior, I am worried about the impact of these confusing messages on the psyche of people in general, as well as on our patients.
 

Mental health impact

Soon after the United States went on lockdown in March 2020, I wrote about the likelihood of a pandemic of PTSD, anxiety, and depression that would occur in the wake of rising COVID-19 rates. Well, it happened.

Many people have felt a sense of existential despair, depression, and anxiety. As we head into year No. 3 of disruption of our daily lives – and face the loss of more than 825,000 Americans to COVID – we continue to navigate this uncertainty. And now we must deal with Omicron, a variant that is so highly transmissible that it is apparently able to, in some cases, evade two-dose regimens of mRNA vaccines, boosters, and immunity from past infections, according to a report from Imperial College London. Yet, we are being told by some that Omicron might be less severe, compared with other variants. I worry that this assessment is misleading. In that same report, the Imperial College said it “found no evidence” that Omicron is less virulent than Delta, based on the risk of hospitalization and symptom status.

Meanwhile, animal studies suggest that the Omicron variant might lead to less lung damage than previous variants. A preprint article that is being considered for publication by a Nature Portfolio journal suggests that hamsters and mice infected with the Omicron variant do not have as much lung damage as those infected with other variants. More data need to come in for us to get a true understanding of Omicron’s virulence and transmissibility. We should keep an eye on Israel, which is launching a clinical trial of a second booster, or fourth mRNA shot.

As clinicians, we should give our patients and other people with whom we come in contact a sense of hope. In addition to urging people to get boosters, let’s tell them to err on the side of safety when it comes to this pandemic. That means encouraging them to remain isolated for longer than 5 days – until they test negative for COVID. It also means encouraging patients to wear high-quality face masks while inside public spaces – even in the absence of mandates. I have found it heartbreaking to watch televised broadcasts of sporting events held at some stadiums across the country where masks are not being worn. This absence of face coverings is counterintuitive at a time when some Broadway shows are closing. Even the great Radio City Rockettes shut down their holiday shows early in December 2021 because of COVID.

And, as I’ve argued before, we must not give up on unvaccinated people. I have had success in changing the minds of a few patients and some acquaintances with gentle, respectful prodding and vaccine education.

I would also like to see public health principles implemented in our schools and colleges. To protect the health of our children and young adults, we must continue to be nimble – which means school districts should implement layered prevention strategies, as the CDC recommends. This includes not only encouraging eligible staff members and students to get vaccinated, but requiring face masks inside school facilities, maintaining a physical distance of at least 3 feet, “screening testing, ventilation, handwashing, and staying home when sick.”

Furthermore, in deciding whether schools should remain open or be closed after positive COVID cases are discovered, officials should look at the vaccine demographics of that particular school. For example, if 15% of students are vaccinated in one school and 70% are vaccinated in another, the judgment would be different. Of course, it’s clearly best for schools to remain open, but perhaps closing them temporarily – perhaps for a week or 10 days – should be on the table if infection rates reach a certain level.

Now that we know more and have the benefit of getting more than 200 million Americans fully vaccinated, we can be far more selective about closings and openings. An important part of our strategy must be to communicate honestly with the public about which measures are best for safety. As a key tenet of cognitive-behavioral therapy tells us, “all-or-nothing” thinking is not productive. That should also be the case with our approach to managing COVID-19.

We don’t know the future of the pandemic. Yes, it will end, and possibly COVID will become endemic – like the flu. However, in the meantime, in addition to promoting vaccinations and boosters, we must rigorously encourage our patients to follow public health standards of masking, social distancing, and closing down businesses – and schools – temporarily.

This pandemic has taken a horrendous mental health toll on all of us – especially our patients and frontline health care workers. I’ve spoken with numerous people who were anxious, depressed, and showed signs of PTSD in early 2020; after they got vaccinated, COVID spread diminished, and as public health protocols began to lift, so did their spirits. Clearly for some, the benefit of psychiatric/psychological care centering on the pandemic has proven invaluable. In some ways, the pandemic has brought to the surface the importance of mental health care and removed some of the stigma from mental illness. And that’s a good thing.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist who has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
 

Researchers have identified a risk locus on chromosome 7 containing DNA variations that increase the risk that an individual will attempt suicide, even in the absence of a psychiatric disorder.

This finding suggests the genetic underpinnings of suicide attempts are partially shared and partially distinct from those of related psychiatric disorders, the investigators note.

“This study brings us a step closer to understanding the neurobiology of suicidality, with the ultimate goal of developing new treatments and prevention strategies,” Niamh Mullins, PhD, department of psychiatry, department of genetics and genomic sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview.

The study was published online in Biological Psychiatry.

Largest study to date

In the largest genetic association study of suicide attempt published to date, the researchers conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 29,782 suicide attempt cases and 519,961 controls in the International Suicide Genetics Consortium (ISGC).

Two loci reached genome-wide significance for suicide attempt – the major histocompatibility complex and an intergenic locus on chromosome 7, the latter of which remained associated with suicide attempt after conditioning on psychiatric disorders and was replicated in an independent cohort of over 14,000 veterans in the Million Veteran Program.

“This is the first replicated genetic locus that contributes more to suicide attempt than related psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Mullins said.

“The study found overlap in the genetic basis of suicide attempt and that of related psychiatric disorders, particularly major depression, but also with that of nonpsychiatric risk factors such as smoking, pain, risk-taking behavior, sleep disturbances, and poorer general health,” Dr. Mullins said.

“These genetic relationships between suicide attempt and nonpsychiatric risk factors were not a by-product of comorbid psychiatric illness, suggesting that there is some shared biological basis between suicide attempt and nonpsychiatric risk factors,” she added.

Dr. Mullins cautioned that the findings do not have any immediate impact on patient care.

“The ultimate goal of this research is to gain insight into the underlying biological pathways involved in suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts, providing potential avenues to treatments and prevention strategies,” she said.

“The study findings also point to the importance of studying the potential direct causal paths between these risk factors and suicide attempt in patients with and without psychiatric illness,” Douglas Ruderfer, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., cofounder and cochair of the consortium and senior author of the paper, added in a news release.

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

Researchers have identified a risk locus on chromosome 7 containing DNA variations that increase the risk that an individual will attempt suicide, even in the absence of a psychiatric disorder.

This finding suggests the genetic underpinnings of suicide attempts are partially shared and partially distinct from those of related psychiatric disorders, the investigators note.

“This study brings us a step closer to understanding the neurobiology of suicidality, with the ultimate goal of developing new treatments and prevention strategies,” Niamh Mullins, PhD, department of psychiatry, department of genetics and genomic sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview.

The study was published online in Biological Psychiatry.

Largest study to date

In the largest genetic association study of suicide attempt published to date, the researchers conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 29,782 suicide attempt cases and 519,961 controls in the International Suicide Genetics Consortium (ISGC).

Two loci reached genome-wide significance for suicide attempt – the major histocompatibility complex and an intergenic locus on chromosome 7, the latter of which remained associated with suicide attempt after conditioning on psychiatric disorders and was replicated in an independent cohort of over 14,000 veterans in the Million Veteran Program.

“This is the first replicated genetic locus that contributes more to suicide attempt than related psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Mullins said.

“The study found overlap in the genetic basis of suicide attempt and that of related psychiatric disorders, particularly major depression, but also with that of nonpsychiatric risk factors such as smoking, pain, risk-taking behavior, sleep disturbances, and poorer general health,” Dr. Mullins said.

“These genetic relationships between suicide attempt and nonpsychiatric risk factors were not a by-product of comorbid psychiatric illness, suggesting that there is some shared biological basis between suicide attempt and nonpsychiatric risk factors,” she added.

Dr. Mullins cautioned that the findings do not have any immediate impact on patient care.

“The ultimate goal of this research is to gain insight into the underlying biological pathways involved in suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts, providing potential avenues to treatments and prevention strategies,” she said.

“The study findings also point to the importance of studying the potential direct causal paths between these risk factors and suicide attempt in patients with and without psychiatric illness,” Douglas Ruderfer, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., cofounder and cochair of the consortium and senior author of the paper, added in a news release.

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

Researchers have identified a risk locus on chromosome 7 containing DNA variations that increase the risk that an individual will attempt suicide, even in the absence of a psychiatric disorder.

This finding suggests the genetic underpinnings of suicide attempts are partially shared and partially distinct from those of related psychiatric disorders, the investigators note.

“This study brings us a step closer to understanding the neurobiology of suicidality, with the ultimate goal of developing new treatments and prevention strategies,” Niamh Mullins, PhD, department of psychiatry, department of genetics and genomic sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview.

The study was published online in Biological Psychiatry.

Largest study to date

In the largest genetic association study of suicide attempt published to date, the researchers conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 29,782 suicide attempt cases and 519,961 controls in the International Suicide Genetics Consortium (ISGC).

Two loci reached genome-wide significance for suicide attempt – the major histocompatibility complex and an intergenic locus on chromosome 7, the latter of which remained associated with suicide attempt after conditioning on psychiatric disorders and was replicated in an independent cohort of over 14,000 veterans in the Million Veteran Program.

“This is the first replicated genetic locus that contributes more to suicide attempt than related psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Mullins said.

“The study found overlap in the genetic basis of suicide attempt and that of related psychiatric disorders, particularly major depression, but also with that of nonpsychiatric risk factors such as smoking, pain, risk-taking behavior, sleep disturbances, and poorer general health,” Dr. Mullins said.

“These genetic relationships between suicide attempt and nonpsychiatric risk factors were not a by-product of comorbid psychiatric illness, suggesting that there is some shared biological basis between suicide attempt and nonpsychiatric risk factors,” she added.

Dr. Mullins cautioned that the findings do not have any immediate impact on patient care.

“The ultimate goal of this research is to gain insight into the underlying biological pathways involved in suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts, providing potential avenues to treatments and prevention strategies,” she said.

“The study findings also point to the importance of studying the potential direct causal paths between these risk factors and suicide attempt in patients with and without psychiatric illness,” Douglas Ruderfer, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., cofounder and cochair of the consortium and senior author of the paper, added in a news release.

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

Are you still wearing a cloth face mask?

Amid the rapidly spreading Omicron variant, experts stress that we all should swap cloth masks for N95 respirators or 3-ply surgical masks.

For background: N95 respirators are tightly fitting masks that cover your mouth and nose and help prevent contact with droplets and tiny particles in the air from people talking, coughing, sneezing, and spreading in other ways. Usually worn by health care workers and first responders, these masks can filter up to 95% of air droplets and particles, according to the CDC.

KN95 and KN94 masks are similar but are designed to meet international standards, unlike N95s that are approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Meanwhile, a 3-ply surgical mask is a looser-fitting mask that can help prevent contact with infected droplets in the air.

But recommendations to opt for N95 and 3-ply surgical masks over cloth masks are nothing new, says Leana Wen, MD, an emergency doctor and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington.

In fact, public health experts have been urging stronger mask protection for months.

“It’s not just with Omicron that we need better masks, it was with Delta, it was with Alpha before that,” Dr. Wen said. “We have known for many months that COVID-19 is airborne, and therefore, a simple cloth mask is not going to cut it.”

Here’s what to know about these protective masks.
 

They’re necessary

Omicron is spreading much faster than previous COVID-19 variants. As it’s up to three times as likely to spread as the Delta variant, mask-wearing is paramount right now, says Anita Gupta, DO, an adjunct assistant professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine and pain medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The quality of a mask also matters a lot, said Dr. Wen.

“Double masking, including a well-fitting cloth mask on top of a surgical mask, adds additional protection,” she said. “Ideally, though, people should be wearing an N95, KN95, or KF94 when in indoor settings around other people with unknown vaccination status.”

If wearing an N95 mask causes extreme discomfort, wear it in high-risk settings where there are lots of people, like crowded restaurants and busy commuter trains, says Dr. Wen. “If you’re in a grocery store, there’s plenty of space and ventilation. You may not need an N95. I recommend that people obtain different masks and practice with them in low-risk settings before they go out in public in a high-risk setting.”

But people should wear a 3-ply surgical mask at the very least.
 

Three-ply surgical and N95 mask qualities

With 3-ply surgical masks, the fit of the mask is often more of an issue than its comfort, Dr. Wen said. But there are ways to adjust these masks, especially for those who have smaller heads.

“You can put a rubber band around the ear loops and make them a bit tighter,” said Dr. Wen. “Some people have found that using pins in their hair, that’s another way of keeping the loops in place.”

Another important tip on 3-ply surgical masks and N95s: These masks are reusable.

But how many times you should use them varies, Dr. Wen said. “As an example, if you are sweating a lot, and the mask is now really damp. Or putting it in your purse or backpack, and now it’s misshapen, and you cannot get it back to fit on your face, then it’s time to throw it away.”
 

Protection first

For some, cloth masks became somewhat of a statement, with people sporting logos of their favorite NFL team, or maybe even a fun animal print.

But you should always keep in mind the purpose of wearing a mask, Dr. Wen said. “Mask wearing is very functional and is about reducing your likelihood of contracting COVID. People should also use whatever methods inspire them, too, but for me, it’s purely a functional exercise.”

Mask wearing is not always enjoyable, but it remains critical in keeping people safe from COVID-19, especially the elderly and other high-risk people, Gupta says.

“There is lots of research and experts working hard to stop COVID-19,” she says. “It is important for all of us to remember that wearing a mask alone doesn’t make us safe.”

“We all need to keep washing our hands frequently and maintaining a distance from people, as well.”

For more information on where to find 3-ply surgical masks and N95s, check here or here to start.

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

Are you still wearing a cloth face mask?

Amid the rapidly spreading Omicron variant, experts stress that we all should swap cloth masks for N95 respirators or 3-ply surgical masks.

For background: N95 respirators are tightly fitting masks that cover your mouth and nose and help prevent contact with droplets and tiny particles in the air from people talking, coughing, sneezing, and spreading in other ways. Usually worn by health care workers and first responders, these masks can filter up to 95% of air droplets and particles, according to the CDC.

KN95 and KN94 masks are similar but are designed to meet international standards, unlike N95s that are approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Meanwhile, a 3-ply surgical mask is a looser-fitting mask that can help prevent contact with infected droplets in the air.

But recommendations to opt for N95 and 3-ply surgical masks over cloth masks are nothing new, says Leana Wen, MD, an emergency doctor and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington.

In fact, public health experts have been urging stronger mask protection for months.

“It’s not just with Omicron that we need better masks, it was with Delta, it was with Alpha before that,” Dr. Wen said. “We have known for many months that COVID-19 is airborne, and therefore, a simple cloth mask is not going to cut it.”

Here’s what to know about these protective masks.
 

They’re necessary

Omicron is spreading much faster than previous COVID-19 variants. As it’s up to three times as likely to spread as the Delta variant, mask-wearing is paramount right now, says Anita Gupta, DO, an adjunct assistant professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine and pain medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The quality of a mask also matters a lot, said Dr. Wen.

“Double masking, including a well-fitting cloth mask on top of a surgical mask, adds additional protection,” she said. “Ideally, though, people should be wearing an N95, KN95, or KF94 when in indoor settings around other people with unknown vaccination status.”

If wearing an N95 mask causes extreme discomfort, wear it in high-risk settings where there are lots of people, like crowded restaurants and busy commuter trains, says Dr. Wen. “If you’re in a grocery store, there’s plenty of space and ventilation. You may not need an N95. I recommend that people obtain different masks and practice with them in low-risk settings before they go out in public in a high-risk setting.”

But people should wear a 3-ply surgical mask at the very least.
 

Three-ply surgical and N95 mask qualities

With 3-ply surgical masks, the fit of the mask is often more of an issue than its comfort, Dr. Wen said. But there are ways to adjust these masks, especially for those who have smaller heads.

“You can put a rubber band around the ear loops and make them a bit tighter,” said Dr. Wen. “Some people have found that using pins in their hair, that’s another way of keeping the loops in place.”

Another important tip on 3-ply surgical masks and N95s: These masks are reusable.

But how many times you should use them varies, Dr. Wen said. “As an example, if you are sweating a lot, and the mask is now really damp. Or putting it in your purse or backpack, and now it’s misshapen, and you cannot get it back to fit on your face, then it’s time to throw it away.”
 

Protection first

For some, cloth masks became somewhat of a statement, with people sporting logos of their favorite NFL team, or maybe even a fun animal print.

But you should always keep in mind the purpose of wearing a mask, Dr. Wen said. “Mask wearing is very functional and is about reducing your likelihood of contracting COVID. People should also use whatever methods inspire them, too, but for me, it’s purely a functional exercise.”

Mask wearing is not always enjoyable, but it remains critical in keeping people safe from COVID-19, especially the elderly and other high-risk people, Gupta says.

“There is lots of research and experts working hard to stop COVID-19,” she says. “It is important for all of us to remember that wearing a mask alone doesn’t make us safe.”

“We all need to keep washing our hands frequently and maintaining a distance from people, as well.”

For more information on where to find 3-ply surgical masks and N95s, check here or here to start.

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

Are you still wearing a cloth face mask?

Amid the rapidly spreading Omicron variant, experts stress that we all should swap cloth masks for N95 respirators or 3-ply surgical masks.

For background: N95 respirators are tightly fitting masks that cover your mouth and nose and help prevent contact with droplets and tiny particles in the air from people talking, coughing, sneezing, and spreading in other ways. Usually worn by health care workers and first responders, these masks can filter up to 95% of air droplets and particles, according to the CDC.

KN95 and KN94 masks are similar but are designed to meet international standards, unlike N95s that are approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Meanwhile, a 3-ply surgical mask is a looser-fitting mask that can help prevent contact with infected droplets in the air.

But recommendations to opt for N95 and 3-ply surgical masks over cloth masks are nothing new, says Leana Wen, MD, an emergency doctor and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington.

In fact, public health experts have been urging stronger mask protection for months.

“It’s not just with Omicron that we need better masks, it was with Delta, it was with Alpha before that,” Dr. Wen said. “We have known for many months that COVID-19 is airborne, and therefore, a simple cloth mask is not going to cut it.”

Here’s what to know about these protective masks.
 

They’re necessary

Omicron is spreading much faster than previous COVID-19 variants. As it’s up to three times as likely to spread as the Delta variant, mask-wearing is paramount right now, says Anita Gupta, DO, an adjunct assistant professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine and pain medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The quality of a mask also matters a lot, said Dr. Wen.

“Double masking, including a well-fitting cloth mask on top of a surgical mask, adds additional protection,” she said. “Ideally, though, people should be wearing an N95, KN95, or KF94 when in indoor settings around other people with unknown vaccination status.”

If wearing an N95 mask causes extreme discomfort, wear it in high-risk settings where there are lots of people, like crowded restaurants and busy commuter trains, says Dr. Wen. “If you’re in a grocery store, there’s plenty of space and ventilation. You may not need an N95. I recommend that people obtain different masks and practice with them in low-risk settings before they go out in public in a high-risk setting.”

But people should wear a 3-ply surgical mask at the very least.
 

Three-ply surgical and N95 mask qualities

With 3-ply surgical masks, the fit of the mask is often more of an issue than its comfort, Dr. Wen said. But there are ways to adjust these masks, especially for those who have smaller heads.

“You can put a rubber band around the ear loops and make them a bit tighter,” said Dr. Wen. “Some people have found that using pins in their hair, that’s another way of keeping the loops in place.”

Another important tip on 3-ply surgical masks and N95s: These masks are reusable.

But how many times you should use them varies, Dr. Wen said. “As an example, if you are sweating a lot, and the mask is now really damp. Or putting it in your purse or backpack, and now it’s misshapen, and you cannot get it back to fit on your face, then it’s time to throw it away.”
 

Protection first

For some, cloth masks became somewhat of a statement, with people sporting logos of their favorite NFL team, or maybe even a fun animal print.

But you should always keep in mind the purpose of wearing a mask, Dr. Wen said. “Mask wearing is very functional and is about reducing your likelihood of contracting COVID. People should also use whatever methods inspire them, too, but for me, it’s purely a functional exercise.”

Mask wearing is not always enjoyable, but it remains critical in keeping people safe from COVID-19, especially the elderly and other high-risk people, Gupta says.

“There is lots of research and experts working hard to stop COVID-19,” she says. “It is important for all of us to remember that wearing a mask alone doesn’t make us safe.”

“We all need to keep washing our hands frequently and maintaining a distance from people, as well.”

For more information on where to find 3-ply surgical masks and N95s, check here or here to start.

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

With new cases of COVID-19 skyrocketing to more than 240,000 a day recently in the U.S., many people are facing the same situation: A family member or friend tests positive or was exposed to someone who did, and the holiday gathering, visit, or return to work is just days or hours away. Now what?

New guidance issued Dec. 27 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shortens the recommended isolation and quarantine period for the general population, coming after the agency shortened the isolation period for health care workers.

This news organization reached out to two infectious disease specialists to get answers to questions that are frequently asked in these situations.
 

If you have tested positive for COVID-19, what do you do next?

“If you have tested positive, you are infected. At the moment, you are [either] symptomatically affected or presymptomatically infected,’’ said Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. At that point, you need to isolate for 5 days, according to the new CDC guidance. (That period has been shortened from 10 days.)

Isolation means separating the infected person from others. Quarantine refers to things you should do if you’re exposed to the virus or you have a close contact infected with COVID-19.

Under the new CDC guidelines, after the 5-day isolation, if the infected person then has no symptoms, he or she can leave isolation and then wear a mask for 5  days.

Those who test positive also need to tell their close contacts they are positive, said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.  

According to the CDC, the change to a shortened quarantine time is motivated by science ‘’demonstrating that the majority of SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurs early in the course of the illness, generally in the 1-2 days prior to onset of symptoms and the 2-3 days after.”
 

If you have been exposed to someone with COVID-19, what do you do next?

“If they are vaccinated and boosted, the guidance says there is no need to quarantine,” Dr. Adalja said. But the CDC guidance does recommend these people wear a well-fitting mask at all times when around others for 10 days after exposure.

For everyone else, including the unvaccinated and those who are more than 6 months out from their second Pfizer or Moderna vaccine dose, or more than 2 months from their J&J dose, the CDC recommends a quarantine for 5 days – and wearing a mask for the 5 days after that.

On a practical level, Dr. Adalja said he thinks those who are vaccinated but not boosted could also skip the quarantine and wear a mask for 10 days. Dr. Offit agrees. Because many people exposed have trouble quarantining, Dr. Offit advises those exposed who can’t follow that guidance to be sure to wear a mask for 10 days when indoors. The CDC guidance also offers that as another strategy – that if a 5-day quarantine is not feasible, the exposed person should wear a mask for 10 days when around others.

But if  someone who was exposed gets symptoms, that person then enters the infected category and follows that guidance, Dr. Offit said.
 

When should the person who has been exposed get tested?

After the exposure, ‘’you should probably wait 2-3 days,” Dr. Offit said. “The virus has to reproduce itself.”

Testing should be done by those exposed at least once, Dr. Adalja said.

“But there’s data to support daily testing to guide their activities, but this is not CDC guidance. Home tests are sufficient for this purpose.”
 

At what point can the infected person mingle safely with others?

“Technically, if asymptomatic, 10 days without a mask, 5 days with a mask,” said Dr. Adalja. “I think this could also be guided with home test negativity being a gauge [as to whether to mingle].”

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

With new cases of COVID-19 skyrocketing to more than 240,000 a day recently in the U.S., many people are facing the same situation: A family member or friend tests positive or was exposed to someone who did, and the holiday gathering, visit, or return to work is just days or hours away. Now what?

New guidance issued Dec. 27 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shortens the recommended isolation and quarantine period for the general population, coming after the agency shortened the isolation period for health care workers.

This news organization reached out to two infectious disease specialists to get answers to questions that are frequently asked in these situations.
 

If you have tested positive for COVID-19, what do you do next?

“If you have tested positive, you are infected. At the moment, you are [either] symptomatically affected or presymptomatically infected,’’ said Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. At that point, you need to isolate for 5 days, according to the new CDC guidance. (That period has been shortened from 10 days.)

Isolation means separating the infected person from others. Quarantine refers to things you should do if you’re exposed to the virus or you have a close contact infected with COVID-19.

Under the new CDC guidelines, after the 5-day isolation, if the infected person then has no symptoms, he or she can leave isolation and then wear a mask for 5  days.

Those who test positive also need to tell their close contacts they are positive, said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.  

According to the CDC, the change to a shortened quarantine time is motivated by science ‘’demonstrating that the majority of SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurs early in the course of the illness, generally in the 1-2 days prior to onset of symptoms and the 2-3 days after.”
 

If you have been exposed to someone with COVID-19, what do you do next?

“If they are vaccinated and boosted, the guidance says there is no need to quarantine,” Dr. Adalja said. But the CDC guidance does recommend these people wear a well-fitting mask at all times when around others for 10 days after exposure.

For everyone else, including the unvaccinated and those who are more than 6 months out from their second Pfizer or Moderna vaccine dose, or more than 2 months from their J&J dose, the CDC recommends a quarantine for 5 days – and wearing a mask for the 5 days after that.

On a practical level, Dr. Adalja said he thinks those who are vaccinated but not boosted could also skip the quarantine and wear a mask for 10 days. Dr. Offit agrees. Because many people exposed have trouble quarantining, Dr. Offit advises those exposed who can’t follow that guidance to be sure to wear a mask for 10 days when indoors. The CDC guidance also offers that as another strategy – that if a 5-day quarantine is not feasible, the exposed person should wear a mask for 10 days when around others.

But if  someone who was exposed gets symptoms, that person then enters the infected category and follows that guidance, Dr. Offit said.
 

When should the person who has been exposed get tested?

After the exposure, ‘’you should probably wait 2-3 days,” Dr. Offit said. “The virus has to reproduce itself.”

Testing should be done by those exposed at least once, Dr. Adalja said.

“But there’s data to support daily testing to guide their activities, but this is not CDC guidance. Home tests are sufficient for this purpose.”
 

At what point can the infected person mingle safely with others?

“Technically, if asymptomatic, 10 days without a mask, 5 days with a mask,” said Dr. Adalja. “I think this could also be guided with home test negativity being a gauge [as to whether to mingle].”

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

With new cases of COVID-19 skyrocketing to more than 240,000 a day recently in the U.S., many people are facing the same situation: A family member or friend tests positive or was exposed to someone who did, and the holiday gathering, visit, or return to work is just days or hours away. Now what?

New guidance issued Dec. 27 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shortens the recommended isolation and quarantine period for the general population, coming after the agency shortened the isolation period for health care workers.

This news organization reached out to two infectious disease specialists to get answers to questions that are frequently asked in these situations.
 

If you have tested positive for COVID-19, what do you do next?

“If you have tested positive, you are infected. At the moment, you are [either] symptomatically affected or presymptomatically infected,’’ said Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. At that point, you need to isolate for 5 days, according to the new CDC guidance. (That period has been shortened from 10 days.)

Isolation means separating the infected person from others. Quarantine refers to things you should do if you’re exposed to the virus or you have a close contact infected with COVID-19.

Under the new CDC guidelines, after the 5-day isolation, if the infected person then has no symptoms, he or she can leave isolation and then wear a mask for 5  days.

Those who test positive also need to tell their close contacts they are positive, said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.  

According to the CDC, the change to a shortened quarantine time is motivated by science ‘’demonstrating that the majority of SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurs early in the course of the illness, generally in the 1-2 days prior to onset of symptoms and the 2-3 days after.”
 

If you have been exposed to someone with COVID-19, what do you do next?

“If they are vaccinated and boosted, the guidance says there is no need to quarantine,” Dr. Adalja said. But the CDC guidance does recommend these people wear a well-fitting mask at all times when around others for 10 days after exposure.

For everyone else, including the unvaccinated and those who are more than 6 months out from their second Pfizer or Moderna vaccine dose, or more than 2 months from their J&J dose, the CDC recommends a quarantine for 5 days – and wearing a mask for the 5 days after that.

On a practical level, Dr. Adalja said he thinks those who are vaccinated but not boosted could also skip the quarantine and wear a mask for 10 days. Dr. Offit agrees. Because many people exposed have trouble quarantining, Dr. Offit advises those exposed who can’t follow that guidance to be sure to wear a mask for 10 days when indoors. The CDC guidance also offers that as another strategy – that if a 5-day quarantine is not feasible, the exposed person should wear a mask for 10 days when around others.

But if  someone who was exposed gets symptoms, that person then enters the infected category and follows that guidance, Dr. Offit said.
 

When should the person who has been exposed get tested?

After the exposure, ‘’you should probably wait 2-3 days,” Dr. Offit said. “The virus has to reproduce itself.”

Testing should be done by those exposed at least once, Dr. Adalja said.

“But there’s data to support daily testing to guide their activities, but this is not CDC guidance. Home tests are sufficient for this purpose.”
 

At what point can the infected person mingle safely with others?

“Technically, if asymptomatic, 10 days without a mask, 5 days with a mask,” said Dr. Adalja. “I think this could also be guided with home test negativity being a gauge [as to whether to mingle].”

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

Rapid antigen tests for COVID-19 might be less effective at detecting the Omicron variant that is spreading rapidly across the United States, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

Early data suggest that COVID-19 antigen tests “do detect the Omicron variant but may have reduced sensitivity,” the FDA said in a statement posted Dec. 28 on its website.

The FDA is working with the National Institutes of Health’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) initiative to assess the performance of antigen tests with patient samples that have the Omicron variant.

The potential for antigen tests to be less sensitive for the Omicron variant emerged in tests using patient samples containing live virus, “which represents the best way to evaluate true test performance in the short term,” the FDA said.

Initial laboratory tests using heat-activated (killed) virus samples found that antigen tests were able to detect the Omicron variant.

“It is important to note that these laboratory data are not a replacement for clinical study evaluations using patient samples with live virus, which are ongoing. The FDA and RADx are continuing to further evaluate the performance of antigen tests using patient samples with live virus,” the FDA said.
 

Testing still important

The agency continues to recommend use of antigen tests as directed in the authorized labeling and in accordance with the instructions included with the tests.

They note that antigen tests are generally less sensitive and less likely to pick up very early infections, compared with molecular tests.

The FDA continues to recommend that an individual with a negative antigen test who has symptoms or a high likelihood of infection because of exposure follow-up with a molecular test to determine if they have COVID-19.

An individual with a positive antigen test should self-isolate and seek follow-up care with a health care provider to determine the next steps.

The FDA, with partners and test developers, are continuing to evaluate test sensitivity, as well as the best timing and frequency of antigen testing.

The agency said that it will provide updated information and any needed recommendations when appropriate.

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

Rapid antigen tests for COVID-19 might be less effective at detecting the Omicron variant that is spreading rapidly across the United States, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

Early data suggest that COVID-19 antigen tests “do detect the Omicron variant but may have reduced sensitivity,” the FDA said in a statement posted Dec. 28 on its website.

The FDA is working with the National Institutes of Health’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) initiative to assess the performance of antigen tests with patient samples that have the Omicron variant.

The potential for antigen tests to be less sensitive for the Omicron variant emerged in tests using patient samples containing live virus, “which represents the best way to evaluate true test performance in the short term,” the FDA said.

Initial laboratory tests using heat-activated (killed) virus samples found that antigen tests were able to detect the Omicron variant.

“It is important to note that these laboratory data are not a replacement for clinical study evaluations using patient samples with live virus, which are ongoing. The FDA and RADx are continuing to further evaluate the performance of antigen tests using patient samples with live virus,” the FDA said.
 

Testing still important

The agency continues to recommend use of antigen tests as directed in the authorized labeling and in accordance with the instructions included with the tests.

They note that antigen tests are generally less sensitive and less likely to pick up very early infections, compared with molecular tests.

The FDA continues to recommend that an individual with a negative antigen test who has symptoms or a high likelihood of infection because of exposure follow-up with a molecular test to determine if they have COVID-19.

An individual with a positive antigen test should self-isolate and seek follow-up care with a health care provider to determine the next steps.

The FDA, with partners and test developers, are continuing to evaluate test sensitivity, as well as the best timing and frequency of antigen testing.

The agency said that it will provide updated information and any needed recommendations when appropriate.

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

Rapid antigen tests for COVID-19 might be less effective at detecting the Omicron variant that is spreading rapidly across the United States, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

Early data suggest that COVID-19 antigen tests “do detect the Omicron variant but may have reduced sensitivity,” the FDA said in a statement posted Dec. 28 on its website.

The FDA is working with the National Institutes of Health’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) initiative to assess the performance of antigen tests with patient samples that have the Omicron variant.

The potential for antigen tests to be less sensitive for the Omicron variant emerged in tests using patient samples containing live virus, “which represents the best way to evaluate true test performance in the short term,” the FDA said.

Initial laboratory tests using heat-activated (killed) virus samples found that antigen tests were able to detect the Omicron variant.

“It is important to note that these laboratory data are not a replacement for clinical study evaluations using patient samples with live virus, which are ongoing. The FDA and RADx are continuing to further evaluate the performance of antigen tests using patient samples with live virus,” the FDA said.
 

Testing still important

The agency continues to recommend use of antigen tests as directed in the authorized labeling and in accordance with the instructions included with the tests.

They note that antigen tests are generally less sensitive and less likely to pick up very early infections, compared with molecular tests.

The FDA continues to recommend that an individual with a negative antigen test who has symptoms or a high likelihood of infection because of exposure follow-up with a molecular test to determine if they have COVID-19.

An individual with a positive antigen test should self-isolate and seek follow-up care with a health care provider to determine the next steps.

The FDA, with partners and test developers, are continuing to evaluate test sensitivity, as well as the best timing and frequency of antigen testing.

The agency said that it will provide updated information and any needed recommendations when appropriate.

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

The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 can spread to the heart and brain within days of infection and can survive for months in organs, according to a new study by the National Institutes of Health.

The virus can spread to almost every organ system in the body, which could contribute to the ongoing symptoms seen in “long COVID” patients, the study authors wrote. The study is considered one of the most comprehensive reviews of how the virus replicates in human cells and persists in the human body. It is under review for publication in the journal Nature.

“This is remarkably important work,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, told Bloomberg News. Dr. Al-Aly wasn’t involved with the NIH study but has researched the long-term effects of COVID-19.

“For a long time now, we have been scratching our heads and asking why long COVID seems to affect so many organ systems,” he said. “This paper sheds some light and may help explain why long COVID can occur even in people who had mild or asymptomatic acute disease.”

The NIH researchers sampled and analyzed tissues from autopsies on 44 patients who died after contracting the coronavirus during the first year of the pandemic. They found persistent virus particles in multiple parts of the body, including the heart and brain, for as long as 230 days after symptoms began. This could represent infection with defective virus particles, they said, which has also been seen in persistent infections among measles patients.

“We don’t yet know what burden of chronic illness will result in years to come,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, a professor of global biosecurity at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, told Bloomberg News.

“Will we see young-onset cardiac failure in survivors or early-onset dementia?” she asked. “These are unanswered questions which call for a precautionary public health approach to mitigation of the spread of this virus.”

Unlike other COVID-19 autopsy research, the NIH team had a more comprehensive postmortem tissue collection process, which typically occurred within a day of the patient’s death, Bloomberg News reported. The researchers also used a variety of ways to preserve tissue to figure out viral levels. They were able to grow the virus collected from several tissues, including the heart, lungs, small intestine, and adrenal glands.

“Our results collectively show that, while the highest burden of SARS-CoV-2 is in the airways and lung, the virus can disseminate early during infection and infect cells throughout the entire body, including widely throughout the brain,” the study authors wrote.

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

The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 can spread to the heart and brain within days of infection and can survive for months in organs, according to a new study by the National Institutes of Health.

The virus can spread to almost every organ system in the body, which could contribute to the ongoing symptoms seen in “long COVID” patients, the study authors wrote. The study is considered one of the most comprehensive reviews of how the virus replicates in human cells and persists in the human body. It is under review for publication in the journal Nature.

“This is remarkably important work,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, told Bloomberg News. Dr. Al-Aly wasn’t involved with the NIH study but has researched the long-term effects of COVID-19.

“For a long time now, we have been scratching our heads and asking why long COVID seems to affect so many organ systems,” he said. “This paper sheds some light and may help explain why long COVID can occur even in people who had mild or asymptomatic acute disease.”

The NIH researchers sampled and analyzed tissues from autopsies on 44 patients who died after contracting the coronavirus during the first year of the pandemic. They found persistent virus particles in multiple parts of the body, including the heart and brain, for as long as 230 days after symptoms began. This could represent infection with defective virus particles, they said, which has also been seen in persistent infections among measles patients.

“We don’t yet know what burden of chronic illness will result in years to come,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, a professor of global biosecurity at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, told Bloomberg News.

“Will we see young-onset cardiac failure in survivors or early-onset dementia?” she asked. “These are unanswered questions which call for a precautionary public health approach to mitigation of the spread of this virus.”

Unlike other COVID-19 autopsy research, the NIH team had a more comprehensive postmortem tissue collection process, which typically occurred within a day of the patient’s death, Bloomberg News reported. The researchers also used a variety of ways to preserve tissue to figure out viral levels. They were able to grow the virus collected from several tissues, including the heart, lungs, small intestine, and adrenal glands.

“Our results collectively show that, while the highest burden of SARS-CoV-2 is in the airways and lung, the virus can disseminate early during infection and infect cells throughout the entire body, including widely throughout the brain,” the study authors wrote.

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

The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 can spread to the heart and brain within days of infection and can survive for months in organs, according to a new study by the National Institutes of Health.

The virus can spread to almost every organ system in the body, which could contribute to the ongoing symptoms seen in “long COVID” patients, the study authors wrote. The study is considered one of the most comprehensive reviews of how the virus replicates in human cells and persists in the human body. It is under review for publication in the journal Nature.

“This is remarkably important work,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, told Bloomberg News. Dr. Al-Aly wasn’t involved with the NIH study but has researched the long-term effects of COVID-19.

“For a long time now, we have been scratching our heads and asking why long COVID seems to affect so many organ systems,” he said. “This paper sheds some light and may help explain why long COVID can occur even in people who had mild or asymptomatic acute disease.”

The NIH researchers sampled and analyzed tissues from autopsies on 44 patients who died after contracting the coronavirus during the first year of the pandemic. They found persistent virus particles in multiple parts of the body, including the heart and brain, for as long as 230 days after symptoms began. This could represent infection with defective virus particles, they said, which has also been seen in persistent infections among measles patients.

“We don’t yet know what burden of chronic illness will result in years to come,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, a professor of global biosecurity at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, told Bloomberg News.

“Will we see young-onset cardiac failure in survivors or early-onset dementia?” she asked. “These are unanswered questions which call for a precautionary public health approach to mitigation of the spread of this virus.”

Unlike other COVID-19 autopsy research, the NIH team had a more comprehensive postmortem tissue collection process, which typically occurred within a day of the patient’s death, Bloomberg News reported. The researchers also used a variety of ways to preserve tissue to figure out viral levels. They were able to grow the virus collected from several tissues, including the heart, lungs, small intestine, and adrenal glands.

“Our results collectively show that, while the highest burden of SARS-CoV-2 is in the airways and lung, the virus can disseminate early during infection and infect cells throughout the entire body, including widely throughout the brain,” the study authors wrote.

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

As a psychiatrist dedicated to working with people who are experiencing homelessness, I was very impressed with the new book edited by Col. (Ret.) Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH, and Maria D. Llorente, MD, about treating and providing services to this vulnerable population.

Courtesy Springer Publishing

The book, “Clinical Management of the Homeless Patient: Social, Psychiatric, and Medical Issues” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2021), offers an in-depth review and analysis of the biopsychosocial complexities that affect how medical and behavioral health conditions present in those who are unhoused. Notably, the book recommends with great sensitivity best practices to address these conditions with care, understanding, and love.

This text, invaluable in particular for those of us clinicians who work with people experiencing homelessness (PEH), provides a historical context of homelessness in the United States, an evaluation of the current state, and indispensable guidance for medical and behavioral health practitioners, case managers, housing navigators, and policy makers alike. It also serves as an inspiring source for those who are considering work in the public sector while reminding those of us in the field why we continue to do this challenging and rewarding work.

Tips can provide hope to clinicians

The volume is divided into four clear sections that are easy to navigate depending on your area of expertise and interest. Each chapter consolidates an extensive literature review into an intriguing and thought-provoking analysis. Part I, “The Big Picture – Social and Medical Issues,” focuses on conditions that disproportionately affect those who are unhoused. The authors offer a glimpse into the unique challenges of managing routine health conditions. They also detail the practical knowledge that’s needed to best care for our most vulnerable neighbors; for example, promoting a shared decision-making model; simplifying treatment plans; prescribing, when possible, medications that are dosed daily – instead of multiple times per day; allowing for walk-in appointments; and addressing cultural, linguistic, and educational barriers.

Most chapters highlight informative case examples that bring the text to life. It can be heartbreaking to recognize and witness the inhumane conditions in which PEH live, and these practical tips and suggestions for future policies based on best practices can help prevent burnout and provide hope for those who care for this community.

Part II, “Psychiatric Issues and Treatments,” presents a brief yet comprehensive history on homelessness, beginning with the deep shame that PEH experienced in Colonial times as the result of cultural and religious influences. Sadly, that negative judgment continues to this day.

The authors also explain how deinstitutionalization and transinstitutionalization have shaped the current state of homelessness, including why many PEH receive their care in emergency departments while incarcerated. This section highlights the barriers of care that are created not just by the patient, but also by the clinicians and systems of care – and what’s needed practically to overcome those challenges.

I appreciate the chapter on substance use disorders. It reminds us that the most commonly used substance among PEH is tobacco, which has serious health effects and for which we have treatment; nevertheless, tobacco use is often overlooked because of the intense focus on opioid use disorder. This section also provides examples of the trauma-informed language to use when addressing difficult and sometimes stigmatizing topics, such as survival sex and trauma history.

The evidence-based discussion continues in Part III with a focus on topics that everyone working with PEH should understand, including food insecurity, the criminal justice system, and sex trafficking. Part IV highlights best practices that should be replicated in every community, including Housing First approaches, medical respite care, and multiple Veterans Administration programs.

Throughout the text, major themes reverberate across the chapters, beginning with empathy. All who work with PEH must understand the conditions and challenges PEH face every day that affect their physical and mental health. The authors offer a stark and pointed reminder that being unhoused amounts to a full-time job just to meet basic needs. In addition, the devastating role of trauma and structural racism in creating and promoting the conditions that lead someone to be unhoused cannot be underestimated.

Fortunately, the primary aim of the book is to highlight solutions, and it’s here that the book shines. While some interventions are well-known, such as the importance of working in multidisciplinary teams, building trust and rapport with our patients, and urging clinicians and institutions to examine their own judgments and biases that might interfere with humane treatment, other suggestions will lead some readers into new territory. The authors, for example, maintain that we need more data and evidence-based research that include PEH. They also make a case for more preventive care and enhanced professional education for all health care workers that centers on trauma-informed care, social determinants of health, and the unique needs of especially vulnerable communities, such as the unhoused LBGTQ+ community and policies that promote best practices, such as Housing First. The book is a stirring read. It offers both inspiration and practical guidance for all who are currently working with or interested in caring for people experiencing homelessness.

Dr. Bird is a psychiatrist with Alameda County Health Care for the Homeless and the TRUST Clinic in Oakland, Calif. She also is a cofounder of StreetHealth, a backpack street medicine team that provides psychiatric and substance use disorder treatment to people experiencing homelessness in downtown Oakland.

Dr. Bird has no disclosures.

As a psychiatrist dedicated to working with people who are experiencing homelessness, I was very impressed with the new book edited by Col. (Ret.) Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH, and Maria D. Llorente, MD, about treating and providing services to this vulnerable population.

Courtesy Springer Publishing

The book, “Clinical Management of the Homeless Patient: Social, Psychiatric, and Medical Issues” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2021), offers an in-depth review and analysis of the biopsychosocial complexities that affect how medical and behavioral health conditions present in those who are unhoused. Notably, the book recommends with great sensitivity best practices to address these conditions with care, understanding, and love.

This text, invaluable in particular for those of us clinicians who work with people experiencing homelessness (PEH), provides a historical context of homelessness in the United States, an evaluation of the current state, and indispensable guidance for medical and behavioral health practitioners, case managers, housing navigators, and policy makers alike. It also serves as an inspiring source for those who are considering work in the public sector while reminding those of us in the field why we continue to do this challenging and rewarding work.

Tips can provide hope to clinicians

The volume is divided into four clear sections that are easy to navigate depending on your area of expertise and interest. Each chapter consolidates an extensive literature review into an intriguing and thought-provoking analysis. Part I, “The Big Picture – Social and Medical Issues,” focuses on conditions that disproportionately affect those who are unhoused. The authors offer a glimpse into the unique challenges of managing routine health conditions. They also detail the practical knowledge that’s needed to best care for our most vulnerable neighbors; for example, promoting a shared decision-making model; simplifying treatment plans; prescribing, when possible, medications that are dosed daily – instead of multiple times per day; allowing for walk-in appointments; and addressing cultural, linguistic, and educational barriers.

Most chapters highlight informative case examples that bring the text to life. It can be heartbreaking to recognize and witness the inhumane conditions in which PEH live, and these practical tips and suggestions for future policies based on best practices can help prevent burnout and provide hope for those who care for this community.

Part II, “Psychiatric Issues and Treatments,” presents a brief yet comprehensive history on homelessness, beginning with the deep shame that PEH experienced in Colonial times as the result of cultural and religious influences. Sadly, that negative judgment continues to this day.

The authors also explain how deinstitutionalization and transinstitutionalization have shaped the current state of homelessness, including why many PEH receive their care in emergency departments while incarcerated. This section highlights the barriers of care that are created not just by the patient, but also by the clinicians and systems of care – and what’s needed practically to overcome those challenges.

I appreciate the chapter on substance use disorders. It reminds us that the most commonly used substance among PEH is tobacco, which has serious health effects and for which we have treatment; nevertheless, tobacco use is often overlooked because of the intense focus on opioid use disorder. This section also provides examples of the trauma-informed language to use when addressing difficult and sometimes stigmatizing topics, such as survival sex and trauma history.

The evidence-based discussion continues in Part III with a focus on topics that everyone working with PEH should understand, including food insecurity, the criminal justice system, and sex trafficking. Part IV highlights best practices that should be replicated in every community, including Housing First approaches, medical respite care, and multiple Veterans Administration programs.

Throughout the text, major themes reverberate across the chapters, beginning with empathy. All who work with PEH must understand the conditions and challenges PEH face every day that affect their physical and mental health. The authors offer a stark and pointed reminder that being unhoused amounts to a full-time job just to meet basic needs. In addition, the devastating role of trauma and structural racism in creating and promoting the conditions that lead someone to be unhoused cannot be underestimated.

Fortunately, the primary aim of the book is to highlight solutions, and it’s here that the book shines. While some interventions are well-known, such as the importance of working in multidisciplinary teams, building trust and rapport with our patients, and urging clinicians and institutions to examine their own judgments and biases that might interfere with humane treatment, other suggestions will lead some readers into new territory. The authors, for example, maintain that we need more data and evidence-based research that include PEH. They also make a case for more preventive care and enhanced professional education for all health care workers that centers on trauma-informed care, social determinants of health, and the unique needs of especially vulnerable communities, such as the unhoused LBGTQ+ community and policies that promote best practices, such as Housing First. The book is a stirring read. It offers both inspiration and practical guidance for all who are currently working with or interested in caring for people experiencing homelessness.

Dr. Bird is a psychiatrist with Alameda County Health Care for the Homeless and the TRUST Clinic in Oakland, Calif. She also is a cofounder of StreetHealth, a backpack street medicine team that provides psychiatric and substance use disorder treatment to people experiencing homelessness in downtown Oakland.

Dr. Bird has no disclosures.

As a psychiatrist dedicated to working with people who are experiencing homelessness, I was very impressed with the new book edited by Col. (Ret.) Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH, and Maria D. Llorente, MD, about treating and providing services to this vulnerable population.

Courtesy Springer Publishing

The book, “Clinical Management of the Homeless Patient: Social, Psychiatric, and Medical Issues” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2021), offers an in-depth review and analysis of the biopsychosocial complexities that affect how medical and behavioral health conditions present in those who are unhoused. Notably, the book recommends with great sensitivity best practices to address these conditions with care, understanding, and love.

This text, invaluable in particular for those of us clinicians who work with people experiencing homelessness (PEH), provides a historical context of homelessness in the United States, an evaluation of the current state, and indispensable guidance for medical and behavioral health practitioners, case managers, housing navigators, and policy makers alike. It also serves as an inspiring source for those who are considering work in the public sector while reminding those of us in the field why we continue to do this challenging and rewarding work.

Tips can provide hope to clinicians

The volume is divided into four clear sections that are easy to navigate depending on your area of expertise and interest. Each chapter consolidates an extensive literature review into an intriguing and thought-provoking analysis. Part I, “The Big Picture – Social and Medical Issues,” focuses on conditions that disproportionately affect those who are unhoused. The authors offer a glimpse into the unique challenges of managing routine health conditions. They also detail the practical knowledge that’s needed to best care for our most vulnerable neighbors; for example, promoting a shared decision-making model; simplifying treatment plans; prescribing, when possible, medications that are dosed daily – instead of multiple times per day; allowing for walk-in appointments; and addressing cultural, linguistic, and educational barriers.

Most chapters highlight informative case examples that bring the text to life. It can be heartbreaking to recognize and witness the inhumane conditions in which PEH live, and these practical tips and suggestions for future policies based on best practices can help prevent burnout and provide hope for those who care for this community.

Part II, “Psychiatric Issues and Treatments,” presents a brief yet comprehensive history on homelessness, beginning with the deep shame that PEH experienced in Colonial times as the result of cultural and religious influences. Sadly, that negative judgment continues to this day.

The authors also explain how deinstitutionalization and transinstitutionalization have shaped the current state of homelessness, including why many PEH receive their care in emergency departments while incarcerated. This section highlights the barriers of care that are created not just by the patient, but also by the clinicians and systems of care – and what’s needed practically to overcome those challenges.

I appreciate the chapter on substance use disorders. It reminds us that the most commonly used substance among PEH is tobacco, which has serious health effects and for which we have treatment; nevertheless, tobacco use is often overlooked because of the intense focus on opioid use disorder. This section also provides examples of the trauma-informed language to use when addressing difficult and sometimes stigmatizing topics, such as survival sex and trauma history.

The evidence-based discussion continues in Part III with a focus on topics that everyone working with PEH should understand, including food insecurity, the criminal justice system, and sex trafficking. Part IV highlights best practices that should be replicated in every community, including Housing First approaches, medical respite care, and multiple Veterans Administration programs.

Throughout the text, major themes reverberate across the chapters, beginning with empathy. All who work with PEH must understand the conditions and challenges PEH face every day that affect their physical and mental health. The authors offer a stark and pointed reminder that being unhoused amounts to a full-time job just to meet basic needs. In addition, the devastating role of trauma and structural racism in creating and promoting the conditions that lead someone to be unhoused cannot be underestimated.

Fortunately, the primary aim of the book is to highlight solutions, and it’s here that the book shines. While some interventions are well-known, such as the importance of working in multidisciplinary teams, building trust and rapport with our patients, and urging clinicians and institutions to examine their own judgments and biases that might interfere with humane treatment, other suggestions will lead some readers into new territory. The authors, for example, maintain that we need more data and evidence-based research that include PEH. They also make a case for more preventive care and enhanced professional education for all health care workers that centers on trauma-informed care, social determinants of health, and the unique needs of especially vulnerable communities, such as the unhoused LBGTQ+ community and policies that promote best practices, such as Housing First. The book is a stirring read. It offers both inspiration and practical guidance for all who are currently working with or interested in caring for people experiencing homelessness.

Dr. Bird is a psychiatrist with Alameda County Health Care for the Homeless and the TRUST Clinic in Oakland, Calif. She also is a cofounder of StreetHealth, a backpack street medicine team that provides psychiatric and substance use disorder treatment to people experiencing homelessness in downtown Oakland.

Dr. Bird has no disclosures.