User login
-
CDC panel recommends Pfizer COVID-19 boosters for ages 12-15
The CDC had already said 16- and 17-year-olds “may” receive a Pfizer booster but the new recommendation adds the 12- to 15-year-old group and strengthens the “may” to “should” for 16- and 17-year-olds.
The committee voted 13-1 to recommend the booster for ages 12-17. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must still approve the recommendation for it to take effect.
The vote comes after the FDA on Jan. 3 authorized the Pfizer vaccine booster dose for 12- to 15-year-olds.
The FDA action updated the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, and the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more (from 6 months). A third primary series dose is also now authorized for certain immunocompromised children between 5 and 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.
The CDC on Jan. 4 also backed the shortened time frame and a third primary series dose for some immunocompromised children 5-11 years old. But the CDC delayed a decision on a booster for 12- to 15-year-olds until it heard from its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Jan. 5.
The decision came as school districts nationwide are wrestling with decisions of whether to keep schools open or revert to a virtual format as cases surge, and as pediatric COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reach new highs.
The only dissenting vote came from Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
She said after the vote, “I am just fine with kids getting a booster. This is not me against all boosters. I just really want the U.S. to move forward with all kids.”
Dr. Talbot said earlier in the comment period, “If we divert our public health from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, we are not going to make a big impact. Boosters are incredibly important but they won’t solve this problem of the crowded hospitals.”
She said vaccinating the unvaccinated must be the priority.
“If you are a parent out there who has not yet vaccinated your child because you have questions, please, please talk to a health care provider,” she said.
Among the 13 supporters of the recommendation was Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of Watts HealthCare Corporation in Los Angeles.
Dr. Brooks said extending the population for boosters is another tool in the toolbox.
“If it’s a hammer, we should hit that nail hard,” he said.
Sara Oliver, MD, ACIP’s lead for the COVID-19 work group, presented the case behind the recommendation.
She noted the soaring Omicron cases.
“As of Jan. 3, the 7-day average had reached an all-time high of nearly 500,000 cases,” Dr. Oliver noted.
Since this summer, she said, adolescents have had a higher rate of incidence than that of adults.
“The majority of COVID cases continue to occur among the unvaccinated,” she said, “with unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds having a 7-times-higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds. Unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds have around 11 times higher risk of hospitalization than vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds.
“Vaccine effectiveness in adolescents 12-15 years old remains high,” Dr. Oliver said, but evidence shows there may be “some waning over time.”
Discussion of risk centered on myocarditis.
Dr. Oliver said myocarditis rates reported after the Pfizer vaccine in Israel across all populations as of Dec. 15 show that “the rates of myocarditis after a third dose are lower than what is seen after the second dose.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The CDC had already said 16- and 17-year-olds “may” receive a Pfizer booster but the new recommendation adds the 12- to 15-year-old group and strengthens the “may” to “should” for 16- and 17-year-olds.
The committee voted 13-1 to recommend the booster for ages 12-17. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must still approve the recommendation for it to take effect.
The vote comes after the FDA on Jan. 3 authorized the Pfizer vaccine booster dose for 12- to 15-year-olds.
The FDA action updated the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, and the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more (from 6 months). A third primary series dose is also now authorized for certain immunocompromised children between 5 and 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.
The CDC on Jan. 4 also backed the shortened time frame and a third primary series dose for some immunocompromised children 5-11 years old. But the CDC delayed a decision on a booster for 12- to 15-year-olds until it heard from its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Jan. 5.
The decision came as school districts nationwide are wrestling with decisions of whether to keep schools open or revert to a virtual format as cases surge, and as pediatric COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reach new highs.
The only dissenting vote came from Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
She said after the vote, “I am just fine with kids getting a booster. This is not me against all boosters. I just really want the U.S. to move forward with all kids.”
Dr. Talbot said earlier in the comment period, “If we divert our public health from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, we are not going to make a big impact. Boosters are incredibly important but they won’t solve this problem of the crowded hospitals.”
She said vaccinating the unvaccinated must be the priority.
“If you are a parent out there who has not yet vaccinated your child because you have questions, please, please talk to a health care provider,” she said.
Among the 13 supporters of the recommendation was Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of Watts HealthCare Corporation in Los Angeles.
Dr. Brooks said extending the population for boosters is another tool in the toolbox.
“If it’s a hammer, we should hit that nail hard,” he said.
Sara Oliver, MD, ACIP’s lead for the COVID-19 work group, presented the case behind the recommendation.
She noted the soaring Omicron cases.
“As of Jan. 3, the 7-day average had reached an all-time high of nearly 500,000 cases,” Dr. Oliver noted.
Since this summer, she said, adolescents have had a higher rate of incidence than that of adults.
“The majority of COVID cases continue to occur among the unvaccinated,” she said, “with unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds having a 7-times-higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds. Unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds have around 11 times higher risk of hospitalization than vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds.
“Vaccine effectiveness in adolescents 12-15 years old remains high,” Dr. Oliver said, but evidence shows there may be “some waning over time.”
Discussion of risk centered on myocarditis.
Dr. Oliver said myocarditis rates reported after the Pfizer vaccine in Israel across all populations as of Dec. 15 show that “the rates of myocarditis after a third dose are lower than what is seen after the second dose.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The CDC had already said 16- and 17-year-olds “may” receive a Pfizer booster but the new recommendation adds the 12- to 15-year-old group and strengthens the “may” to “should” for 16- and 17-year-olds.
The committee voted 13-1 to recommend the booster for ages 12-17. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must still approve the recommendation for it to take effect.
The vote comes after the FDA on Jan. 3 authorized the Pfizer vaccine booster dose for 12- to 15-year-olds.
The FDA action updated the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, and the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more (from 6 months). A third primary series dose is also now authorized for certain immunocompromised children between 5 and 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.
The CDC on Jan. 4 also backed the shortened time frame and a third primary series dose for some immunocompromised children 5-11 years old. But the CDC delayed a decision on a booster for 12- to 15-year-olds until it heard from its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Jan. 5.
The decision came as school districts nationwide are wrestling with decisions of whether to keep schools open or revert to a virtual format as cases surge, and as pediatric COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reach new highs.
The only dissenting vote came from Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
She said after the vote, “I am just fine with kids getting a booster. This is not me against all boosters. I just really want the U.S. to move forward with all kids.”
Dr. Talbot said earlier in the comment period, “If we divert our public health from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, we are not going to make a big impact. Boosters are incredibly important but they won’t solve this problem of the crowded hospitals.”
She said vaccinating the unvaccinated must be the priority.
“If you are a parent out there who has not yet vaccinated your child because you have questions, please, please talk to a health care provider,” she said.
Among the 13 supporters of the recommendation was Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of Watts HealthCare Corporation in Los Angeles.
Dr. Brooks said extending the population for boosters is another tool in the toolbox.
“If it’s a hammer, we should hit that nail hard,” he said.
Sara Oliver, MD, ACIP’s lead for the COVID-19 work group, presented the case behind the recommendation.
She noted the soaring Omicron cases.
“As of Jan. 3, the 7-day average had reached an all-time high of nearly 500,000 cases,” Dr. Oliver noted.
Since this summer, she said, adolescents have had a higher rate of incidence than that of adults.
“The majority of COVID cases continue to occur among the unvaccinated,” she said, “with unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds having a 7-times-higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds. Unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds have around 11 times higher risk of hospitalization than vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds.
“Vaccine effectiveness in adolescents 12-15 years old remains high,” Dr. Oliver said, but evidence shows there may be “some waning over time.”
Discussion of risk centered on myocarditis.
Dr. Oliver said myocarditis rates reported after the Pfizer vaccine in Israel across all populations as of Dec. 15 show that “the rates of myocarditis after a third dose are lower than what is seen after the second dose.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Who needs self-driving cars when we’ve got goldfish?
If a fish can drive …
Have you ever seen a sparrow swim? Have you ever seen an elephant fly? How about a goldfish driving a car? Well, one of these is not just something out of a children’s book.
In a recent study, investigators from Ben-Gurion University did the impossible and got a fish to drive a robotic car on land. How?
No, there wasn’t a tiny steering wheel inside the tank. The researchers created a tank with video recognition ability to sync with the fish. This video shows that the car, on which the tank sat, would navigate in the direction that the fish swam. The goal was to get the fish to “drive” toward a visual target, and with a little training the fish was successful regardless of start point, the researchers explained.
So what does that tell us about the brain and behavior? Shachar Givon, who was part of the research team, said the “study hints that navigational ability is universal rather than specific to the environment.”
The study’s domain transfer methodology (putting one species in the environment of another and have them cope with an unfamiliar task) shows that other animals also have the cognitive ability to transfer skills from one terrestrial environment to another.
That leads us to lesson two. Goldfish are much smarter than we think. So please don’t tap on the glass.
We prefer ‘It’s not writing a funny LOTME article’!
So many medical journals spend all their time grappling with such silly dilemmas as curing cancer or beating COVID-19. Boring! Fortunately, the BMJ dares to stand above the rest by dedicating its Christmas issue to answering the real issues in medicine. And what was the biggest question? Which is the more accurate idiom: “It’s not rocket science,” or “It’s not brain surgery”?
English researchers collected data from 329 aerospace engineers and 72 neurosurgeons who took the Great British Intelligence Test and compared the results against 18,000 people in the general public.
The engineers and neurosurgeons were basically identical in four of the six domains, but neurosurgeons had the advantage when it came to semantic problem solving and engineers had an edge at mental manipulation and attention. The aerospace engineers were identical to the public in all domains, but neurosurgeons held an advantage in problem-solving speed and a disadvantage in memory recall speed.
The researchers noted that exposure to Latin and Greek etymologies during their education gave neurosurgeons the advantage in semantic problem solving, while the aerospace engineers’ advantage in mental manipulation stems from skills taught during engineering training.
But is there a definitive answer to the question? If you’ve got an easy task in front of you, which is more accurate to say: “It’s not rocket science” or “It’s not brain surgery”? Can we get a drum roll?
It’s not brain surgery! At least, as long as the task doesn’t involve rapid problem solving. The investigators hedged further by saying that “It’s a walk in the park” is probably more accurate. Plus, “other specialties might deserve to be on that pedestal, and future work should aim to determine the most deserving profession,” they wrote. Well, at least we’ve got something to look forward to in BMJ’s next Christmas issue.
For COVID-19, a syringe is the sheep of things to come
The logical approach to fighting COVID-19 hasn’t really worked with a lot of people, so how about something more emotional?
People love animals, so they might be a good way to promote the use of vaccines and masks. Puppies are awfully cute, and so are koalas and pandas. And who can say no to a sea otter?
Well, forget it. Instead, we’ve got elephants … and sheep … and goats. Oh my.
First, elephant Santas. The Jirasartwitthaya school in Ayutthaya, Thailand, was recently visited by five elephants in Santa Claus costumes who handed out hand sanitizer and face masks to the students, Reuters said.
“I’m so glad that I got a balloon from the elephant. My heart is pounding very fast,” student Biuon Greham said. And balloons. The elephants handed out sanitizer and masks and balloons. There’s a sentence we never thought we’d write.
And those sheep and goats we mentioned? That was a different party.
Hanspeter Etzold, who “works with shepherds, companies, and animals to run team-building events in the northern German town of Schneverdingen,” according to Reuters, had an idea to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine. And yes, it involved sheep and goats.
Mr. Etzold worked with shepherd Wiebke Schmidt-Kochan, who arranged her 700 goats and sheep into the shape of a 100-meter-long syringe using bits of bread laying on the ground. “Sheep are such likable animals – maybe they can get the message over better,” Mr. Etzold told AP.
If those are the carrots in an animals-as-carrots-and-sticks approach, then maybe this golf-club-chomping crab could be the stick. We’re certainly not going to argue with it.
To be or not to be … seen
Increased Zoom meetings have been another side effect of the COVID-19 pandemic as more and more people have been working and learning from home.
A recent study from Washington State University looked at two groups of people who Zoomed on a regular basis: employees and students. Individuals who made the change to remote work/learning were surveyed in the summer and fall of 2020. They completed assessments with questions on their work/classes and their level of self-consciousness.
Those with low self-esteem did not enjoy having to see themselves on camera, and those with higher self-esteem actually enjoyed it more. “Most people believe that seeing yourself during virtual meetings contributes to making the overall experience worse, but that’s not what showed up in my data,” said Kristine Kuhn, PhD, the study’s author.
Dr. Kuhn found that having the choice of whether to have the camera on made a big difference in how the participants felt. Having that control made it a more positive experience. Most professors/bosses would probably like to see the faces of those in the Zoom meetings, but it might be better to let people choose for themselves. The unbrushed-hair club would certainly agree.
If a fish can drive …
Have you ever seen a sparrow swim? Have you ever seen an elephant fly? How about a goldfish driving a car? Well, one of these is not just something out of a children’s book.
In a recent study, investigators from Ben-Gurion University did the impossible and got a fish to drive a robotic car on land. How?
No, there wasn’t a tiny steering wheel inside the tank. The researchers created a tank with video recognition ability to sync with the fish. This video shows that the car, on which the tank sat, would navigate in the direction that the fish swam. The goal was to get the fish to “drive” toward a visual target, and with a little training the fish was successful regardless of start point, the researchers explained.
So what does that tell us about the brain and behavior? Shachar Givon, who was part of the research team, said the “study hints that navigational ability is universal rather than specific to the environment.”
The study’s domain transfer methodology (putting one species in the environment of another and have them cope with an unfamiliar task) shows that other animals also have the cognitive ability to transfer skills from one terrestrial environment to another.
That leads us to lesson two. Goldfish are much smarter than we think. So please don’t tap on the glass.
We prefer ‘It’s not writing a funny LOTME article’!
So many medical journals spend all their time grappling with such silly dilemmas as curing cancer or beating COVID-19. Boring! Fortunately, the BMJ dares to stand above the rest by dedicating its Christmas issue to answering the real issues in medicine. And what was the biggest question? Which is the more accurate idiom: “It’s not rocket science,” or “It’s not brain surgery”?
English researchers collected data from 329 aerospace engineers and 72 neurosurgeons who took the Great British Intelligence Test and compared the results against 18,000 people in the general public.
The engineers and neurosurgeons were basically identical in four of the six domains, but neurosurgeons had the advantage when it came to semantic problem solving and engineers had an edge at mental manipulation and attention. The aerospace engineers were identical to the public in all domains, but neurosurgeons held an advantage in problem-solving speed and a disadvantage in memory recall speed.
The researchers noted that exposure to Latin and Greek etymologies during their education gave neurosurgeons the advantage in semantic problem solving, while the aerospace engineers’ advantage in mental manipulation stems from skills taught during engineering training.
But is there a definitive answer to the question? If you’ve got an easy task in front of you, which is more accurate to say: “It’s not rocket science” or “It’s not brain surgery”? Can we get a drum roll?
It’s not brain surgery! At least, as long as the task doesn’t involve rapid problem solving. The investigators hedged further by saying that “It’s a walk in the park” is probably more accurate. Plus, “other specialties might deserve to be on that pedestal, and future work should aim to determine the most deserving profession,” they wrote. Well, at least we’ve got something to look forward to in BMJ’s next Christmas issue.
For COVID-19, a syringe is the sheep of things to come
The logical approach to fighting COVID-19 hasn’t really worked with a lot of people, so how about something more emotional?
People love animals, so they might be a good way to promote the use of vaccines and masks. Puppies are awfully cute, and so are koalas and pandas. And who can say no to a sea otter?
Well, forget it. Instead, we’ve got elephants … and sheep … and goats. Oh my.
First, elephant Santas. The Jirasartwitthaya school in Ayutthaya, Thailand, was recently visited by five elephants in Santa Claus costumes who handed out hand sanitizer and face masks to the students, Reuters said.
“I’m so glad that I got a balloon from the elephant. My heart is pounding very fast,” student Biuon Greham said. And balloons. The elephants handed out sanitizer and masks and balloons. There’s a sentence we never thought we’d write.
And those sheep and goats we mentioned? That was a different party.
Hanspeter Etzold, who “works with shepherds, companies, and animals to run team-building events in the northern German town of Schneverdingen,” according to Reuters, had an idea to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine. And yes, it involved sheep and goats.
Mr. Etzold worked with shepherd Wiebke Schmidt-Kochan, who arranged her 700 goats and sheep into the shape of a 100-meter-long syringe using bits of bread laying on the ground. “Sheep are such likable animals – maybe they can get the message over better,” Mr. Etzold told AP.
If those are the carrots in an animals-as-carrots-and-sticks approach, then maybe this golf-club-chomping crab could be the stick. We’re certainly not going to argue with it.
To be or not to be … seen
Increased Zoom meetings have been another side effect of the COVID-19 pandemic as more and more people have been working and learning from home.
A recent study from Washington State University looked at two groups of people who Zoomed on a regular basis: employees and students. Individuals who made the change to remote work/learning were surveyed in the summer and fall of 2020. They completed assessments with questions on their work/classes and their level of self-consciousness.
Those with low self-esteem did not enjoy having to see themselves on camera, and those with higher self-esteem actually enjoyed it more. “Most people believe that seeing yourself during virtual meetings contributes to making the overall experience worse, but that’s not what showed up in my data,” said Kristine Kuhn, PhD, the study’s author.
Dr. Kuhn found that having the choice of whether to have the camera on made a big difference in how the participants felt. Having that control made it a more positive experience. Most professors/bosses would probably like to see the faces of those in the Zoom meetings, but it might be better to let people choose for themselves. The unbrushed-hair club would certainly agree.
If a fish can drive …
Have you ever seen a sparrow swim? Have you ever seen an elephant fly? How about a goldfish driving a car? Well, one of these is not just something out of a children’s book.
In a recent study, investigators from Ben-Gurion University did the impossible and got a fish to drive a robotic car on land. How?
No, there wasn’t a tiny steering wheel inside the tank. The researchers created a tank with video recognition ability to sync with the fish. This video shows that the car, on which the tank sat, would navigate in the direction that the fish swam. The goal was to get the fish to “drive” toward a visual target, and with a little training the fish was successful regardless of start point, the researchers explained.
So what does that tell us about the brain and behavior? Shachar Givon, who was part of the research team, said the “study hints that navigational ability is universal rather than specific to the environment.”
The study’s domain transfer methodology (putting one species in the environment of another and have them cope with an unfamiliar task) shows that other animals also have the cognitive ability to transfer skills from one terrestrial environment to another.
That leads us to lesson two. Goldfish are much smarter than we think. So please don’t tap on the glass.
We prefer ‘It’s not writing a funny LOTME article’!
So many medical journals spend all their time grappling with such silly dilemmas as curing cancer or beating COVID-19. Boring! Fortunately, the BMJ dares to stand above the rest by dedicating its Christmas issue to answering the real issues in medicine. And what was the biggest question? Which is the more accurate idiom: “It’s not rocket science,” or “It’s not brain surgery”?
English researchers collected data from 329 aerospace engineers and 72 neurosurgeons who took the Great British Intelligence Test and compared the results against 18,000 people in the general public.
The engineers and neurosurgeons were basically identical in four of the six domains, but neurosurgeons had the advantage when it came to semantic problem solving and engineers had an edge at mental manipulation and attention. The aerospace engineers were identical to the public in all domains, but neurosurgeons held an advantage in problem-solving speed and a disadvantage in memory recall speed.
The researchers noted that exposure to Latin and Greek etymologies during their education gave neurosurgeons the advantage in semantic problem solving, while the aerospace engineers’ advantage in mental manipulation stems from skills taught during engineering training.
But is there a definitive answer to the question? If you’ve got an easy task in front of you, which is more accurate to say: “It’s not rocket science” or “It’s not brain surgery”? Can we get a drum roll?
It’s not brain surgery! At least, as long as the task doesn’t involve rapid problem solving. The investigators hedged further by saying that “It’s a walk in the park” is probably more accurate. Plus, “other specialties might deserve to be on that pedestal, and future work should aim to determine the most deserving profession,” they wrote. Well, at least we’ve got something to look forward to in BMJ’s next Christmas issue.
For COVID-19, a syringe is the sheep of things to come
The logical approach to fighting COVID-19 hasn’t really worked with a lot of people, so how about something more emotional?
People love animals, so they might be a good way to promote the use of vaccines and masks. Puppies are awfully cute, and so are koalas and pandas. And who can say no to a sea otter?
Well, forget it. Instead, we’ve got elephants … and sheep … and goats. Oh my.
First, elephant Santas. The Jirasartwitthaya school in Ayutthaya, Thailand, was recently visited by five elephants in Santa Claus costumes who handed out hand sanitizer and face masks to the students, Reuters said.
“I’m so glad that I got a balloon from the elephant. My heart is pounding very fast,” student Biuon Greham said. And balloons. The elephants handed out sanitizer and masks and balloons. There’s a sentence we never thought we’d write.
And those sheep and goats we mentioned? That was a different party.
Hanspeter Etzold, who “works with shepherds, companies, and animals to run team-building events in the northern German town of Schneverdingen,” according to Reuters, had an idea to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine. And yes, it involved sheep and goats.
Mr. Etzold worked with shepherd Wiebke Schmidt-Kochan, who arranged her 700 goats and sheep into the shape of a 100-meter-long syringe using bits of bread laying on the ground. “Sheep are such likable animals – maybe they can get the message over better,” Mr. Etzold told AP.
If those are the carrots in an animals-as-carrots-and-sticks approach, then maybe this golf-club-chomping crab could be the stick. We’re certainly not going to argue with it.
To be or not to be … seen
Increased Zoom meetings have been another side effect of the COVID-19 pandemic as more and more people have been working and learning from home.
A recent study from Washington State University looked at two groups of people who Zoomed on a regular basis: employees and students. Individuals who made the change to remote work/learning were surveyed in the summer and fall of 2020. They completed assessments with questions on their work/classes and their level of self-consciousness.
Those with low self-esteem did not enjoy having to see themselves on camera, and those with higher self-esteem actually enjoyed it more. “Most people believe that seeing yourself during virtual meetings contributes to making the overall experience worse, but that’s not what showed up in my data,” said Kristine Kuhn, PhD, the study’s author.
Dr. Kuhn found that having the choice of whether to have the camera on made a big difference in how the participants felt. Having that control made it a more positive experience. Most professors/bosses would probably like to see the faces of those in the Zoom meetings, but it might be better to let people choose for themselves. The unbrushed-hair club would certainly agree.
Study finds sharp drop in opioid scripts among most specialties
The volume of prescription opioids dispensed at retail pharmacies in the United States dropped by 21% in recent years amid efforts to reduce unnecessary use of the painkillers, but the rate of decline varied greatly among types of patients and by type of clinician, a study found.
In a brief report published by Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from the nonprofit RAND Corp reported an analysis of opioid prescriptions from two periods, 2008-2009 and 2017-2018.
The researchers sought to assess total opioid use rather than simply track the number of pills dispensed. So they used days’ supply and total daily dose to calculate per capita morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for opioid prescriptions, write Bradley D. Stein, MD, PhD, MPH, the study’s lead author and a senior physician researcher at RAND Corp, and his coauthors in their paper.
For the study, the researchers used data from the consulting firm IQVIA, which they say covers about 90% of U.S. prescriptions. Total opioid volume per capita by prescriptions filled in retail pharmacies decreased from 951.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 749.3 MME in 2017-2018, Dr. Stein’s group found.
(In 2020, IQVIA separately said that prescription opioid use per adult in this country rose from an average of 16 pills, or 134 MMEs, in 1992 to a peak of about 55 pills a person, or 790 MMEs, in 2011. By 2019, opioid use per adult had declined to 29 pills and 366 MMEs per capita.)
The RAND report found substantial variation in opioid volume by type of insurance, including a 41.5% decline (636.5 MME to 372.6 MME) among people covered by commercial health plans. That exceeded the 27.7% drop seen for people enrolled in Medicaid (646.8 MME to 467.7 MME). The decline was smaller (17.5%; 2,780.2 MME to 2,294.2 MME) for those on Medicare, who as a group used the most opioids.
‘Almost functions as a Rorschach test’
The causes of the decline are easy to guess, although definitive conclusions are impossible, Dr. Stein told this news organization.
Significant work has been done in recent years to change attitudes about opioid prescriptions by physicians, researchers, and lawmakers. Aggressive promotion of prescription painkillers, particularly Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin, in the 1990s, is widely cited as the triggering event for the national opioid crisis.
In response, states created databases known as prescription drug monitoring programs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 issued guidelines intended to curb unnecessary use of opioids. The guidelines noted that other medicines could treat chronic pain without raising the risk of addiction. The Choosing Wisely campaign, run by a foundation of the American Board of Internal Medicine, also offered recommendations about limiting use of opioids. And insurers have restricted access to opioids through the prior authorization process. As a result, researchers will make their own guesses at the causes of the decline in opioid prescriptions, based on their own experiences and research interests, Dr. Stein said.
“It almost functions as a Rorschach test,” he said.
Dr. Stein’s group also looked at trends among medical specialties. They found the largest reduction between 2008-2009 and 2017-2018 among emergency physicians (70.5% drop from 99,254.5 MME to 29,234.3 MME), psychiatrists (67.2% drop from 50,464.3 MME to 16,533.0 MME) and oncologists (59.5% drop from 51,731.2 MME to 20,941.4).
Among surgeons, the RAND researchers found a drop of 49.3% from 220,764.6 to 111,904.4. Among dentists, they found a drop of 41.3% from 22,345.3 to 13,126.1.
Among pain specialists, they found a drop of 15.4% from 1,020,808.4 MME to 863,140.7 MME.
Among adult primary care clinicians, Dr. Stein and his colleagues found a drop of 40% from 651,489.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 390,841.0 MME in 2017-2018.
However, one of the groups tracked in the study increased the volume of opioid prescriptions written: advanced practice providers, among whom scripts for the drugs rose 22.7%, from 112,873.9 MME to 138,459.3 MME.
Dr. Stein said he suspects that this gain reflects a change in the nature of the practice of primary care, with nurse practitioners and physician assistants taking more active roles in treatment of patients. Some of the reduction seen among primary care clinicians who treat adults may reflect a shift in which medical personnel in a practice write the opioid prescriptions.
Still, the trends in general seen by Dr. Stein and coauthors are encouraging, even if further study of these patterns is needed, he said.
“This is one of those papers that I think potentially raises as many questions as it provides answers for,” he said.
What’s missing
Maya Hambright, MD, a family medicine physician in New York’s Hudson Valley, who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the opioid overdose crisis, observed that the drop in total prescribed volume of prescription painkillers does not necessarily translate into a reduction in use of opioids
“No one is taking fewer opioids,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “I can say that comfortably. They are just getting them from other sources.”
CDC data support Dr. Hambright’s view.
An estimated 100,306 people in the United States died of a drug overdose in the 12 months that ended in April 2021, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the CDC.
Dr. Hambright said more physicians need to be involved in prescribing medication-assisted treatment (MAT).
The federal government has in the past year loosened restrictions on a requirement, known as an X waiver. Certain clinicians have been exempted from training requirements, as explained in the frequently asked questions page on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website.
SAMHSA says legislation is required to eliminate the waiver. As of Dec. 30, 2021, more than half of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives were listed as sponsors of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act (HR 1384), which would end the need for X waivers. The bill has the backing of 187 Democrats and 43 Republicans.
At this time, too many physicians shy away from offering MAT, Dr. Hambright said.
“People are still scared of it,” she said. “People don’t want to deal with addicts.”
But Dr. Hambright said it’s well worth the initial time invested in having the needed conversations with patients about MAT.
“Afterwards, it’s so straightforward. People feel better. They’re healthier. It’s amazing,” she said. “You’re changing lives.”
The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Stein and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The volume of prescription opioids dispensed at retail pharmacies in the United States dropped by 21% in recent years amid efforts to reduce unnecessary use of the painkillers, but the rate of decline varied greatly among types of patients and by type of clinician, a study found.
In a brief report published by Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from the nonprofit RAND Corp reported an analysis of opioid prescriptions from two periods, 2008-2009 and 2017-2018.
The researchers sought to assess total opioid use rather than simply track the number of pills dispensed. So they used days’ supply and total daily dose to calculate per capita morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for opioid prescriptions, write Bradley D. Stein, MD, PhD, MPH, the study’s lead author and a senior physician researcher at RAND Corp, and his coauthors in their paper.
For the study, the researchers used data from the consulting firm IQVIA, which they say covers about 90% of U.S. prescriptions. Total opioid volume per capita by prescriptions filled in retail pharmacies decreased from 951.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 749.3 MME in 2017-2018, Dr. Stein’s group found.
(In 2020, IQVIA separately said that prescription opioid use per adult in this country rose from an average of 16 pills, or 134 MMEs, in 1992 to a peak of about 55 pills a person, or 790 MMEs, in 2011. By 2019, opioid use per adult had declined to 29 pills and 366 MMEs per capita.)
The RAND report found substantial variation in opioid volume by type of insurance, including a 41.5% decline (636.5 MME to 372.6 MME) among people covered by commercial health plans. That exceeded the 27.7% drop seen for people enrolled in Medicaid (646.8 MME to 467.7 MME). The decline was smaller (17.5%; 2,780.2 MME to 2,294.2 MME) for those on Medicare, who as a group used the most opioids.
‘Almost functions as a Rorschach test’
The causes of the decline are easy to guess, although definitive conclusions are impossible, Dr. Stein told this news organization.
Significant work has been done in recent years to change attitudes about opioid prescriptions by physicians, researchers, and lawmakers. Aggressive promotion of prescription painkillers, particularly Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin, in the 1990s, is widely cited as the triggering event for the national opioid crisis.
In response, states created databases known as prescription drug monitoring programs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 issued guidelines intended to curb unnecessary use of opioids. The guidelines noted that other medicines could treat chronic pain without raising the risk of addiction. The Choosing Wisely campaign, run by a foundation of the American Board of Internal Medicine, also offered recommendations about limiting use of opioids. And insurers have restricted access to opioids through the prior authorization process. As a result, researchers will make their own guesses at the causes of the decline in opioid prescriptions, based on their own experiences and research interests, Dr. Stein said.
“It almost functions as a Rorschach test,” he said.
Dr. Stein’s group also looked at trends among medical specialties. They found the largest reduction between 2008-2009 and 2017-2018 among emergency physicians (70.5% drop from 99,254.5 MME to 29,234.3 MME), psychiatrists (67.2% drop from 50,464.3 MME to 16,533.0 MME) and oncologists (59.5% drop from 51,731.2 MME to 20,941.4).
Among surgeons, the RAND researchers found a drop of 49.3% from 220,764.6 to 111,904.4. Among dentists, they found a drop of 41.3% from 22,345.3 to 13,126.1.
Among pain specialists, they found a drop of 15.4% from 1,020,808.4 MME to 863,140.7 MME.
Among adult primary care clinicians, Dr. Stein and his colleagues found a drop of 40% from 651,489.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 390,841.0 MME in 2017-2018.
However, one of the groups tracked in the study increased the volume of opioid prescriptions written: advanced practice providers, among whom scripts for the drugs rose 22.7%, from 112,873.9 MME to 138,459.3 MME.
Dr. Stein said he suspects that this gain reflects a change in the nature of the practice of primary care, with nurse practitioners and physician assistants taking more active roles in treatment of patients. Some of the reduction seen among primary care clinicians who treat adults may reflect a shift in which medical personnel in a practice write the opioid prescriptions.
Still, the trends in general seen by Dr. Stein and coauthors are encouraging, even if further study of these patterns is needed, he said.
“This is one of those papers that I think potentially raises as many questions as it provides answers for,” he said.
What’s missing
Maya Hambright, MD, a family medicine physician in New York’s Hudson Valley, who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the opioid overdose crisis, observed that the drop in total prescribed volume of prescription painkillers does not necessarily translate into a reduction in use of opioids
“No one is taking fewer opioids,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “I can say that comfortably. They are just getting them from other sources.”
CDC data support Dr. Hambright’s view.
An estimated 100,306 people in the United States died of a drug overdose in the 12 months that ended in April 2021, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the CDC.
Dr. Hambright said more physicians need to be involved in prescribing medication-assisted treatment (MAT).
The federal government has in the past year loosened restrictions on a requirement, known as an X waiver. Certain clinicians have been exempted from training requirements, as explained in the frequently asked questions page on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website.
SAMHSA says legislation is required to eliminate the waiver. As of Dec. 30, 2021, more than half of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives were listed as sponsors of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act (HR 1384), which would end the need for X waivers. The bill has the backing of 187 Democrats and 43 Republicans.
At this time, too many physicians shy away from offering MAT, Dr. Hambright said.
“People are still scared of it,” she said. “People don’t want to deal with addicts.”
But Dr. Hambright said it’s well worth the initial time invested in having the needed conversations with patients about MAT.
“Afterwards, it’s so straightforward. People feel better. They’re healthier. It’s amazing,” she said. “You’re changing lives.”
The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Stein and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The volume of prescription opioids dispensed at retail pharmacies in the United States dropped by 21% in recent years amid efforts to reduce unnecessary use of the painkillers, but the rate of decline varied greatly among types of patients and by type of clinician, a study found.
In a brief report published by Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from the nonprofit RAND Corp reported an analysis of opioid prescriptions from two periods, 2008-2009 and 2017-2018.
The researchers sought to assess total opioid use rather than simply track the number of pills dispensed. So they used days’ supply and total daily dose to calculate per capita morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for opioid prescriptions, write Bradley D. Stein, MD, PhD, MPH, the study’s lead author and a senior physician researcher at RAND Corp, and his coauthors in their paper.
For the study, the researchers used data from the consulting firm IQVIA, which they say covers about 90% of U.S. prescriptions. Total opioid volume per capita by prescriptions filled in retail pharmacies decreased from 951.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 749.3 MME in 2017-2018, Dr. Stein’s group found.
(In 2020, IQVIA separately said that prescription opioid use per adult in this country rose from an average of 16 pills, or 134 MMEs, in 1992 to a peak of about 55 pills a person, or 790 MMEs, in 2011. By 2019, opioid use per adult had declined to 29 pills and 366 MMEs per capita.)
The RAND report found substantial variation in opioid volume by type of insurance, including a 41.5% decline (636.5 MME to 372.6 MME) among people covered by commercial health plans. That exceeded the 27.7% drop seen for people enrolled in Medicaid (646.8 MME to 467.7 MME). The decline was smaller (17.5%; 2,780.2 MME to 2,294.2 MME) for those on Medicare, who as a group used the most opioids.
‘Almost functions as a Rorschach test’
The causes of the decline are easy to guess, although definitive conclusions are impossible, Dr. Stein told this news organization.
Significant work has been done in recent years to change attitudes about opioid prescriptions by physicians, researchers, and lawmakers. Aggressive promotion of prescription painkillers, particularly Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin, in the 1990s, is widely cited as the triggering event for the national opioid crisis.
In response, states created databases known as prescription drug monitoring programs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 issued guidelines intended to curb unnecessary use of opioids. The guidelines noted that other medicines could treat chronic pain without raising the risk of addiction. The Choosing Wisely campaign, run by a foundation of the American Board of Internal Medicine, also offered recommendations about limiting use of opioids. And insurers have restricted access to opioids through the prior authorization process. As a result, researchers will make their own guesses at the causes of the decline in opioid prescriptions, based on their own experiences and research interests, Dr. Stein said.
“It almost functions as a Rorschach test,” he said.
Dr. Stein’s group also looked at trends among medical specialties. They found the largest reduction between 2008-2009 and 2017-2018 among emergency physicians (70.5% drop from 99,254.5 MME to 29,234.3 MME), psychiatrists (67.2% drop from 50,464.3 MME to 16,533.0 MME) and oncologists (59.5% drop from 51,731.2 MME to 20,941.4).
Among surgeons, the RAND researchers found a drop of 49.3% from 220,764.6 to 111,904.4. Among dentists, they found a drop of 41.3% from 22,345.3 to 13,126.1.
Among pain specialists, they found a drop of 15.4% from 1,020,808.4 MME to 863,140.7 MME.
Among adult primary care clinicians, Dr. Stein and his colleagues found a drop of 40% from 651,489.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 390,841.0 MME in 2017-2018.
However, one of the groups tracked in the study increased the volume of opioid prescriptions written: advanced practice providers, among whom scripts for the drugs rose 22.7%, from 112,873.9 MME to 138,459.3 MME.
Dr. Stein said he suspects that this gain reflects a change in the nature of the practice of primary care, with nurse practitioners and physician assistants taking more active roles in treatment of patients. Some of the reduction seen among primary care clinicians who treat adults may reflect a shift in which medical personnel in a practice write the opioid prescriptions.
Still, the trends in general seen by Dr. Stein and coauthors are encouraging, even if further study of these patterns is needed, he said.
“This is one of those papers that I think potentially raises as many questions as it provides answers for,” he said.
What’s missing
Maya Hambright, MD, a family medicine physician in New York’s Hudson Valley, who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the opioid overdose crisis, observed that the drop in total prescribed volume of prescription painkillers does not necessarily translate into a reduction in use of opioids
“No one is taking fewer opioids,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “I can say that comfortably. They are just getting them from other sources.”
CDC data support Dr. Hambright’s view.
An estimated 100,306 people in the United States died of a drug overdose in the 12 months that ended in April 2021, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the CDC.
Dr. Hambright said more physicians need to be involved in prescribing medication-assisted treatment (MAT).
The federal government has in the past year loosened restrictions on a requirement, known as an X waiver. Certain clinicians have been exempted from training requirements, as explained in the frequently asked questions page on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website.
SAMHSA says legislation is required to eliminate the waiver. As of Dec. 30, 2021, more than half of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives were listed as sponsors of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act (HR 1384), which would end the need for X waivers. The bill has the backing of 187 Democrats and 43 Republicans.
At this time, too many physicians shy away from offering MAT, Dr. Hambright said.
“People are still scared of it,” she said. “People don’t want to deal with addicts.”
But Dr. Hambright said it’s well worth the initial time invested in having the needed conversations with patients about MAT.
“Afterwards, it’s so straightforward. People feel better. They’re healthier. It’s amazing,” she said. “You’re changing lives.”
The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Stein and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC defends new COVID guidance as doctors raise concerns
, Director Rochelle Walenksy, MD, said during a White House briefing Jan. 5.
Health officials recently shortened the recommended COVID-19 isolation and quarantine period from 10 days to 5, creating confusion amid an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which now accounts for 95% of cases in the United States.
Then, in slightly updated guidance, the CDC recommended using an at-home antigen test after 5 days of isolation if possible, even though these tests having aren’t as sensitive to the Omicron variant, according to the FDA.
“After we released our recs early last week, it became very clear people were interested in using the rapid test, though not authorized for this purpose after the end of their isolation period,” Dr. Walensky said. “We then provided guidance on how they should be used.”
“If that test is negative, people really do need to understand they must continue to wear their mask for those 5 days,” Dr. Walensky said.
But for many, the CDC guidelines are murky and seem to always change.
“Nearly 2 years into this pandemic, with Omicron cases surging across the country, the American people should be able to count on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for timely, accurate, clear guidance to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their communities,” American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, said in a statement. “Instead, the new recommendations on quarantine and isolation are not only confusing, but are risking further spread of the virus.”
About 31% of people remain infectious 5 days after a positive COVID-19 test, Dr. Harmon said, quoting the CDC’s own rationale for changing its guidance.
“With hundreds of thousands of new cases daily and more than a million positive reported cases on January 3, tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of people – could return to work and school infectious if they follow the CDC’s new guidance on ending isolation after 5 days without a negative test,” he said. “Physicians are concerned that these recommendations put our patients at risk and could further overwhelm our health care system.”
Instead, Dr. Harmon said a negative test should be required for ending isolation.
“Reemerging without knowing one’s status unnecessarily risks further transmission of the virus,” he said.
Meanwhile, also during the White House briefing, officials said that early data continue to show that Omicron infections are less severe than those from other variants, but skyrocketing cases will still put a strain on the health care system.
“The big caveat is we should not be complacent,” presidential Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, MD, said a White House briefing Jan. 5.
He added that Omicron “could still stress our hospital system because a certain proportion of a large volume of cases, no matter what, are going to be severe.”
Cases continue to increase greatly. This week’s 7-day daily average of infections is 491,700 -- an increase of 98% over last week, Dr. Walensky said. Hospitalizations, while lagging behind case numbers, are still rising significantly: The daily average is 14,800 admissions, up 63% from last week. Daily deaths this week are 1,200, an increase of only 5%.
Dr. Walensky continues to encourage vaccinations, boosters, and other precautions.
“Vaccines and boosters are protecting people from the severe and tragic outcomes that can occur from COVID-19 infection,” she said. “Get vaccinated and get boosted if eligible, wear a mask, stay home when you’re sick, and take a test if you have symptoms or are looking for greater reassurance before you gather with others.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, Director Rochelle Walenksy, MD, said during a White House briefing Jan. 5.
Health officials recently shortened the recommended COVID-19 isolation and quarantine period from 10 days to 5, creating confusion amid an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which now accounts for 95% of cases in the United States.
Then, in slightly updated guidance, the CDC recommended using an at-home antigen test after 5 days of isolation if possible, even though these tests having aren’t as sensitive to the Omicron variant, according to the FDA.
“After we released our recs early last week, it became very clear people were interested in using the rapid test, though not authorized for this purpose after the end of their isolation period,” Dr. Walensky said. “We then provided guidance on how they should be used.”
“If that test is negative, people really do need to understand they must continue to wear their mask for those 5 days,” Dr. Walensky said.
But for many, the CDC guidelines are murky and seem to always change.
“Nearly 2 years into this pandemic, with Omicron cases surging across the country, the American people should be able to count on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for timely, accurate, clear guidance to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their communities,” American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, said in a statement. “Instead, the new recommendations on quarantine and isolation are not only confusing, but are risking further spread of the virus.”
About 31% of people remain infectious 5 days after a positive COVID-19 test, Dr. Harmon said, quoting the CDC’s own rationale for changing its guidance.
“With hundreds of thousands of new cases daily and more than a million positive reported cases on January 3, tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of people – could return to work and school infectious if they follow the CDC’s new guidance on ending isolation after 5 days without a negative test,” he said. “Physicians are concerned that these recommendations put our patients at risk and could further overwhelm our health care system.”
Instead, Dr. Harmon said a negative test should be required for ending isolation.
“Reemerging without knowing one’s status unnecessarily risks further transmission of the virus,” he said.
Meanwhile, also during the White House briefing, officials said that early data continue to show that Omicron infections are less severe than those from other variants, but skyrocketing cases will still put a strain on the health care system.
“The big caveat is we should not be complacent,” presidential Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, MD, said a White House briefing Jan. 5.
He added that Omicron “could still stress our hospital system because a certain proportion of a large volume of cases, no matter what, are going to be severe.”
Cases continue to increase greatly. This week’s 7-day daily average of infections is 491,700 -- an increase of 98% over last week, Dr. Walensky said. Hospitalizations, while lagging behind case numbers, are still rising significantly: The daily average is 14,800 admissions, up 63% from last week. Daily deaths this week are 1,200, an increase of only 5%.
Dr. Walensky continues to encourage vaccinations, boosters, and other precautions.
“Vaccines and boosters are protecting people from the severe and tragic outcomes that can occur from COVID-19 infection,” she said. “Get vaccinated and get boosted if eligible, wear a mask, stay home when you’re sick, and take a test if you have symptoms or are looking for greater reassurance before you gather with others.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, Director Rochelle Walenksy, MD, said during a White House briefing Jan. 5.
Health officials recently shortened the recommended COVID-19 isolation and quarantine period from 10 days to 5, creating confusion amid an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which now accounts for 95% of cases in the United States.
Then, in slightly updated guidance, the CDC recommended using an at-home antigen test after 5 days of isolation if possible, even though these tests having aren’t as sensitive to the Omicron variant, according to the FDA.
“After we released our recs early last week, it became very clear people were interested in using the rapid test, though not authorized for this purpose after the end of their isolation period,” Dr. Walensky said. “We then provided guidance on how they should be used.”
“If that test is negative, people really do need to understand they must continue to wear their mask for those 5 days,” Dr. Walensky said.
But for many, the CDC guidelines are murky and seem to always change.
“Nearly 2 years into this pandemic, with Omicron cases surging across the country, the American people should be able to count on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for timely, accurate, clear guidance to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their communities,” American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, said in a statement. “Instead, the new recommendations on quarantine and isolation are not only confusing, but are risking further spread of the virus.”
About 31% of people remain infectious 5 days after a positive COVID-19 test, Dr. Harmon said, quoting the CDC’s own rationale for changing its guidance.
“With hundreds of thousands of new cases daily and more than a million positive reported cases on January 3, tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of people – could return to work and school infectious if they follow the CDC’s new guidance on ending isolation after 5 days without a negative test,” he said. “Physicians are concerned that these recommendations put our patients at risk and could further overwhelm our health care system.”
Instead, Dr. Harmon said a negative test should be required for ending isolation.
“Reemerging without knowing one’s status unnecessarily risks further transmission of the virus,” he said.
Meanwhile, also during the White House briefing, officials said that early data continue to show that Omicron infections are less severe than those from other variants, but skyrocketing cases will still put a strain on the health care system.
“The big caveat is we should not be complacent,” presidential Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, MD, said a White House briefing Jan. 5.
He added that Omicron “could still stress our hospital system because a certain proportion of a large volume of cases, no matter what, are going to be severe.”
Cases continue to increase greatly. This week’s 7-day daily average of infections is 491,700 -- an increase of 98% over last week, Dr. Walensky said. Hospitalizations, while lagging behind case numbers, are still rising significantly: The daily average is 14,800 admissions, up 63% from last week. Daily deaths this week are 1,200, an increase of only 5%.
Dr. Walensky continues to encourage vaccinations, boosters, and other precautions.
“Vaccines and boosters are protecting people from the severe and tragic outcomes that can occur from COVID-19 infection,” she said. “Get vaccinated and get boosted if eligible, wear a mask, stay home when you’re sick, and take a test if you have symptoms or are looking for greater reassurance before you gather with others.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
New CDC COVID-19 isolation guidelines still up for debate among experts
It’s a true Goldilocks debate: , with some calling them suitable, some saying they’re “reckless,” and at least one expert saying they’re “right in the middle.”
The controversy may lead to more updates. On Jan. 2, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on CNN’s State of the Union that he anticipates further clarification of the guidelines soon.
Sparking the most debate: Infected people are not told to test before leaving isolation, the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are exposed are given some of the same advice, and the mask advice is not specific enough.
As issued on Dec. 27, the guidelines for the general public recommend:
- Anyone who tests positive should stay home and isolate for 5 days (instead of 10) and if the person has no symptoms or the symptoms resolve after 5 days, leaving the house is okay. A mask should be worn around others for 5 more days. In the event of a fever, the person must stay home until it resolves.
- If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they have been boosted, finished the primary series of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within the past 6 months, or finished the primary series of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within the past 2 months, they should wear a mask around others for 10 days and, if possible, test on day 5. However, if symptoms develop, they should get a test and stay home.
- If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they are unvaccinated or are more than 6 months out from their second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine (or more than 2 months after the J&J vaccine) and not boosted, they should quarantine for 5 days and then wear a mask for 5 more days. If quarantine is impossible, a mask should be worn for 10 days. A test on day 5 is suggested if possible. If symptoms occur, they should quarantine and test.
On social media and in interviews with this news organization, public health experts expressed an array of opinions.
A tweet from Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, posted the day after the new guidelines came out, had an empty box and this: “The data that support the new @CDCgov 5 day isolation period without a negative test.”
In a tweet on Jan. 2, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said: “Hearing that CDC considering adding testing to isolation guidelines. That would be great. I’ve been arguing for a while that serial negative antigen tests provide a lot of confidence that someone is not contagious.”
Michael Mina, MD, PhD, chief science officer of eMed, a digital point-of-care platform enabling at-home diagnostic testing, tweeted: “CDC’s new guidance to drop isolation of positives to 5 days without a negative test is reckless. Some [people] stay infectious 3 days, some 12. I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned [positive] 5 days ago and hasn’t tested Neg. Test Neg to leave isolation early is just smart.”
Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an infectious disease specialist, disagrees. Typically, he said, an infected person sheds virus for 7 days.
“If you are asymptomatic, the chances that you are shedding a significant amount of virus is very, very small,” he said in an interview.
Under debate
Testing: While many public health experts say a recommendation to test before leaving isolation is needed, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, explained testing was not recommended before leaving isolation because PCR testing can stay positive up to 12 weeks after a person is first infected with COVID-19.
Asked why there was not a recommendation for a rapid antigen test before leaving isolation, Dr. Walensky told CNN that it is not known how these tests perform at the end of infection and that the tests are not Food and Drug Administration–authorized for that purpose.
And while the guidelines suggest that those exposed – whether they are boosted, vaccinated, or not – should test on day 5 if possible, that recommendation should be stronger, some said. “At the very least recommend a test in those who can get it done,” said Dr. Topol.
However, making that recommendation is difficult when experts know how difficult it is for people to obtain tests now, William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.
“I am sure this was intensely debated,” Dr. Schaffner said of the recommendation on testing.
Vaccination status categories: Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, questioned the scientific basis behind treating the fully vaccinated (with two mRNA or one J&J vaccine) who are exposed ‘’as the equivalent of the unvaccinated when it comes to the quarantine requirement since the fully vaccinated are protected against what matters.”
Dr. Topol agreed: Guidelines “should be different for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.”
The recommendations for the exposed should definitely be simpler, Dr. Offit said. “I think it would be much simpler to just say, ‘If you are exposed, mask for 10 days,’ “ regardless of vaccination status.
Masks: The guidelines should also be more specific about the type of masks, Dr. Topol said. They should spell out that the masks need to be N95 or KN95, he said.
Science-driven or economy-driven? Was the guidance changed due more to concerns about the economy than to scientific information about infection and transmission? “It was,” Dr. Topol said.
Dr. Adalja sees it differently. “While it is true that this updated guidance will help the economy, it is based on a scientific foundation and should have been issued much earlier than it was.”
Tough decisions
The agency is walking a tightrope, Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he is in general agreement with what the CDC is trying to do. “The tightrope is between the public health ideal and trying to determine what will be acceptable,’’ he said.
The revised guidelines are more practical than before, others said. “The goal is harm reduction and many people just don’t do any isolation if they are faced with a 10-day period,” Dr. Adalja said.
Before issuing the new guidance, the CDC looked at the accumulating science and also took into account stresses on the health care system and other factors, Dr. Schaffner said. “Is it perfect?” Dr. Schaffner said of the new guideline. “No. Is it carefree? No. It’s right in the middle.”
Dr. Schaffner does think the messages about the new recommendations and how they were decided upon could have been communicated better, and in a more understandable manner. Some experts, for instance, led with the economy and the need for people to return to work and school when explaining the guidelines and then brought up the science behind the revisions.
That order should have been reversed, Dr. Schaffner said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s a true Goldilocks debate: , with some calling them suitable, some saying they’re “reckless,” and at least one expert saying they’re “right in the middle.”
The controversy may lead to more updates. On Jan. 2, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on CNN’s State of the Union that he anticipates further clarification of the guidelines soon.
Sparking the most debate: Infected people are not told to test before leaving isolation, the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are exposed are given some of the same advice, and the mask advice is not specific enough.
As issued on Dec. 27, the guidelines for the general public recommend:
- Anyone who tests positive should stay home and isolate for 5 days (instead of 10) and if the person has no symptoms or the symptoms resolve after 5 days, leaving the house is okay. A mask should be worn around others for 5 more days. In the event of a fever, the person must stay home until it resolves.
- If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they have been boosted, finished the primary series of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within the past 6 months, or finished the primary series of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within the past 2 months, they should wear a mask around others for 10 days and, if possible, test on day 5. However, if symptoms develop, they should get a test and stay home.
- If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they are unvaccinated or are more than 6 months out from their second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine (or more than 2 months after the J&J vaccine) and not boosted, they should quarantine for 5 days and then wear a mask for 5 more days. If quarantine is impossible, a mask should be worn for 10 days. A test on day 5 is suggested if possible. If symptoms occur, they should quarantine and test.
On social media and in interviews with this news organization, public health experts expressed an array of opinions.
A tweet from Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, posted the day after the new guidelines came out, had an empty box and this: “The data that support the new @CDCgov 5 day isolation period without a negative test.”
In a tweet on Jan. 2, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said: “Hearing that CDC considering adding testing to isolation guidelines. That would be great. I’ve been arguing for a while that serial negative antigen tests provide a lot of confidence that someone is not contagious.”
Michael Mina, MD, PhD, chief science officer of eMed, a digital point-of-care platform enabling at-home diagnostic testing, tweeted: “CDC’s new guidance to drop isolation of positives to 5 days without a negative test is reckless. Some [people] stay infectious 3 days, some 12. I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned [positive] 5 days ago and hasn’t tested Neg. Test Neg to leave isolation early is just smart.”
Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an infectious disease specialist, disagrees. Typically, he said, an infected person sheds virus for 7 days.
“If you are asymptomatic, the chances that you are shedding a significant amount of virus is very, very small,” he said in an interview.
Under debate
Testing: While many public health experts say a recommendation to test before leaving isolation is needed, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, explained testing was not recommended before leaving isolation because PCR testing can stay positive up to 12 weeks after a person is first infected with COVID-19.
Asked why there was not a recommendation for a rapid antigen test before leaving isolation, Dr. Walensky told CNN that it is not known how these tests perform at the end of infection and that the tests are not Food and Drug Administration–authorized for that purpose.
And while the guidelines suggest that those exposed – whether they are boosted, vaccinated, or not – should test on day 5 if possible, that recommendation should be stronger, some said. “At the very least recommend a test in those who can get it done,” said Dr. Topol.
However, making that recommendation is difficult when experts know how difficult it is for people to obtain tests now, William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.
“I am sure this was intensely debated,” Dr. Schaffner said of the recommendation on testing.
Vaccination status categories: Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, questioned the scientific basis behind treating the fully vaccinated (with two mRNA or one J&J vaccine) who are exposed ‘’as the equivalent of the unvaccinated when it comes to the quarantine requirement since the fully vaccinated are protected against what matters.”
Dr. Topol agreed: Guidelines “should be different for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.”
The recommendations for the exposed should definitely be simpler, Dr. Offit said. “I think it would be much simpler to just say, ‘If you are exposed, mask for 10 days,’ “ regardless of vaccination status.
Masks: The guidelines should also be more specific about the type of masks, Dr. Topol said. They should spell out that the masks need to be N95 or KN95, he said.
Science-driven or economy-driven? Was the guidance changed due more to concerns about the economy than to scientific information about infection and transmission? “It was,” Dr. Topol said.
Dr. Adalja sees it differently. “While it is true that this updated guidance will help the economy, it is based on a scientific foundation and should have been issued much earlier than it was.”
Tough decisions
The agency is walking a tightrope, Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he is in general agreement with what the CDC is trying to do. “The tightrope is between the public health ideal and trying to determine what will be acceptable,’’ he said.
The revised guidelines are more practical than before, others said. “The goal is harm reduction and many people just don’t do any isolation if they are faced with a 10-day period,” Dr. Adalja said.
Before issuing the new guidance, the CDC looked at the accumulating science and also took into account stresses on the health care system and other factors, Dr. Schaffner said. “Is it perfect?” Dr. Schaffner said of the new guideline. “No. Is it carefree? No. It’s right in the middle.”
Dr. Schaffner does think the messages about the new recommendations and how they were decided upon could have been communicated better, and in a more understandable manner. Some experts, for instance, led with the economy and the need for people to return to work and school when explaining the guidelines and then brought up the science behind the revisions.
That order should have been reversed, Dr. Schaffner said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s a true Goldilocks debate: , with some calling them suitable, some saying they’re “reckless,” and at least one expert saying they’re “right in the middle.”
The controversy may lead to more updates. On Jan. 2, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on CNN’s State of the Union that he anticipates further clarification of the guidelines soon.
Sparking the most debate: Infected people are not told to test before leaving isolation, the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are exposed are given some of the same advice, and the mask advice is not specific enough.
As issued on Dec. 27, the guidelines for the general public recommend:
- Anyone who tests positive should stay home and isolate for 5 days (instead of 10) and if the person has no symptoms or the symptoms resolve after 5 days, leaving the house is okay. A mask should be worn around others for 5 more days. In the event of a fever, the person must stay home until it resolves.
- If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they have been boosted, finished the primary series of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within the past 6 months, or finished the primary series of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within the past 2 months, they should wear a mask around others for 10 days and, if possible, test on day 5. However, if symptoms develop, they should get a test and stay home.
- If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they are unvaccinated or are more than 6 months out from their second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine (or more than 2 months after the J&J vaccine) and not boosted, they should quarantine for 5 days and then wear a mask for 5 more days. If quarantine is impossible, a mask should be worn for 10 days. A test on day 5 is suggested if possible. If symptoms occur, they should quarantine and test.
On social media and in interviews with this news organization, public health experts expressed an array of opinions.
A tweet from Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, posted the day after the new guidelines came out, had an empty box and this: “The data that support the new @CDCgov 5 day isolation period without a negative test.”
In a tweet on Jan. 2, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said: “Hearing that CDC considering adding testing to isolation guidelines. That would be great. I’ve been arguing for a while that serial negative antigen tests provide a lot of confidence that someone is not contagious.”
Michael Mina, MD, PhD, chief science officer of eMed, a digital point-of-care platform enabling at-home diagnostic testing, tweeted: “CDC’s new guidance to drop isolation of positives to 5 days without a negative test is reckless. Some [people] stay infectious 3 days, some 12. I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned [positive] 5 days ago and hasn’t tested Neg. Test Neg to leave isolation early is just smart.”
Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an infectious disease specialist, disagrees. Typically, he said, an infected person sheds virus for 7 days.
“If you are asymptomatic, the chances that you are shedding a significant amount of virus is very, very small,” he said in an interview.
Under debate
Testing: While many public health experts say a recommendation to test before leaving isolation is needed, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, explained testing was not recommended before leaving isolation because PCR testing can stay positive up to 12 weeks after a person is first infected with COVID-19.
Asked why there was not a recommendation for a rapid antigen test before leaving isolation, Dr. Walensky told CNN that it is not known how these tests perform at the end of infection and that the tests are not Food and Drug Administration–authorized for that purpose.
And while the guidelines suggest that those exposed – whether they are boosted, vaccinated, or not – should test on day 5 if possible, that recommendation should be stronger, some said. “At the very least recommend a test in those who can get it done,” said Dr. Topol.
However, making that recommendation is difficult when experts know how difficult it is for people to obtain tests now, William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.
“I am sure this was intensely debated,” Dr. Schaffner said of the recommendation on testing.
Vaccination status categories: Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, questioned the scientific basis behind treating the fully vaccinated (with two mRNA or one J&J vaccine) who are exposed ‘’as the equivalent of the unvaccinated when it comes to the quarantine requirement since the fully vaccinated are protected against what matters.”
Dr. Topol agreed: Guidelines “should be different for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.”
The recommendations for the exposed should definitely be simpler, Dr. Offit said. “I think it would be much simpler to just say, ‘If you are exposed, mask for 10 days,’ “ regardless of vaccination status.
Masks: The guidelines should also be more specific about the type of masks, Dr. Topol said. They should spell out that the masks need to be N95 or KN95, he said.
Science-driven or economy-driven? Was the guidance changed due more to concerns about the economy than to scientific information about infection and transmission? “It was,” Dr. Topol said.
Dr. Adalja sees it differently. “While it is true that this updated guidance will help the economy, it is based on a scientific foundation and should have been issued much earlier than it was.”
Tough decisions
The agency is walking a tightrope, Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he is in general agreement with what the CDC is trying to do. “The tightrope is between the public health ideal and trying to determine what will be acceptable,’’ he said.
The revised guidelines are more practical than before, others said. “The goal is harm reduction and many people just don’t do any isolation if they are faced with a 10-day period,” Dr. Adalja said.
Before issuing the new guidance, the CDC looked at the accumulating science and also took into account stresses on the health care system and other factors, Dr. Schaffner said. “Is it perfect?” Dr. Schaffner said of the new guideline. “No. Is it carefree? No. It’s right in the middle.”
Dr. Schaffner does think the messages about the new recommendations and how they were decided upon could have been communicated better, and in a more understandable manner. Some experts, for instance, led with the economy and the need for people to return to work and school when explaining the guidelines and then brought up the science behind the revisions.
That order should have been reversed, Dr. Schaffner said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 outbreak hits research station in Antarctica
Two-thirds of the 25 workers have tested positive at the station, despite all of them being fully vaccinated and going through several testing stages before being allowed entrance, the Belgium publication Le Soir reported.
So far, all the cases are mild at the station, which is owned by Belgium and operated by a private group: the International Polar Foundation.
The first case was discovered Dec. 14 among a group that arrived a week earlier in Antarctica, Le Soir reported. The first three people to test positive evacuated Dec. 23, Le Soir said, but the virus continued to spread among the remaining workers at the base.
Le Soir, citing a virologist, said the Omicron variant probably caused the outbreak, because the crew made its last stop in South Africa before arriving in Antarctica.
New arrivals to the station have been put on hold until the outbreak is brought under control, and one of the missions planned for the base has been postponed, Le Soir said.
“The situation isn’t dramatic,” Joseph Cheek, a project manager for the International Polar Foundation, told the BBC. “While it has been an inconvenience to have to quarantine certain members of the staff who caught the virus, it hasn’t significantly affected our work at the station overall.”
The BBC said there was another COVID outbreak in Antarctica about a year ago at the Bernardo O’Higgins research station operated by Chile.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Two-thirds of the 25 workers have tested positive at the station, despite all of them being fully vaccinated and going through several testing stages before being allowed entrance, the Belgium publication Le Soir reported.
So far, all the cases are mild at the station, which is owned by Belgium and operated by a private group: the International Polar Foundation.
The first case was discovered Dec. 14 among a group that arrived a week earlier in Antarctica, Le Soir reported. The first three people to test positive evacuated Dec. 23, Le Soir said, but the virus continued to spread among the remaining workers at the base.
Le Soir, citing a virologist, said the Omicron variant probably caused the outbreak, because the crew made its last stop in South Africa before arriving in Antarctica.
New arrivals to the station have been put on hold until the outbreak is brought under control, and one of the missions planned for the base has been postponed, Le Soir said.
“The situation isn’t dramatic,” Joseph Cheek, a project manager for the International Polar Foundation, told the BBC. “While it has been an inconvenience to have to quarantine certain members of the staff who caught the virus, it hasn’t significantly affected our work at the station overall.”
The BBC said there was another COVID outbreak in Antarctica about a year ago at the Bernardo O’Higgins research station operated by Chile.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Two-thirds of the 25 workers have tested positive at the station, despite all of them being fully vaccinated and going through several testing stages before being allowed entrance, the Belgium publication Le Soir reported.
So far, all the cases are mild at the station, which is owned by Belgium and operated by a private group: the International Polar Foundation.
The first case was discovered Dec. 14 among a group that arrived a week earlier in Antarctica, Le Soir reported. The first three people to test positive evacuated Dec. 23, Le Soir said, but the virus continued to spread among the remaining workers at the base.
Le Soir, citing a virologist, said the Omicron variant probably caused the outbreak, because the crew made its last stop in South Africa before arriving in Antarctica.
New arrivals to the station have been put on hold until the outbreak is brought under control, and one of the missions planned for the base has been postponed, Le Soir said.
“The situation isn’t dramatic,” Joseph Cheek, a project manager for the International Polar Foundation, told the BBC. “While it has been an inconvenience to have to quarantine certain members of the staff who caught the virus, it hasn’t significantly affected our work at the station overall.”
The BBC said there was another COVID outbreak in Antarctica about a year ago at the Bernardo O’Higgins research station operated by Chile.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FDA backs Pfizer booster for 12- to 15-year-olds
Besides updating the authorization for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more, based on new evidence. In addition, a third primary series dose is now authorized for certain immunocompromised children 5 years to 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.
The amended emergency use authorization (EUA) only applies to the Pfizer vaccine, said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD.
“Just to make sure every everyone is clear on this, right now: If you got [Johnson & Johnson’s one-dose vaccine], you get a booster after 2 months. If you got Moderna, you can get a booster at 6 months or beyond,” she said during a media briefing.
What is new, she said, is “if you got Pfizer as your primary series, you can get a booster at 5 months or beyond.”
A lower risk of myocarditis?
Asked about concerns about the risk of myocarditis with vaccination in the 12- to 15-year age group, Dr. Woodcock said they expect it would be “extremely rare with the third dose.”
“We have the real-world evidence from the Israeli experience to help us with that analysis,” she said.
The data so far consistently points to a higher risk of myocarditis after a second mRNA vaccine dose among males, from teenagers to 30-year-olds, with a peak at about 16 to 17 years of age, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said during the media call.
The risk of myocarditis is about 2 to 3 times higher after a second vaccine dose, compared to a booster shot, Dr. Marks said, based on available data. It may be related to the closer dose timing of the second dose versus a third, he added.
“The inference here is that on the risk of myocarditis with third doses in the 12- to 15-year age range is likely to be quite acceptable,” he said.
Dr. Marks also pointed out that most cases of myocarditis clear up quickly.
“We’re not seeing long-lasting effects. That’s not to say that we don’t care about this and that it’s not important,” he said.
“But what it is saying is that in the setting of a tremendous number of Omicron and Delta cases in this country, the potential benefits of getting vaccinated in this age group outweigh that risk,” Dr. Marks said. “We can look at that risk-benefit and still feel comfortable.”
He said that “the really overwhelming majority of these cases, 98%, have been mild” -- shown by a 1-day median hospital stay.
Even so, the FDA plans to continue monitoring for the risk of myocarditis “very closely,” he said.
Interestingly, swollen underarm lymph nodes were seen more frequently after the booster dose than after the second dose of a two-dose primary series, the FDA said.
Reducing the time between primary vaccination with the Pfizer vaccine -- two initial doses -- and the booster shot from 6 months to 5 months is based on decreasing efficacy data that the drugmaker submitted to the FDA.
The 5-month interval was evaluated in a study from Israel published Dec. 21 in the New England Journal of Medicine .
Mixing and matching vaccines
Less clear at the moment is guidance about boosters for people who opted to mix and match their primary vaccine series.
“There was a mix-and-match study that was done which showed that in some cases, the mixing and matching … of an adenoviral record vaccine and an mRNA vaccine seem to give a very good immune response,” Dr. Marks said.
Once more data comes in on mixing and matching, “we’ll analyze them and then potentially make recommendations,” he said.
‘It’s not too late’
No federal government media briefing on COVID-19 would be complete without a plea for the unvaccinated to get immunized.
“We’re talking a lot about boosters right now, but it’s not too late for those who have not gotten a vaccine to get a vaccine,” Dr. Marks said, referring to the tens of millions of Americans who remain unvaccinated at the beginning of 2022.
“We know from our previous studies that even a single dose of the vaccine -- and probably two doses -- can help prevent the worst outcomes from COVID-19, including hospitalization and death.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Besides updating the authorization for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more, based on new evidence. In addition, a third primary series dose is now authorized for certain immunocompromised children 5 years to 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.
The amended emergency use authorization (EUA) only applies to the Pfizer vaccine, said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD.
“Just to make sure every everyone is clear on this, right now: If you got [Johnson & Johnson’s one-dose vaccine], you get a booster after 2 months. If you got Moderna, you can get a booster at 6 months or beyond,” she said during a media briefing.
What is new, she said, is “if you got Pfizer as your primary series, you can get a booster at 5 months or beyond.”
A lower risk of myocarditis?
Asked about concerns about the risk of myocarditis with vaccination in the 12- to 15-year age group, Dr. Woodcock said they expect it would be “extremely rare with the third dose.”
“We have the real-world evidence from the Israeli experience to help us with that analysis,” she said.
The data so far consistently points to a higher risk of myocarditis after a second mRNA vaccine dose among males, from teenagers to 30-year-olds, with a peak at about 16 to 17 years of age, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said during the media call.
The risk of myocarditis is about 2 to 3 times higher after a second vaccine dose, compared to a booster shot, Dr. Marks said, based on available data. It may be related to the closer dose timing of the second dose versus a third, he added.
“The inference here is that on the risk of myocarditis with third doses in the 12- to 15-year age range is likely to be quite acceptable,” he said.
Dr. Marks also pointed out that most cases of myocarditis clear up quickly.
“We’re not seeing long-lasting effects. That’s not to say that we don’t care about this and that it’s not important,” he said.
“But what it is saying is that in the setting of a tremendous number of Omicron and Delta cases in this country, the potential benefits of getting vaccinated in this age group outweigh that risk,” Dr. Marks said. “We can look at that risk-benefit and still feel comfortable.”
He said that “the really overwhelming majority of these cases, 98%, have been mild” -- shown by a 1-day median hospital stay.
Even so, the FDA plans to continue monitoring for the risk of myocarditis “very closely,” he said.
Interestingly, swollen underarm lymph nodes were seen more frequently after the booster dose than after the second dose of a two-dose primary series, the FDA said.
Reducing the time between primary vaccination with the Pfizer vaccine -- two initial doses -- and the booster shot from 6 months to 5 months is based on decreasing efficacy data that the drugmaker submitted to the FDA.
The 5-month interval was evaluated in a study from Israel published Dec. 21 in the New England Journal of Medicine .
Mixing and matching vaccines
Less clear at the moment is guidance about boosters for people who opted to mix and match their primary vaccine series.
“There was a mix-and-match study that was done which showed that in some cases, the mixing and matching … of an adenoviral record vaccine and an mRNA vaccine seem to give a very good immune response,” Dr. Marks said.
Once more data comes in on mixing and matching, “we’ll analyze them and then potentially make recommendations,” he said.
‘It’s not too late’
No federal government media briefing on COVID-19 would be complete without a plea for the unvaccinated to get immunized.
“We’re talking a lot about boosters right now, but it’s not too late for those who have not gotten a vaccine to get a vaccine,” Dr. Marks said, referring to the tens of millions of Americans who remain unvaccinated at the beginning of 2022.
“We know from our previous studies that even a single dose of the vaccine -- and probably two doses -- can help prevent the worst outcomes from COVID-19, including hospitalization and death.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Besides updating the authorization for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more, based on new evidence. In addition, a third primary series dose is now authorized for certain immunocompromised children 5 years to 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.
The amended emergency use authorization (EUA) only applies to the Pfizer vaccine, said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD.
“Just to make sure every everyone is clear on this, right now: If you got [Johnson & Johnson’s one-dose vaccine], you get a booster after 2 months. If you got Moderna, you can get a booster at 6 months or beyond,” she said during a media briefing.
What is new, she said, is “if you got Pfizer as your primary series, you can get a booster at 5 months or beyond.”
A lower risk of myocarditis?
Asked about concerns about the risk of myocarditis with vaccination in the 12- to 15-year age group, Dr. Woodcock said they expect it would be “extremely rare with the third dose.”
“We have the real-world evidence from the Israeli experience to help us with that analysis,” she said.
The data so far consistently points to a higher risk of myocarditis after a second mRNA vaccine dose among males, from teenagers to 30-year-olds, with a peak at about 16 to 17 years of age, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said during the media call.
The risk of myocarditis is about 2 to 3 times higher after a second vaccine dose, compared to a booster shot, Dr. Marks said, based on available data. It may be related to the closer dose timing of the second dose versus a third, he added.
“The inference here is that on the risk of myocarditis with third doses in the 12- to 15-year age range is likely to be quite acceptable,” he said.
Dr. Marks also pointed out that most cases of myocarditis clear up quickly.
“We’re not seeing long-lasting effects. That’s not to say that we don’t care about this and that it’s not important,” he said.
“But what it is saying is that in the setting of a tremendous number of Omicron and Delta cases in this country, the potential benefits of getting vaccinated in this age group outweigh that risk,” Dr. Marks said. “We can look at that risk-benefit and still feel comfortable.”
He said that “the really overwhelming majority of these cases, 98%, have been mild” -- shown by a 1-day median hospital stay.
Even so, the FDA plans to continue monitoring for the risk of myocarditis “very closely,” he said.
Interestingly, swollen underarm lymph nodes were seen more frequently after the booster dose than after the second dose of a two-dose primary series, the FDA said.
Reducing the time between primary vaccination with the Pfizer vaccine -- two initial doses -- and the booster shot from 6 months to 5 months is based on decreasing efficacy data that the drugmaker submitted to the FDA.
The 5-month interval was evaluated in a study from Israel published Dec. 21 in the New England Journal of Medicine .
Mixing and matching vaccines
Less clear at the moment is guidance about boosters for people who opted to mix and match their primary vaccine series.
“There was a mix-and-match study that was done which showed that in some cases, the mixing and matching … of an adenoviral record vaccine and an mRNA vaccine seem to give a very good immune response,” Dr. Marks said.
Once more data comes in on mixing and matching, “we’ll analyze them and then potentially make recommendations,” he said.
‘It’s not too late’
No federal government media briefing on COVID-19 would be complete without a plea for the unvaccinated to get immunized.
“We’re talking a lot about boosters right now, but it’s not too late for those who have not gotten a vaccine to get a vaccine,” Dr. Marks said, referring to the tens of millions of Americans who remain unvaccinated at the beginning of 2022.
“We know from our previous studies that even a single dose of the vaccine -- and probably two doses -- can help prevent the worst outcomes from COVID-19, including hospitalization and death.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Travel/school disruptions as COVID-19 cases grow in 2022
As the United States enters a third year of the COVID-19 pandemic,
The United States is reporting a 7-day average of more than 386,000 cases after several record-breaking days, according to the data tracker by the New York Times. The United States surpassed 585,000 cases on Dec. 30, setting a new record before the New Year’s holiday.
New York, Washington, D.C., and other states along the East Coast are leading the national surge. New York reported more than 85,000 new cases on the last day of 2021, marking the highest 1-day total in the state since the pandemic began.
“As we fight the winter surge, we need to keep the most vulnerable among us in mind – do what you can to keep others in your community safe from COVID-19,” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said in a statement on Jan. 1, 2022.
“Wear a mask, wash your hands, and take advantage of the best tool we have at our disposal – the vaccine,” she said.
The 2021 winter surge in the United States peaked around Jan. 12, which may suggest that the country has a week or so before the current wave reaches its height and begins to drop, the newspaper reported.
In the meantime, people are dealing with disruptions as they return from holiday travel and begin the new year. Airlines canceled more than 2,700 flights on Jan. 1 and more than 1,900 flights on Jan. 2, bringing the total since Christmas Eve to more than 14,000 canceled flights.
About half of cancellations were connected to wintry weather at key airline hubs in Chicago and Denver, the newspaper reported, as well as ongoing flight crew shortages caused by the Omicron variant.
More disruptions could continue, the Federal Aviation Administration warned, as an increasing number of its air-traffic control employees test positive for COVID-19.
“To maintain safety, traffic volumes at some facilities could be reduced, which might result in delays during busy periods,” an FAA spokesman told The Wall Street Journal.
The current COVID-19 surge will also affect businesses and schools as the new year begins. A growing number of universities are opting to start the next semester with remote instruction.
American University, Duke University, and Michigan State University announced in recent days that they would delay in-person classes to slow the spread of the coronavirus on campus. They will begin classes online on Jan. 10 and return to campus the following week or later.
“I realize that students prefer to be in person, and so do I. But it is important that we do so in a safe manner,” Samuel Stanley Jr., MD, president of Michigan State University, said in a statement on New Year’s Eve.
K-12 school districts are deciding how to adapt as well. Some districts are bringing back mask requirements, and some are ramping up testing. Others are moving to remote learning – and signaling the need for flexibility as the Omicron variant brings new surprises.
“Change has been the only constant in this fight,” Roger Leon, the superintendent for Newark (N.J.) Public Schools, wrote in a note to parents. He announced on Dec. 30, 2021, that students would learn remotely for at least the first 2 weeks of the new year.
This continues “to be a brutal, relentless, and ruthless virus that rears its ugly head at inopportune times,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
As the United States enters a third year of the COVID-19 pandemic,
The United States is reporting a 7-day average of more than 386,000 cases after several record-breaking days, according to the data tracker by the New York Times. The United States surpassed 585,000 cases on Dec. 30, setting a new record before the New Year’s holiday.
New York, Washington, D.C., and other states along the East Coast are leading the national surge. New York reported more than 85,000 new cases on the last day of 2021, marking the highest 1-day total in the state since the pandemic began.
“As we fight the winter surge, we need to keep the most vulnerable among us in mind – do what you can to keep others in your community safe from COVID-19,” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said in a statement on Jan. 1, 2022.
“Wear a mask, wash your hands, and take advantage of the best tool we have at our disposal – the vaccine,” she said.
The 2021 winter surge in the United States peaked around Jan. 12, which may suggest that the country has a week or so before the current wave reaches its height and begins to drop, the newspaper reported.
In the meantime, people are dealing with disruptions as they return from holiday travel and begin the new year. Airlines canceled more than 2,700 flights on Jan. 1 and more than 1,900 flights on Jan. 2, bringing the total since Christmas Eve to more than 14,000 canceled flights.
About half of cancellations were connected to wintry weather at key airline hubs in Chicago and Denver, the newspaper reported, as well as ongoing flight crew shortages caused by the Omicron variant.
More disruptions could continue, the Federal Aviation Administration warned, as an increasing number of its air-traffic control employees test positive for COVID-19.
“To maintain safety, traffic volumes at some facilities could be reduced, which might result in delays during busy periods,” an FAA spokesman told The Wall Street Journal.
The current COVID-19 surge will also affect businesses and schools as the new year begins. A growing number of universities are opting to start the next semester with remote instruction.
American University, Duke University, and Michigan State University announced in recent days that they would delay in-person classes to slow the spread of the coronavirus on campus. They will begin classes online on Jan. 10 and return to campus the following week or later.
“I realize that students prefer to be in person, and so do I. But it is important that we do so in a safe manner,” Samuel Stanley Jr., MD, president of Michigan State University, said in a statement on New Year’s Eve.
K-12 school districts are deciding how to adapt as well. Some districts are bringing back mask requirements, and some are ramping up testing. Others are moving to remote learning – and signaling the need for flexibility as the Omicron variant brings new surprises.
“Change has been the only constant in this fight,” Roger Leon, the superintendent for Newark (N.J.) Public Schools, wrote in a note to parents. He announced on Dec. 30, 2021, that students would learn remotely for at least the first 2 weeks of the new year.
This continues “to be a brutal, relentless, and ruthless virus that rears its ugly head at inopportune times,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
As the United States enters a third year of the COVID-19 pandemic,
The United States is reporting a 7-day average of more than 386,000 cases after several record-breaking days, according to the data tracker by the New York Times. The United States surpassed 585,000 cases on Dec. 30, setting a new record before the New Year’s holiday.
New York, Washington, D.C., and other states along the East Coast are leading the national surge. New York reported more than 85,000 new cases on the last day of 2021, marking the highest 1-day total in the state since the pandemic began.
“As we fight the winter surge, we need to keep the most vulnerable among us in mind – do what you can to keep others in your community safe from COVID-19,” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said in a statement on Jan. 1, 2022.
“Wear a mask, wash your hands, and take advantage of the best tool we have at our disposal – the vaccine,” she said.
The 2021 winter surge in the United States peaked around Jan. 12, which may suggest that the country has a week or so before the current wave reaches its height and begins to drop, the newspaper reported.
In the meantime, people are dealing with disruptions as they return from holiday travel and begin the new year. Airlines canceled more than 2,700 flights on Jan. 1 and more than 1,900 flights on Jan. 2, bringing the total since Christmas Eve to more than 14,000 canceled flights.
About half of cancellations were connected to wintry weather at key airline hubs in Chicago and Denver, the newspaper reported, as well as ongoing flight crew shortages caused by the Omicron variant.
More disruptions could continue, the Federal Aviation Administration warned, as an increasing number of its air-traffic control employees test positive for COVID-19.
“To maintain safety, traffic volumes at some facilities could be reduced, which might result in delays during busy periods,” an FAA spokesman told The Wall Street Journal.
The current COVID-19 surge will also affect businesses and schools as the new year begins. A growing number of universities are opting to start the next semester with remote instruction.
American University, Duke University, and Michigan State University announced in recent days that they would delay in-person classes to slow the spread of the coronavirus on campus. They will begin classes online on Jan. 10 and return to campus the following week or later.
“I realize that students prefer to be in person, and so do I. But it is important that we do so in a safe manner,” Samuel Stanley Jr., MD, president of Michigan State University, said in a statement on New Year’s Eve.
K-12 school districts are deciding how to adapt as well. Some districts are bringing back mask requirements, and some are ramping up testing. Others are moving to remote learning – and signaling the need for flexibility as the Omicron variant brings new surprises.
“Change has been the only constant in this fight,” Roger Leon, the superintendent for Newark (N.J.) Public Schools, wrote in a note to parents. He announced on Dec. 30, 2021, that students would learn remotely for at least the first 2 weeks of the new year.
This continues “to be a brutal, relentless, and ruthless virus that rears its ugly head at inopportune times,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Medicaid implements waivers for some clinical trial coverage
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.
Were these true medical miracles? Doctors disagree
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.
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.
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.
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.