Pulmonology

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape series telling these stories.

I was coming off a 48-hour shift plus a day of doing outpatient sedation at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing. It was December and Michigan-cold. The roads were fine – no snow – but I noticed an unusual amount of traffic on the freeway. Then I saw smoke coming from an overpass up ahead.

I drove on the side of the road where I wasn’t really supposed to and got closer. An SUV had crashed into one of the big concrete structures under the bridge. I saw people running around but wasn’t able to spot EMS or any health care workers. From where I was, I could identify four kids who had already been extricated and one adult still in the driver’s seat. I estimated the kids’ ages were around 7, 5, 3, and an infant who was a few months old. I left my car and went to help.

I was able to peg the ages correctly because I’m a pediatric critical care physician. As a specialty, we’re not commonly known. We oversee patient care in intensive care units, except the patients are children. Part of the job is that we’re experts at triaging. We recognize what’s life-threatening and less so.

The kids were with some adults who kept them warm with blankets. I examined each of them. The infant was asleep but arousable and acting like a normal baby. The 3-year-old boy was vomiting and appeared very fatigued. The 5-year-old boy had a forehead laceration and was in and out of consciousness. The 7-year-old girl was screaming because of different injuries.

While all of the children were concerning to me, I identified one in particular: the 5-year-old boy. It was obvious he needed serious medical attention and fast. So, I kept that little guy in mind. The others had sustained significant injuries, but my best guess was they could get to a hospital and be stabilized.

That said, I’m a trauma instructor, and one of the things I always tell trainees is: Trauma is a black box. On the outside, it may seem like a patient doesn’t have a lot of injuries. But underneath, there might be something worse, like a brain injury. Or the chest might have taken a blunt impact affecting the heart. There may be internal bleeding somewhere in the belly. It’s really hard to tease out what exactly is going on without equipment and testing.

I didn’t even have a pulse oximeter or heart rate monitor. I pretty much just went by the appearance of the child: pulse, heart rate, awareness, things like that.

After the kids, I moved to look at the man in the car. The front end had already caught fire. I could see the driver – the kids’ father, I guessed – unconscious and hunched over. I was wondering, Why hasn’t this guy been extricated?

I approached the car on the front passenger side. And then I just had this feeling. I knew I needed to step back. Immediately.

I did. And a few seconds later, the whole car exploded in flames.

I believe God is in control of everything. I tried to get to that man. But the scene was unsafe. Later I learned that several people, including a young nurse at the scene, had tried to get to him as well.

When EMS came, I identified myself. Obviously, these people do very, very important work. But they may be more used to the 60-year-old heart attack, the 25-year-old gunshot wound, the occasional ill child. I thought that four kids – each with possible critical poly-traumatic injuries – posed a challenge to anyone.

I told them, “This is what I do on a daily basis, and this is the kid I’m worried about the most. The other kids are definitely worrisome, but I would prioritize getting this kid to the hospital first. Can I ride with you?” They agreed.

We got that boy and his older sister into the first ambulance (she was in a lot of pain, the result of a femur fracture). The two other kids rode in the second ambulance. The hospital where I had just left was 10 minutes away. I called the other pediatric critical care doctor there, my partner. He thought I was calling for a routine issue – no such luck. I said, “I’m with four kids who are level-1 traumas in two ambulances and I’m heading to the hospital right now, ETA 10 minutes.”

En route, I thought the little boy might lose consciousness at any moment. He needed a breathing tube, and I debated whether it should be done in the ambulance vs. waiting until we got to the emergency room. Based on my judgment and his vital signs, I elected to wait to have it done it in a more controlled environment. Had I felt like he was in immediate need of an airway, I would’ve attempted it. But those are the tough calls that you must make.

My partner had alerted the trauma and emergency medicine teams at the hospital. By the time we arrived, my partner was down in the ER with the trauma team and ER staff. Everyone was ready. Then it was like divide and conquer. He attended to one of the kids. The ER team and I were with the little guy I was really worried about. We had his breathing tube in within minutes. The trauma team attended to the other two.

All the kids were stabilized and then admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit. I’m happy to say that all of them did well in the end. Even the little guy I was worried about the most.

I must say this incident gave me perspective on what EMS goes through. The field medicine we do in the United States is still in its infancy in a lot of ways. One of the things I would love to see in the future is a mobile ICU. After a critical illness hits, sometimes you only have seconds, minutes, maybe hours if you’re lucky. The earlier you can get patients the treatment they need, the better the outcomes.

I like taking care of critically ill children and their families. It fits my personality. And it’s a wonderful cause. But you have to be ready for tragic cases like this one. Yes, the children came out alive, but the accident claimed a life in a horrible way. And there was nothing I could do about it.

Critical care takes an emotional, psychological, and physical toll. It’s a roller coaster: Some kids do well; some kids don’t do well. All I can do is hold myself accountable. I keep my emotions in check, whether the outcome is positive or negative. And I do my best.
 

Mohamed Hani Farhat, MD, is a pediatric critical care physician at the University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital in Ann Arbor and Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, Mich. Are you a physician with a dramatic medical story outside the clinic? Medscape would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary of your story to [email protected] . A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape series telling these stories.

I was coming off a 48-hour shift plus a day of doing outpatient sedation at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing. It was December and Michigan-cold. The roads were fine – no snow – but I noticed an unusual amount of traffic on the freeway. Then I saw smoke coming from an overpass up ahead.

I drove on the side of the road where I wasn’t really supposed to and got closer. An SUV had crashed into one of the big concrete structures under the bridge. I saw people running around but wasn’t able to spot EMS or any health care workers. From where I was, I could identify four kids who had already been extricated and one adult still in the driver’s seat. I estimated the kids’ ages were around 7, 5, 3, and an infant who was a few months old. I left my car and went to help.

I was able to peg the ages correctly because I’m a pediatric critical care physician. As a specialty, we’re not commonly known. We oversee patient care in intensive care units, except the patients are children. Part of the job is that we’re experts at triaging. We recognize what’s life-threatening and less so.

The kids were with some adults who kept them warm with blankets. I examined each of them. The infant was asleep but arousable and acting like a normal baby. The 3-year-old boy was vomiting and appeared very fatigued. The 5-year-old boy had a forehead laceration and was in and out of consciousness. The 7-year-old girl was screaming because of different injuries.

While all of the children were concerning to me, I identified one in particular: the 5-year-old boy. It was obvious he needed serious medical attention and fast. So, I kept that little guy in mind. The others had sustained significant injuries, but my best guess was they could get to a hospital and be stabilized.

That said, I’m a trauma instructor, and one of the things I always tell trainees is: Trauma is a black box. On the outside, it may seem like a patient doesn’t have a lot of injuries. But underneath, there might be something worse, like a brain injury. Or the chest might have taken a blunt impact affecting the heart. There may be internal bleeding somewhere in the belly. It’s really hard to tease out what exactly is going on without equipment and testing.

I didn’t even have a pulse oximeter or heart rate monitor. I pretty much just went by the appearance of the child: pulse, heart rate, awareness, things like that.

After the kids, I moved to look at the man in the car. The front end had already caught fire. I could see the driver – the kids’ father, I guessed – unconscious and hunched over. I was wondering, Why hasn’t this guy been extricated?

I approached the car on the front passenger side. And then I just had this feeling. I knew I needed to step back. Immediately.

I did. And a few seconds later, the whole car exploded in flames.

I believe God is in control of everything. I tried to get to that man. But the scene was unsafe. Later I learned that several people, including a young nurse at the scene, had tried to get to him as well.

When EMS came, I identified myself. Obviously, these people do very, very important work. But they may be more used to the 60-year-old heart attack, the 25-year-old gunshot wound, the occasional ill child. I thought that four kids – each with possible critical poly-traumatic injuries – posed a challenge to anyone.

I told them, “This is what I do on a daily basis, and this is the kid I’m worried about the most. The other kids are definitely worrisome, but I would prioritize getting this kid to the hospital first. Can I ride with you?” They agreed.

We got that boy and his older sister into the first ambulance (she was in a lot of pain, the result of a femur fracture). The two other kids rode in the second ambulance. The hospital where I had just left was 10 minutes away. I called the other pediatric critical care doctor there, my partner. He thought I was calling for a routine issue – no such luck. I said, “I’m with four kids who are level-1 traumas in two ambulances and I’m heading to the hospital right now, ETA 10 minutes.”

En route, I thought the little boy might lose consciousness at any moment. He needed a breathing tube, and I debated whether it should be done in the ambulance vs. waiting until we got to the emergency room. Based on my judgment and his vital signs, I elected to wait to have it done it in a more controlled environment. Had I felt like he was in immediate need of an airway, I would’ve attempted it. But those are the tough calls that you must make.

My partner had alerted the trauma and emergency medicine teams at the hospital. By the time we arrived, my partner was down in the ER with the trauma team and ER staff. Everyone was ready. Then it was like divide and conquer. He attended to one of the kids. The ER team and I were with the little guy I was really worried about. We had his breathing tube in within minutes. The trauma team attended to the other two.

All the kids were stabilized and then admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit. I’m happy to say that all of them did well in the end. Even the little guy I was worried about the most.

I must say this incident gave me perspective on what EMS goes through. The field medicine we do in the United States is still in its infancy in a lot of ways. One of the things I would love to see in the future is a mobile ICU. After a critical illness hits, sometimes you only have seconds, minutes, maybe hours if you’re lucky. The earlier you can get patients the treatment they need, the better the outcomes.

I like taking care of critically ill children and their families. It fits my personality. And it’s a wonderful cause. But you have to be ready for tragic cases like this one. Yes, the children came out alive, but the accident claimed a life in a horrible way. And there was nothing I could do about it.

Critical care takes an emotional, psychological, and physical toll. It’s a roller coaster: Some kids do well; some kids don’t do well. All I can do is hold myself accountable. I keep my emotions in check, whether the outcome is positive or negative. And I do my best.
 

Mohamed Hani Farhat, MD, is a pediatric critical care physician at the University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital in Ann Arbor and Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, Mich. Are you a physician with a dramatic medical story outside the clinic? Medscape would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary of your story to [email protected] . A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape series telling these stories.

I was coming off a 48-hour shift plus a day of doing outpatient sedation at Sparrow Hospital in Lansing. It was December and Michigan-cold. The roads were fine – no snow – but I noticed an unusual amount of traffic on the freeway. Then I saw smoke coming from an overpass up ahead.

I drove on the side of the road where I wasn’t really supposed to and got closer. An SUV had crashed into one of the big concrete structures under the bridge. I saw people running around but wasn’t able to spot EMS or any health care workers. From where I was, I could identify four kids who had already been extricated and one adult still in the driver’s seat. I estimated the kids’ ages were around 7, 5, 3, and an infant who was a few months old. I left my car and went to help.

I was able to peg the ages correctly because I’m a pediatric critical care physician. As a specialty, we’re not commonly known. We oversee patient care in intensive care units, except the patients are children. Part of the job is that we’re experts at triaging. We recognize what’s life-threatening and less so.

The kids were with some adults who kept them warm with blankets. I examined each of them. The infant was asleep but arousable and acting like a normal baby. The 3-year-old boy was vomiting and appeared very fatigued. The 5-year-old boy had a forehead laceration and was in and out of consciousness. The 7-year-old girl was screaming because of different injuries.

While all of the children were concerning to me, I identified one in particular: the 5-year-old boy. It was obvious he needed serious medical attention and fast. So, I kept that little guy in mind. The others had sustained significant injuries, but my best guess was they could get to a hospital and be stabilized.

That said, I’m a trauma instructor, and one of the things I always tell trainees is: Trauma is a black box. On the outside, it may seem like a patient doesn’t have a lot of injuries. But underneath, there might be something worse, like a brain injury. Or the chest might have taken a blunt impact affecting the heart. There may be internal bleeding somewhere in the belly. It’s really hard to tease out what exactly is going on without equipment and testing.

I didn’t even have a pulse oximeter or heart rate monitor. I pretty much just went by the appearance of the child: pulse, heart rate, awareness, things like that.

After the kids, I moved to look at the man in the car. The front end had already caught fire. I could see the driver – the kids’ father, I guessed – unconscious and hunched over. I was wondering, Why hasn’t this guy been extricated?

I approached the car on the front passenger side. And then I just had this feeling. I knew I needed to step back. Immediately.

I did. And a few seconds later, the whole car exploded in flames.

I believe God is in control of everything. I tried to get to that man. But the scene was unsafe. Later I learned that several people, including a young nurse at the scene, had tried to get to him as well.

When EMS came, I identified myself. Obviously, these people do very, very important work. But they may be more used to the 60-year-old heart attack, the 25-year-old gunshot wound, the occasional ill child. I thought that four kids – each with possible critical poly-traumatic injuries – posed a challenge to anyone.

I told them, “This is what I do on a daily basis, and this is the kid I’m worried about the most. The other kids are definitely worrisome, but I would prioritize getting this kid to the hospital first. Can I ride with you?” They agreed.

We got that boy and his older sister into the first ambulance (she was in a lot of pain, the result of a femur fracture). The two other kids rode in the second ambulance. The hospital where I had just left was 10 minutes away. I called the other pediatric critical care doctor there, my partner. He thought I was calling for a routine issue – no such luck. I said, “I’m with four kids who are level-1 traumas in two ambulances and I’m heading to the hospital right now, ETA 10 minutes.”

En route, I thought the little boy might lose consciousness at any moment. He needed a breathing tube, and I debated whether it should be done in the ambulance vs. waiting until we got to the emergency room. Based on my judgment and his vital signs, I elected to wait to have it done it in a more controlled environment. Had I felt like he was in immediate need of an airway, I would’ve attempted it. But those are the tough calls that you must make.

My partner had alerted the trauma and emergency medicine teams at the hospital. By the time we arrived, my partner was down in the ER with the trauma team and ER staff. Everyone was ready. Then it was like divide and conquer. He attended to one of the kids. The ER team and I were with the little guy I was really worried about. We had his breathing tube in within minutes. The trauma team attended to the other two.

All the kids were stabilized and then admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit. I’m happy to say that all of them did well in the end. Even the little guy I was worried about the most.

I must say this incident gave me perspective on what EMS goes through. The field medicine we do in the United States is still in its infancy in a lot of ways. One of the things I would love to see in the future is a mobile ICU. After a critical illness hits, sometimes you only have seconds, minutes, maybe hours if you’re lucky. The earlier you can get patients the treatment they need, the better the outcomes.

I like taking care of critically ill children and their families. It fits my personality. And it’s a wonderful cause. But you have to be ready for tragic cases like this one. Yes, the children came out alive, but the accident claimed a life in a horrible way. And there was nothing I could do about it.

Critical care takes an emotional, psychological, and physical toll. It’s a roller coaster: Some kids do well; some kids don’t do well. All I can do is hold myself accountable. I keep my emotions in check, whether the outcome is positive or negative. And I do my best.
 

Mohamed Hani Farhat, MD, is a pediatric critical care physician at the University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital in Ann Arbor and Sparrow Hospital in Lansing, Mich. Are you a physician with a dramatic medical story outside the clinic? Medscape would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary of your story to [email protected] . A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

With SARS-CoV-2 sidestepping monoclonal antibodies faster than a Texas square dance, the need for new therapeutic options to treat – not prevent – COVID-19 is becoming more and more dire.

courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

courtesy of the New England Journal of Medicine

courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

courtesy of the New England Journal of Medicine

courtesy of the New England Journal of Medicine

courtesy of the New England Journal of Medicine

Dr. Perry Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, and director, Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

With SARS-CoV-2 sidestepping monoclonal antibodies faster than a Texas square dance, the need for new therapeutic options to treat – not prevent – COVID-19 is becoming more and more dire.

courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

courtesy of the New England Journal of Medicine

courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

courtesy of the New England Journal of Medicine

courtesy of the New England Journal of Medicine

courtesy of the New England Journal of Medicine

Dr. Perry Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, and director, Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

With SARS-CoV-2 sidestepping monoclonal antibodies faster than a Texas square dance, the need for new therapeutic options to treat – not prevent – COVID-19 is becoming more and more dire.

courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

courtesy of the New England Journal of Medicine

courtesy Dr. F. Perry Wilson

courtesy of the New England Journal of Medicine

courtesy of the New England Journal of Medicine

courtesy of the New England Journal of Medicine

Dr. Perry Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, and director, Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Maternal vaccination with two doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was 95% effective against infant infection from the delta variant, and 45% effective against infant infection from the omicron variant, a new study shows.

Previous research has confirmed that COVID-19 neutralizing antibodies following maternal vaccination or maternal COVID-19 infection are present in umbilical cord blood, breast milk, and infant serum specimens, wrote Sarah C.J. Jorgensen, PharmD, MPH, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues in their article published in The BMJ.

In the study, the researchers identified maternal and newborn pairs using administrative databases from Canada. The study population included 8,809 infants aged younger than 6 months who were born between May 7, 2021, and March 31, 2022, and who underwent testing for COVID-19 between May 7, 2021, and September 5, 2022.

Maternal vaccination with the primary COVID-19 mRNA monovalent vaccine series was defined as two vaccine doses administered up to 14 days before delivery, with at least one of the doses after the conception date.

Maternal vaccination with the primary series plus one booster was defined as three doses administered up to 14 days before delivery, with at least one of these doses after the conception date.

The primary outcome was the presence of delta or omicron COVID-19 infection or hospital admission of the infants.

The study population included 99 COVID-19 cases with the delta variant (with 4,365 controls) and 1,501 cases with the omicron variant (with 4,847 controls).

Overall, the vaccine effectiveness of maternal doses was 95% against delta infection and 45% against omicron.

The effectiveness against hospital admission in cases of delta and omicron variants were 97% and 53%, respectively.

The effectiveness of three doses was 73% against omicron infant infection and 80% against omicron-related infant hospitalization. Data were not available for the effectiveness of three doses against the delta variant.

The effectiveness of two doses of vaccine against infant omicron infection was highest when mothers received the second dose during the third trimester of pregnancy, compared with during the first trimester or second trimester (53% vs. 47% and 53% vs. 37%, respectively).

Vaccine effectiveness with two doses against infant infection from omicron was highest in the first 8 weeks of life (57%), then decreased to 40% among infants after 16 weeks of age.

Although the study was not designed to assess the mechanism of action of the impact of maternal vaccination on infants, the current study results were consistent with other recent studies showing a reduction in infections and hospitalizations among infants whose mothers received COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors including the potential unmeasured confounders not available in databases, such as whether infants were breastfed, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on home test results and the inability to assess the waning impact of the vaccine effectiveness against the delta variant because of the small number of delta cases, they said. However, the results suggest that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy was moderately to highly effective for protection against omicron and delta infection and infection-related hospitalization – especially during the first 8 weeks of life.

Effectiveness is encouraging, but updates are needed

The effectiveness of maternal vaccination to prevent COVID-19 infection and related hospitalizations in infants is promising, especially since those younger than 6 months have no other source of vaccine protection against COVID-19 infection, wrote Dana Danino, MD, of Soroka University Medical Center, Israel, and Ilan Youngster, MD, of Shamir Medical Center, Israel, in an accompanying editorial also published in The BMJ.

They also noted that maternal vaccination during pregnancy is an established method of protecting infants from infections such as influenza and pertussis.

Data from previous studies show that most infants whose mothers were vaccinated against COVID-19 during pregnancy retained maternal antibodies at 6 months, “but evidence for protection against neonatal COVID-19 infection has been deficient,” they said.

The current study findings support the value of vaccination during pregnancy, and the findings were strengthened by the large study population, the editorialists wrote. However, whether the same effectiveness holds for other COVID-19 strains such as BQ.1, BQ.1.1, BF.7, XBB, and XBB.1 remains unknown, they said.

Other areas in need of exploration include the optimal timing of vaccination during pregnancy, the protective effects of a bivalent mRNA vaccine (vs. the primary monovalent vaccine in the current study), and the potential benefits of additional boosters, they added.

“Although Jorgenson and colleagues’ study reinforces the value of maternal vaccination against COVID-19 during pregnancy, more studies are needed to better inform vaccination recommendations in an evolving landscape of new SARS-CoV-2 strains and novel vaccines,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-term Care; the study also received funding from the Canadian Immunization Research Network and the Public Health Agency of Canada. Dr. Jorgensen and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated on 3/2/2023.

Maternal vaccination with two doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was 95% effective against infant infection from the delta variant, and 45% effective against infant infection from the omicron variant, a new study shows.

Previous research has confirmed that COVID-19 neutralizing antibodies following maternal vaccination or maternal COVID-19 infection are present in umbilical cord blood, breast milk, and infant serum specimens, wrote Sarah C.J. Jorgensen, PharmD, MPH, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues in their article published in The BMJ.

In the study, the researchers identified maternal and newborn pairs using administrative databases from Canada. The study population included 8,809 infants aged younger than 6 months who were born between May 7, 2021, and March 31, 2022, and who underwent testing for COVID-19 between May 7, 2021, and September 5, 2022.

Maternal vaccination with the primary COVID-19 mRNA monovalent vaccine series was defined as two vaccine doses administered up to 14 days before delivery, with at least one of the doses after the conception date.

Maternal vaccination with the primary series plus one booster was defined as three doses administered up to 14 days before delivery, with at least one of these doses after the conception date.

The primary outcome was the presence of delta or omicron COVID-19 infection or hospital admission of the infants.

The study population included 99 COVID-19 cases with the delta variant (with 4,365 controls) and 1,501 cases with the omicron variant (with 4,847 controls).

Overall, the vaccine effectiveness of maternal doses was 95% against delta infection and 45% against omicron.

The effectiveness against hospital admission in cases of delta and omicron variants were 97% and 53%, respectively.

The effectiveness of three doses was 73% against omicron infant infection and 80% against omicron-related infant hospitalization. Data were not available for the effectiveness of three doses against the delta variant.

The effectiveness of two doses of vaccine against infant omicron infection was highest when mothers received the second dose during the third trimester of pregnancy, compared with during the first trimester or second trimester (53% vs. 47% and 53% vs. 37%, respectively).

Vaccine effectiveness with two doses against infant infection from omicron was highest in the first 8 weeks of life (57%), then decreased to 40% among infants after 16 weeks of age.

Although the study was not designed to assess the mechanism of action of the impact of maternal vaccination on infants, the current study results were consistent with other recent studies showing a reduction in infections and hospitalizations among infants whose mothers received COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors including the potential unmeasured confounders not available in databases, such as whether infants were breastfed, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on home test results and the inability to assess the waning impact of the vaccine effectiveness against the delta variant because of the small number of delta cases, they said. However, the results suggest that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy was moderately to highly effective for protection against omicron and delta infection and infection-related hospitalization – especially during the first 8 weeks of life.

Effectiveness is encouraging, but updates are needed

The effectiveness of maternal vaccination to prevent COVID-19 infection and related hospitalizations in infants is promising, especially since those younger than 6 months have no other source of vaccine protection against COVID-19 infection, wrote Dana Danino, MD, of Soroka University Medical Center, Israel, and Ilan Youngster, MD, of Shamir Medical Center, Israel, in an accompanying editorial also published in The BMJ.

They also noted that maternal vaccination during pregnancy is an established method of protecting infants from infections such as influenza and pertussis.

Data from previous studies show that most infants whose mothers were vaccinated against COVID-19 during pregnancy retained maternal antibodies at 6 months, “but evidence for protection against neonatal COVID-19 infection has been deficient,” they said.

The current study findings support the value of vaccination during pregnancy, and the findings were strengthened by the large study population, the editorialists wrote. However, whether the same effectiveness holds for other COVID-19 strains such as BQ.1, BQ.1.1, BF.7, XBB, and XBB.1 remains unknown, they said.

Other areas in need of exploration include the optimal timing of vaccination during pregnancy, the protective effects of a bivalent mRNA vaccine (vs. the primary monovalent vaccine in the current study), and the potential benefits of additional boosters, they added.

“Although Jorgenson and colleagues’ study reinforces the value of maternal vaccination against COVID-19 during pregnancy, more studies are needed to better inform vaccination recommendations in an evolving landscape of new SARS-CoV-2 strains and novel vaccines,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-term Care; the study also received funding from the Canadian Immunization Research Network and the Public Health Agency of Canada. Dr. Jorgensen and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated on 3/2/2023.

Maternal vaccination with two doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was 95% effective against infant infection from the delta variant, and 45% effective against infant infection from the omicron variant, a new study shows.

Previous research has confirmed that COVID-19 neutralizing antibodies following maternal vaccination or maternal COVID-19 infection are present in umbilical cord blood, breast milk, and infant serum specimens, wrote Sarah C.J. Jorgensen, PharmD, MPH, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues in their article published in The BMJ.

In the study, the researchers identified maternal and newborn pairs using administrative databases from Canada. The study population included 8,809 infants aged younger than 6 months who were born between May 7, 2021, and March 31, 2022, and who underwent testing for COVID-19 between May 7, 2021, and September 5, 2022.

Maternal vaccination with the primary COVID-19 mRNA monovalent vaccine series was defined as two vaccine doses administered up to 14 days before delivery, with at least one of the doses after the conception date.

Maternal vaccination with the primary series plus one booster was defined as three doses administered up to 14 days before delivery, with at least one of these doses after the conception date.

The primary outcome was the presence of delta or omicron COVID-19 infection or hospital admission of the infants.

The study population included 99 COVID-19 cases with the delta variant (with 4,365 controls) and 1,501 cases with the omicron variant (with 4,847 controls).

Overall, the vaccine effectiveness of maternal doses was 95% against delta infection and 45% against omicron.

The effectiveness against hospital admission in cases of delta and omicron variants were 97% and 53%, respectively.

The effectiveness of three doses was 73% against omicron infant infection and 80% against omicron-related infant hospitalization. Data were not available for the effectiveness of three doses against the delta variant.

The effectiveness of two doses of vaccine against infant omicron infection was highest when mothers received the second dose during the third trimester of pregnancy, compared with during the first trimester or second trimester (53% vs. 47% and 53% vs. 37%, respectively).

Vaccine effectiveness with two doses against infant infection from omicron was highest in the first 8 weeks of life (57%), then decreased to 40% among infants after 16 weeks of age.

Although the study was not designed to assess the mechanism of action of the impact of maternal vaccination on infants, the current study results were consistent with other recent studies showing a reduction in infections and hospitalizations among infants whose mothers received COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors including the potential unmeasured confounders not available in databases, such as whether infants were breastfed, the researchers noted. Other limitations included a lack of data on home test results and the inability to assess the waning impact of the vaccine effectiveness against the delta variant because of the small number of delta cases, they said. However, the results suggest that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy was moderately to highly effective for protection against omicron and delta infection and infection-related hospitalization – especially during the first 8 weeks of life.

Effectiveness is encouraging, but updates are needed

The effectiveness of maternal vaccination to prevent COVID-19 infection and related hospitalizations in infants is promising, especially since those younger than 6 months have no other source of vaccine protection against COVID-19 infection, wrote Dana Danino, MD, of Soroka University Medical Center, Israel, and Ilan Youngster, MD, of Shamir Medical Center, Israel, in an accompanying editorial also published in The BMJ.

They also noted that maternal vaccination during pregnancy is an established method of protecting infants from infections such as influenza and pertussis.

Data from previous studies show that most infants whose mothers were vaccinated against COVID-19 during pregnancy retained maternal antibodies at 6 months, “but evidence for protection against neonatal COVID-19 infection has been deficient,” they said.

The current study findings support the value of vaccination during pregnancy, and the findings were strengthened by the large study population, the editorialists wrote. However, whether the same effectiveness holds for other COVID-19 strains such as BQ.1, BQ.1.1, BF.7, XBB, and XBB.1 remains unknown, they said.

Other areas in need of exploration include the optimal timing of vaccination during pregnancy, the protective effects of a bivalent mRNA vaccine (vs. the primary monovalent vaccine in the current study), and the potential benefits of additional boosters, they added.

“Although Jorgenson and colleagues’ study reinforces the value of maternal vaccination against COVID-19 during pregnancy, more studies are needed to better inform vaccination recommendations in an evolving landscape of new SARS-CoV-2 strains and novel vaccines,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-term Care; the study also received funding from the Canadian Immunization Research Network and the Public Health Agency of Canada. Dr. Jorgensen and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated on 3/2/2023.

Among adults hospitalized for COVID-19, acute cardiac events are common, particularly among those with underlying heart disease, and are associated with more severe disease outcomes, a new study suggests.

“We expected to see acute cardiac events occurring among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 but were surprised by how frequently they occurred,” Rebecca C. Woodruff, PhD, MPH, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization.

Overall, she said, “about 1 in 10 adults experienced an acute cardiac event – including heart attacks and acute heart failure – while hospitalized with COVID-19, and this included people with no preexisting heart disease.”

However, she added, “about a quarter of those with underlying heart disease had an acute cardiac event. These patients tended to experience more severe disease outcomes relative to patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who did not experience an acute cardiac event.”

The findings might be relevant to hospitalizations for other viral diseases, “though we can’t say for sure,” she noted. “This study was modeled off a previous study conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic among adults hospitalized with influenza. About 11.7% of [those] adults experienced an acute cardiac event, which was a similar percentage as what we found among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Underlying cardiac disease key

Dr. Woodruff and colleagues analyzed medical records on a probability sample of 8,460 adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection identified from 99 U.S. counties in 14 U.S. states (about 10% of the United States population) from January to November 2021.

Among participants, 11.4% had an acute cardiac event during their hospitalization. The median age was 69 years; 56.5% were men; 48.7%, non-Hispanic White; 33.6%, non-Hispanic Black; 7.4%, Hispanic; and 7.1%, non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander.

As indicated, the prevalence was higher among those with underlying cardiac disease (23.4%), compared with those without (6.2%).

Acute ischemic heart disease (5.5%) and acute heart failure (5.4%) were the most prevalent events; 0.3% of participants had acute myocarditis or pericarditis.

Risk factors varied, depending on underlying cardiac disease status. Those who experienced one or more acute cardiac events had a greater risk for intensive care unit admission (adjusted risk ratio,1.9) and in-hospital death (aRR, 1.7) versus those who did not.

In multivariable analyses, the risk of experiencing acute heart failure was significantly greater among men (aRR, 1.5) and among those with a history of congestive heart failure (aRR, 13.5), atrial fibrillation (aRR, 1.6) or hypertension (aRR,1.3).

Among patients who experienced one or more acute cardiac events, 39.2% required an intensive care unit stay for a median of 5 days. Approximately 22.4% required invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and 21.1% died while hospitalized.

“Persons at greater risk for experiencing acute cardiac events during COVID-19–associated hospitalizations might benefit from more intensive clinical evaluation and monitoring during hospitalization,” the authors conclude.

The team currently is taking a closer look at acute myocarditis among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, Dr. Woodruff said. Preliminary results were presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association and a paper is forthcoming.
 

Contemporary data needed

James A. de Lemos, MD, co-chair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry Steering Committee and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the findings mirror his team’s clinical experience in 2020 and 2021 and echo what was seen in the AHA COVID registry: that is, a 0.3% rate of myocarditis.

“The major caveat is that [the findings] may not be generalizable to contemporary COVID infection, both due to changing viral variants and higher levels of immunity in the population,” he said.

“Rates of COVID hospitalization are markedly lower with the current dominant variants, and we would expect the cardiac risk to be lower as well. I would like to see more contemporary data with current variants, particularly focused on higher risk patients with cardiovascular disease,” Dr. de Lemos added.

In a related editorial, George A. Mensa, MD, of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md., and colleagues suggest that the broader impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on human health remains “incompletely examined.”

“The impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular mortality, in particular, appears to have varied widely, with no large increases seen in a number of the most developed countries but marked increases in hypertensive heart disease mortality seen in the United States in 2021,” they conclude. “The potential contribution of COVID-19 to these deaths, either directly or indirectly, remains to be determined.”

No commercial funding or relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Among adults hospitalized for COVID-19, acute cardiac events are common, particularly among those with underlying heart disease, and are associated with more severe disease outcomes, a new study suggests.

“We expected to see acute cardiac events occurring among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 but were surprised by how frequently they occurred,” Rebecca C. Woodruff, PhD, MPH, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization.

Overall, she said, “about 1 in 10 adults experienced an acute cardiac event – including heart attacks and acute heart failure – while hospitalized with COVID-19, and this included people with no preexisting heart disease.”

However, she added, “about a quarter of those with underlying heart disease had an acute cardiac event. These patients tended to experience more severe disease outcomes relative to patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who did not experience an acute cardiac event.”

The findings might be relevant to hospitalizations for other viral diseases, “though we can’t say for sure,” she noted. “This study was modeled off a previous study conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic among adults hospitalized with influenza. About 11.7% of [those] adults experienced an acute cardiac event, which was a similar percentage as what we found among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Underlying cardiac disease key

Dr. Woodruff and colleagues analyzed medical records on a probability sample of 8,460 adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection identified from 99 U.S. counties in 14 U.S. states (about 10% of the United States population) from January to November 2021.

Among participants, 11.4% had an acute cardiac event during their hospitalization. The median age was 69 years; 56.5% were men; 48.7%, non-Hispanic White; 33.6%, non-Hispanic Black; 7.4%, Hispanic; and 7.1%, non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander.

As indicated, the prevalence was higher among those with underlying cardiac disease (23.4%), compared with those without (6.2%).

Acute ischemic heart disease (5.5%) and acute heart failure (5.4%) were the most prevalent events; 0.3% of participants had acute myocarditis or pericarditis.

Risk factors varied, depending on underlying cardiac disease status. Those who experienced one or more acute cardiac events had a greater risk for intensive care unit admission (adjusted risk ratio,1.9) and in-hospital death (aRR, 1.7) versus those who did not.

In multivariable analyses, the risk of experiencing acute heart failure was significantly greater among men (aRR, 1.5) and among those with a history of congestive heart failure (aRR, 13.5), atrial fibrillation (aRR, 1.6) or hypertension (aRR,1.3).

Among patients who experienced one or more acute cardiac events, 39.2% required an intensive care unit stay for a median of 5 days. Approximately 22.4% required invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and 21.1% died while hospitalized.

“Persons at greater risk for experiencing acute cardiac events during COVID-19–associated hospitalizations might benefit from more intensive clinical evaluation and monitoring during hospitalization,” the authors conclude.

The team currently is taking a closer look at acute myocarditis among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, Dr. Woodruff said. Preliminary results were presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association and a paper is forthcoming.
 

Contemporary data needed

James A. de Lemos, MD, co-chair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry Steering Committee and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the findings mirror his team’s clinical experience in 2020 and 2021 and echo what was seen in the AHA COVID registry: that is, a 0.3% rate of myocarditis.

“The major caveat is that [the findings] may not be generalizable to contemporary COVID infection, both due to changing viral variants and higher levels of immunity in the population,” he said.

“Rates of COVID hospitalization are markedly lower with the current dominant variants, and we would expect the cardiac risk to be lower as well. I would like to see more contemporary data with current variants, particularly focused on higher risk patients with cardiovascular disease,” Dr. de Lemos added.

In a related editorial, George A. Mensa, MD, of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md., and colleagues suggest that the broader impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on human health remains “incompletely examined.”

“The impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular mortality, in particular, appears to have varied widely, with no large increases seen in a number of the most developed countries but marked increases in hypertensive heart disease mortality seen in the United States in 2021,” they conclude. “The potential contribution of COVID-19 to these deaths, either directly or indirectly, remains to be determined.”

No commercial funding or relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Among adults hospitalized for COVID-19, acute cardiac events are common, particularly among those with underlying heart disease, and are associated with more severe disease outcomes, a new study suggests.

“We expected to see acute cardiac events occurring among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 but were surprised by how frequently they occurred,” Rebecca C. Woodruff, PhD, MPH, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization.

Overall, she said, “about 1 in 10 adults experienced an acute cardiac event – including heart attacks and acute heart failure – while hospitalized with COVID-19, and this included people with no preexisting heart disease.”

However, she added, “about a quarter of those with underlying heart disease had an acute cardiac event. These patients tended to experience more severe disease outcomes relative to patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who did not experience an acute cardiac event.”

The findings might be relevant to hospitalizations for other viral diseases, “though we can’t say for sure,” she noted. “This study was modeled off a previous study conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic among adults hospitalized with influenza. About 11.7% of [those] adults experienced an acute cardiac event, which was a similar percentage as what we found among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Underlying cardiac disease key

Dr. Woodruff and colleagues analyzed medical records on a probability sample of 8,460 adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection identified from 99 U.S. counties in 14 U.S. states (about 10% of the United States population) from January to November 2021.

Among participants, 11.4% had an acute cardiac event during their hospitalization. The median age was 69 years; 56.5% were men; 48.7%, non-Hispanic White; 33.6%, non-Hispanic Black; 7.4%, Hispanic; and 7.1%, non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander.

As indicated, the prevalence was higher among those with underlying cardiac disease (23.4%), compared with those without (6.2%).

Acute ischemic heart disease (5.5%) and acute heart failure (5.4%) were the most prevalent events; 0.3% of participants had acute myocarditis or pericarditis.

Risk factors varied, depending on underlying cardiac disease status. Those who experienced one or more acute cardiac events had a greater risk for intensive care unit admission (adjusted risk ratio,1.9) and in-hospital death (aRR, 1.7) versus those who did not.

In multivariable analyses, the risk of experiencing acute heart failure was significantly greater among men (aRR, 1.5) and among those with a history of congestive heart failure (aRR, 13.5), atrial fibrillation (aRR, 1.6) or hypertension (aRR,1.3).

Among patients who experienced one or more acute cardiac events, 39.2% required an intensive care unit stay for a median of 5 days. Approximately 22.4% required invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and 21.1% died while hospitalized.

“Persons at greater risk for experiencing acute cardiac events during COVID-19–associated hospitalizations might benefit from more intensive clinical evaluation and monitoring during hospitalization,” the authors conclude.

The team currently is taking a closer look at acute myocarditis among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, Dr. Woodruff said. Preliminary results were presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association and a paper is forthcoming.
 

Contemporary data needed

James A. de Lemos, MD, co-chair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry Steering Committee and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the findings mirror his team’s clinical experience in 2020 and 2021 and echo what was seen in the AHA COVID registry: that is, a 0.3% rate of myocarditis.

“The major caveat is that [the findings] may not be generalizable to contemporary COVID infection, both due to changing viral variants and higher levels of immunity in the population,” he said.

“Rates of COVID hospitalization are markedly lower with the current dominant variants, and we would expect the cardiac risk to be lower as well. I would like to see more contemporary data with current variants, particularly focused on higher risk patients with cardiovascular disease,” Dr. de Lemos added.

In a related editorial, George A. Mensa, MD, of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md., and colleagues suggest that the broader impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on human health remains “incompletely examined.”

“The impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular mortality, in particular, appears to have varied widely, with no large increases seen in a number of the most developed countries but marked increases in hypertensive heart disease mortality seen in the United States in 2021,” they conclude. “The potential contribution of COVID-19 to these deaths, either directly or indirectly, remains to be determined.”

No commercial funding or relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

One year ago, as the sun was setting on a late fall day, Andrés Snitcofsky, a 40-year-old designer from Buenos Aires, Argentina, heard harrowing cries for help. It was the niece and the wife of one of his neighbors: a man in his 60s who the women had found “passed out” in the bedroom. While they were all waiting for the ambulance, Mr. Snitcofsky went over, tilted the man’s head back, and confirmed that he wasn’t breathing, that he wasn’t choking. And then he started chest compressions, just like he’d learned in a CPR class he’d taken 2 decades earlier. “I did CPR for 5 minutes straight until a friend of the victim came in and asked me to stop, telling me that the man had probably been dead for 2 or 3 hours already. But I had no idea because I’d never seen a dead body before,” Mr. Snitcofsky told this news organization. A few minutes later, the ambulance arrived. The doctor confirmed that there was nothing more that could be done.

Mr. Snitcofsky went home. Nobody had asked for his name or address or phone number. … And it wasn’t because they already knew who he was. In fact, there wasn’t any sort of relationship there. Mr. Snitcofsky had only known his neighbors by sight. His actions that day, however, “did not come without a cost. It took me weeks – months, actually – to put myself together again,” he said. The things he saw, the things he heard, everything about that night played over and over in his head. “I had trouble sleeping. I would play out different scenarios in my head. I questioned myself. I second-guessed myself, criticized myself. It’s like some taboo subject. There’s no one to share the experience with, no one who gets it. But with time, I was able to process the event.

“For 2 months, I talked to my psychologist about it all,” he continued. “That really helped me a lot. In addition to therapy, I reached out to a couple I know – they’re both physicians – and to a firefighter who teaches CPR. Their insight and guidance allowed me to get to a point where I was able to understand that what I did was a good thing and that what I did was all that could have been done. But anyone who finds themselves in the position of having to do CPR – they’re going to be affected in many, many ways. It goes beyond the euphoria of seeing a person come back to life. Of that, I’m quite certain.”

We’ve all seen campaigns encouraging people to learn CPR and to be prepared if the need arises. But in training the public (and even health care professionals), not much, if anything, is said about the “collateral damage”: the psychological and emotional consequences of carrying out the procedure. These especially come into play when you don’t know whether the person survived, when your efforts weren’t able to reverse the sudden cardiac arrest, or when the person you gave CPR to was a loved one – a case that may entail immediate therapeutic interventions to minimize or prevent the risk of suffering long-lasting trauma.

In May 2020, popular American activist and educator Kristin Flanary saw someone suffering cardiac arrest. She stepped in and started doing CPR. And she continued doing CPR … for 10 long minutes. The person she was trying to save was her 34-year-old husband, ophthalmologist and comedian Will Flanary. On Twitter, where she’s known as Lady Glaucomflecken, Ms. Flanary recently shared the following message, putting the topic of CPR and automated external defibrillator training front and center.

“Yes, everyone should learn #CPRandAED. But if we are going to ask people to perform such a brutal task, it’s imperative that we also provide them with the info and resources they need to process it mentally and emotionally. It’s traumatic and life changing. It’s irresponsible and unethical to ask people to help in such a brutal and traumatic way and then neglect to help them in return.” In less than a month, the tweet has racked up over 200,000 views.
 

Doing one’s duty

There are many people who work to promote CPR and strengthen the other links in the chain of survival for out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest, such as prompt access to and delivery of early defibrillation. According to them, any negative psychological impact of intervening is temporary and, when compared with the satisfaction of having done one’s duty, quite insignificant – even if the efforts to save a person’s life are not successful.

“In 99.9% of cases, people who have performed CPR feel a sense of satisfaction, even happiness, knowing that they’ve helped. The individuals I’ve spoken with, I’ve never heard any of them say that they felt worse after the event or that they needed to see a psychologist,” said Mario Fitz Maurice, MD, director of the Arrhythmia Council of the Argentine Society of Cardiology and head of Electrophysiology at Rivadavia Hospital in Buenos Aires. He went on to tell this news organization, “Of course, some degree of fear, sadness, or melancholy can remain afterward. But it seems to me, and there are reports saying as much, that, in the end, what stands out in the person’s mind is the fact that they tried to save a life. And for them, there’s joy in knowing this.”

Dr. Fitz Maurice, who is also the director of the National Arrhythmia Institute in Buenos Aires, pointed out that the kind of person who takes CPR classes “has a profile that’s going to allow them to be psychologically involved; they’re the caring person, the one who’s ready and willing to help people.” And he added that, at his hospital, if they can identify the individuals or first responders who have done CPR on a patient, the protocol is to always contact them to offer psychological care and assistance. “But in 99% of cases, they don’t even understand why we’re calling them, they’re extremely happy to have taken part.”

Some studies, though, paint a much different picture, one that shows that providing CPR can be emotionally challenging and have consequences in terms of one’s family and work life. A qualitative study published in 2016 looked into the experiences of 20 lay rescuers in Norway – five were health educated – who had provided CPR to 18 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) victims, 66% of whom survived. The time from experiencing the OHCA incident to participating in the interview ranged from 6 days to 13 years (median 5.5 years). Several participants reported the OHCA incident as a “shocking and terrifying” experience. Tiredness, exhaustion, confusion, and feeling alone about the OHCA experience were individual reactions that could vary in time from days to months. Anxiety and insomnia were also experienced following the incident.

Some lay rescuers described the influence on work and family life, and a few of them described deep sorrow, even several years after the incident. Overall, they reported repetitive self-criticism regarding whether they could have carried out anything else to achieve a better outcome for the cardiac arrest victim. All of them wanted to be informed about the outcome. And four of the lay rescuers needed professional counseling to process the OHCA experience.

In 2020, another qualitative study was conducted, this time in Taiwan. There were nine participants, none of whom were health professionals. Each had provided initial CPR and defibrillation with AED in public locations. Event-to-interview duration was within 1 year and 1-2 years. The major findings from the study were the following:

• The lay rescuers possessed helping traits and high motivation.  
• The lay rescuers reported certain aspects of rescue reality that differed much from prior training and expectations, including difficulty in the depth of chest compression, and uncertainties in real emergency situations.
• The lay rescuers gained positive personal fulfillment in sharing their experience and receiving positive feedback from others, and were willing to help next time, although they experienced a short-term negative psychological impact from the event.
“Measures should be taken to increase [a] layperson’s confidence and situation awareness, to reduce training-reality discrepancy, and to build up a support system to avoid negative psychological effects.” This was the conclusion of the study team, which was led by Matthew Huei-Ming Ma, MD, PhD. A professor in the department of emergency medicine at National Taiwan University in Taipei, he is also on the board of directors of the Resuscitation Council of Asia.

Potential trauma

In recalling his experience, Mr. Snitcofsky said, “The hardest part of it all was the moment that I stopped giving CPR, that moment of letting go. This became the image that kept coming back to me, the traumatic moment I hadn’t thought about.”

Psychiatrist Daniel Mosca, MD, is the founder and former president of the Argentine Society of Trauma Psychology. He is also the coordinator of the human factors team at the City of Buenos Aires Emergency Medical Care System. “Any event has the potential to be traumatic, all the more so when it’s an event where you come face to face with death and uncertainty. But how a rescuer reacts will depend on their psychological makeup.” Of the individuals who were held for months or years in the jungle as hostages of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, “only” half developed symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder.

Dr. Mosca believes that a comment by Frank Ochberg, MD, speaks to this finding. “In many cases, peritraumatic symptoms are a normal person’s normal response to an abnormal situation.” For a lot of people who have found themselves having to perform CPR, the symptoms associated with the initial acute stress reaction will resolve on their own in 30-90 days. “But if this doesn’t happen, and those symptoms persist, psychotherapeutic or pharmacological intervention will be necessary,” he noted.

“In CPR classes, it would be good for the instructors to talk about the warning signs that people should look out for in themselves and their fellow rescuers. So, for example, insomnia, anxiety, a heightened state of alertness, feeling disconnected from reality,” Dr. Mosca told this news organization.

“Another thing that can help rescuers is letting them know what happened to the person they gave CPR to. This way, they can get closure,” suggested Manlio Márquez Murillo, MD, a cardiologist and electrophysiologist in Mexico. He is also the coordinator of the Alliance Against Sudden Cardiac Death at the Interamerican Society of Cardiology.

“Medical and nursing societies would have to develop a brief protocol or performance standard. The goal would be to ensure that rescuers are asked for their contact information and that someone gets in touch to debrief them and to offer them care. Next would come the treatment part, to resolve any remaining aftereffects,” said in an interview.

For example, a three-stage Lay Responder Support Model (LRSM) was developed and implemented as part of a lay responder support program established in 2014 by the Peel Regional Council in Ontario. The LRSM identifies and engages individuals who witnessed or participated directly or indirectly in an OHCA, inviting them to participate in a debriefing session facilitated by a trained practitioner. Held 24-48 hours post event, the debriefing allows lay responders to contextualize their reaction to the event. The conversation also serves as an opportunity for them to fully articulate their concerns, questions, and thoughts. The facilitator can communicate stress reduction techniques and address psychological first aid needs as they emerge. Approximately 1 week post event, a secondary follow-up occurs. If the lay responder communicates a continuing struggle with symptoms impacting and interfering with everyday life, the facilitator offers a coordinated or facilitated referral for mental health support.

In an article published in the Journal of Cardiac Failure. Ms. Flanary speaks about the three kinds of language that anyone who was either forced to or inspired to perform CPR can use to help process their trauma: words that explain what happened, words that name (eg, “forgotten patients”), and words that validate the experience and allow the person to articulate their feelings. The tools and technologies that organizations and health care professionals provide can help the healing process. Empathy and compassion, too, have a place.

But there are virtually no standardized and proactive initiatives of this kind in much of the world, including Latin America. So, most people who just happened to be in the right place at the right time find that they have to navigate the “after” part all on their own.
 

Other obstacles

Dr. Márquez Murillo finds it unfortunate that countries in the region have yet to enact “Good Samaritan” laws. If individuals render aid to someone suffering cardiac arrest, then these laws would ensure that they will not be held liable in any way. This is the case in Argentina and Uruguay. So, the fear of things turning into a legal matter may be holding people back from taking action; that fear could also create additional stress for those who end up stepping in to help.

Even with the legal safeguards, exceptional circumstances may arise where rescuers find themselves facing unexpected emotional challenges. In Argentina, Virginia Pérez Antonelli, the 17-year-old who tried in vain to save the life of Fernando Báez Sosa, had to testify at the trial of the eight defendants accused of brutally beating him in January 2020. The press, the public – the attention of an entire country – was focused on her. She had to respond to the defense attorneys who were able to ask whether she was sure that she performed the CPR maneuvers correctly. And a few weeks ago, a medical examiner hired by the defense suggested that “the CPR may have made the situation worse” for the victim. An indignant Dr. Fitz Maurice responded on Twitter: “CPR SAVES LIVES!! Let’s not let a CHEAP AND BASELESS argument destroy all the work that’s been done…!”

Of course, there are consequences that are beyond our control and others that can, in fact, be anticipated and planned for. Dr. Fitz Maurice brought up a preventive approach: Make CPR second nature, teach it in schools, help people overcome their fears. “Cardiac deaths are 200 times more frequent than deaths resulting from fires – and we practice fire drills a lot more than we practice CPR,” he told this news organization. In a society where there is widespread training on the procedure, where people regularly practice the technique, those who have had the experience of giving someone CPR will feel less alone, will be better understood by others.

“On the other hand, beyond the initial impact and the lack of a formal support system, the medium- and long-term outcome for those who acted is also psychologically and emotionally favorable,” said Jorge Bombau, MD, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Buenos Aires. After Dr. Bombau’s 14-year-old son Beltrán suddenly died during a school sports tournament, Dr. Bombau became a prominent advocate spreading the word about CPR.

“I don’t know anyone who regrets doing CPR,” he told this news organization. “There may be a brief period when the person feels distressed or depressed, when they have trouble sleeping. But it’s been proven that doing a good deed improves one’s mood. And what better deed is there than trying to save someone’s life? Whether their efforts were successful or in vain, that person has, at the end of the day, done something meaningful and worthwhile.”

Mr. Snitcofsky shares this sentiment. For several months now, he’s been feeling he’s “in a good place.” And he’s been actively promoting CPR on social media. As he recently posted on Twitter, “I’m here to retweet everything that has to do with getting us all to become familiar with how to do CPR and working up the courage to do it. The training takes no more than a few hours.

“I want to know that, if I ever have an out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest, there will be neighbors, friends, or family members around who know how to do CPR. Every person who knows how to do CPR can persuade others, and those of us who’ve had to do CPR in real life are even better candidates for persuading others. And if one day a person ends up needing CPR, I want to step in again and make up for lost time. Here’s hoping it’ll do the job,” he concluded.

It’s the same for Matías Alonso, a journalist in Buenos Aires. On New Year’s Eve 15 years ago, he was at a family dinner when, a few minutes before midnight, he found himself giving CPR to his stepmother’s father. “Unfortunately, he passed away, but I continued doing CPR on him until the ambulance arrived. For some time, I felt a little guilty for not taking charge of the situation from the beginning, and because I had this idea in my head that more people pulled through and recovered. But afterwards, they really thanked me a lot. And that helped me realize that I’d done something. I didn’t stand still when faced with the inevitability of death. I understood that it was good to have tried,” Mr. Alonso told this news organization. “And next time … hopefully there won’t be a next time … but I’m more prepared, and I now know how I can do better.”

Mr. Alonso, Mr. Snitcofsky, Dr. Fitz Maurice, Dr. Mosca, Dr. Bombau, and Dr. Márquez Murillo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Medscape Spanish.

One year ago, as the sun was setting on a late fall day, Andrés Snitcofsky, a 40-year-old designer from Buenos Aires, Argentina, heard harrowing cries for help. It was the niece and the wife of one of his neighbors: a man in his 60s who the women had found “passed out” in the bedroom. While they were all waiting for the ambulance, Mr. Snitcofsky went over, tilted the man’s head back, and confirmed that he wasn’t breathing, that he wasn’t choking. And then he started chest compressions, just like he’d learned in a CPR class he’d taken 2 decades earlier. “I did CPR for 5 minutes straight until a friend of the victim came in and asked me to stop, telling me that the man had probably been dead for 2 or 3 hours already. But I had no idea because I’d never seen a dead body before,” Mr. Snitcofsky told this news organization. A few minutes later, the ambulance arrived. The doctor confirmed that there was nothing more that could be done.

Mr. Snitcofsky went home. Nobody had asked for his name or address or phone number. … And it wasn’t because they already knew who he was. In fact, there wasn’t any sort of relationship there. Mr. Snitcofsky had only known his neighbors by sight. His actions that day, however, “did not come without a cost. It took me weeks – months, actually – to put myself together again,” he said. The things he saw, the things he heard, everything about that night played over and over in his head. “I had trouble sleeping. I would play out different scenarios in my head. I questioned myself. I second-guessed myself, criticized myself. It’s like some taboo subject. There’s no one to share the experience with, no one who gets it. But with time, I was able to process the event.

“For 2 months, I talked to my psychologist about it all,” he continued. “That really helped me a lot. In addition to therapy, I reached out to a couple I know – they’re both physicians – and to a firefighter who teaches CPR. Their insight and guidance allowed me to get to a point where I was able to understand that what I did was a good thing and that what I did was all that could have been done. But anyone who finds themselves in the position of having to do CPR – they’re going to be affected in many, many ways. It goes beyond the euphoria of seeing a person come back to life. Of that, I’m quite certain.”

We’ve all seen campaigns encouraging people to learn CPR and to be prepared if the need arises. But in training the public (and even health care professionals), not much, if anything, is said about the “collateral damage”: the psychological and emotional consequences of carrying out the procedure. These especially come into play when you don’t know whether the person survived, when your efforts weren’t able to reverse the sudden cardiac arrest, or when the person you gave CPR to was a loved one – a case that may entail immediate therapeutic interventions to minimize or prevent the risk of suffering long-lasting trauma.

In May 2020, popular American activist and educator Kristin Flanary saw someone suffering cardiac arrest. She stepped in and started doing CPR. And she continued doing CPR … for 10 long minutes. The person she was trying to save was her 34-year-old husband, ophthalmologist and comedian Will Flanary. On Twitter, where she’s known as Lady Glaucomflecken, Ms. Flanary recently shared the following message, putting the topic of CPR and automated external defibrillator training front and center.

“Yes, everyone should learn #CPRandAED. But if we are going to ask people to perform such a brutal task, it’s imperative that we also provide them with the info and resources they need to process it mentally and emotionally. It’s traumatic and life changing. It’s irresponsible and unethical to ask people to help in such a brutal and traumatic way and then neglect to help them in return.” In less than a month, the tweet has racked up over 200,000 views.
 

Doing one’s duty

There are many people who work to promote CPR and strengthen the other links in the chain of survival for out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest, such as prompt access to and delivery of early defibrillation. According to them, any negative psychological impact of intervening is temporary and, when compared with the satisfaction of having done one’s duty, quite insignificant – even if the efforts to save a person’s life are not successful.

“In 99.9% of cases, people who have performed CPR feel a sense of satisfaction, even happiness, knowing that they’ve helped. The individuals I’ve spoken with, I’ve never heard any of them say that they felt worse after the event or that they needed to see a psychologist,” said Mario Fitz Maurice, MD, director of the Arrhythmia Council of the Argentine Society of Cardiology and head of Electrophysiology at Rivadavia Hospital in Buenos Aires. He went on to tell this news organization, “Of course, some degree of fear, sadness, or melancholy can remain afterward. But it seems to me, and there are reports saying as much, that, in the end, what stands out in the person’s mind is the fact that they tried to save a life. And for them, there’s joy in knowing this.”

Dr. Fitz Maurice, who is also the director of the National Arrhythmia Institute in Buenos Aires, pointed out that the kind of person who takes CPR classes “has a profile that’s going to allow them to be psychologically involved; they’re the caring person, the one who’s ready and willing to help people.” And he added that, at his hospital, if they can identify the individuals or first responders who have done CPR on a patient, the protocol is to always contact them to offer psychological care and assistance. “But in 99% of cases, they don’t even understand why we’re calling them, they’re extremely happy to have taken part.”

Some studies, though, paint a much different picture, one that shows that providing CPR can be emotionally challenging and have consequences in terms of one’s family and work life. A qualitative study published in 2016 looked into the experiences of 20 lay rescuers in Norway – five were health educated – who had provided CPR to 18 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) victims, 66% of whom survived. The time from experiencing the OHCA incident to participating in the interview ranged from 6 days to 13 years (median 5.5 years). Several participants reported the OHCA incident as a “shocking and terrifying” experience. Tiredness, exhaustion, confusion, and feeling alone about the OHCA experience were individual reactions that could vary in time from days to months. Anxiety and insomnia were also experienced following the incident.

Some lay rescuers described the influence on work and family life, and a few of them described deep sorrow, even several years after the incident. Overall, they reported repetitive self-criticism regarding whether they could have carried out anything else to achieve a better outcome for the cardiac arrest victim. All of them wanted to be informed about the outcome. And four of the lay rescuers needed professional counseling to process the OHCA experience.

In 2020, another qualitative study was conducted, this time in Taiwan. There were nine participants, none of whom were health professionals. Each had provided initial CPR and defibrillation with AED in public locations. Event-to-interview duration was within 1 year and 1-2 years. The major findings from the study were the following:

• The lay rescuers possessed helping traits and high motivation.  
• The lay rescuers reported certain aspects of rescue reality that differed much from prior training and expectations, including difficulty in the depth of chest compression, and uncertainties in real emergency situations.
• The lay rescuers gained positive personal fulfillment in sharing their experience and receiving positive feedback from others, and were willing to help next time, although they experienced a short-term negative psychological impact from the event.
“Measures should be taken to increase [a] layperson’s confidence and situation awareness, to reduce training-reality discrepancy, and to build up a support system to avoid negative psychological effects.” This was the conclusion of the study team, which was led by Matthew Huei-Ming Ma, MD, PhD. A professor in the department of emergency medicine at National Taiwan University in Taipei, he is also on the board of directors of the Resuscitation Council of Asia.

Potential trauma

In recalling his experience, Mr. Snitcofsky said, “The hardest part of it all was the moment that I stopped giving CPR, that moment of letting go. This became the image that kept coming back to me, the traumatic moment I hadn’t thought about.”

Psychiatrist Daniel Mosca, MD, is the founder and former president of the Argentine Society of Trauma Psychology. He is also the coordinator of the human factors team at the City of Buenos Aires Emergency Medical Care System. “Any event has the potential to be traumatic, all the more so when it’s an event where you come face to face with death and uncertainty. But how a rescuer reacts will depend on their psychological makeup.” Of the individuals who were held for months or years in the jungle as hostages of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, “only” half developed symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder.

Dr. Mosca believes that a comment by Frank Ochberg, MD, speaks to this finding. “In many cases, peritraumatic symptoms are a normal person’s normal response to an abnormal situation.” For a lot of people who have found themselves having to perform CPR, the symptoms associated with the initial acute stress reaction will resolve on their own in 30-90 days. “But if this doesn’t happen, and those symptoms persist, psychotherapeutic or pharmacological intervention will be necessary,” he noted.

“In CPR classes, it would be good for the instructors to talk about the warning signs that people should look out for in themselves and their fellow rescuers. So, for example, insomnia, anxiety, a heightened state of alertness, feeling disconnected from reality,” Dr. Mosca told this news organization.

“Another thing that can help rescuers is letting them know what happened to the person they gave CPR to. This way, they can get closure,” suggested Manlio Márquez Murillo, MD, a cardiologist and electrophysiologist in Mexico. He is also the coordinator of the Alliance Against Sudden Cardiac Death at the Interamerican Society of Cardiology.

“Medical and nursing societies would have to develop a brief protocol or performance standard. The goal would be to ensure that rescuers are asked for their contact information and that someone gets in touch to debrief them and to offer them care. Next would come the treatment part, to resolve any remaining aftereffects,” said in an interview.

For example, a three-stage Lay Responder Support Model (LRSM) was developed and implemented as part of a lay responder support program established in 2014 by the Peel Regional Council in Ontario. The LRSM identifies and engages individuals who witnessed or participated directly or indirectly in an OHCA, inviting them to participate in a debriefing session facilitated by a trained practitioner. Held 24-48 hours post event, the debriefing allows lay responders to contextualize their reaction to the event. The conversation also serves as an opportunity for them to fully articulate their concerns, questions, and thoughts. The facilitator can communicate stress reduction techniques and address psychological first aid needs as they emerge. Approximately 1 week post event, a secondary follow-up occurs. If the lay responder communicates a continuing struggle with symptoms impacting and interfering with everyday life, the facilitator offers a coordinated or facilitated referral for mental health support.

In an article published in the Journal of Cardiac Failure. Ms. Flanary speaks about the three kinds of language that anyone who was either forced to or inspired to perform CPR can use to help process their trauma: words that explain what happened, words that name (eg, “forgotten patients”), and words that validate the experience and allow the person to articulate their feelings. The tools and technologies that organizations and health care professionals provide can help the healing process. Empathy and compassion, too, have a place.

But there are virtually no standardized and proactive initiatives of this kind in much of the world, including Latin America. So, most people who just happened to be in the right place at the right time find that they have to navigate the “after” part all on their own.
 

Other obstacles

Dr. Márquez Murillo finds it unfortunate that countries in the region have yet to enact “Good Samaritan” laws. If individuals render aid to someone suffering cardiac arrest, then these laws would ensure that they will not be held liable in any way. This is the case in Argentina and Uruguay. So, the fear of things turning into a legal matter may be holding people back from taking action; that fear could also create additional stress for those who end up stepping in to help.

Even with the legal safeguards, exceptional circumstances may arise where rescuers find themselves facing unexpected emotional challenges. In Argentina, Virginia Pérez Antonelli, the 17-year-old who tried in vain to save the life of Fernando Báez Sosa, had to testify at the trial of the eight defendants accused of brutally beating him in January 2020. The press, the public – the attention of an entire country – was focused on her. She had to respond to the defense attorneys who were able to ask whether she was sure that she performed the CPR maneuvers correctly. And a few weeks ago, a medical examiner hired by the defense suggested that “the CPR may have made the situation worse” for the victim. An indignant Dr. Fitz Maurice responded on Twitter: “CPR SAVES LIVES!! Let’s not let a CHEAP AND BASELESS argument destroy all the work that’s been done…!”

Of course, there are consequences that are beyond our control and others that can, in fact, be anticipated and planned for. Dr. Fitz Maurice brought up a preventive approach: Make CPR second nature, teach it in schools, help people overcome their fears. “Cardiac deaths are 200 times more frequent than deaths resulting from fires – and we practice fire drills a lot more than we practice CPR,” he told this news organization. In a society where there is widespread training on the procedure, where people regularly practice the technique, those who have had the experience of giving someone CPR will feel less alone, will be better understood by others.

“On the other hand, beyond the initial impact and the lack of a formal support system, the medium- and long-term outcome for those who acted is also psychologically and emotionally favorable,” said Jorge Bombau, MD, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Buenos Aires. After Dr. Bombau’s 14-year-old son Beltrán suddenly died during a school sports tournament, Dr. Bombau became a prominent advocate spreading the word about CPR.

“I don’t know anyone who regrets doing CPR,” he told this news organization. “There may be a brief period when the person feels distressed or depressed, when they have trouble sleeping. But it’s been proven that doing a good deed improves one’s mood. And what better deed is there than trying to save someone’s life? Whether their efforts were successful or in vain, that person has, at the end of the day, done something meaningful and worthwhile.”

Mr. Snitcofsky shares this sentiment. For several months now, he’s been feeling he’s “in a good place.” And he’s been actively promoting CPR on social media. As he recently posted on Twitter, “I’m here to retweet everything that has to do with getting us all to become familiar with how to do CPR and working up the courage to do it. The training takes no more than a few hours.

“I want to know that, if I ever have an out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest, there will be neighbors, friends, or family members around who know how to do CPR. Every person who knows how to do CPR can persuade others, and those of us who’ve had to do CPR in real life are even better candidates for persuading others. And if one day a person ends up needing CPR, I want to step in again and make up for lost time. Here’s hoping it’ll do the job,” he concluded.

It’s the same for Matías Alonso, a journalist in Buenos Aires. On New Year’s Eve 15 years ago, he was at a family dinner when, a few minutes before midnight, he found himself giving CPR to his stepmother’s father. “Unfortunately, he passed away, but I continued doing CPR on him until the ambulance arrived. For some time, I felt a little guilty for not taking charge of the situation from the beginning, and because I had this idea in my head that more people pulled through and recovered. But afterwards, they really thanked me a lot. And that helped me realize that I’d done something. I didn’t stand still when faced with the inevitability of death. I understood that it was good to have tried,” Mr. Alonso told this news organization. “And next time … hopefully there won’t be a next time … but I’m more prepared, and I now know how I can do better.”

Mr. Alonso, Mr. Snitcofsky, Dr. Fitz Maurice, Dr. Mosca, Dr. Bombau, and Dr. Márquez Murillo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Medscape Spanish.

One year ago, as the sun was setting on a late fall day, Andrés Snitcofsky, a 40-year-old designer from Buenos Aires, Argentina, heard harrowing cries for help. It was the niece and the wife of one of his neighbors: a man in his 60s who the women had found “passed out” in the bedroom. While they were all waiting for the ambulance, Mr. Snitcofsky went over, tilted the man’s head back, and confirmed that he wasn’t breathing, that he wasn’t choking. And then he started chest compressions, just like he’d learned in a CPR class he’d taken 2 decades earlier. “I did CPR for 5 minutes straight until a friend of the victim came in and asked me to stop, telling me that the man had probably been dead for 2 or 3 hours already. But I had no idea because I’d never seen a dead body before,” Mr. Snitcofsky told this news organization. A few minutes later, the ambulance arrived. The doctor confirmed that there was nothing more that could be done.

Mr. Snitcofsky went home. Nobody had asked for his name or address or phone number. … And it wasn’t because they already knew who he was. In fact, there wasn’t any sort of relationship there. Mr. Snitcofsky had only known his neighbors by sight. His actions that day, however, “did not come without a cost. It took me weeks – months, actually – to put myself together again,” he said. The things he saw, the things he heard, everything about that night played over and over in his head. “I had trouble sleeping. I would play out different scenarios in my head. I questioned myself. I second-guessed myself, criticized myself. It’s like some taboo subject. There’s no one to share the experience with, no one who gets it. But with time, I was able to process the event.

“For 2 months, I talked to my psychologist about it all,” he continued. “That really helped me a lot. In addition to therapy, I reached out to a couple I know – they’re both physicians – and to a firefighter who teaches CPR. Their insight and guidance allowed me to get to a point where I was able to understand that what I did was a good thing and that what I did was all that could have been done. But anyone who finds themselves in the position of having to do CPR – they’re going to be affected in many, many ways. It goes beyond the euphoria of seeing a person come back to life. Of that, I’m quite certain.”

We’ve all seen campaigns encouraging people to learn CPR and to be prepared if the need arises. But in training the public (and even health care professionals), not much, if anything, is said about the “collateral damage”: the psychological and emotional consequences of carrying out the procedure. These especially come into play when you don’t know whether the person survived, when your efforts weren’t able to reverse the sudden cardiac arrest, or when the person you gave CPR to was a loved one – a case that may entail immediate therapeutic interventions to minimize or prevent the risk of suffering long-lasting trauma.

In May 2020, popular American activist and educator Kristin Flanary saw someone suffering cardiac arrest. She stepped in and started doing CPR. And she continued doing CPR … for 10 long minutes. The person she was trying to save was her 34-year-old husband, ophthalmologist and comedian Will Flanary. On Twitter, where she’s known as Lady Glaucomflecken, Ms. Flanary recently shared the following message, putting the topic of CPR and automated external defibrillator training front and center.

“Yes, everyone should learn #CPRandAED. But if we are going to ask people to perform such a brutal task, it’s imperative that we also provide them with the info and resources they need to process it mentally and emotionally. It’s traumatic and life changing. It’s irresponsible and unethical to ask people to help in such a brutal and traumatic way and then neglect to help them in return.” In less than a month, the tweet has racked up over 200,000 views.
 

Doing one’s duty

There are many people who work to promote CPR and strengthen the other links in the chain of survival for out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest, such as prompt access to and delivery of early defibrillation. According to them, any negative psychological impact of intervening is temporary and, when compared with the satisfaction of having done one’s duty, quite insignificant – even if the efforts to save a person’s life are not successful.

“In 99.9% of cases, people who have performed CPR feel a sense of satisfaction, even happiness, knowing that they’ve helped. The individuals I’ve spoken with, I’ve never heard any of them say that they felt worse after the event or that they needed to see a psychologist,” said Mario Fitz Maurice, MD, director of the Arrhythmia Council of the Argentine Society of Cardiology and head of Electrophysiology at Rivadavia Hospital in Buenos Aires. He went on to tell this news organization, “Of course, some degree of fear, sadness, or melancholy can remain afterward. But it seems to me, and there are reports saying as much, that, in the end, what stands out in the person’s mind is the fact that they tried to save a life. And for them, there’s joy in knowing this.”

Dr. Fitz Maurice, who is also the director of the National Arrhythmia Institute in Buenos Aires, pointed out that the kind of person who takes CPR classes “has a profile that’s going to allow them to be psychologically involved; they’re the caring person, the one who’s ready and willing to help people.” And he added that, at his hospital, if they can identify the individuals or first responders who have done CPR on a patient, the protocol is to always contact them to offer psychological care and assistance. “But in 99% of cases, they don’t even understand why we’re calling them, they’re extremely happy to have taken part.”

Some studies, though, paint a much different picture, one that shows that providing CPR can be emotionally challenging and have consequences in terms of one’s family and work life. A qualitative study published in 2016 looked into the experiences of 20 lay rescuers in Norway – five were health educated – who had provided CPR to 18 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) victims, 66% of whom survived. The time from experiencing the OHCA incident to participating in the interview ranged from 6 days to 13 years (median 5.5 years). Several participants reported the OHCA incident as a “shocking and terrifying” experience. Tiredness, exhaustion, confusion, and feeling alone about the OHCA experience were individual reactions that could vary in time from days to months. Anxiety and insomnia were also experienced following the incident.

Some lay rescuers described the influence on work and family life, and a few of them described deep sorrow, even several years after the incident. Overall, they reported repetitive self-criticism regarding whether they could have carried out anything else to achieve a better outcome for the cardiac arrest victim. All of them wanted to be informed about the outcome. And four of the lay rescuers needed professional counseling to process the OHCA experience.

In 2020, another qualitative study was conducted, this time in Taiwan. There were nine participants, none of whom were health professionals. Each had provided initial CPR and defibrillation with AED in public locations. Event-to-interview duration was within 1 year and 1-2 years. The major findings from the study were the following:

• The lay rescuers possessed helping traits and high motivation.  
• The lay rescuers reported certain aspects of rescue reality that differed much from prior training and expectations, including difficulty in the depth of chest compression, and uncertainties in real emergency situations.
• The lay rescuers gained positive personal fulfillment in sharing their experience and receiving positive feedback from others, and were willing to help next time, although they experienced a short-term negative psychological impact from the event.
“Measures should be taken to increase [a] layperson’s confidence and situation awareness, to reduce training-reality discrepancy, and to build up a support system to avoid negative psychological effects.” This was the conclusion of the study team, which was led by Matthew Huei-Ming Ma, MD, PhD. A professor in the department of emergency medicine at National Taiwan University in Taipei, he is also on the board of directors of the Resuscitation Council of Asia.

Potential trauma

In recalling his experience, Mr. Snitcofsky said, “The hardest part of it all was the moment that I stopped giving CPR, that moment of letting go. This became the image that kept coming back to me, the traumatic moment I hadn’t thought about.”

Psychiatrist Daniel Mosca, MD, is the founder and former president of the Argentine Society of Trauma Psychology. He is also the coordinator of the human factors team at the City of Buenos Aires Emergency Medical Care System. “Any event has the potential to be traumatic, all the more so when it’s an event where you come face to face with death and uncertainty. But how a rescuer reacts will depend on their psychological makeup.” Of the individuals who were held for months or years in the jungle as hostages of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, “only” half developed symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder.

Dr. Mosca believes that a comment by Frank Ochberg, MD, speaks to this finding. “In many cases, peritraumatic symptoms are a normal person’s normal response to an abnormal situation.” For a lot of people who have found themselves having to perform CPR, the symptoms associated with the initial acute stress reaction will resolve on their own in 30-90 days. “But if this doesn’t happen, and those symptoms persist, psychotherapeutic or pharmacological intervention will be necessary,” he noted.

“In CPR classes, it would be good for the instructors to talk about the warning signs that people should look out for in themselves and their fellow rescuers. So, for example, insomnia, anxiety, a heightened state of alertness, feeling disconnected from reality,” Dr. Mosca told this news organization.

“Another thing that can help rescuers is letting them know what happened to the person they gave CPR to. This way, they can get closure,” suggested Manlio Márquez Murillo, MD, a cardiologist and electrophysiologist in Mexico. He is also the coordinator of the Alliance Against Sudden Cardiac Death at the Interamerican Society of Cardiology.

“Medical and nursing societies would have to develop a brief protocol or performance standard. The goal would be to ensure that rescuers are asked for their contact information and that someone gets in touch to debrief them and to offer them care. Next would come the treatment part, to resolve any remaining aftereffects,” said in an interview.

For example, a three-stage Lay Responder Support Model (LRSM) was developed and implemented as part of a lay responder support program established in 2014 by the Peel Regional Council in Ontario. The LRSM identifies and engages individuals who witnessed or participated directly or indirectly in an OHCA, inviting them to participate in a debriefing session facilitated by a trained practitioner. Held 24-48 hours post event, the debriefing allows lay responders to contextualize their reaction to the event. The conversation also serves as an opportunity for them to fully articulate their concerns, questions, and thoughts. The facilitator can communicate stress reduction techniques and address psychological first aid needs as they emerge. Approximately 1 week post event, a secondary follow-up occurs. If the lay responder communicates a continuing struggle with symptoms impacting and interfering with everyday life, the facilitator offers a coordinated or facilitated referral for mental health support.

In an article published in the Journal of Cardiac Failure. Ms. Flanary speaks about the three kinds of language that anyone who was either forced to or inspired to perform CPR can use to help process their trauma: words that explain what happened, words that name (eg, “forgotten patients”), and words that validate the experience and allow the person to articulate their feelings. The tools and technologies that organizations and health care professionals provide can help the healing process. Empathy and compassion, too, have a place.

But there are virtually no standardized and proactive initiatives of this kind in much of the world, including Latin America. So, most people who just happened to be in the right place at the right time find that they have to navigate the “after” part all on their own.
 

Other obstacles

Dr. Márquez Murillo finds it unfortunate that countries in the region have yet to enact “Good Samaritan” laws. If individuals render aid to someone suffering cardiac arrest, then these laws would ensure that they will not be held liable in any way. This is the case in Argentina and Uruguay. So, the fear of things turning into a legal matter may be holding people back from taking action; that fear could also create additional stress for those who end up stepping in to help.

Even with the legal safeguards, exceptional circumstances may arise where rescuers find themselves facing unexpected emotional challenges. In Argentina, Virginia Pérez Antonelli, the 17-year-old who tried in vain to save the life of Fernando Báez Sosa, had to testify at the trial of the eight defendants accused of brutally beating him in January 2020. The press, the public – the attention of an entire country – was focused on her. She had to respond to the defense attorneys who were able to ask whether she was sure that she performed the CPR maneuvers correctly. And a few weeks ago, a medical examiner hired by the defense suggested that “the CPR may have made the situation worse” for the victim. An indignant Dr. Fitz Maurice responded on Twitter: “CPR SAVES LIVES!! Let’s not let a CHEAP AND BASELESS argument destroy all the work that’s been done…!”

Of course, there are consequences that are beyond our control and others that can, in fact, be anticipated and planned for. Dr. Fitz Maurice brought up a preventive approach: Make CPR second nature, teach it in schools, help people overcome their fears. “Cardiac deaths are 200 times more frequent than deaths resulting from fires – and we practice fire drills a lot more than we practice CPR,” he told this news organization. In a society where there is widespread training on the procedure, where people regularly practice the technique, those who have had the experience of giving someone CPR will feel less alone, will be better understood by others.

“On the other hand, beyond the initial impact and the lack of a formal support system, the medium- and long-term outcome for those who acted is also psychologically and emotionally favorable,” said Jorge Bombau, MD, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Buenos Aires. After Dr. Bombau’s 14-year-old son Beltrán suddenly died during a school sports tournament, Dr. Bombau became a prominent advocate spreading the word about CPR.

“I don’t know anyone who regrets doing CPR,” he told this news organization. “There may be a brief period when the person feels distressed or depressed, when they have trouble sleeping. But it’s been proven that doing a good deed improves one’s mood. And what better deed is there than trying to save someone’s life? Whether their efforts were successful or in vain, that person has, at the end of the day, done something meaningful and worthwhile.”

Mr. Snitcofsky shares this sentiment. For several months now, he’s been feeling he’s “in a good place.” And he’s been actively promoting CPR on social media. As he recently posted on Twitter, “I’m here to retweet everything that has to do with getting us all to become familiar with how to do CPR and working up the courage to do it. The training takes no more than a few hours.

“I want to know that, if I ever have an out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest, there will be neighbors, friends, or family members around who know how to do CPR. Every person who knows how to do CPR can persuade others, and those of us who’ve had to do CPR in real life are even better candidates for persuading others. And if one day a person ends up needing CPR, I want to step in again and make up for lost time. Here’s hoping it’ll do the job,” he concluded.

It’s the same for Matías Alonso, a journalist in Buenos Aires. On New Year’s Eve 15 years ago, he was at a family dinner when, a few minutes before midnight, he found himself giving CPR to his stepmother’s father. “Unfortunately, he passed away, but I continued doing CPR on him until the ambulance arrived. For some time, I felt a little guilty for not taking charge of the situation from the beginning, and because I had this idea in my head that more people pulled through and recovered. But afterwards, they really thanked me a lot. And that helped me realize that I’d done something. I didn’t stand still when faced with the inevitability of death. I understood that it was good to have tried,” Mr. Alonso told this news organization. “And next time … hopefully there won’t be a next time … but I’m more prepared, and I now know how I can do better.”

Mr. Alonso, Mr. Snitcofsky, Dr. Fitz Maurice, Dr. Mosca, Dr. Bombau, and Dr. Márquez Murillo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Medscape Spanish.

After more than 5 decades of trying, the drug industry is on the verge of providing effective immunizations against the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which has put an estimated 90,000 U.S. infants and small children in the hospital since the start of October.

But only one of the shots is designed to be given to babies, and a glitch in congressional language may make it difficult to allow children from low-income families to get it as readily as the well insured.

Since 1994, routine vaccination has been a childhood entitlement under the Vaccines for Children program, through which the federal government buys millions of vaccines and provides them free through pediatricians and clinics to children who are uninsured, underinsured, or on Medicaid – more than half of all American kids.

The 1993 law creating the program didn’t specifically include antibody shots, which were used only as rare emergency therapy at the time the bill was written.

But the first medication of its kind likely to be available to babies, called nirsevimab (it was approved in Europe in December, and Food and Drug Administration approval is expected in the summer of 2023), is not a vaccine but rather a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes RSV in the bloodstream.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is certain to recommend giving the antibody to infants, said Kelly Moore, MD, president of the advocacy group Immunize.org. The CDC is currently assessing whether nirsevimab would be eligible for the Vaccines for Children program, agency spokesperson Kristen Nordlund told KHN.

Failing to do so would “consign thousands upon thousands of infants to hospitalization and serious illness for semantic reasons despite existence of an immunization that functionally performs just like a seasonal vaccine,” Dr. Moore said.

Officials from Sanofi, which is producing the nirsevimab injection along with AstraZeneca, declined to state a price but said the range would be similar to that of a pediatric vaccine course. The CDC pays about $650 for the most expensive routine vaccine, the four shots against pneumococcal infection. In other words, FDA approval would make nirsevimab a blockbuster drug worth billions annually if it’s given to a large share of the 3.7 million or so children born in the U.S. each year.

Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are making traditional vaccines against RSV and expect FDA approval later in 2023. Pfizer’s shot initially would be given to pregnant women – to shield their babies from the disease – while GSK’s would be given to the elderly.

Vaccines designed for infants are in the pipeline, but some experts are still nervous about them. A 1966 RSV vaccine trial failed spectacularly, killing two toddlers, and immunologists aren’t totally in agreement over the cause, said Barney Graham, MD, PhD, the retired National Institutes of Health scientist whose studies of the episode contributed to successful COVID-19 and RSV vaccines.

After 2 years of COVID lockdowns and masking slowed its transmission, RSV exploded across the United States in 2023, swamping pediatric intensive care units.

Sanofi and AstraZeneca hope to have nirsevimab approved by the FDA, recommended by the CDC, and deployed nationwide by fall to prevent future RSV epidemics.

Their product is designed to be provided before a baby’s first winter RSV season. In clinical trials, the antibodies provided up to 5 months of protection. Most children wouldn’t need a second dose because the virus is not a mortal danger to healthy kids over a year old, said Jon Heinrichs, a senior member of Sanofi’s vaccines division.

If the antibody treatment is not accepted for the Vaccines for Children program, that will limit access to the shot for the uninsured and those on Medicaid, the majority of whom represent racial or ethnic minorities, Dr. Moore said. The drugmakers would have to negotiate with each state’s Medicaid program to get it on their formularies.

Excluding the shot from Vaccines for Children “would only worsen existing health disparities,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chair of the infectious diseases committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

RSV affects babies of all social classes but tends to hit poor, crowded households hardest, said Dr. Graham. “Family history of asthma or allergy makes it worse,” he said, and premature babies are also at higher risk.

While 2%-3% of U.S. infants are hospitalized with RSV each year, only a few hundred don’t survive. But as many as 10,000 people 65 and older perish because of an infection every year, and a little-discussed legal change will make RSV and other vaccines more available to this group.

A section of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that went into effect Jan. 1 ends out-of-pocket payments for all vaccines by Medicare patients – including RSV vaccines, if they are licensed for this group.

Before, “if you hadn’t met your deductible, it could be very expensive,” said Leonard Friedland, MD, vice president for scientific affairs and public health in GSK’s vaccines division, which also makes shingles and combination tetanus-diphtheria-whooping cough boosters covered by the new law. “It’s a tremendously important advance.”

Of course, high levels of vaccine hesitancy are likely to blunt uptake of the shots regardless of who pays, said Jennifer Reich, a sociologist at the University of Colorado who studies vaccination attitudes.

New types of shots, like the Sanofi-AstraZeneca antibodies, often alarm parents, and Pfizer’s shot for pregnant women is likely to push fear buttons as well, she said.

Public health officials “don’t seem very savvy about how to get ahead” of claims that vaccines undermine fertility or otherwise harm people, said Ms. Reich.

On the other hand, this winter’s RSV epidemic will be persuasive to many parents, said Heidi Larson, leader of the Vaccine Confidence Project and a professor of anthropology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

“It’s a scary thing to have your kid hospitalized with RSV,” she said.

While unfortunate, “the high number of children who died or were admitted to the ICU in the past season with RSV – in some ways that’s helpful,” said Laura Riley, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Specialists in her field haven’t really started talking about how to communicate with women about the vaccine, said Dr. Riley, who chairs the immunization group at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Everyone’s been waiting to see if it gets approved,” she said. “The education has to start soon, but it’s hard to roll out education before you roll out the shot.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

After more than 5 decades of trying, the drug industry is on the verge of providing effective immunizations against the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which has put an estimated 90,000 U.S. infants and small children in the hospital since the start of October.

But only one of the shots is designed to be given to babies, and a glitch in congressional language may make it difficult to allow children from low-income families to get it as readily as the well insured.

Since 1994, routine vaccination has been a childhood entitlement under the Vaccines for Children program, through which the federal government buys millions of vaccines and provides them free through pediatricians and clinics to children who are uninsured, underinsured, or on Medicaid – more than half of all American kids.

The 1993 law creating the program didn’t specifically include antibody shots, which were used only as rare emergency therapy at the time the bill was written.

But the first medication of its kind likely to be available to babies, called nirsevimab (it was approved in Europe in December, and Food and Drug Administration approval is expected in the summer of 2023), is not a vaccine but rather a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes RSV in the bloodstream.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is certain to recommend giving the antibody to infants, said Kelly Moore, MD, president of the advocacy group Immunize.org. The CDC is currently assessing whether nirsevimab would be eligible for the Vaccines for Children program, agency spokesperson Kristen Nordlund told KHN.

Failing to do so would “consign thousands upon thousands of infants to hospitalization and serious illness for semantic reasons despite existence of an immunization that functionally performs just like a seasonal vaccine,” Dr. Moore said.

Officials from Sanofi, which is producing the nirsevimab injection along with AstraZeneca, declined to state a price but said the range would be similar to that of a pediatric vaccine course. The CDC pays about $650 for the most expensive routine vaccine, the four shots against pneumococcal infection. In other words, FDA approval would make nirsevimab a blockbuster drug worth billions annually if it’s given to a large share of the 3.7 million or so children born in the U.S. each year.

Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are making traditional vaccines against RSV and expect FDA approval later in 2023. Pfizer’s shot initially would be given to pregnant women – to shield their babies from the disease – while GSK’s would be given to the elderly.

Vaccines designed for infants are in the pipeline, but some experts are still nervous about them. A 1966 RSV vaccine trial failed spectacularly, killing two toddlers, and immunologists aren’t totally in agreement over the cause, said Barney Graham, MD, PhD, the retired National Institutes of Health scientist whose studies of the episode contributed to successful COVID-19 and RSV vaccines.

After 2 years of COVID lockdowns and masking slowed its transmission, RSV exploded across the United States in 2023, swamping pediatric intensive care units.

Sanofi and AstraZeneca hope to have nirsevimab approved by the FDA, recommended by the CDC, and deployed nationwide by fall to prevent future RSV epidemics.

Their product is designed to be provided before a baby’s first winter RSV season. In clinical trials, the antibodies provided up to 5 months of protection. Most children wouldn’t need a second dose because the virus is not a mortal danger to healthy kids over a year old, said Jon Heinrichs, a senior member of Sanofi’s vaccines division.

If the antibody treatment is not accepted for the Vaccines for Children program, that will limit access to the shot for the uninsured and those on Medicaid, the majority of whom represent racial or ethnic minorities, Dr. Moore said. The drugmakers would have to negotiate with each state’s Medicaid program to get it on their formularies.

Excluding the shot from Vaccines for Children “would only worsen existing health disparities,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chair of the infectious diseases committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

RSV affects babies of all social classes but tends to hit poor, crowded households hardest, said Dr. Graham. “Family history of asthma or allergy makes it worse,” he said, and premature babies are also at higher risk.

While 2%-3% of U.S. infants are hospitalized with RSV each year, only a few hundred don’t survive. But as many as 10,000 people 65 and older perish because of an infection every year, and a little-discussed legal change will make RSV and other vaccines more available to this group.

A section of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that went into effect Jan. 1 ends out-of-pocket payments for all vaccines by Medicare patients – including RSV vaccines, if they are licensed for this group.

Before, “if you hadn’t met your deductible, it could be very expensive,” said Leonard Friedland, MD, vice president for scientific affairs and public health in GSK’s vaccines division, which also makes shingles and combination tetanus-diphtheria-whooping cough boosters covered by the new law. “It’s a tremendously important advance.”

Of course, high levels of vaccine hesitancy are likely to blunt uptake of the shots regardless of who pays, said Jennifer Reich, a sociologist at the University of Colorado who studies vaccination attitudes.

New types of shots, like the Sanofi-AstraZeneca antibodies, often alarm parents, and Pfizer’s shot for pregnant women is likely to push fear buttons as well, she said.

Public health officials “don’t seem very savvy about how to get ahead” of claims that vaccines undermine fertility or otherwise harm people, said Ms. Reich.

On the other hand, this winter’s RSV epidemic will be persuasive to many parents, said Heidi Larson, leader of the Vaccine Confidence Project and a professor of anthropology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

“It’s a scary thing to have your kid hospitalized with RSV,” she said.

While unfortunate, “the high number of children who died or were admitted to the ICU in the past season with RSV – in some ways that’s helpful,” said Laura Riley, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Specialists in her field haven’t really started talking about how to communicate with women about the vaccine, said Dr. Riley, who chairs the immunization group at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Everyone’s been waiting to see if it gets approved,” she said. “The education has to start soon, but it’s hard to roll out education before you roll out the shot.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

After more than 5 decades of trying, the drug industry is on the verge of providing effective immunizations against the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which has put an estimated 90,000 U.S. infants and small children in the hospital since the start of October.

But only one of the shots is designed to be given to babies, and a glitch in congressional language may make it difficult to allow children from low-income families to get it as readily as the well insured.

Since 1994, routine vaccination has been a childhood entitlement under the Vaccines for Children program, through which the federal government buys millions of vaccines and provides them free through pediatricians and clinics to children who are uninsured, underinsured, or on Medicaid – more than half of all American kids.

The 1993 law creating the program didn’t specifically include antibody shots, which were used only as rare emergency therapy at the time the bill was written.

But the first medication of its kind likely to be available to babies, called nirsevimab (it was approved in Europe in December, and Food and Drug Administration approval is expected in the summer of 2023), is not a vaccine but rather a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes RSV in the bloodstream.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is certain to recommend giving the antibody to infants, said Kelly Moore, MD, president of the advocacy group Immunize.org. The CDC is currently assessing whether nirsevimab would be eligible for the Vaccines for Children program, agency spokesperson Kristen Nordlund told KHN.

Failing to do so would “consign thousands upon thousands of infants to hospitalization and serious illness for semantic reasons despite existence of an immunization that functionally performs just like a seasonal vaccine,” Dr. Moore said.

Officials from Sanofi, which is producing the nirsevimab injection along with AstraZeneca, declined to state a price but said the range would be similar to that of a pediatric vaccine course. The CDC pays about $650 for the most expensive routine vaccine, the four shots against pneumococcal infection. In other words, FDA approval would make nirsevimab a blockbuster drug worth billions annually if it’s given to a large share of the 3.7 million or so children born in the U.S. each year.

Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are making traditional vaccines against RSV and expect FDA approval later in 2023. Pfizer’s shot initially would be given to pregnant women – to shield their babies from the disease – while GSK’s would be given to the elderly.

Vaccines designed for infants are in the pipeline, but some experts are still nervous about them. A 1966 RSV vaccine trial failed spectacularly, killing two toddlers, and immunologists aren’t totally in agreement over the cause, said Barney Graham, MD, PhD, the retired National Institutes of Health scientist whose studies of the episode contributed to successful COVID-19 and RSV vaccines.

After 2 years of COVID lockdowns and masking slowed its transmission, RSV exploded across the United States in 2023, swamping pediatric intensive care units.

Sanofi and AstraZeneca hope to have nirsevimab approved by the FDA, recommended by the CDC, and deployed nationwide by fall to prevent future RSV epidemics.

Their product is designed to be provided before a baby’s first winter RSV season. In clinical trials, the antibodies provided up to 5 months of protection. Most children wouldn’t need a second dose because the virus is not a mortal danger to healthy kids over a year old, said Jon Heinrichs, a senior member of Sanofi’s vaccines division.

If the antibody treatment is not accepted for the Vaccines for Children program, that will limit access to the shot for the uninsured and those on Medicaid, the majority of whom represent racial or ethnic minorities, Dr. Moore said. The drugmakers would have to negotiate with each state’s Medicaid program to get it on their formularies.

Excluding the shot from Vaccines for Children “would only worsen existing health disparities,” said Sean O’Leary, MD, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and chair of the infectious diseases committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

RSV affects babies of all social classes but tends to hit poor, crowded households hardest, said Dr. Graham. “Family history of asthma or allergy makes it worse,” he said, and premature babies are also at higher risk.

While 2%-3% of U.S. infants are hospitalized with RSV each year, only a few hundred don’t survive. But as many as 10,000 people 65 and older perish because of an infection every year, and a little-discussed legal change will make RSV and other vaccines more available to this group.

A section of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that went into effect Jan. 1 ends out-of-pocket payments for all vaccines by Medicare patients – including RSV vaccines, if they are licensed for this group.

Before, “if you hadn’t met your deductible, it could be very expensive,” said Leonard Friedland, MD, vice president for scientific affairs and public health in GSK’s vaccines division, which also makes shingles and combination tetanus-diphtheria-whooping cough boosters covered by the new law. “It’s a tremendously important advance.”

Of course, high levels of vaccine hesitancy are likely to blunt uptake of the shots regardless of who pays, said Jennifer Reich, a sociologist at the University of Colorado who studies vaccination attitudes.

New types of shots, like the Sanofi-AstraZeneca antibodies, often alarm parents, and Pfizer’s shot for pregnant women is likely to push fear buttons as well, she said.

Public health officials “don’t seem very savvy about how to get ahead” of claims that vaccines undermine fertility or otherwise harm people, said Ms. Reich.

On the other hand, this winter’s RSV epidemic will be persuasive to many parents, said Heidi Larson, leader of the Vaccine Confidence Project and a professor of anthropology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

“It’s a scary thing to have your kid hospitalized with RSV,” she said.

While unfortunate, “the high number of children who died or were admitted to the ICU in the past season with RSV – in some ways that’s helpful,” said Laura Riley, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.

Specialists in her field haven’t really started talking about how to communicate with women about the vaccine, said Dr. Riley, who chairs the immunization group at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“Everyone’s been waiting to see if it gets approved,” she said. “The education has to start soon, but it’s hard to roll out education before you roll out the shot.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Adults with rheumatoid arthritis or primary Sjogren’s syndrome plus interstitial lung disease had higher levels of systemic sclerosis–specific antibodies than those without lung disease, based on data from 101 individuals.

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) has been associated with the development of interstitial lung disease (ILD), but the prevalence of SSc autoantibodies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and primary Sjogren’s syndrome (SS) has not been explored, wrote Vasilike Koulouri, MD, of Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, the researchers reviewed serum data from patients with RA and SS using immunoblot assays to determine the prevalence of SSc-specific and anti-Ro52 autoantibodies, both of which have been associated with ILD in SSc patients.

The study population included 28 RA patients with ILD, 32 RA patients without ILD, 9 primary SS patients with ILD, and 32 primary SS patients with no ILD. The mean age of the RA participants was 63.4 years, 70% were women, and the mean age at RA diagnosis was 50.2 years. The mean age of the primary SS group was 60.3 years, 87.8% were female, and the mean age at diagnosis was 52.7 years.

Overall, SSc-specific antibodies across all titers were detected more frequently in RA patients with ILD compared with those with no ILD, though not statistically significant (42.9% vs. 21.9%, P = .08). However, “This trend was mainly attributed to the statistically significant difference between the two groups at strong titers (25% vs. 3.1%, P = .01),” the researchers wrote. Notably, RA patients with strong titer SSc-specific antibodies showed an 11-fold increased risk for ILD, they added.

No significant differences appeared in the prevalence of SSc-specific or Ro52 autoantibodies between primary SS patients with and without ILD, which might be attributable in part to the increased prevalence of anticentromere antibodies in primary SS, the researchers said.

RA patients who were positive for SSc-specific antibodies at strong titers were significantly more likely to have respiratory abnormalities than those who were negative (87.5% vs. 47.2%, P = .04), but no such differences appeared in primary SS patients.

“Early detection of SSc antibodies could be important in clinical practice as it may mandate further diagnostic (for example, screening for pulmonary hypertension) and therapeutic approaches of these patients,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors, mainly the small sample size, but also the potential for false-positive results on antibody titers, lack of data on the clinical significance of medium autoantibody titers, and the lack of long-term follow-up data, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that many seropositive RA patients with evidence of ILD “may evolve to a clinically evident overlap of RA and SSc” that would benefit from targeted treatment, they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from Novartis AG and by the Molecular Immunology and Clinical Applications Unit, Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with rheumatoid arthritis or primary Sjogren’s syndrome plus interstitial lung disease had higher levels of systemic sclerosis–specific antibodies than those without lung disease, based on data from 101 individuals.

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) has been associated with the development of interstitial lung disease (ILD), but the prevalence of SSc autoantibodies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and primary Sjogren’s syndrome (SS) has not been explored, wrote Vasilike Koulouri, MD, of Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, the researchers reviewed serum data from patients with RA and SS using immunoblot assays to determine the prevalence of SSc-specific and anti-Ro52 autoantibodies, both of which have been associated with ILD in SSc patients.

The study population included 28 RA patients with ILD, 32 RA patients without ILD, 9 primary SS patients with ILD, and 32 primary SS patients with no ILD. The mean age of the RA participants was 63.4 years, 70% were women, and the mean age at RA diagnosis was 50.2 years. The mean age of the primary SS group was 60.3 years, 87.8% were female, and the mean age at diagnosis was 52.7 years.

Overall, SSc-specific antibodies across all titers were detected more frequently in RA patients with ILD compared with those with no ILD, though not statistically significant (42.9% vs. 21.9%, P = .08). However, “This trend was mainly attributed to the statistically significant difference between the two groups at strong titers (25% vs. 3.1%, P = .01),” the researchers wrote. Notably, RA patients with strong titer SSc-specific antibodies showed an 11-fold increased risk for ILD, they added.

No significant differences appeared in the prevalence of SSc-specific or Ro52 autoantibodies between primary SS patients with and without ILD, which might be attributable in part to the increased prevalence of anticentromere antibodies in primary SS, the researchers said.

RA patients who were positive for SSc-specific antibodies at strong titers were significantly more likely to have respiratory abnormalities than those who were negative (87.5% vs. 47.2%, P = .04), but no such differences appeared in primary SS patients.

“Early detection of SSc antibodies could be important in clinical practice as it may mandate further diagnostic (for example, screening for pulmonary hypertension) and therapeutic approaches of these patients,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors, mainly the small sample size, but also the potential for false-positive results on antibody titers, lack of data on the clinical significance of medium autoantibody titers, and the lack of long-term follow-up data, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that many seropositive RA patients with evidence of ILD “may evolve to a clinically evident overlap of RA and SSc” that would benefit from targeted treatment, they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from Novartis AG and by the Molecular Immunology and Clinical Applications Unit, Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with rheumatoid arthritis or primary Sjogren’s syndrome plus interstitial lung disease had higher levels of systemic sclerosis–specific antibodies than those without lung disease, based on data from 101 individuals.

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) has been associated with the development of interstitial lung disease (ILD), but the prevalence of SSc autoantibodies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and primary Sjogren’s syndrome (SS) has not been explored, wrote Vasilike Koulouri, MD, of Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, the researchers reviewed serum data from patients with RA and SS using immunoblot assays to determine the prevalence of SSc-specific and anti-Ro52 autoantibodies, both of which have been associated with ILD in SSc patients.

The study population included 28 RA patients with ILD, 32 RA patients without ILD, 9 primary SS patients with ILD, and 32 primary SS patients with no ILD. The mean age of the RA participants was 63.4 years, 70% were women, and the mean age at RA diagnosis was 50.2 years. The mean age of the primary SS group was 60.3 years, 87.8% were female, and the mean age at diagnosis was 52.7 years.

Overall, SSc-specific antibodies across all titers were detected more frequently in RA patients with ILD compared with those with no ILD, though not statistically significant (42.9% vs. 21.9%, P = .08). However, “This trend was mainly attributed to the statistically significant difference between the two groups at strong titers (25% vs. 3.1%, P = .01),” the researchers wrote. Notably, RA patients with strong titer SSc-specific antibodies showed an 11-fold increased risk for ILD, they added.

No significant differences appeared in the prevalence of SSc-specific or Ro52 autoantibodies between primary SS patients with and without ILD, which might be attributable in part to the increased prevalence of anticentromere antibodies in primary SS, the researchers said.

RA patients who were positive for SSc-specific antibodies at strong titers were significantly more likely to have respiratory abnormalities than those who were negative (87.5% vs. 47.2%, P = .04), but no such differences appeared in primary SS patients.

“Early detection of SSc antibodies could be important in clinical practice as it may mandate further diagnostic (for example, screening for pulmonary hypertension) and therapeutic approaches of these patients,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors, mainly the small sample size, but also the potential for false-positive results on antibody titers, lack of data on the clinical significance of medium autoantibody titers, and the lack of long-term follow-up data, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that many seropositive RA patients with evidence of ILD “may evolve to a clinically evident overlap of RA and SSc” that would benefit from targeted treatment, they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from Novartis AG and by the Molecular Immunology and Clinical Applications Unit, Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nonstop inflammation and immune problems top the list of potential causes of long COVID, but doctors say it’s growing clear that more than one thing is to blame for the wide swath of often debilitating symptoms that could last months or even years.

“I think that it’s a much more complex picture than just inflammation, or just autoimmunity, or just immune dysregulation. And it’s probably a combination of all three causing a cascade of effects that then manifests itself as brain fog, or shortness of breath, or chronic fatigue,” says Alexander Truong, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who also runs a long-COVID clinic.

Long COVID, post–COVID-19 condition, and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) are among the terms used by the National Institutes of Health to describe the long-term health issues faced by an estimated 10%-30% of people infected with COVID-19. Symptoms – as many as 200 – can range from inconvenient to crippling, damage multiple organ systems, come and go, and relapse. Long COVID increases the risk of worsening existing health problems and triggering new ones, including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

So far, research suggests there is no single cause, condition, or disease that explains why some people have an extensive range of symptoms long after the early COVID-19 infection has cleared up. Many experts believe some combination of biological processes – including the virus hanging around in our bodies, inflammation, autoimmunity, tiny blood clots, immune system problems, and even the reactivation of dormant viruses such as the Epstein-Barr virus – could be the culprit, a theory also supported by a comprehensive and in-depth review of long-COVID studies published in the journal Nature Reviews Microbiology.

“It’s become clear over the last couple of years that there are different [symptoms] of long COVID … that cannot all be lumped together,” says Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and an infectious diseases doctor at the University of California, San Francisco.
 

Inflammation and a virus that hangs around

Multiple studies have shown that the virus or pieces of it can remain in many parts of the body, including the kidneys, brain, heart, and gastrointestinal system, long after the early infection. 

“One major question that I think is the area of most intense investigation now is whether there is viral persistence that is driving immune dysregulation and therefore symptoms,” says Dr. Peluso.

A small Harvard University study, for example, found evidence that reservoirs of the coronavirus could linger in patients up to a year after they’re first diagnosed. 

An earlier German study found that patients with post-COVID-19 symptoms had higher levels of three cytokines – small proteins that tell the body’s immune system what to do and are involved in the growth and activity of immune system cells and blood cells. Researchers said the results supported the theory that there is persistent reprogramming of certain immune cells, and that the uncontrolled “self-fueled hyperinflammation” during the early COVID-19 infection can become continued immune cell disruption that drives long-COVID symptoms.

“Long COVID is more likely due to either an inflammatory response by the body or reservoirs of virus that the body is still trying to clear … and the symptoms we’re seeing are a side effect of that,” says Rainu Kaushal, MD, senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

Australian researchers found that immune system recovery appeared different, compared with those who were infected with other common coronaviruses.

These findings also support concerns that some experts express over the long-term risks of COVID-19 infections in general, but especially repeat infections.

“Anything that kind of revs up inflammation in the body can boil that pot over and make the symptoms worse. That’s very easily an infection or some other insult to the body. So that’s the generalized hypothesis as to why insults to the body may worsen the symptoms,” says Dr. Truong.
 

An autoimmune condition?

But inflammation alone does not fully explain post–COVID-19 problems.

Dr. Truong and his team, for example, have been documenting inflammatory markers in patients at the post-COVID clinic he cofounded more than 2 years ago at Emory Executive Park in Atlanta. When the clinic was first launched, high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – including ibuprofen – and prednisone were prescribed to long-COVID patients.

“It didn’t make a difference at all for any of these folks,” he says, adding that there are signs that autoimmunity is at play. But he cautions that it is still too early to suggest treating long-COVID patients with medications used for other autoimmune conditions.

In autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and type 1 diabetes, a person’s immune system can’t tell normal cells from foreign pathogens and attacks healthy cells. There is typically no single diagnostic test, and many share similar symptoms, making detection and diagnosis potentially difficult, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

A small study published in the journal  Science Translational Medicine found that, among patients who failed to regain their sense of smell long after their initial infection, there was inflammation in the nose tissue where smell nerve cells are found, even though no detectable virus remained. Fewer olfactory sensory neurons were seen, as well – findings that researchers said resembled some kind of “autoimmune-like process.”

Meanwhile, scientists in Canada found signs of autoimmunity in blood samples taken from patients who still had fatigue and shortness of breath after their initial COVID-19 infection. Two specific proteins were present a year after infection in up to 30% of patients, many of whom still had shortness of breath and fatigue, the researchers reported in the Jan. 1 issue of the European Respiratory Journal. These patients had been healthy and had no autoimmune condition or other diseases before they were infected.
 

Immune system problems

A number of studies have suggested that a problematic immune response could also explain why symptoms persist for some people.

Researchers in France, for example, found that the immune response problems in those with severe COVID-19 infections caused exaggerated or uncontrolled formation of a type of bug-fighting defense mechanism called a neutrophil extracellular trap (NET), which in turn triggers harmful inflammation that can result in multiorgan damage. These traps are netlike structures made from fibers composed mostly of DNA strings that bind, or trap, pathogens.

Long COVID is not like an acute infectious disease, says Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Mount Sinai in New York, and an associate professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. It is more similar to other complex chronic diseases that have taken decades to understand, such as heart disease, mental illness, and rheumatologic diseases, he says.
 

Biomarkers and blood clots

Scientists are homing in on biomarkers, or detectable and measurable traits – in this case, molecular indicators – that can make diagnosing long COVID easier and give better direction for treatment. These biomarkers are also key to helping sort out the complex biology of long COVID.

In one study, data from blood samples taken from hundreds of hospitalized COVID-19 patients suggests changes are happening at the molecular level during initial severe infections. These changes may be tied to the development of longer-term symptoms, according to the study by Dr. Charney and his team at Mount Sinai published in Nature Medicine

Blood clotting issues have also been detected in long COVID patients. At least one study found signs that long-COVID patients had higher levels of a type of auto-antibody linked to the abnormal formation of clots. Researchers suspect that tiny, persistent microclots – undetectable via regular pathology tests – may be cutting off oxygen flow to tissue by blocking capillaries – and could explain many of the post-COVID symptoms described by patients.

While enormous progress has been made toward understanding long COVID, the research is still considered early and faces many challenges, including varying criteria used to define the condition, the types and quality of data used, differences in how patients are defined and recruited, and the small size of many studies. Some research also appears to conflict with other studies. And while there are specialized tools for diagnosing some aspects of the condition, standard tests often don’t detect many of the signs seen in long-COVID patients. But given the urgency and global scale of the problem, experts say more funding and support should be prioritized.

“People are suffering now, and they want answers now. ... It’s not like with COVID, where the path towards a great and meaningful solution to this unbelievable problem was clear – we need a vaccine,” says Dr. Charney. 

“It’s going to be a long haul to figure out what is going on.”

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

Nonstop inflammation and immune problems top the list of potential causes of long COVID, but doctors say it’s growing clear that more than one thing is to blame for the wide swath of often debilitating symptoms that could last months or even years.

“I think that it’s a much more complex picture than just inflammation, or just autoimmunity, or just immune dysregulation. And it’s probably a combination of all three causing a cascade of effects that then manifests itself as brain fog, or shortness of breath, or chronic fatigue,” says Alexander Truong, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who also runs a long-COVID clinic.

Long COVID, post–COVID-19 condition, and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) are among the terms used by the National Institutes of Health to describe the long-term health issues faced by an estimated 10%-30% of people infected with COVID-19. Symptoms – as many as 200 – can range from inconvenient to crippling, damage multiple organ systems, come and go, and relapse. Long COVID increases the risk of worsening existing health problems and triggering new ones, including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

So far, research suggests there is no single cause, condition, or disease that explains why some people have an extensive range of symptoms long after the early COVID-19 infection has cleared up. Many experts believe some combination of biological processes – including the virus hanging around in our bodies, inflammation, autoimmunity, tiny blood clots, immune system problems, and even the reactivation of dormant viruses such as the Epstein-Barr virus – could be the culprit, a theory also supported by a comprehensive and in-depth review of long-COVID studies published in the journal Nature Reviews Microbiology.

“It’s become clear over the last couple of years that there are different [symptoms] of long COVID … that cannot all be lumped together,” says Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and an infectious diseases doctor at the University of California, San Francisco.
 

Inflammation and a virus that hangs around

Multiple studies have shown that the virus or pieces of it can remain in many parts of the body, including the kidneys, brain, heart, and gastrointestinal system, long after the early infection. 

“One major question that I think is the area of most intense investigation now is whether there is viral persistence that is driving immune dysregulation and therefore symptoms,” says Dr. Peluso.

A small Harvard University study, for example, found evidence that reservoirs of the coronavirus could linger in patients up to a year after they’re first diagnosed. 

An earlier German study found that patients with post-COVID-19 symptoms had higher levels of three cytokines – small proteins that tell the body’s immune system what to do and are involved in the growth and activity of immune system cells and blood cells. Researchers said the results supported the theory that there is persistent reprogramming of certain immune cells, and that the uncontrolled “self-fueled hyperinflammation” during the early COVID-19 infection can become continued immune cell disruption that drives long-COVID symptoms.

“Long COVID is more likely due to either an inflammatory response by the body or reservoirs of virus that the body is still trying to clear … and the symptoms we’re seeing are a side effect of that,” says Rainu Kaushal, MD, senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

Australian researchers found that immune system recovery appeared different, compared with those who were infected with other common coronaviruses.

These findings also support concerns that some experts express over the long-term risks of COVID-19 infections in general, but especially repeat infections.

“Anything that kind of revs up inflammation in the body can boil that pot over and make the symptoms worse. That’s very easily an infection or some other insult to the body. So that’s the generalized hypothesis as to why insults to the body may worsen the symptoms,” says Dr. Truong.
 

An autoimmune condition?

But inflammation alone does not fully explain post–COVID-19 problems.

Dr. Truong and his team, for example, have been documenting inflammatory markers in patients at the post-COVID clinic he cofounded more than 2 years ago at Emory Executive Park in Atlanta. When the clinic was first launched, high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – including ibuprofen – and prednisone were prescribed to long-COVID patients.

“It didn’t make a difference at all for any of these folks,” he says, adding that there are signs that autoimmunity is at play. But he cautions that it is still too early to suggest treating long-COVID patients with medications used for other autoimmune conditions.

In autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and type 1 diabetes, a person’s immune system can’t tell normal cells from foreign pathogens and attacks healthy cells. There is typically no single diagnostic test, and many share similar symptoms, making detection and diagnosis potentially difficult, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

A small study published in the journal  Science Translational Medicine found that, among patients who failed to regain their sense of smell long after their initial infection, there was inflammation in the nose tissue where smell nerve cells are found, even though no detectable virus remained. Fewer olfactory sensory neurons were seen, as well – findings that researchers said resembled some kind of “autoimmune-like process.”

Meanwhile, scientists in Canada found signs of autoimmunity in blood samples taken from patients who still had fatigue and shortness of breath after their initial COVID-19 infection. Two specific proteins were present a year after infection in up to 30% of patients, many of whom still had shortness of breath and fatigue, the researchers reported in the Jan. 1 issue of the European Respiratory Journal. These patients had been healthy and had no autoimmune condition or other diseases before they were infected.
 

Immune system problems

A number of studies have suggested that a problematic immune response could also explain why symptoms persist for some people.

Researchers in France, for example, found that the immune response problems in those with severe COVID-19 infections caused exaggerated or uncontrolled formation of a type of bug-fighting defense mechanism called a neutrophil extracellular trap (NET), which in turn triggers harmful inflammation that can result in multiorgan damage. These traps are netlike structures made from fibers composed mostly of DNA strings that bind, or trap, pathogens.

Long COVID is not like an acute infectious disease, says Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Mount Sinai in New York, and an associate professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. It is more similar to other complex chronic diseases that have taken decades to understand, such as heart disease, mental illness, and rheumatologic diseases, he says.
 

Biomarkers and blood clots

Scientists are homing in on biomarkers, or detectable and measurable traits – in this case, molecular indicators – that can make diagnosing long COVID easier and give better direction for treatment. These biomarkers are also key to helping sort out the complex biology of long COVID.

In one study, data from blood samples taken from hundreds of hospitalized COVID-19 patients suggests changes are happening at the molecular level during initial severe infections. These changes may be tied to the development of longer-term symptoms, according to the study by Dr. Charney and his team at Mount Sinai published in Nature Medicine

Blood clotting issues have also been detected in long COVID patients. At least one study found signs that long-COVID patients had higher levels of a type of auto-antibody linked to the abnormal formation of clots. Researchers suspect that tiny, persistent microclots – undetectable via regular pathology tests – may be cutting off oxygen flow to tissue by blocking capillaries – and could explain many of the post-COVID symptoms described by patients.

While enormous progress has been made toward understanding long COVID, the research is still considered early and faces many challenges, including varying criteria used to define the condition, the types and quality of data used, differences in how patients are defined and recruited, and the small size of many studies. Some research also appears to conflict with other studies. And while there are specialized tools for diagnosing some aspects of the condition, standard tests often don’t detect many of the signs seen in long-COVID patients. But given the urgency and global scale of the problem, experts say more funding and support should be prioritized.

“People are suffering now, and they want answers now. ... It’s not like with COVID, where the path towards a great and meaningful solution to this unbelievable problem was clear – we need a vaccine,” says Dr. Charney. 

“It’s going to be a long haul to figure out what is going on.”

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

Nonstop inflammation and immune problems top the list of potential causes of long COVID, but doctors say it’s growing clear that more than one thing is to blame for the wide swath of often debilitating symptoms that could last months or even years.

“I think that it’s a much more complex picture than just inflammation, or just autoimmunity, or just immune dysregulation. And it’s probably a combination of all three causing a cascade of effects that then manifests itself as brain fog, or shortness of breath, or chronic fatigue,” says Alexander Truong, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who also runs a long-COVID clinic.

Long COVID, post–COVID-19 condition, and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) are among the terms used by the National Institutes of Health to describe the long-term health issues faced by an estimated 10%-30% of people infected with COVID-19. Symptoms – as many as 200 – can range from inconvenient to crippling, damage multiple organ systems, come and go, and relapse. Long COVID increases the risk of worsening existing health problems and triggering new ones, including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

So far, research suggests there is no single cause, condition, or disease that explains why some people have an extensive range of symptoms long after the early COVID-19 infection has cleared up. Many experts believe some combination of biological processes – including the virus hanging around in our bodies, inflammation, autoimmunity, tiny blood clots, immune system problems, and even the reactivation of dormant viruses such as the Epstein-Barr virus – could be the culprit, a theory also supported by a comprehensive and in-depth review of long-COVID studies published in the journal Nature Reviews Microbiology.

“It’s become clear over the last couple of years that there are different [symptoms] of long COVID … that cannot all be lumped together,” says Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and an infectious diseases doctor at the University of California, San Francisco.
 

Inflammation and a virus that hangs around

Multiple studies have shown that the virus or pieces of it can remain in many parts of the body, including the kidneys, brain, heart, and gastrointestinal system, long after the early infection. 

“One major question that I think is the area of most intense investigation now is whether there is viral persistence that is driving immune dysregulation and therefore symptoms,” says Dr. Peluso.

A small Harvard University study, for example, found evidence that reservoirs of the coronavirus could linger in patients up to a year after they’re first diagnosed. 

An earlier German study found that patients with post-COVID-19 symptoms had higher levels of three cytokines – small proteins that tell the body’s immune system what to do and are involved in the growth and activity of immune system cells and blood cells. Researchers said the results supported the theory that there is persistent reprogramming of certain immune cells, and that the uncontrolled “self-fueled hyperinflammation” during the early COVID-19 infection can become continued immune cell disruption that drives long-COVID symptoms.

“Long COVID is more likely due to either an inflammatory response by the body or reservoirs of virus that the body is still trying to clear … and the symptoms we’re seeing are a side effect of that,” says Rainu Kaushal, MD, senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

Australian researchers found that immune system recovery appeared different, compared with those who were infected with other common coronaviruses.

These findings also support concerns that some experts express over the long-term risks of COVID-19 infections in general, but especially repeat infections.

“Anything that kind of revs up inflammation in the body can boil that pot over and make the symptoms worse. That’s very easily an infection or some other insult to the body. So that’s the generalized hypothesis as to why insults to the body may worsen the symptoms,” says Dr. Truong.
 

An autoimmune condition?

But inflammation alone does not fully explain post–COVID-19 problems.

Dr. Truong and his team, for example, have been documenting inflammatory markers in patients at the post-COVID clinic he cofounded more than 2 years ago at Emory Executive Park in Atlanta. When the clinic was first launched, high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – including ibuprofen – and prednisone were prescribed to long-COVID patients.

“It didn’t make a difference at all for any of these folks,” he says, adding that there are signs that autoimmunity is at play. But he cautions that it is still too early to suggest treating long-COVID patients with medications used for other autoimmune conditions.

In autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and type 1 diabetes, a person’s immune system can’t tell normal cells from foreign pathogens and attacks healthy cells. There is typically no single diagnostic test, and many share similar symptoms, making detection and diagnosis potentially difficult, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

A small study published in the journal  Science Translational Medicine found that, among patients who failed to regain their sense of smell long after their initial infection, there was inflammation in the nose tissue where smell nerve cells are found, even though no detectable virus remained. Fewer olfactory sensory neurons were seen, as well – findings that researchers said resembled some kind of “autoimmune-like process.”

Meanwhile, scientists in Canada found signs of autoimmunity in blood samples taken from patients who still had fatigue and shortness of breath after their initial COVID-19 infection. Two specific proteins were present a year after infection in up to 30% of patients, many of whom still had shortness of breath and fatigue, the researchers reported in the Jan. 1 issue of the European Respiratory Journal. These patients had been healthy and had no autoimmune condition or other diseases before they were infected.
 

Immune system problems

A number of studies have suggested that a problematic immune response could also explain why symptoms persist for some people.

Researchers in France, for example, found that the immune response problems in those with severe COVID-19 infections caused exaggerated or uncontrolled formation of a type of bug-fighting defense mechanism called a neutrophil extracellular trap (NET), which in turn triggers harmful inflammation that can result in multiorgan damage. These traps are netlike structures made from fibers composed mostly of DNA strings that bind, or trap, pathogens.

Long COVID is not like an acute infectious disease, says Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Mount Sinai in New York, and an associate professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. It is more similar to other complex chronic diseases that have taken decades to understand, such as heart disease, mental illness, and rheumatologic diseases, he says.
 

Biomarkers and blood clots

Scientists are homing in on biomarkers, or detectable and measurable traits – in this case, molecular indicators – that can make diagnosing long COVID easier and give better direction for treatment. These biomarkers are also key to helping sort out the complex biology of long COVID.

In one study, data from blood samples taken from hundreds of hospitalized COVID-19 patients suggests changes are happening at the molecular level during initial severe infections. These changes may be tied to the development of longer-term symptoms, according to the study by Dr. Charney and his team at Mount Sinai published in Nature Medicine

Blood clotting issues have also been detected in long COVID patients. At least one study found signs that long-COVID patients had higher levels of a type of auto-antibody linked to the abnormal formation of clots. Researchers suspect that tiny, persistent microclots – undetectable via regular pathology tests – may be cutting off oxygen flow to tissue by blocking capillaries – and could explain many of the post-COVID symptoms described by patients.

While enormous progress has been made toward understanding long COVID, the research is still considered early and faces many challenges, including varying criteria used to define the condition, the types and quality of data used, differences in how patients are defined and recruited, and the small size of many studies. Some research also appears to conflict with other studies. And while there are specialized tools for diagnosing some aspects of the condition, standard tests often don’t detect many of the signs seen in long-COVID patients. But given the urgency and global scale of the problem, experts say more funding and support should be prioritized.

“People are suffering now, and they want answers now. ... It’s not like with COVID, where the path towards a great and meaningful solution to this unbelievable problem was clear – we need a vaccine,” says Dr. Charney. 

“It’s going to be a long haul to figure out what is going on.”

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

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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