Got a Virus? Its Name Matters More Than You Think
Dr. Adalja is focused on emerging infectious disease, pandemic preparedness, and biosecurity. He has served on US government panels tasked with developing guidelines for the treatment of plague, botulism, and anthrax in mass casualty settings and the system of care for infectious disease emergencies, and as an external advisor to the New York City Health and Hospital Emergency Management Highly Infectious Disease training program, as well as on a FEMA working group on nuclear disaster recovery. Dr. Adalja is an Associate Editor of the journal Health Security. He was a coeditor of the volume Global Catastrophic Biological Risks, a contributing author for the Handbook of Bioterrorism and Disaster Medicine, the Emergency Medicine CorePendium, Clinical Microbiology Made Ridiculously Simple, UpToDate's section on biological terrorism, and a NATO volume on bioterrorism. He has also published in such journals as the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of Infectious Diseases, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Emerging Infectious Diseases, and the Annals of Emergency Medicine. He is a board-certified physician in internal medicine, emergency medicine, infectious diseases, and critical care medicine. Follow him on Twitter: @AmeshAA
A sick woman sneezing into a tissue.
It's a familiar scenario: You show up at the doctor feeling miserable—sneezing, coughing, lethargic. We've all been there. And we've all been told the same answer: we're suffering from "a virus."
Failing to establish a specific microbial cause undermines the health of individual patients—and potentially the public at large.
Some patients may be satisfied with that diagnosis, others may be frustrated, and still others may demand antibiotic treatment for a bacterial infection that is usually not even present. As an infectious disease doctor who specializes in pandemic preparedness, I detest using the catch-all "virus" diagnosis for a range of symptoms from common colds to life-threatening pneumonias to unexplained fevers. Failing to establish a specific microbial cause undermines the health of individual patients—and potentially the public at large.
Confirming a specific diagnosis to determine which virus is behind those nasty symptoms is not just an academic exercise. The benefits are plentiful. Patients can forego antibiotic treatment, possibly benefit from antiviral treatment, understand their illness, and be given a prognosis. Additionally, if hospitalized, patients with certain viral infections require specific types of precautions so as not to spread the virus within the hospital.
Another largely undervalued benefit of such an approach is that it allows experts to begin assembling an arsenal of tools that might stave off a global health catastrophe. With severe pandemics, such as the 1918 influenza pandemic that killed 50 to 100 million people, it can be challenging to predict which of the myriad microbial species (bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites, prions) will be the most likely cause. Many different approaches to prediction exist, but there is a general lack of rigorous analysis about what it takes for any microorganism to reach the pantheon of pandemic pathogens. My colleagues and I at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security recently developed a new framework to understand the characteristics of pandemic pathogens.
One of our major conclusions is that the most likely pandemic pathogen will be viral and spread through respiratory means. Viruses rise to the top of the list because, when compared to other types of infectious agents, they have several features that confer pandemic potential: they mutate a lot, the speed of infection is rapid, and there are no broad-spectrum antivirals akin to broad-spectrum antibacterial agents. Contagion through breathing, coughing, and sneezing is likely because it is much more difficult for standard public health measures to extinguish respiratory spread agents compared to other routes of transmission like food, body fluids, or mosquitoes.
With this information, physicians and scientists can begin taking actions to prevent spread of the infection by developing vaccines, testing antiviral compounds, and making diagnostic tests for concerning viruses.
Many of the viral families that could pose a pandemic threat are very common causes of upper respiratory infections like influenza, the common cold, and bronchitis. These viruses cause a wide range of illnesses from mild coughs to serious pneumonias. Indeed, the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic virus was discovered in San Diego in a child with very mild illness in whom viral diagnostic testing was pursued. This event highlights the fact that such diseases are not only found in exotic locations in the developing world, but could appear anywhere.
Understanding the patterns of respiratory virus infections -- how frequent they are, which strains are predominating, changes in severity of disease, expanding geographic range -- may provide a glimpse into the first forays of a new human virus or an alert to changing behavior from a well-known virus. With this information, physicians and scientists can begin taking actions to prevent spread of the infection by developing vaccines, testing antiviral compounds, and making diagnostic tests for concerning viruses. Additionally, alerts to healthcare providers will provide greater situational awareness of the patterns of infection.
So, the next time you are given a wastebasket diagnosis of "viral syndrome," push your doctor a little harder. In 2018, we have countless diagnostic tests for viral infections available, many at the point-of-care, that too few physicians use. Not only will you be more satisfied with a real diagnosis, you may be spared an unnecessary course of antibiotics. You can also rest assured that having a name for your virus will help epidemiologists doing a very important job. While we have not yet technologically achieved the famed Tricorder of Star Trek fame that diagnoses everything with a sweep of the hand, using the tools we do have could be one of the keys to detecting the next pandemic virus early enough to intervene.
Dr. Adalja is focused on emerging infectious disease, pandemic preparedness, and biosecurity. He has served on US government panels tasked with developing guidelines for the treatment of plague, botulism, and anthrax in mass casualty settings and the system of care for infectious disease emergencies, and as an external advisor to the New York City Health and Hospital Emergency Management Highly Infectious Disease training program, as well as on a FEMA working group on nuclear disaster recovery. Dr. Adalja is an Associate Editor of the journal Health Security. He was a coeditor of the volume Global Catastrophic Biological Risks, a contributing author for the Handbook of Bioterrorism and Disaster Medicine, the Emergency Medicine CorePendium, Clinical Microbiology Made Ridiculously Simple, UpToDate's section on biological terrorism, and a NATO volume on bioterrorism. He has also published in such journals as the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of Infectious Diseases, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Emerging Infectious Diseases, and the Annals of Emergency Medicine. He is a board-certified physician in internal medicine, emergency medicine, infectious diseases, and critical care medicine. Follow him on Twitter: @AmeshAA
Urinary tract infections account for more than 8 million trips to the doctor each year.
Few things are more painful than a urinary tract infection (UTI). Common in men and women, these infections account for more than 8 million trips to the doctor each year and can cause an array of uncomfortable symptoms, from a burning feeling during urination to fever, vomiting, and chills. For an unlucky few, UTIs can be chronic—meaning that, despite treatment, they just keep coming back.
But new research, presented at the European Association of Urology (EAU) Congress in Paris this week, brings some hope to people who suffer from UTIs.
Clinicians from the Royal Berkshire Hospital presented the results of a long-term, nine-year clinical trial where 89 men and women who suffered from recurrent UTIs were given an oral vaccine called MV140, designed to prevent the infections. Every day for three months, the participants were given two sprays of the vaccine (flavored to taste like pineapple) and then followed over the course of nine years. Clinicians analyzed medical records and asked the study participants about symptoms to check whether any experienced UTIs or had any adverse reactions from taking the vaccine.
The results showed that across nine years, 48 of the participants (about 54%) remained completely infection-free. On average, the study participants remained infection free for 54.7 months—four and a half years.
“While we need to be pragmatic, this vaccine is a potential breakthrough in preventing UTIs and could offer a safe and effective alternative to conventional treatments,” said Gernot Bonita, Professor of Urology at the Alta Bro Medical Centre for Urology in Switzerland, who is also the EAU Chairman of Guidelines on Urological Infections.
The news comes as a relief not only for people who suffer chronic UTIs, but also to doctors who have seen an uptick in antibiotic-resistant UTIs in the past several years. Because UTIs usually require antibiotics, patients run the risk of developing a resistance to the antibiotics, making infections more difficult to treat. A preventative vaccine could mean less infections, less antibiotics, and less drug resistance overall.
“Many of our participants told us that having the vaccine restored their quality of life,” said Dr. Bob Yang, Consultant Urologist at the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, who helped lead the research. “While we’re yet to look at the effect of this vaccine in different patient groups, this follow-up data suggests it could be a game-changer for UTI prevention if it’s offered widely, reducing the need for antibiotic treatments.”
MILESTONE: Doctors have transplanted a pig organ into a human for the first time in history
A surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital prepares a pig organ for transplant.
Surgeons at Massachusetts General Hospital made history last week when they successfully transplanted a pig kidney into a human patient for the first time ever.
The recipient was a 62-year-old man named Richard Slayman who had been living with end-stage kidney disease caused by diabetes. While Slayman had received a kidney transplant in 2018 from a human donor, his diabetes ultimately caused the kidney to fail less than five years after the transplant. Slayman had undergone dialysis ever since—a procedure that uses an artificial kidney to remove waste products from a person’s blood when the kidneys are unable to—but the dialysis frequently caused blood clots and other complications that landed him in the hospital multiple times.
As a last resort, Slayman’s kidney specialist suggested a transplant using a pig kidney provided by eGenesis, a pharmaceutical company based in Cambridge, Mass. The highly experimental surgery was made possible with the Food and Drug Administration’s “compassionate use” initiative, which allows patients with life-threatening medical conditions access to experimental treatments.
The new frontier of organ donation
Like Slayman, more than 100,000 people are currently on the national organ transplant waiting list, and roughly 17 people die every day waiting for an available organ. To make up for the shortage of human organs, scientists have been experimenting for the past several decades with using organs from animals such as pigs—a new field of medicine known as xenotransplantation. But putting an animal organ into a human body is much more complicated than it might appear, experts say.
“The human immune system reacts incredibly violently to a pig organ, much more so than a human organ,” said Dr. Joren Madsen, director of the Mass General Transplant Center. Even with immunosuppressant drugs that suppress the body’s ability to reject the transplant organ, Madsen said, a human body would reject an animal organ “within minutes.”
So scientists have had to use gene-editing technology to change the animal organs so that they would work inside a human body. The pig kidney in Slayman’s surgery, for instance, had been genetically altered using CRISPR-Cas9 technology to remove harmful pig genes and add human ones. The kidney was also edited to remove pig viruses that could potentially infect a human after transplant.
With CRISPR technology, scientists have been able to prove that interspecies organ transplants are not only possible, but may be able to successfully work long term, too. In the past several years, scientists were able to transplant a pig kidney into a monkey and have the monkey survive for more than two years. More recently, doctors have transplanted pig hearts into human beings—though each recipient of a pig heart only managed to live a couple of months after the transplant. In one of the patients, researchers noted evidence of a pig virus in the man’s heart that had not been identified before the surgery and could be a possible explanation for his heart failure.
So far, so good
Slayman and his medical team ultimately decided to pursue the surgery—and the risk paid off. When the pig organ started producing urine at the end of the four-hour surgery, the entire operating room erupted in applause.
Slayman is currently receiving an infusion of immunosuppressant drugs to prevent the kidney from being rejected, while his doctors monitor the kidney’s function with frequent ultrasounds. Slayman is reported to be “recovering well” at Massachusetts General Hospital and is expected to be discharged within the next several days.