A lab tech handling a sample of the novel coronavirus.
One of the main factors that will influence the ultimate trajectory of the novel coronavirus pandemic will be the availability of a vaccine.
Vaccine development has traditionally been a process measured in years and even decades.
Vaccines are incontrovertibly the best means to control infectious diseases and there are no human vaccines against any of the (now) 7 known human coronaviruses. As soon as the gravity of this outbreak was recognized, several companies, along with governmental and non-governmental partners, have embarked on a rapid development program to develop a vaccine targeted at this virus.
Vaccine development has traditionally been a process measured in years and even decades as scientists tinker with a pathogen trying to weaken or dissemble it to render it capable of creating an effective immune response with acceptable levels of side effects. However, in 2020, powerful new vaccine technologies are available to augment traditional vaccine development and are responsible for the rapid delivery of a vaccine candidate for the start of clinical trials.
Vaccine Platforms: A Game-Changing Technology
The new technologies that are being harnessed are what are known as vaccine platform technologies. Vaccine platforms, as my colleagues and I wrote in a report assessing their promise, offer a means to use the same building blocks to make more than one vaccine. To slightly oversimply, a vaccine platform confers the ability to switch out the pathogen being targeted very rapidly, akin to changing a video game cartridge. Indeed, the recently FDA-licensed Ebola vaccine uses another virus as a platform with the requisite Ebola protein inserted.
Because of this rapid availability to utilize platforms for a variety of different targets, the initial development process can be significantly shortened. This is especially true for vaccines utilizing the genetic material of the target alone. These DNA and RNA vaccines basically can be "printed" once the genetic sequence of the target is known.
An RNA vaccine is the approach being used by the Cambridge-based biotech company Moderna – which took just 42 days to produce an experimental vaccine candidate. Clinical testing is expected to begin next month on 45 healthy volunteers.
Another biotech, the Pennsylvania-based Inovio, is using a DNA approach. In essence, such vaccines involve the genetic material being injected and translated into a viral protein by human cells, which then prompt the immune system to make antibodies.
There are other approaches as well. One company, the Maryland-based Novavax, will use nanoparticles, while another is attempting to adapt an orally administered avian coronavirus vaccine and Johnson & Johnson is using different virus platforms to deliver coronavirus proteins (similar to their experimental Ebola vaccine).
At this stage, it is important for all approaches to be on the table in the hope that at least one makes it through clinical trials. There also may be a need for different types of vaccines for different populations.
Vaccines Will Still Take Time
Despite the quick development time made possible by the use of vaccine platforms, clinical testing for safety, efficacy, and dosing schedules will still take months to complete. After this process, the vaccine will need to be mass produced in large quantities to vaccinate, basically, the world. So, for all intents and purposes, we cannot expect to see an approved vaccine for at least a year or maybe longer if everything does not go perfectly well in clinical trials.
Vaccine platform technologies offer a bright ray of hope in the bleak shadow of the pandemic.
Once a vaccine is available, it will likely appear in batches to be distributed to those at highest risk for severe disease, such as the elderly and those with underlying conditions, as well as healthcare workers, first. At this time, it appears children are less likely to experience severe illness and they may not be the first targets for the vaccine but, if this virus is with us (as is predicted), coronavirus vaccination could become part of routine childhood vaccinations.
Changing Pandemic Trajectory
Vaccination will not come fast enough to impact the initial wave of the novel virus which may continue until summer approaches in temperate climates. However, it will be a crucial tool to blunt the impact of a future appearance in the following respiratory virus season. This reappearance is all but assured as this virus has adeptly established itself in human populations and is behaving like the community-acquired coronavirus that it is.
A Glimmer of Hope
When looking at the trajectory of the virus, it can appear, thus far, that no public health effort has made a substantial impact on the spread of the virus. However, that trajectory will change with the advent of an efficacious vaccine. Such a vaccine, especially if conferring protection against other human coronaviruses, may result in coronaviruses being taken off the table of biological threats altogether in the future.
Vaccine platform technologies offer a bright ray of hope in the bleak shadow of the pandemic and, if successful, will change the way the world approaches future pandemic threats with more rapid deployment of platform-based vaccines.
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
Got a Virus? Its Name Matters More Than You Think
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
Hand-counting bacteriophage plaques during a titer test.
In my hometown of Pittsburgh, it is not uncommon to read about cutting-edge medical breakthroughs, because Pittsburgh is the home of many innovations in medical science, from the polio vaccine to pioneering organ transplantation. However, medical headlines from Pittsburgh last November weren't heralding a new discovery for once. They were carrying a plea—for a virus.
Phages are weapons of bacterial destruction, but despite recognition of their therapeutic potential for over 100 years, there are zero phage products commercially available to medicine in the United States.
Specifically, a bacteria-killing virus that could attack and control a certain highly drug-resistant bacterial infection ravaging the newly transplanted lungs of a 25-year-old woman named Mallory Smith. The culprit bacteria, Burkholderia cepacia, is a notoriously vicious bacterium that preys on patients with cystic fibrosis who, throughout their life, are exposed to course after course of antibiotics, often fostering a population of highly resistant bacteria that can become too formidable for modern medicine to combat.
What Smith and her physicians desperately needed was a tool that would move beyond failed courses of antibiotics. What they sought was called a bacteriophage. These are naturally occurring ubiquitous viruses that target not humans, but bacteria. The world literally teems with "phages" and one cannot take a bite or drink of anything without encountering them. These weapons of bacterial destruction are exquisitely evolved to target bacteria and, as such, are not harmful to humans. However, despite recognition of their therapeutic potential for over 100 years, there are zero bacteriophage products commercially available to medicine in the United States, at a time when antibiotic resistance is arguably our most pressing public health crisis. Just this week, a new study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences detailing the global scope of the problem.
Why Were These Promising Tools Forgotten?
Phages weren't always relegated to this status. In fact, in the early 20th century phages could be found on American drug store shelves and were used for a variety of ailments. However, the path-breaking discovery and development of antimicrobials agents such as the sulfa drugs and, later the antibiotic penicillin, supplanted the world of phage therapeutics in the United States and many other places.
Fortunately, phage therapy never fully disappeared, and research and clinical use continued in Eastern European nations such as Georgia and Poland.
The antibiotic age revolutionized medicine in a way that arguably no other innovation has. Not only did antibiotics tame many once-deadly infectious diseases, but they made much of modern medicine – from cancer chemotherapy to organ transplantation to joint replacement – possible. Antibiotics, unlike the exquisitely evolved bacteriophage, possessed a broader spectrum of activity and were active against a range of bacteria. This non-specificity facilitated antibiotic use without the need for a specific diagnosis. A physician does not need to know the specific bacterial genus and species causing, for example, a skin infection or pneumonia, but can select an antibiotic that covers the likely culprits and use it empirically, fully expecting the infection to be controlled. Unfortunately, this non-specificity engendered the overuse of antibiotics whose consequences we are now suffering. A bacteriophage, on the other hand, will work against one specific bacterial species and is evolved for just that role.
Phages to the Rescue
As the march of antibiotic resistance has predictably continued since the dawn of the antibiotic age, the prospect of resurrecting phage therapy has been increasingly viewed as one solution. Fortunately, phage therapy never fully disappeared, and research and clinical use continued in Eastern European nations such as Georgia and Poland. However, much of that experience has remained opaque to the medical community at large and questions about dosage, toxicity, efficacy, and method of delivery left many questions without full answers.
Though real questions remained regarding phage use, dire circumstances of prolific antibiotic resistance necessitated their use in the U.S. in two prominent instances involving life-threatening infections. The first case involved an Acinetobacter baumanii infection of the pancreas in a San Diego man in which phages were administered intravenously in 2016. The other case, also in 2016, involved the instillation of phages, fished out of a pond, into the chest cavity of man with a Pseudmonas aeruginosa infection of a prosthetic graft of the aorta. Both cases were successful and were what fueled the Pittsburgh-based plea for Burkholderia phages.
The phages you begin with may not be the ones you end up with, as Darwinian evolutionary pressures will alter the phage in order to keep up with the ongoing evolution of its bacterial target.
How Phages Differ from Other Medical Products
It might seem surprising that in light of the urgent need for new treatments for drug-resistant infections, the pharmaceutical armamentarium is not teeming with phages like a backyard pond. However, phages have been difficult to fit into the current regulatory framework that operates in most developed countries such as the U.S. because of their unique characteristics.
Phages are not one homogenous product like a tablet of penicillin, but a cocktail of viruses that change and evolve as they replicate. The phages you begin with may not be the ones you end up with, as Darwinian evolutionary pressures will alter the phage in order to keep up with the ongoing evolution of its bacterial target. The cocktail may not just contain one specific phage, but a range of phages that all target some specific bacteria in order to increase efficacy. These phage cocktails might also need adjusting to keep pace with bacterial resistance. Additionally, the concentration of phage in a human body after administration is not so easy to predict as phage numbers will rise and fall based on the number of target bacteria that are present.
All of these characteristics make phages very unique when viewed through a regulatory lens, and necessitate the creation of new methods to evaluate them, given that regulatory approval is required. Using phages in the U.S. now requires FDA permission through an investigational new drug application, which can be expedited during an emergency situation. FDA scientists are actively involved in understanding the best means to evaluate bacteriophage therapy and several companies are in early-stage development, though no major clinical trials in the U.S. are currently underway.
One FDA-approved application of phages has seen them used on food products at delis and even in slaughterhouses to diminish the quantity of bacteria on certain meat products.
Would That Humans Were As Lucky As Bologna
Because of the regulatory difficulties with human-use approval, some phage companies have taken another route to develop phage products: food safety. Food safety is a major public health endeavor, and keeping food that people consume safe from E.coli, Listeria, and Salmonella, for example, are rightfully major priorities of industry. One FDA-approved application of phages has seen them used on food products at delis and even in slaughterhouses to diminish the quantity of bacteria on certain meat products.
This use, unlike that for human therapeutic purposes, has found success with regulators: phages, not surprisingly, have been granted the "generally regarded as safe (GRAS)" designation.
A Phage Directory
Tragically Mallory Smith succumbed to her infection despite getting a dose of phages culled from sludge in the Philippines and Fiji. However, her death and last-minute crusade to obtain phages has prompted the call for a phage directory. This directory could catalog the various phages being studied and the particular bacteria they target. Such a searchable index will facilitate the rapid identification and – hopefully – delivery of phages to patients.
If phage therapy is to move from a last-ditch emergency measure to a routine tool for infectious disease physicians, it will be essential that the hurdles they face are eliminated.
Moving Beyond Antibiotics
As we move increasingly toward a post-antibiotic age in infectious disease, moving outside of the traditional paradigm of broad-spectrum antibiotics to non-traditional therapeutics such as bacteriophages and other novel products will become increasingly necessary. Already, clinical trials are underway in various populations, including a major trial in European burn patients.
It is important to understand that there are important scientific and therapeutic questions regarding dose, route of administration and other related questions that need to be addressed before phage use becomes more routine, and it is only through clinical trials conducted with the hope of eventual commercialization that these answers will be found. If phage therapy is to move from a last-ditch emergency measure to a routine tool for infectious disease physicians, it will be essential that the hurdles they face are eliminated.
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