Got a Virus? Its Name Matters More Than You Think

Got a Virus? Its Name Matters More Than You Think

A sick woman sneezing into a tissue.

(© Subbotina Anna/Fotolia)

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.

Amesh A. Adalja

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

Get our top stories twice a month
Follow us on
They received retinal implants to restore their vision. Then the company turned its back on them.

A company called Second Sight made an implant that partially restored vision to people who'd been blind for decades. But when Second Sight pivoted, it stopped servicing its product, leaving many in the dark.

The first thing Jeroen Perk saw after he partially regained his sight nearly a decade ago was the outline of his guide dog Pedro.

“There was a white floor, and the dog was black,” recalls Perk, a 43-year-old investigator for the Dutch customs service. “I was crying. It was a very nice moment.”

Perk was diagnosed with retinitis pigmentosa as a child and had been blind since early adulthood. He has been able to use the implant placed into his retina in 2013 to help identify street crossings, and even ski and pursue archery. A video posted by the company that designed and manufactured the device indicates he’s a good shot.

Less black-and-white has been the journey Perk and others have been on after they were implanted with the Argus II, a second-generation device created by a Los Angeles-based company called Second Sight Medical Devices.

Keep Reading Keep Reading
Ron Shinkman
Ron Shinkman is a veteran journalist whose work has appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine publication Catalyst, California Health Report, Fierce Healthcare, and many other publications. He has been a finalist for the prestigious NIHCM Foundation print journalism award twice in the past five years. Shinkman also served as Los Angeles Bureau Chief for Modern Healthcare and as a staff reporter for the Los Angeles Business Journal. He has an M.A. in English from California State University and a B.A. in English from UCLA.
Rehabilitating psychedelic drugs: Another key to treating severe mental health disorders

A recent review paper found evidence that using psychedelics such as MDMA can help with treating a variety of common mental illnesses, but experts fear that research might easily be shut down in the future.

Photo by Sydney Sims on Unsplash

Lori Tipton's life was a cascade of trauma that even a soap opera would not dare inflict upon a character: a mentally unstable family; a brother who died of a drug overdose; the shocking discovery of the bodies of two persons her mother had killed before turning the gun on herself; the devastation of Hurricane Katrina that savaged her hometown of New Orleans; being raped by someone she trusted; and having an abortion. She suffered from severe PTSD.

“My life was filled with anxiety and hypervigilance,” she says. “I was constantly afraid and had mood swings, panic attacks, insomnia, intrusive thoughts and suicidal ideation. I tried to take my life more than once.” She was fortunate to be able to access multiple mental health services, “And while at times some of these modalities would relieve the symptoms, nothing really lasted and nothing really address the core trauma.”

Then in 2018 Tipton enrolled in a clinical trial that combined intense sessions of psychotherapy with limited use of Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, or MDMA, a drug classified as a psychedelic and commonly known as ecstasy or Molly. The regimen was arduous; 1-2 hour preparation sessions, three sessions where MDMA was used, which lasted 6-8 hours, and lengthy sessions afterward to process and integrate the experiences. Two therapists were with her every moment of the three-month program that totaled more than 40 hours.

Keep Reading Keep Reading
Bob Roehr
Bob Roehr is a biomedical journalist based in Washington, DC. Over the last twenty-five years he has written extensively for The BMJ, Scientific American, PNAS, Proto, and myriad other publications. He is primarily interested in HIV, infectious disease, immunology, and how growing knowledge of the microbiome is changing our understanding of health and disease. He is working on a book about the ways the body can at least partially control HIV and how that has influenced (or not) the search for a treatment and cure.