A Key Step Toward a Safer Strep VaccineGene discovery identifies molecular pathway to potential preventive treatment
An international team of scientists, led by researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, have identified the genes encoding a molecule that famously defines Group A Streptococcus (strep), a pathogenic bacterial species responsible for more than 700 million infections worldwide each year.
The findings, published online in the June 11 issue of Cell Host & Microbe, shed new light on how strep bacteria resists the human immune system and provides a new strategy for developing a safe and broadly effective vaccine against strep throat, necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease) and rheumatic heart disease.
“Most people experience one or more painful strep throat infections as a child or young adult,” said senior author Victor Nizet, MD, professor of pediatrics and pharmacy. “Developing a broadly effective and safe strep vaccine could prevent this suffering and reduce lost time and productivity at school and work, estimated to cost $2 billion annually.”
Efforts to develop such a vaccine have been significantly hindered by complexities in how the human immune system reacts to the bacterial pathogen. Specifically, some patients with strep infections produce antibodies that cross-react with their own heart valve tissue, leading to rheumatic fever and heart damage. Though rare in the United States, rheumatic fever remains common in some developing countries and causes significant disability and death.
The Cell Host & Microbe study suggests a way to circumvent the damaging autoimmune response triggered by strep. Specifically, the researchers noted that the cell wall of strep is composed primarily of a single molecule known as the group A carbohydrate (or GAC) which, in turn, is built from repeating units of the bacterial sugar rhamnose and the human-like sugar N-acetylglucosamine (GlcNAc).
Previous research has indicated that GlcNAc sugars present in GAC may be responsible for triggering production of heart-damaging antibodies in some patients. Nizet said the latest findings corroborate this model, and suggest that eliminating the pathogen’s ability to add GlcNAc sugars to GAC could be the basis for a safe vaccine.
“In this study, we discovered the strep genes responsible for the biosynthesis and assembly of GAC, the very molecule that defines the pathogen in clinical diagnosis,” said first author Nina van Sorge, PharmD, PhD, a former postdoctoral fellow at UC San Diego who now leads her own laboratory at Utrecht University Medical Center in the Netherlands. “This discovery allowed us to generate mutant bacterial strains and study the contribution of GAC to strep disease.”
Read more here
Pictured: Electron micrograph, false color, of group A Streptococcus bacteria.

A Key Step Toward a Safer Strep Vaccine
Gene discovery identifies molecular pathway to potential preventive treatment

An international team of scientists, led by researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, have identified the genes encoding a molecule that famously defines Group A Streptococcus (strep), a pathogenic bacterial species responsible for more than 700 million infections worldwide each year.

The findings, published online in the June 11 issue of Cell Host & Microbe, shed new light on how strep bacteria resists the human immune system and provides a new strategy for developing a safe and broadly effective vaccine against strep throat, necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease) and rheumatic heart disease.

“Most people experience one or more painful strep throat infections as a child or young adult,” said senior author Victor Nizet, MD, professor of pediatrics and pharmacy. “Developing a broadly effective and safe strep vaccine could prevent this suffering and reduce lost time and productivity at school and work, estimated to cost $2 billion annually.”

Efforts to develop such a vaccine have been significantly hindered by complexities in how the human immune system reacts to the bacterial pathogen. Specifically, some patients with strep infections produce antibodies that cross-react with their own heart valve tissue, leading to rheumatic fever and heart damage. Though rare in the United States, rheumatic fever remains common in some developing countries and causes significant disability and death.

The Cell Host & Microbe study suggests a way to circumvent the damaging autoimmune response triggered by strep. Specifically, the researchers noted that the cell wall of strep is composed primarily of a single molecule known as the group A carbohydrate (or GAC) which, in turn, is built from repeating units of the bacterial sugar rhamnose and the human-like sugar N-acetylglucosamine (GlcNAc).

Previous research has indicated that GlcNAc sugars present in GAC may be responsible for triggering production of heart-damaging antibodies in some patients. Nizet said the latest findings corroborate this model, and suggest that eliminating the pathogen’s ability to add GlcNAc sugars to GAC could be the basis for a safe vaccine.

“In this study, we discovered the strep genes responsible for the biosynthesis and assembly of GAC, the very molecule that defines the pathogen in clinical diagnosis,” said first author Nina van Sorge, PharmD, PhD, a former postdoctoral fellow at UC San Diego who now leads her own laboratory at Utrecht University Medical Center in the Netherlands. “This discovery allowed us to generate mutant bacterial strains and study the contribution of GAC to strep disease.”

Read more here

Pictured: Electron micrograph, false color, of group A Streptococcus bacteria.

Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes, a key vector of malaria and carrier of the Plasmodium falciparum parasite.
Parasite LostBy targeting enzyme in mosquito-borne parasite, researchers aim to eliminate malaria
Using advanced methodologies that pit drug compounds against specific types of malaria parasite cells, an international team of scientists, including researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine and the Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation, have identified a potential new weapon and approach for attacking the parasites that cause malaria.
Their findings are published in the November 27, 2013 advanced online publication of Nature.
Despite advances in prevention and treatment in recent years, malaria remains one of the world’s great infectious scourges. In 2010, according to the World Health Organization, there were an estimated 219 million cases globally and 660,000 deaths, mostly among African children.
The disease is caused by Plasmodium parasites, which are transmitted to humans by the infectious bite of an Anopheles mosquito. Plasmodium vivax and Plasmodium falciparum are the most problematic of the parasite species. The former is the most widespread globally; the latter most deadly.
Principal investigator Elizabeth A. Winzeler, PhD, professor in the Division of Pharmacology and Drug Discovery, Department of Pediatrics and director of translational research at the UC San Diego Health Sciences Center for Immunity, Infection & Inflammation, and colleagues found a key metabolic enzyme (phosphatidylinositol 4-kinase or PI4K) that is used for intracellular development by Plasmodium species at each stage of infection in the vertebrate host.
The discovery could have significant ramifications for eventually eradicating malaria as a global disease. “Elimination efforts are more effective with better tools and infrastructure,” said Winzeler. “Clearly we have better infrastructure and communication now than we had in the 1960s.  To make more progress, though, we need more effective drugs.”
A major obstacle has been the developmental nature of the P. vivax parasite. While some antimalarial drugs effectively kill P. vivax as it circulates in the host’s bloodstream, the parasite also produces an early-stage form called a hypnozoite that can lie dormant and undetected in the livers of infected persons for years before reinitiating development and triggering relapse. 
“Most drugs selectively work on certain stages of the (parasite) lifecycle, but not all stages,” said Case McNamara, PhD, the study’s first author and a researcher at the Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation in San Diego. “Therefore, inhibitors of this drug target have the potential to not only cure individuals of a malaria infection, but to also prevent infections and even block transmission of the parasite back to the mosquito.”
Currently, the only licensed antimalarial drug capable of fully cleansing hidden hypnozoites and eliminating the possibility of relapse – known as the “radical cure” – is primaquine, a drug first tested in the 1940s and licensed by the Food and Drug Administration in 1952.
But primaquine has significant adverse side effects and shortcomings, according to Winzeler, most notably that it can cause life-threatening anemia in people with a specific inherited metabolic enzyme deficiency frequently found in malaria-endemic regions.
“In addition, it may not work all of the time and it requires a prolonged dosing schedule, up to 14 days, which means compliance is an issue. People often do not take the full dose,” Winzeler said. “Primaquine is an old drug and it’s not clear that it would ever be licensed in today’s regulatory environment.”
Primaquine was developed “by simply injecting a lot of compounds into monkeys and seeing which compound cured malaria infections,” said Winzeler. It was later tested in humans using prisoners.
The new approach is far more finely tuned, based on a series of detailed cellular assays that seek to model different parasite lifecycle stages in miniature test tubes.  The researchers looked for the rare compound class that had activities in all parasite stages, but no activity against human cells and which was also drug-like.  A new chemical class, called imidazopyrazines, possessed these properties. The researchers then identified the protein target of these compounds as PI4K. 
“(Dr. Winzeler) had a very creative and powerful idea to help identify malaria drug targets,” said McNamara. “By patiently evolving drug-resistant parasites against the drug of interest, we can probe the genome for the changes responsible for conferring resistance.
“Fortunately, malaria parasites will often try to alter the drug target in subtle ways to prevent the drug from working effectively. So, by identifying these changes we, in turn, identify the drug target. This approach has worked so well that it has quickly become a standard technique in our field to help study and characterize all new antimalarials.”
Because PI4K is also found in humans, Winzeler said the next challenge is to develop a superior drug that continues to discriminate between the parasite and human versions of this enzyme. “Since we know the identity of this protein and will hopefully soon solve its structure, this task will be much easier,” she said.

Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes, a key vector of malaria and carrier of the Plasmodium falciparum parasite.

Parasite Lost
By targeting enzyme in mosquito-borne parasite, researchers aim to eliminate malaria

Using advanced methodologies that pit drug compounds against specific types of malaria parasite cells, an international team of scientists, including researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine and the Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation, have identified a potential new weapon and approach for attacking the parasites that cause malaria.

Their findings are published in the November 27, 2013 advanced online publication of Nature.

Despite advances in prevention and treatment in recent years, malaria remains one of the world’s great infectious scourges. In 2010, according to the World Health Organization, there were an estimated 219 million cases globally and 660,000 deaths, mostly among African children.

The disease is caused by Plasmodium parasites, which are transmitted to humans by the infectious bite of an Anopheles mosquito. Plasmodium vivax and Plasmodium falciparum are the most problematic of the parasite species. The former is the most widespread globally; the latter most deadly.

Principal investigator Elizabeth A. Winzeler, PhD, professor in the Division of Pharmacology and Drug Discovery, Department of Pediatrics and director of translational research at the UC San Diego Health Sciences Center for Immunity, Infection & Inflammation, and colleagues found a key metabolic enzyme (phosphatidylinositol 4-kinase or PI4K) that is used for intracellular development by Plasmodium species at each stage of infection in the vertebrate host.

The discovery could have significant ramifications for eventually eradicating malaria as a global disease. “Elimination efforts are more effective with better tools and infrastructure,” said Winzeler. “Clearly we have better infrastructure and communication now than we had in the 1960s.  To make more progress, though, we need more effective drugs.”

A major obstacle has been the developmental nature of the P. vivax parasite. While some antimalarial drugs effectively kill P. vivax as it circulates in the host’s bloodstream, the parasite also produces an early-stage form called a hypnozoite that can lie dormant and undetected in the livers of infected persons for years before reinitiating development and triggering relapse. 

“Most drugs selectively work on certain stages of the (parasite) lifecycle, but not all stages,” said Case McNamara, PhD, the study’s first author and a researcher at the Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation in San Diego. “Therefore, inhibitors of this drug target have the potential to not only cure individuals of a malaria infection, but to also prevent infections and even block transmission of the parasite back to the mosquito.”

Currently, the only licensed antimalarial drug capable of fully cleansing hidden hypnozoites and eliminating the possibility of relapse – known as the “radical cure” – is primaquine, a drug first tested in the 1940s and licensed by the Food and Drug Administration in 1952.

But primaquine has significant adverse side effects and shortcomings, according to Winzeler, most notably that it can cause life-threatening anemia in people with a specific inherited metabolic enzyme deficiency frequently found in malaria-endemic regions.

“In addition, it may not work all of the time and it requires a prolonged dosing schedule, up to 14 days, which means compliance is an issue. People often do not take the full dose,” Winzeler said. “Primaquine is an old drug and it’s not clear that it would ever be licensed in today’s regulatory environment.”

Primaquine was developed “by simply injecting a lot of compounds into monkeys and seeing which compound cured malaria infections,” said Winzeler. It was later tested in humans using prisoners.

The new approach is far more finely tuned, based on a series of detailed cellular assays that seek to model different parasite lifecycle stages in miniature test tubes.  The researchers looked for the rare compound class that had activities in all parasite stages, but no activity against human cells and which was also drug-like.  A new chemical class, called imidazopyrazines, possessed these properties. The researchers then identified the protein target of these compounds as PI4K. 

“(Dr. Winzeler) had a very creative and powerful idea to help identify malaria drug targets,” said McNamara. “By patiently evolving drug-resistant parasites against the drug of interest, we can probe the genome for the changes responsible for conferring resistance.

“Fortunately, malaria parasites will often try to alter the drug target in subtle ways to prevent the drug from working effectively. So, by identifying these changes we, in turn, identify the drug target. This approach has worked so well that it has quickly become a standard technique in our field to help study and characterize all new antimalarials.”

Because PI4K is also found in humans, Winzeler said the next challenge is to develop a superior drug that continues to discriminate between the parasite and human versions of this enzyme. “Since we know the identity of this protein and will hopefully soon solve its structure, this task will be much easier,” she said.

Microscopic view of an influenza virus. Image courtesy of Sanofi Pasteur.
You, the flu, some Qs - answers too.
We are well into the official flu season, which typically begins in October and may run as long as May. For most healthy people, a bout of the flu is a discomfiting but passing annoyance, a few days of fever, aches, pains, coughing and a sore throat. We recover and get on with our lives.
For some, though, most notably the very young, old and immune suppressed, influenza can be life-threatening. Each year, depending upon prevailing strains and other factors, approximately 3,000 to 49,000 Americans die from complications caused by seasonal flu viruses.
Preventing infection is obviously the best option, which means (aside from good hygiene like washing your hands regularly and thoroughly, coughing into your sleeve and not going to work when you’re sick), getting vaccinated.
We asked Kim M. Delahanty, a registered nurse and administrative director of the Infection Prevention/Clinical Epidemiology and TB Controlat the UC San Diego Health System, to answer a few commonly asked questions about getting “the flu shot.” 
Q: After getting a flu shot, some folks complain that they invariably come down with the flu – or at least do not feel well for a few days. What is the risk of becoming sick after being vaccinated?
A: Flu vaccines cause antibodies to develop in the body about two weeks after vaccination. These antibodies provide protection against infection by the viruses that are in the vaccine. So, if the influenza virus is circulating in the community before the person receives their flu vaccination, there is a potential risk in that two-week period that they could be exposed to influenza and come down with a much milder case.
The vaccine does not cause the flu. It is the lack of an immune response in your body and exposure to someone with influenza that causes flu within that two-week period after you received the vaccine. This is why it is recommended to get your flu shot earlier than later in the season.
Also, there are a lot of respiratory illnesses the influenza vaccine does not cover, such as the common cold. You may still get one of these during influenza season.
And remember nausea, vomiting and diarrhea are not traditionally signs and symptoms of influenza, but more indicative of “stomach flu,” which may be causes by a variety of things.
Q:  Are there any complications or concerns if you got your last flu shot late in the season and now, just a few months later, are getting vaccinated for the new flu season?
A: None that I’m aware of.
Q: A recent study confirmed that the seasonal flu vaccine is safe for pregnant women. Are there groups of people for whom the vaccine poses sufficient risk that they should not get the shot?
A: There are very few true contraindications and precautions for getting the influenza vaccine.  Children under six months of age and people who have ever had a severe allergic reaction to influenza vaccine are contraindicated and should consult their physician.
There are other precautions. People with a history of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (a severe paralytic illness, also called GBS) that occurred after receiving influenza vaccine and who are not at risk for severe illness from influenza should generally not receive vaccine. Tell your doctor if you’ve had Guillain-Barré Syndrome. He or she will help you decide whether the vaccine is recommended for you.
People who are moderately or severely ill with or without fever should usually wait until they recover before getting flu vaccine. If you are ill, talk to your doctor about whether to reschedule the vaccination. People with a mild illness can usually get the vaccine.
Q: How do allergies complicate getting the flu vaccine?
A: There is now an egg-free version of the influenza vaccine called RIV Recombinant Influenza Vaccine. If you have an egg allergy, consult your physician before getting the flu vaccine. People who have had a severe allergic reaction to influenza vaccine in the past are contraindicated.
Q: Is there a difference between getting the vaccine as a shot or as a nasal spray? Is one better than the other?
A: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not have a preference for which of the available flu vaccine options people should get this season. All are acceptable options, but some vaccines are intended for specific age groups. Talk to your doctor or nurse about the best options for you and your loved ones. The important thing is to get a flu vaccine every year.
There are three versions: Inactivated Influenza Vaccine (IIV) is not a live-virus vaccine. This is the flu vaccine most people receive. Recombinant Influenza Vaccine (RIV) Live does not use the influenza virus in its production and contains no egg proteins, antibiotics or preservatives. It is indicated for active immunization against disease caused by influenza virus subtypes A and type B and is approved for persons 18 through 49 years of age. People with egg allergies may take this. Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine (LAIV) is administered intra-nasally (through the nose) for those that are adverse to needles.
All of these vaccines have different instructions for use.

Microscopic view of an influenza virus. Image courtesy of Sanofi Pasteur.

You, the flu, some Qs - answers too.

We are well into the official flu season, which typically begins in October and may run as long as May. For most healthy people, a bout of the flu is a discomfiting but passing annoyance, a few days of fever, aches, pains, coughing and a sore throat. We recover and get on with our lives.

For some, though, most notably the very young, old and immune suppressed, influenza can be life-threatening. Each year, depending upon prevailing strains and other factors, approximately 3,000 to 49,000 Americans die from complications caused by seasonal flu viruses.

Preventing infection is obviously the best option, which means (aside from good hygiene like washing your hands regularly and thoroughly, coughing into your sleeve and not going to work when you’re sick), getting vaccinated.

We asked Kim M. Delahanty, a registered nurse and administrative director of the Infection Prevention/Clinical Epidemiology and TB Controlat the UC San Diego Health System, to answer a few commonly asked questions about getting “the flu shot.” 

Q: After getting a flu shot, some folks complain that they invariably come down with the flu – or at least do not feel well for a few days. What is the risk of becoming sick after being vaccinated?

A: Flu vaccines cause antibodies to develop in the body about two weeks after vaccination. These antibodies provide protection against infection by the viruses that are in the vaccine. So, if the influenza virus is circulating in the community before the person receives their flu vaccination, there is a potential risk in that two-week period that they could be exposed to influenza and come down with a much milder case.

The vaccine does not cause the flu. It is the lack of an immune response in your body and exposure to someone with influenza that causes flu within that two-week period after you received the vaccine. This is why it is recommended to get your flu shot earlier than later in the season.

Also, there are a lot of respiratory illnesses the influenza vaccine does not cover, such as the common cold. You may still get one of these during influenza season.

And remember nausea, vomiting and diarrhea are not traditionally signs and symptoms of influenza, but more indicative of “stomach flu,” which may be causes by a variety of things.

Q:  Are there any complications or concerns if you got your last flu shot late in the season and now, just a few months later, are getting vaccinated for the new flu season?

A: None that I’m aware of.

Q: A recent study confirmed that the seasonal flu vaccine is safe for pregnant women. Are there groups of people for whom the vaccine poses sufficient risk that they should not get the shot?

A: There are very few true contraindications and precautions for getting the influenza vaccine.  Children under six months of age and people who have ever had a severe allergic reaction to influenza vaccine are contraindicated and should consult their physician.

There are other precautions. People with a history of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (a severe paralytic illness, also called GBS) that occurred after receiving influenza vaccine and who are not at risk for severe illness from influenza should generally not receive vaccine. Tell your doctor if you’ve had Guillain-Barré Syndrome. He or she will help you decide whether the vaccine is recommended for you.

People who are moderately or severely ill with or without fever should usually wait until they recover before getting flu vaccine. If you are ill, talk to your doctor about whether to reschedule the vaccination. People with a mild illness can usually get the vaccine.

Q: How do allergies complicate getting the flu vaccine?

A: There is now an egg-free version of the influenza vaccine called RIV Recombinant Influenza Vaccine. If you have an egg allergy, consult your physician before getting the flu vaccine. People who have had a severe allergic reaction to influenza vaccine in the past are contraindicated.

Q: Is there a difference between getting the vaccine as a shot or as a nasal spray? Is one better than the other?

A: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not have a preference for which of the available flu vaccine options people should get this season. All are acceptable options, but some vaccines are intended for specific age groups. Talk to your doctor or nurse about the best options for you and your loved ones. The important thing is to get a flu vaccine every year.

There are three versions: Inactivated Influenza Vaccine (IIV) is not a live-virus vaccine. This is the flu vaccine most people receive. Recombinant Influenza Vaccine (RIV) Live does not use the influenza virus in its production and contains no egg proteins, antibiotics or preservatives. It is indicated for active immunization against disease caused by influenza virus subtypes A and type B and is approved for persons 18 through 49 years of age. People with egg allergies may take this. Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine (LAIV) is administered intra-nasally (through the nose) for those that are adverse to needles.

All of these vaccines have different instructions for use.

Coronavirus particles with their characteristic spiky halos. Virus R UsInitially, the recent death of a Saudi Arabian man from an unidentified viral infection renewed fears of another SARS panic, which swept around the world in 2003, infecting more than 8,000 people and killing almost 1,000. It turns out, however, that while the mysterious virus superficially resembled SARS, it was in fact more closely related to coronaviruses that infect Southeast Asia bats. Coronaviruses get their name from their characteristic halo of projecting membrane proteins. The identification, reported by Dutch virologists who managed to sequence the entire viral genome of 30,118 letters in less than a month, is reassuring in some ways: The virus doesn’t appear to be particularly virulent and hasn’t yet acquired the ability to jump from human to human. Researchers suspect the Saudi Arabian man was infected via an “amplifier” animal, such as a civet cat. When a virus jumps species, it typically doesn’t travel directly from originating host to humans. Amplifier animals get their name because they serve as intermediary steps, providing a place for viruses to replicate and increase in numbers, boosting their infectiousness. On the other hand, the new viral threat is one of several recent reminders that the world is full of ever-changing potential microbial dangers. In Missouri, for example, researchers recently identified a new “Heartland virus.” In Central Africa, a new form of hemorrhagic fever has been discovered. In the latter case, the term “new” is relative.  The virus was only recently reported in PloS Pathogens, but the three cases described are three years old. (Tissues samples from the patients – two of whom died – had languished in a freezer in Kinshasa, Zaire until a smart doctor realized what they were.)

Coronavirus particles with their characteristic spiky halos.

Virus R Us

Initially, the recent death of a Saudi Arabian man from an unidentified viral infection renewed fears of another SARS panic, which swept around the world in 2003, infecting more than 8,000 people and killing almost 1,000.

It turns out, however, that while the mysterious virus superficially resembled SARS, it was in fact more closely related to coronaviruses that infect Southeast Asia bats. Coronaviruses get their name from their characteristic halo of projecting membrane proteins.

The identification, reported by Dutch virologists who managed to sequence the entire viral genome of 30,118 letters in less than a month, is reassuring in some ways: The virus doesn’t appear to be particularly virulent and hasn’t yet acquired the ability to jump from human to human. Researchers suspect the Saudi Arabian man was infected via an “amplifier” animal, such as a civet cat. When a virus jumps species, it typically doesn’t travel directly from originating host to humans. Amplifier animals get their name because they serve as intermediary steps, providing a place for viruses to replicate and increase in numbers, boosting their infectiousness.

On the other hand, the new viral threat is one of several recent reminders that the world is full of ever-changing potential microbial dangers. In Missouri, for example, researchers recently identified a new “Heartland virus.” In Central Africa, a new form of hemorrhagic fever has been discovered.

In the latter case, the term “new” is relative.  The virus was only recently reported in PloS Pathogens, but the three cases described are three years old. (Tissues samples from the patients – two of whom died – had languished in a freezer in Kinshasa, Zaire until a smart doctor realized what they were.)

Hepatitis C: expert urges testingHepatitis is an inflammatory disease of the liver and a major, if unrecognized, health crisis in the United States. The disease has multiple forms, identified by their alphabetized viruses. The most problematic form is hepatitis C or HCV.An estimated 3.2 million Americans – mostly Baby Boomers born between the years 1945 and 1962 – are infected with HCV. Though the disease can be cured, most persons with HCV don’t even know they’re infected. Its symptoms typically do not become obvious until the disease is well-advanced. More than 15,000 Americans die from HCV each year.Recently, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control urged all Baby Boomers to be tested for HCV. The CDC estimates the one-time testing could identify more than 800,000 additional persons with the virus, and perhaps ultimately save more than 120,000 lives. We asked Alexander Kuo, MD, medical director of the Liver Transplant Program at the UC San Diego Liver Center and a leading researcher in on-going HCV clinical trials, about the CDC’s recommendation, why HCV is more problematic than other forms of hepatitis and the prospects of new treatments.      Question: Do you agree with the CDC’s recommendation that all Baby Boomers be tested for hepatitis C? Why is that particular age-demographic targeted?Answer: I do. The old recommendation was to only test people who had documented risk factors for hepatitis C such as blood transfusions before 1992, a history of intravenous drug use or tattoos. Unfortunately, healthcare providers are not very good at asking these questions of their patients, perhaps out of embarrassment or being uncomfortable with these subjects or due to a lack of time. Also, patients themselves often do not remember what they did 30 years ago so their histories can be less than reliable. Since the majority of patients infected with hepatitis C in this country were born between 1945 and 1965, it makes sense to simply screen everyone in this age group. The prevalence of infection in this group in high enough to make this strategy cost-effective.Q: Why is hepatitis C more problematic than A or B infections? A: Hepatitis A is usually a self-limited viral infection that makes people ill for 1-2 weeks, then resolves with no long-term effects. It is usually spread through contact with contaminated food, the so-called fecal-oral route of transmission. After a resolved infection, people usually develop immunity against re-exposure. There is also an effective vaccine against hepatitis A. Hepatitis B and C are different in that exposure can lead to long-term chronic infection. Chronic infection with hepatitis B or C can lead to inflammation of the liver and ultimately cirrhosis, liver cancer or death. Most people infected with chronic hepatitis B or C have no symptoms until the damage to the liver is very advanced. That’s why hepatitis C is often called the “silent epidemic.”Q: There are vaccines for A and B, but not C. Why has C so far defied vaccine efforts?A: Vaccines against hepatitis A and B are available and work by inducing the production of antibodies against these viruses by our immune system. These antibodies are protective because they bind to the virus and can prevent it from gaining a foothold in our bodies. Hepatitis C is a master at evading our immune system. It mutates rapidly and exists in our bodies as a “swarm” of closely related viruses, each with slightly different genetic make-ups. These factors make it very difficult to develop effective antibodies that can neutralize the virus. In addition, having antibodies against hepatitis C does not appear to be enough to prevent infection. Evidence suggests that you also need to stimulate a separate part of your immune system, the so-called cell-mediated immune response in order to prevent or clear the infection. Q: How is C treated? How effective are current therapies? A: One important thing to note about hepatitis C is that there is a cure. Hepatitis C exists in nature as six distinct strains, also known as genotypes. In the United States, Western Europe and Japan, genotype 1 is the most common followed by genotypes 2 and 3. Genotype 4 is most common in Egypt and the Middle East, genotype 5 is most common in southern Africa, and genotype 6 is most common in Southeast Asia, through there is significant geographic overlap.For patients with the most common strain, the genotype 1 infection, the current standard of care is to treat with a combination of three medications for 24 to 48 weeks: pegylated interferon alfa, ribavirin and a protease inhibitor (telaprevir or boceprevir are the two new drugs that were approved by the FDA in May 2011). Pegylated interferon is a subcutaneous infection that stimulates your immune system to fight against viral infections. Patients are taught to self-administer the injections once per week with a tiny needle similar to the way diabetes self-administer insulin. Ribavirin is an oral medication that has various anti-viral actions in the body that patients generally need to take twice a day. The protease inhibitors are a new class of anti-hepatitis C drugs called Direct Antiviral Agents (DAAs). These medications are small molecules that directly bind and inhibit the action of various components of the hepatitis virus machinery that it uses to make copies of itself and survive. With these new drugs between 70-75% of patients with genotype 1 infection can be cured. Patients with genotype 2 or 3 infection are currently treated with a combination of pegylated interferon alfa and ribavirin only yielding cure rates of up to 80% after 24 weeks of treatment. Q: What’s happening in terms of new research?A: We are currently in a very exciting time in hepatitis C research. There are an impressive number of new investigational agents in the drug development pipeline from multiple pharmaceutical companies. These agents are focusing on directly inhibiting the viral machinery by targeting various viral proteins necessary for survival. The most promising new agents target the hepatitis C viral protease NS3/4, the polymerase NS5B, and NS5a, which is necessary for viral assembly. The future of hepatitis C treatment is likely going to be a combination of well-tolerated, oral DAAs that no not include interferon. This will greatly increase the number of patients who would be eligible for treatment since many current patients with advanced liver disease, severe psychiatric illnesses, or autoimmune conditions are not eligible for interferon-based therapies.

Hepatitis C: expert urges testing

Hepatitis is an inflammatory disease of the liver and a major, if unrecognized, health crisis in the United States. The disease has multiple forms, identified by their alphabetized viruses. The most problematic form is hepatitis C or HCV.

An estimated 3.2 million Americans – mostly Baby Boomers born between the years 1945 and 1962 – are infected with HCV. Though the disease can be cured, most persons with HCV don’t even know they’re infected. Its symptoms typically do not become obvious until the disease is well-advanced. More than 15,000 Americans die from HCV each year.

Recently, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control urged all Baby Boomers to be tested for HCV. The CDC estimates the one-time testing could identify more than 800,000 additional persons with the virus, and perhaps ultimately save more than 120,000 lives.

We asked Alexander Kuo, MD, medical director of the Liver Transplant Program at the UC San Diego Liver Center and a leading researcher in on-going HCV clinical trials, about the CDC’s recommendation, why HCV is more problematic than other forms of hepatitis and the prospects of new treatments. 
   
Question: Do you agree with the CDC’s recommendation that all Baby Boomers be tested for hepatitis C? Why is that particular age-demographic targeted?

Answer: I do. The old recommendation was to only test people who had documented risk factors for hepatitis C such as blood transfusions before 1992, a history of intravenous drug use or tattoos. Unfortunately, healthcare providers are not very good at asking these questions of their patients, perhaps out of embarrassment or being uncomfortable with these subjects or due to a lack of time. Also, patients themselves often do not remember what they did 30 years ago so their histories can be less than reliable.

Since the majority of patients infected with hepatitis C in this country were born between 1945 and 1965, it makes sense to simply screen everyone in this age group. The prevalence of infection in this group in high enough to make this strategy cost-effective.

Q: Why is hepatitis C more problematic than A or B infections?

A: Hepatitis A is usually a self-limited viral infection that makes people ill for 1-2 weeks, then resolves with no long-term effects. It is usually spread through contact with contaminated food, the so-called fecal-oral route of transmission. After a resolved infection, people usually develop immunity against re-exposure. There is also an effective vaccine against hepatitis A.
 
Hepatitis B and C are different in that exposure can lead to long-term chronic infection. Chronic infection with hepatitis B or C can lead to inflammation of the liver and ultimately cirrhosis, liver cancer or death. Most people infected with chronic hepatitis B or C have no symptoms until the damage to the liver is very advanced. That’s why hepatitis C is often called the “silent epidemic.”

Q: There are vaccines for A and B, but not C. Why has C so far defied vaccine efforts?

A: Vaccines against hepatitis A and B are available and work by inducing the production of antibodies against these viruses by our immune system. These antibodies are protective because they bind to the virus and can prevent it from gaining a foothold in our bodies. Hepatitis C is a master at evading our immune system. It mutates rapidly and exists in our bodies as a “swarm” of closely related viruses, each with slightly different genetic make-ups. These factors make it very difficult to develop effective antibodies that can neutralize the virus. In addition, having antibodies against hepatitis C does not appear to be enough to prevent infection. Evidence suggests that you also need to stimulate a separate part of your immune system, the so-called cell-mediated immune response in order to prevent or clear the infection.

Q: How is C treated? How effective are current therapies?

A: One important thing to note about hepatitis C is that there is a cure. Hepatitis C exists in nature as six distinct strains, also known as genotypes. In the United States, Western Europe and Japan, genotype 1 is the most common followed by genotypes 2 and 3. Genotype 4 is most common in Egypt and the Middle East, genotype 5 is most common in southern Africa, and genotype 6 is most common in Southeast Asia, through there is significant geographic overlap.

For patients with the most common strain, the genotype 1 infection, the current standard of care is to treat with a combination of three medications for 24 to 48 weeks: pegylated interferon alfa, ribavirin and a protease inhibitor (telaprevir or boceprevir are the two new drugs that were approved by the FDA in May 2011). Pegylated interferon is a subcutaneous infection that stimulates your immune system to fight against viral infections. Patients are taught to self-administer the injections once per week with a tiny needle similar to the way diabetes self-administer insulin. Ribavirin is an oral medication that has various anti-viral actions in the body that patients generally need to take twice a day. The protease inhibitors are a new class of anti-hepatitis C drugs called Direct Antiviral Agents (DAAs). These medications are small molecules that directly bind and inhibit the action of various components of the hepatitis virus machinery that it uses to make copies of itself and survive. With these new drugs between 70-75% of patients with genotype 1 infection can be cured.

Patients with genotype 2 or 3 infection are currently treated with a combination of pegylated interferon alfa and ribavirin only yielding cure rates of up to 80% after 24 weeks of treatment.

Q: What’s happening in terms of new research?

A: We are currently in a very exciting time in hepatitis C research. There are an impressive number of new investigational agents in the drug development pipeline from multiple pharmaceutical companies. These agents are focusing on directly inhibiting the viral machinery by targeting various viral proteins necessary for survival. The most promising new agents target the hepatitis C viral protease NS3/4, the polymerase NS5B, and NS5a, which is necessary for viral assembly. The future of hepatitis C treatment is likely going to be a combination of well-tolerated, oral DAAs that no not include interferon. This will greatly increase the number of patients who would be eligible for treatment since many current patients with advanced liver disease, severe psychiatric illnesses, or autoimmune conditions are not eligible for interferon-based therapies.

Yosemite slammed             Last week, the World Health Organization issued a global warning to travelers visiting Yosemite National Park, where three people have died recently after contracting the hantavirus and at least eight others have become sick.            First described roughly 20 years ago in the Four Corners region, the hantavirus is exceedingly rare (about 600 documented cases in the U.S.) but extremely deadly. Symptoms are fast-acting and virulent. There is no vaccine or cure. According to a Scientific American report, it kills more than one in three people who contract it.            Hantavirus is spread through contact with infected rodents, particularly wild deer mice, most often by inhaling dust contaminated with their droppings or urine. It is not transmitted human-to-human. In the United States, the result can be hantavirus pulmonary syndrome,  a particularly deadly form of pneumonia. In Central and South America, the virus is also associated with hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome. This form is very uncommon in the United States.            Though cases of hantavirus and infected rodents have popped up throughout the United States, the disease is most commonly associated with the high deserts of the U.S. Southwest. Its deadly appearance in Yosemite is alarming since very little is known about how hantavirus is spread.            One such effort to learn more is work done by University of Utah researchers in 2008 who released wild deer mice coated (above) with different colors of harmless fluorescent powder at 12 desert sites, then trapped dozens of mice the next day to determine how much exposure other mice had to colored mice. Their finding: Bigger, older mice were most likely to infect other deer mice with the hantavirus.            With no effective treatment or cure available, experts say the best remedy for hantavirus is to avoid contact with rodents as much as possible.

Yosemite slammed
           
Last week, the World Health Organization issued a global warning to travelers visiting Yosemite National Park, where three people have died recently after contracting the hantavirus and at least eight others have become sick.
           
First described roughly 20 years ago in the Four Corners region, the hantavirus is exceedingly rare (about 600 documented cases in the U.S.) but extremely deadly. Symptoms are fast-acting and virulent. There is no vaccine or cure. According to a Scientific American report, it kills more than one in three people who contract it.
           
Hantavirus is spread through contact with infected rodents, particularly wild deer mice, most often by inhaling dust contaminated with their droppings or urine. It is not transmitted human-to-human. In the United States, the result can be hantavirus pulmonary syndrome,  a particularly deadly form of pneumonia. In Central and South America, the virus is also associated with hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome. This form is very uncommon in the United States.
           
Though cases of hantavirus and infected rodents have popped up throughout the United States, the disease is most commonly associated with the high deserts of the U.S. Southwest. Its deadly appearance in Yosemite is alarming since very little is known about how hantavirus is spread.
          
 One such effort to learn more is work done by University of Utah researchers in 2008 who released wild deer mice coated (above) with different colors of harmless fluorescent powder at 12 desert sites, then trapped dozens of mice the next day to determine how much exposure other mice had to colored mice. Their finding: Bigger, older mice were most likely to infect other deer mice with the hantavirus.
           
With no effective treatment or cure available, experts say the best remedy for hantavirus is to avoid contact with rodents as much as possible.

Prevention Still the Best Medicine: three questions for Davey Smith about HIV 
From the Berlin Patient to the recent approval by the FDA of the drug Truvada for prevention of AIDS, the tide seems to be turning in the now 30-year long fight against HIV/AIDS.  For many people living with HIV it is no longer a death sentence but a manageable disease.  But the battle isn’t over yet. A recent paper in The Lancet reports that cases of drug-resistant HIV in sub-Saharan Africa are on the rise and in the U.S. there are approximately 50,000 new cases of the disease each year.  
With the International AIDS Conference back in the U.S. for the first time in 22 years, we’d thought it was the perfect time to ask Davey Smith, MD, associate professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at UC San Diego School of Medicine and recipient of the 2012 Avant-Garde Award for HIV/AIDS research from NIDA three questions about HIV.
Question:  What are some of the most effective strategies in helping limit the spread of the HIV virus? Does sex education have an impact? 
Answer: I think the most proven effective ways to currently prevent HIV are: condoms, needle exchange, male circumcision, know your HIV status, and receive effective HIV treatment if you are infected. I think sex education should include explanation on all of these issues. People who are informed on the real risks of HIV transmission can make better choices on how they want to reduce their risks.
Q:  Needle exchange has proven effective in preventing the spread of HIV amongst drug users and yet these programs remain taboo.  How do you tackle prevention in these high risks groups when effective programs like needle exchange are often not supported and in some communities are illegal?
A: This is one of those situations where a scientist must also be an activist. Research cannot just end when the paper is published. We sometimes must educate the public and those who make the laws about why programs like syringe exchange are needed.
Q:  Are you optimistic that we’ll see a cure for HIV/AIDS in the next 5 years or does prevention remain our best hope?  A: I go to work every day with the hope and drive for two goals- a cure and a vaccine for HIV. I think I will see both of these things accomplished in my lifetime, but probably not in five years. In the mean time we must continue our prevention efforts.
Photo: HIV particles on a cell by Thomas Deerinck at the National Center for Microscopy and Imaging Research at UC San Diego

Prevention Still the Best Medicine: three questions for Davey Smith about HIV

From the Berlin Patient to the recent approval by the FDA of the drug Truvada for prevention of AIDS, the tide seems to be turning in the now 30-year long fight against HIV/AIDS.  For many people living with HIV it is no longer a death sentence but a manageable disease.  But the battle isn’t over yet. A recent paper in The Lancet reports that cases of drug-resistant HIV in sub-Saharan Africa are on the rise and in the U.S. there are approximately 50,000 new cases of the disease each year.  

With the International AIDS Conference back in the U.S. for the first time in 22 years, we’d thought it was the perfect time to ask Davey Smith, MD, associate professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at UC San Diego School of Medicine and recipient of the 2012 Avant-Garde Award for HIV/AIDS research from NIDA three questions about HIV.

Question:  What are some of the most effective strategies in helping limit the spread of the HIV virus? Does sex education have an impact? 

Answer: I think the most proven effective ways to currently prevent HIV are: condoms, needle exchange, male circumcision, know your HIV status, and receive effective HIV treatment if you are infected. I think sex education should include explanation on all of these issues. People who are informed on the real risks of HIV transmission can make better choices on how they want to reduce their risks.

Q:  Needle exchange has proven effective in preventing the spread of HIV amongst drug users and yet these programs remain taboo.  How do you tackle prevention in these high risks groups when effective programs like needle exchange are often not supported and in some communities are illegal?

A: This is one of those situations where a scientist must also be an activist. Research cannot just end when the paper is published. We sometimes must educate the public and those who make the laws about why programs like syringe exchange are needed.

Q:  Are you optimistic that we’ll see a cure for HIV/AIDS in the next 5 years or does prevention remain our best hope? 
 
A: I go to work every day with the hope and drive for two goals- a cure and a vaccine for HIV. I think I will see both of these things accomplished in my lifetime, but probably not in five years. In the mean time we must continue our prevention efforts.

Photo: HIV particles on a cell by Thomas Deerinck at the National Center for Microscopy and Imaging Research at UC San Diego

Swimming with salmonella
It’s summer and thus time for the National Resources Defense Council’s annual report on the state of the nation’s beaches. In other words, where you enjoy a nice, safe dip and where the scariest menaces in the water are not big, bad sharks.            Rather, they’re tiny, terrible, teeming pathogens like salmonella bacteria, pictured above invading a cultured human cell in this false-colored micrograph from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.             Salmonella are indicator bacteria, a microbe used to detect and estimate the level of fecal contamination in water. A gram of human feces contains approximately 100 billion bacteria, not to mention pathogenic viruses, protozoa and parasites. Exposure to salmonella (which can come as well from tainted food or certain animals) can cause a host of ailments, from gastrointestinal disorders to typhoid fever.            The NRDC’s report was not encouraging. It found that the number of days that beaches around the country were closed or under health advisories reached 23,481 last year, slightly better than the previous year but still the third-highest total in the report’s 22-year history.

Swimming with salmonella

It’s summer and thus time for the National Resources Defense Council’s annual report on the state of the nation’s beaches. In other words, where you enjoy a nice, safe dip and where the scariest menaces in the water are not big, bad sharks.
           
Rather, they’re tiny, terrible, teeming pathogens like salmonella bacteria, pictured above invading a cultured human cell in this false-colored micrograph from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
           
Salmonella are indicator bacteria, a microbe used to detect and estimate the level of fecal contamination in water. A gram of human feces contains approximately 100 billion bacteria, not to mention pathogenic viruses, protozoa and parasites. Exposure to salmonella (which can come as well from tainted food or certain animals) can cause a host of ailments, from gastrointestinal disorders to typhoid fever.
           
The NRDC’s report was not encouraging. It found that the number of days that beaches around the country were closed or under health advisories reached 23,481 last year, slightly better than the previous year but still the third-highest total in the report’s 22-year history.

In these scanning electron micrographs from Thomas Deerinck at the National Center for Microscopy and Imaging Research at UC San Diego, multitudinous HIV-1 particles exit from a cultured HeLa cell. The image is false-colored.
HIV prevention in a pill
Just three decades ago, a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS was akin to a death sentence. Infected persons often had just months to live. A lot has changed, particularly since the advent of antiretroviral drugs. Prescribed in the early stages of the infection, these drugs (usually taken in combination) often reduce HIV/AIDS to a chronic but livable condition. Patients can enjoy relatively normal, full lives for decades after diagnosis.
HIV/AIDS research may be on the cusp of the next, big advancement: Today, the California HIV/AIDS Research Program of the University of California announced three grants totaling more than $11 million to test a potential HIV prevention pill among high-risk HIV-uninfected persons in California. One of the teams is based at UC San Diego and headed by lead project investigator Richard Haubrich, MD, a professor in the UC San Diego School of Medicine and Antiviral Research Center.
Haubrich, with colleagues at UC San Diego and elsewhere, will enroll 400 study participants identified at high-risk of contracting an HIV/AIDS infection. (These are uninfected men who have sex with men or transgender women, all living in San Diego, Los Angeles and Long Beach). Each study participant will receive with a daily pill that combines two antiretroviral drugs (tenofovir and emtricitabine), manufactured and provided for the study by Gilead Sciences, Inc. The prevention pill is part of a larger intervention effort called “Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis with antiretroviral drugs” or PrEP. The researchers will also develop and study ways to help identify, engage and retain HIV-infected persons in interventional treatment programs. 
“There is no question that biomedical HIV prevention strategies, such as PrEP in HIV-uninfected and initiation of early antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected people, can prevent future HIV infection,” said Haubrich. “The key is to empower people to initiate and maintain strict adherence to therapy. Ultimately, we hope these efforts will result in a reduction of new HIV infections in high-risk populations and improved clinical outcome for those who are currently HIV-infected.”
The UC San Diego-based program received a $5.6 million grant and will run for four years. The other two, related efforts are based at UC Los Angeles and the East Bay AIDS Center in Oakland.  You can read the full news release from the UC Office of the President here.

In these scanning electron micrographs from Thomas Deerinck at the National Center for Microscopy and Imaging Research at UC San Diego, multitudinous HIV-1 particles exit from a cultured HeLa cell. The image is false-colored.

HIV prevention in a pill

Just three decades ago, a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS was akin to a death sentence. Infected persons often had just months to live. A lot has changed, particularly since the advent of antiretroviral drugs. Prescribed in the early stages of the infection, these drugs (usually taken in combination) often reduce HIV/AIDS to a chronic but livable condition. Patients can enjoy relatively normal, full lives for decades after diagnosis.

HIV/AIDS research may be on the cusp of the next, big advancement: Today, the California HIV/AIDS Research Program of the University of California announced three grants totaling more than $11 million to test a potential HIV prevention pill among high-risk HIV-uninfected persons in California. One of the teams is based at UC San Diego and headed by lead project investigator Richard Haubrich, MD, a professor in the UC San Diego School of Medicine and Antiviral Research Center.

Haubrich, with colleagues at UC San Diego and elsewhere, will enroll 400 study participants identified at high-risk of contracting an HIV/AIDS infection. (These are uninfected men who have sex with men or transgender women, all living in San Diego, Los Angeles and Long Beach). Each study participant will receive with a daily pill that combines two antiretroviral drugs (tenofovir and emtricitabine), manufactured and provided for the study by Gilead Sciences, Inc. The prevention pill is part of a larger intervention effort called “Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis with antiretroviral drugs” or PrEP. The researchers will also develop and study ways to help identify, engage and retain HIV-infected persons in interventional treatment programs. 

“There is no question that biomedical HIV prevention strategies, such as PrEP in HIV-uninfected and initiation of early antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected people, can prevent future HIV infection,” said Haubrich. “The key is to empower people to initiate and maintain strict adherence to therapy. Ultimately, we hope these efforts will result in a reduction of new HIV infections in high-risk populations and improved clinical outcome for those who are currently HIV-infected.”

The UC San Diego-based program received a $5.6 million grant and will run for four years. The other two, related efforts are based at UC Los Angeles and the East Bay AIDS Center in Oakland.  You can read the full news release from the UC Office of the President here.

Photos from AMC’s The Walking Dead

Once Again, UC San Diego Health System Takes a Bite out of the Zombie Apocalypse

In May the CDC issued guidelines for The Zombie Apocalypse. We interviewed Jay Doucet, MD Associate Professor of Clinical Surgery & Director, Surgical Intensive Care Unit for UC San Diego Health System to assess our readiness for such an event. We know what people at home should do: “Get a kit. Make a plan.”  But is our Health System ready to deal with this kind of disaster?

Dr. Doucet says yes, we are. 

Question:  How would we get information that a deadly disease is infecting people? 

Answer: If a new infectious disease were to appear, reports from hospitals and physicians to County Public Health officers would be the first step in identifying whether there was an occurrence of disease greater than would otherwise be expected at a particular time and place – typically called an “outbreak.”  Epidemiologists and Infectious Disease specialists in government and universities would look at clinical data, samples, time and geography, to determine the source of the infections.  Typically these are either “common source” – where all victims acquire the infection from the same source, such as contaminated food or water – or is “propagated” — where transmission occurs from person to person.
In many of the movies about Zombies, although the origin of the infection is unclear, bites from affected individuals seem to spread the condition.  Often there is portrayal of an asymptomatic period, and then disease obviously affects the brain, and is highly lethal, which resembles the real disease rabies in some ways.  This would make clinicians and scientists suspect a viral cause, probably a blood borne virus.

While finding a cure for Zombieism would be a focus for national laboratories in agencies such as the CDC, the military and universities, the most important initial control measures would focus on preventing spread. This could include quarantine or isolation of infected individuals and protective measures for the population such as school or work closures.  Since Zombies are usually violent and likely non-complaint patients, such measures may be involuntary, and there are laws which permit such measures to be enforced.  

The severity of the outbreak may require the declaration of a state of emergency by responsible elected officials, which allows emergency resources to be deployed. 
Information about the outbreak would come from several sources.  Hospitals and Health Care providers receive alerts from County and State Public Health officials via electronic alerts about potential outbreaks.  The public would be informed media briefings from public officials and by agencies such as County Public Health and the CDC.  Websites such as http://ready.gov, http://www.bt.cdc.gov and http://www.sdcountyemergency.com are good sources of current information too.

Q:   How will we deal with the walking well vs. the walking dead? 

A: Hospitals are required by regulatory agencies such as the Joint Commission to have an “All-Hazards” disaster plan – a plan that can deal with any future known or unknown hazard. UC San Diego has three full-time staff dedicated to Emergency Preparedness and Responses.   

One of the early priorities is control of access to the facility. Hospitals may be overwhelmed during disasters by worried-well persons, family members looking for loved ones, new volunteer providers, media and even public officials, all demanding access.  

Control of access to the facility is an important component of emergency plans and exercises.  Extra security will be seen at entrances and some entrances may be closed. Patients who are acutely ill or injured may be first seen outside the facility by providers in a “triage area” before entering the facility.  Patients who are not ill or injured, but are simply worried about exposure to an infectious agent, such as Zombie saliva, may be observed in an area or building outside the hospital where infectious disease precautions may be used.  Large numbers of worried well may be told to wait at home in voluntary quarantine and return if they suspect the onset of symptoms.

Non-compliant or violent individuals are actually part of All-Hazards plans and exercises. Since Zombies are popularly portrayed as a health threat and a security threat, both health organizations and law enforcement agencies would cooperate in protecting health facilities.  Such cooperative schemes were actually practiced during recent “Golden Guardian” and “Golden Phoenix” exercises in California and at UC San Diego.

Q:  What about barricades? 

A: During exercises or events, patients and families may actually see barriers or checkpoints around their hospital.  However, there will always be someone who will greet them at the facility.  The first hospital personnel they meet may be accompanied by a security officer or law-enforcement officer, who may be armed.  In a large scale event, the military may assist civil authorities in protecting key infrastructure, including hospitals.  Patients seeking attention will still be seen, but hospital personnel may be wearing a mask and protective clothing until the visitors or patients can be asked about infectious exposures and symptoms.  

Q:  What general tips do you have for preparedness?

A: Emergency preparedness requires all of us to think and take action.  Every person who is able should take action.  The key things to do at home are to:

  • Make a plan for events with your family.
  • Prepare a disaster kit.
  • Stay informed.

Workplaces and schools should have preparedness plans too.

Q:  And finally, Dr. Doucet: are you ready for the Zombie apocalypse? 

A:  Absolutely!  UC San Diego Health System is prepared!

About

News from UC San Diego Health Sciences
Media Contacts: 619-543-6163
HealthSciComm@ucsd.edu

Blogroll

  • denverpost
  • nprontheroad
  • scienceyoucanlove
  • usatoday
  • nprglobalhealth
  • scientificillustration
  • salon
  • forum-network
  • usagov
  • theweekmagazine
  • huffingtonpost
  • fastcompany
  • pulitzercenter
  • nbcnightlynews
  • actgnetwork
  • breakingnews
  • awomaninscience
  • newsweek
  • prnewswire
  • explore-blog
  • yahoonews
  • medindia
  • jtotheizzoe
  • melon-collies
  • neurosciencestuff
  • todaysdocument
  • newyorker
  • comedycentral
  • instagram
  • azspot
  • md-admissions
  • mothernaturenetwork
  • longform
  • oupacademic
  • nydailynews
  • wayfaringmd
  • scienceisbeauty
  • pbsthisdayinhistory
  • cranquis
  • ari-abroad
  • blue-lights-and-tea
  • smithsonianmag
  • dodgemedlin
  • seltzerlizard
  • mindblowingscience
  • pbstv
  • scishow
  • alscientist
  • doublejack
  • aspiringdoctors
  • inothernews
  • molecularlifesciences
  • queerability
  • bbglasses
  • abcworldnews
  • afro-dominicano
  • scientificthought
  • katiecouric
  • science-and-logic
  • msnbc
  • sciencesoup
  • ucsciencetoday
  • exploratorium
  • madsweat
  • boston
  • topherchris
  • whitehouse
  • artpoweratucsd
  • discoverynews
  • kpcc
  • psychotherapy
  • infographicjournal
  • kqedscience
  • think-progress
  • sciencefriday
  • medresearch
  • publicradiointernational
  • sdzoo
  • thisisfusion
  • currentsinbiology
  • yaleuniversity
  • wired
  • npr
  • staff
  • buzzfeed
  • wnyc
  • thevancouversun
  • artandsciencejournal
  • colchrishadfield
  • cancerninja
  • theonion
  • tballardbrown
  • nprfreshair
  • csmonitor
  • pritheworld
  • ucresearch
  • americanpublicmedia
  • ucsdspecialcollections
  • scipak
  • plannedparenthood
  • nursingmonkeymomma
  • newshour
  • newswatchtv
  • sdzsafaripark
  • timelightbox
  • washingtonexaminer
  • thenewrepublic
  • science-junkie
  • statedept
  • shortyawards
  • nbcnews
  • pozmagazine
  • scinerds
  • amnhnyc
  • latimes
  • rollingstone
  • doctorswithoutborders
  • nysci
  • scienceandfood
  • cnbc
  • shortformblog
  • therumpus
  • codeit
  • peacecorps
  • lakeconews
  • columbusdispatch
  • forbes
  • pubhealth
  • sciencenetlinks
  • skunkbear
  • blamoscience
  • thedailyshow
  • ohyeahdevelopmentalbiology
  • nprradiopictures
  • ziyadnazem
  • journalofajournalist
  • medicalstate
  • mathcat345
  • thisissandiego
  • mashablehq
  • bbsrc
  • highcountrynews
  • photojojo
  • natgeofound
  • cenwatchglass
  • usnews
  • prochoiceamerica
  • onaissues
  • brookhavenlab
  • wnycradiolab
  • wsudiscovery
  • htdeverything
  • unicef
  • guardian
  • ottawahealth
  • today
  • phdr
  • matthewkeys
  • oh4theloveofscience
  • healthcareinfoguide
  • medicalschool
  • kateoplis
  • libertasacademica
  • austinstatesman
  • nursefocker
  • lewisandquark
  • missmdisme
  • ucsdcareerservicescenter
  • researchchla
  • reuters
  • markcoatney
  • science
  • psydoctor8
  • 3rdofmay
  • tmagazine
  • nypl
  • princeton-medbloro
  • pneupnurse
  • biocanvas
  • pacificstand
  • sesamestreet
  • clearscience
  • officialssay
  • nurse-on-duty
  • robertreich
  • timemagazine
  • themedicalchronicles
  • fyeahmedlab
  • mediclopedia
  • theskygazer
  • soupsoup
  • michiganengineering
  • hospitalreina
  • bitesizedbiology
  • ohscience
  • robotmuesli
  • aarp
  • poptech
  • mediamed
  • futureofscience
  • galindoyadira
  • minnpost
  • ucsdcancer
  • wgbhnews
  • genannetics
  • laboratoryequipment
  • ucsd
  • ucsdmedialab
  • joshherigon
  • artneuroscience
  • stemcellculture
  • thescienceofreality
  • post-mitotic
  • jayparkinsonmd
  • motherjones
  • fuckyeahnervoussystem
  • ladyjournos
  • articulomortis
  • sciencenote
  • fuckyeahneuroscience
  • theatlantic
  • anaofta
  • fuckyeahcardiovascularsystem
  • sciencechicks
  • ucsdcrossculturalcenter
  • auditoryinsomniac
  • chronicleofhighered
  • vetstail
  • neurolove
  • ajebsary
  • neuroanatomyblog
  • goodideapublichealth
  • tedx
  • houseofmind
  • huffpostscience
  • thecoloradopursuit
  • brainmtters
  • bobedwardsradio
  • paraphyletic
  • medethicslady
  • sci-fact
  • nationalpost
  • carlzimmer
  • life
  • dailymedical
  • oceanportal
  • bklynmed
  • wellcomebrains
  • aljazeera
  • reportingonhealth
  • ucsfbioengineering
  • coolhealthinfographics
  • thedailywhat
  • villagevoice
  • nbclatino
  • guardiancomment
  • scientificbritain
  • adschu