Published by
Stanford Medicine

Category

Public Health

Immunology, Infectious Disease, Microbiology, Public Health, Research, Stanford News

Paradox: Antibiotics may increase contagion among Salmonella-infected animals

Paradox: Antibiotics may increase contagion among Salmonella-infected animals

cattleMake no mistake: Antibiotics have worked wonders, increasing human life expectancy as have few other public-health measures (let’s hear it for vaccines, folks). But about 80 percent of all antibiotics used in the United States are given to livestock – chiefly chickens, pigs, and cattle – at low doses, which boosts the animals’ growth rates. A long-raging debate in the public square concerns the possibility that this widespread practice fosters the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bugs.

But a new study led by Stanford bacteriologist Denise Monack, PhD, and just published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, adds a brand new wrinkle to concerns about the broad administration of antibiotics: the possibility that doing so may, at least  sometimes, actually encourage the spread of disease.

Take salmonella, for example. One strain of this bacterial pathogen, S. typhimurium, is responsible for an estimated 1 million cases of food poisoning, 19,000 hospitalizations and nearly 400 deaths annually in the United States. Upon invading the gut, S. typhimurium produces a potent inflammation-inducing endotoxin known as LPS.

Like its sister strain S. typhi (which  causes close to 200,00o typhoid-fever deaths worldwide per year), S. typhimurium doesn’t mete out its menace equally. While most get very sick, it is the symptom-free few who, by virtue of shedding much higher levels of disease-causing bacteria in their feces, account for the great majority of transmission. (One asymptomatic carrier was the infamous Typhoid Mary, a domestic cook who, early in the 20th century, cheerfully if unknowingly spread her typhoid infection to about 50 others before being forcibly, and tragically, quarantined for much of the rest of her life.)

You might think giving antibiotics to livestock, whence many of our S. typhi-induced food-poisoning outbreaks derive, would kill off the bad bug and stop its spread from farm animals to those of us (including me) who eat them. But maybe not.

From our release on the study:

When the scientists gave oral antibiotics to mice infected with Salmonella typhimurium, a bacterial cause of food poisoning, a small minority — so called “superspreaders” that had been shedding high numbers of salmonella in their feces for weeks — remained healthy; they were unaffected by either the disease or the antibiotic. The rest of the mice got sicker instead of better and, oddly, started shedding like superspreaders. The findings … pose ominous questions about the widespread, routine use of sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics in livestock.

So, the superspreaders kept on spreading without missing a step, and the others became walking-dead pseudosuperspreaders. A lose-lose scenario all the way around.

“If this holds true for livestock as well – and I think it will – it would have obvious public health implications,” Monack told me. “We need to think about the possibility that we’re not only selecting for antibiotic-resistant microbes, but also impairing the health of our livestock and increasing the spread of contagious pathogens among them and us.”

Previously: Did microbes mess with Typhoid Mary’s macrophages?, Joyride: Brief post-antibiotic sugar spike gives pathogens a lift and What if gut-bacteria communities “remember” past antibiotic exposures?
Photo by Jean-Pierre

Cancer, Events, Patient Care, Public Health

“Stop skipping dessert:” A Stanford neurosurgeon and cancer patient discusses facing terminal illness

"Stop skipping dessert:" A Stanford neurosurgeon and cancer patient discusses facing terminal illness

terminally_ill

Updated 10-23-14: Dr. Kalanithi spoke about this topic on campus earlier this week; more on the event, and his insights, can be found here.

***

10-20-14: When Paul Kalanithi, MD, a chief resident in neurological surgery at Stanford, was diagnosed at age 36 with stage IV lung cancer he struggled to learn how to live with conviction despite a prognosis of uncertainty. He found comfort in seven words from writer Samuel Beckett, “I can’t go on. I’ll go on.”

That mantra has given Kalanithi the strength to face his own mortality and have tough conversations with his wife and loved ones about the future. Tomorrow evening, he’ll join palliative-care specialist Timothy Quill, MD, for a discussion about end-of-life decision-making. The campus event is free and open to the public; no registration is required.

As a preview to the talk, Kalanithi talked with me about his experience as a patient and about the importance of end-of-life decisions.

How has your prognoses changed the way you talk to patients and their loved ones about grim news?

In large part, the way I talk to patients and their families hasn’t changed, because I had excellent role models in training. I remember witnessing a pediatric neurosurgeon talk parents through the diagnosis of their daughter’s brain tumor. He delivered not just the medical facts, but laid out the emotional terrain as well: the confusion, the fear, the anger and – above all – the need for support from and for each other. I always strove to emulate that model: to educate patients on the medical facts isn’t enough. You have to also find a way to gesture towards the emotional and existential landmarks.

Seeing it from the other side, it’s really hard, as a patient, to ask the tough questions. It’s important for the doctor to help initiate these conversations. I think it’s worth addressing prognosis and quality of life with patients, asking them what they think. My own assumptions about my prognosis were way off base. As a doctor, you can’t provide definite answers, but you can remove misconceptions and refocus patients’ energy.

Finally, I think, if you are the oncologist, it’s important to establish yourself as a go-to for any questions. Patients are bombarded with well-meaning advice, from dietary recommendations to holistic therapy to cutting-edge research. It can easily occupy all a patient’s time, when you ought to also spend time thinking about the priorities in your life. Physicians can also advise patients, as my dad would insist, that they can stop skipping dessert.

What is your advice to patients who are struggling with the certainty of death and the uncertainty of life?

I’ve written a little bit about facing terminal illness in The New York Times and The Paris Review. I found the experience difficult. I still find it difficult. It is a struggle. The problem is not simply learning to accept death. Because even if you do come to terms with finitude, you still wake up each morning and have a whole day to face. Your life keeps going on, whether you are ready for it to or not.

In some ways, having a terminal illness makes you no different from anyone else: Everyone dies. You have to find the balance – neither being overwhelmed by impending death nor completely ignoring it.

You have to find the things that matter to you, in two categories. The first is of ‘the bucket list’ sort. My wife and I always imagined revisiting our honeymoon spot on, say, our 20th wedding anniversary. But I didn’t realize how important to me that was until we decided to go back earlier (on our 7th anniversary, instead, about four months after I was diagnosed).

The second is, as all people should be doing, figuring out how to live true to your values. The tricky part is that, as you go through illness, your values may be constantly changing. So you have to figure out what matters to you, and keep figuring it out. It’s like someone just took away your credit card, and now you really have to budget. You may decide that you want to spend your time working. But two months later, you might feel differently, and say, you really want to learn saxophone, or devote yourself to the church. I think that’s okay – death may be a one-time event, but living with a terminal illness is a process.

Continue Reading »

History, Medicine and Society, NIH, Public Health

“Don’t go to bed with a malaria mosquito:” exploring World War II medical posters

"Don't go to bed with a malaria mosquito:" exploring World War II medical posters

After exploring Stanford’s collection of historical medical images last week after a tour of the School of Medicine, I got hooked. Hooked on historical medical images — a quirky interest tailor-made for the internet. Turns out the National Institutes of Health’s U.S. National Library of Medicine maintains a massive image library, one that includes some fabulous propaganda posters from World War II, including the lady mosquito with the alluring proboscis (above).

Others in the World War II poster collection focus on venereal diseases, recruiting nurses and doctors, encouraging blood donations and even curbing noise or visiting the dentist.

And that’s just World War II posters. Its Flickr collection is tantalizing, kicking off with a series of medical oddities reminiscent of Philadelphia’s Mütter Museum. It’s quite addictive – just warning you.

Previously: A trip down memory lane: Stories from the early days of the School of Medicine, #ACT4NIH seeks stories to spur research investment and Examining the impact of psychological distress on soldiers’ spinal injuries
Images courtesy of U.S National Library of Medicine

Obesity, Pediatrics, Public Health, SMS Unplugged

When the wheels on the bus (don’t) go round: Driving the spread of local health programs

When the wheels on the bus (don't) go round: Driving the spread of local health programs

SMS (“Stanford Medical School”) Unplugged is a forum for students to chronicle their experiences in medical school. The student-penned entries appear on Scope once a week; the entire blog series can be found in the SMS Unplugged category.

family-outing-421653_640

A few years ago, I was doing a summer internship in which I looked at health outcomes for hospitalized patients. I sat in an office and read about patients with issues like high blood pressure and cholesterol. At a certain point, I realized that the reports on their outcomes were interesting, but the real solution to the problems I was studying was happening outside my window. My window overlooked a park, where kids would run around all day until they were exhausted. And it got me thinking that if all kids were as active as those ones, there would a lot fewer reports for me to read.

So last year, I worked with several medical and law students to design a county-level childhood obesity prevention policy. The need for such programs is self-explanatory: More than one third of children in the U.S. are overweight or obese. By the time people reach adulthood, that proportion goes up to two thirds. By creating a team of both medical and law students, we hoped to come up with approaches that achieved the goal of improving health, and did so in a practical and implementable way.

Over the course of several months, we analyzed dozens of programs that have been used to bring down childhood obesity rates in various communities across the country. The programs ranged from well-known approaches (e.g. a soda tax or menu calorie counts) to some more obscure ones. My personal favorite was the “Walking School Bus” (WSB). Think about how your parents used to tell you that things were tougher in their day when they had to walk to school (in the snow, going uphill, barefoot, etc.). The goal of a WSB is to bring that world back. The catch is that parents/adults walk along a predetermined “bus” route, pick up kids along the way, and then walk them to school. Kids get a supervised walk that allows them to get some exercise every day.

Case studies, and one meta-analysis, suggest that WSBs are an effective way to increase the amount of exercise kids get. But odds are, you’ve never heard about them before. Neither have most school officials, local politicians, and others in a position to take action on childhood obesity. That’s because WSBs are not widely used. This realization led me to an interesting question: Which factors make a local program or intervention spread to other communities? What does it take to turn a single success story into a widespread strategy?

These are hardly new questions. Every business or non-profit that plans to scale up considers it. Atul Gawande, MD, attempted to figure out why certain medical interventions spread in a New Yorker article last year. Whether you’re talking about social programs, technology, or just an idea, the question remains. I don’t pretend to have the answer, but my work reviewing obesity prevention policies did lead me to a few conclusions about the spread of local programs.

First, success is necessary but not sufficient for a program’s spread. Just because it proves to be successful does not mean anyone else will adopt it. WSBs were one example. Granted, WSBs are not adaptable to every community – they require schools to be within walking distance and rely on good weather. But the same story is true for other approaches. For instance, joint-use agreements are a strategy where schools open up their facilities (e.g. outdoor fields, basketball courts, etc.) after school hours to give children and families access to recreational space. Despite a correlation between these agreements and better health outcomes, they remain in limited use in many of the communities where recreational space is most lacking.

So if success doesn’t lead to a program’s spread, what does? I believe one factor is the involvement and enthusiasm of multiple stakeholders, potentially including local government, businesses, school administrators, and involved community members. A second factor is the development of measurable and achievable goals. It is nearly impossible to see incremental changes in health outcomes, so programs designed to change health must establish metrics that can demonstrate progress.

The list of lessons from our survey of local programs goes on, but the biggest takeaway is clear. Problems in health care require not only a solution, but successful execution.

Akhilesh Pathipati is a second-year medical student at Stanford. He is interested in issues in health-care delivery.

Image by EME

In the News, Microbiology, Public Health, Research

The end of antibiotics? Researchers warn of critical shortages

The end of antibiotics? Researchers warn of critical shortages

16869_lores

Bacteria spark infection. Antibiotic kills most bacteria. Remaining bacteria evolve resistance. Second antibiotic wipes out all bacteria. Repeat. Repeat until, that is, there are no effective antibiotics, a scenario that looks increasingly likely, according to recent research from the Center for Molecular Discovery at Yale University led by Michael Kinch, PhD. Kinch now leads the Center for Research Innovation in Business at Washington University in St. Louis, which featured his work in a recent article:

The number of antibiotics available for clinical use, Kinch said, has declined to 96 from a peak of 113 in 2000. The rate of withdrawals is double the rate of new introductions, Kinch said. Antibiotics are being withdrawn because they don’t work anymore, because they’re too toxic, or because they’ve been replaced by new versions of the same drug. Introductions are declining because pharmaceutical companies are leaving the business of antibiotic use discovery and development.

Many of the major players like Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb are no longer developing antibiotics, Kinch wrote in a recent article in Drug Discovery Today. In part, their disinterest is driven by a tight profit window. The drug approval process takes about 11 years, but a patent only provides 20 years of protection, leaving just nine years to recoup development costs, according to Kinch.

As outlined in the Washington University piece, at least two major initiatives are working to reverse this trend. The Infectious Diseases Society of America introduced the 10 x ’20 Initiative to spur efforts to create 10 new antibiotics by 2010. And Britain is sponsoring the Longitude Prize 2014, a £10 million award for a simple test that will quickly determine the type of bacteria causing an infection and therefore the most effective antibiotic.

Previously: Healthy gut bacteria help chicken producers avoid antibiotics, Free online course aims to education about “pressing public health threat” of antibiotic resistance and Side effects of long-term antibiotic use linked to oxidative stress
Photo by CDC Public Health Image Library

Ebola, Events, HIV/AIDS, Infectious Disease, Public Health, Stanford News

Dr. Paul Farmer: We should be saving Ebola patients

Dr. Paul Farmer: We should be saving Ebola patients

The photo says it all: A very slender, ailing man sits on the floor with his head bent, completely alone in the dark in what used to be an Ebola treatment center in West Africa.

Paul Farmer, MD, PhD, the brilliant physician and humanitarian, flashed the photo on a screen to a rapt Stanford audience last Friday to show the emaciated state of health care systems in West Africa, incapable now of treating the most basic ailments.

Every time someone dies, it’s a failure to diagnose and deliver the imperfect tools we have

“The primary determinant of outcomes is the strength of health care systems. And if this is what ETU’s (Ebola Treatment Units) look like, there are going to be a lot of fatalities,” he told the crowd of some 400 people at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business. “We should be saving most of these patients. Every time someone dies, it’s a failure to diagnose and deliver the imperfect tools we have.”

But this vast inequity in care need not exist, said Farmer, MD, PhD, a Harvard professor. He pointed to examples from his own experience, in which he and the group he co-founded, Partners in Health, helped build robust health systems in Haiti and more recently, Rwanda, saving thousands of lives.

Farmer started working in Haiti while he was a student at Harvard Medical School nearly 30 years ago. In 1998, during the peak of the AIDS epidemic there, he established the HIV Equity Initiative, which relied on community health workers to visit the homes of patients daily to check on their status and ensure that they took their antiretroviral and/or tuberculosis medications. The approach proved remarkably successful, as people rose from their deathbeds to return to normal, functioning lives.

More recently, after the 2010 quake in Haiti, his group helped to build a medical center and teaching hospital in rural Haiti; he showed a photo of the modern, expansive new facility to the Stanford audience, which applauded the work.

“This is what I think of for rural Liberia, rural Sierra Leone,” he said. “This is not rocket science. Just think what we could do if we had a lot of help with systems and partners. It just requires sticking with some of these problems for a long time.”

Previously: Ebola panel says 1.4 million cases possible, building trust key to containmentExpert panel discusses challenges of controlling Ebola in West Africa, Should we worry? Stanford’s global health chief weighs in on Ebola and Biosecurity experts discuss Ebola and related public health concerns and policy implications

Applied Biotechnology, Genetics, In the News, Nutrition, Public Health, Research

“Frankenfoods” just like natural counterparts, health-wise (at least if you’re a farm animal)

"Frankenfoods" just like natural counterparts, health-wise (at least if you're a farm animal)

cow2More than a hundred billion farm animals have voted with their feet (or their hoofs, as the case may be). And the returns are in: Genetically modified meals are causing them zero health problems.

Many a word has been spilled in connection with the scientific investigation of crops variously referred to as “transgenic,” “bioengineered,” “genetically engineered” or “genetically modified.” In every case, what’s being referred to is an otherwise ordinary fruit, vegetable, or fiber source into which genetic material from a foreign species has been inserted for the purpose of making that crop, say, sturdier or  more drought- or herbicide- or pest-resistant.

Derided as “Frankenfoods” by critics, these crops have been accused of everything from being responsible for a very real global uptick in allergic diseases to causing cancer and autoimmune disease. But (flying in the face of the first accusation) allergic disorders are also rising in Europe, where genetically modified, or GM, crops’ usage is far less widespread than in North America. It’s the same story with autoimmune disease. And claims of a link between genetically modified crops and tumor formation have been backed by scant if any evidence; one paper making such a claim  got all the way through peer review and received a fair amount of Internet buzz before it was ignominiously retracted last year.

But a huge natural experiment to test GM crops’ safety has been underway for some time. Globally, between 70 and 90 percent of all GM foods are consumed by domesticated animals grown by farmers and ranchers. More than 95 percent of such animals – close to 10 billion of them – in the United States alone consume feed containing GM  components.

This was, of course, not the case before the advent of commercially available GM feeds in the 1990s. And U.S. law has long required scrupulous record-keeping concerning the health of animals grown for food production. This makes possible a before-and-after comparison.

In a just-published article in the Journal of Animal Science, University of California-Davis scientists performed a massive review of data available on performance and health of animals consuming feed containing GM ingredients and  products derived from them. The researchers conclude that there’s no evidence of GM products exerting negative health effects on livestock. From the study’s abstract:

Numerous experimental studies have consistently revealed that the performance and health of GE-fed animals are comparable with those fed [otherwise identical] non-[GM] crop lines. Data on livestock productivity and health were collated from publicly available sources from 1983, before the introduction of [GM] crops in 1996, and subsequently through 2011, a period with high levels of predominately [GM] animal feed. These field data sets representing over 100 billion animals following the introduction of [GM]crops did not reveal unfavorable or perturbed trends in livestock health and productivity. No study has revealed any differences in the nutritional profile of animal products derived from[GM]-fed animals.

In other words, the 100 billion GM-fed animals didn’t get sick any more frequently, or in different ways. No noticeable difference at all.

Should that surprise us? We humans are, in fact, pretty transgenic ourselves. About 5 percent of our own DNA can be traced to viruses who deposited their  genes in our genomes, leaving them behind as reminders of the viral visitations. I suppose that’s a great case against cannibalism if you fear GM foods. But I can think of other far more valid arguments to be made along those lines.

Previously: Ask Stanford Medicine: Pediatric immunologist answers your questions about food allergy research, Research shows little evidence that organic foods are more nutritional than conventional ones and Stanford study on the health benefits of organic food: What people are saying
Photo by David B. Gleason

Health and Fitness, Nutrition, Pediatrics, Public Health

Pediatrics group issues new recommendations for building strong bones in kids

Pediatrics group issues new recommendations for building strong bones in kids

MilkshelfOur bones function as retirement-savings accounts for calcium: We deposit the mineral into our bones when we’re young, then draw on the stores as we age. Too little calcium in the “savings account” puts people at risk for osteoporosis and debilitating bone fractures later in life.

This means that, although osteoporosis is usually seen as a disease of old age, pediatricians and parents need to pay attention to bone health. This week, the American Academy of Pediatrics released updated guidelines for pediatricians on how nutrition and exercise can improve bone density in their patients. The guidelines were co-authored by Stanford’s Neville Golden, MD, who is also an adolescent medicine specialist at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford. The report discusses calcium, which strengthens bones; vitamin D, which helps the body absorb calcium; and weight-bearing exercise, which promotes calcium deposition into the bones.

In addition to protecting against fractures in old age, the guidelines address the needs of kids whose bones are weakened by a variety of childhood and adolescent medical conditions, including juvenile osteoporosis, cystic fibrosis, lupus, celiac disease, cerebral palsy and anorexia nervosa.

A few highlights from the recommendations:

  • Children and adolescents should get their calcium mostly from food, not supplements. To meet calcium requirements, the committee recommends three or four daily servings of dairy foods (depending on the child’s age) and also suggests alternative food sources such as dark green veggies, beans, and calcium-fortified orange juice or breakfast cereals.
  • Vitamin D recommendations went up in 2011; the AAP agrees with the increased recommendations for all children and notes that kids using certain medications have even higher requirements than healthy children. Although the body can make vitamin D from sunlight, the report notes that kids are spending more time indoors and that sunscreen prevents vitamin D synthesis, making children more reliant on food and supplements to get enough vitamin D.
  • Soda often displaces milk in children’s diets, adding bone health to the list of reasons doctors should discourage soda consumption.
  • Weight-bearing exercise helps strengthen the bones. The report recommends activities such as walking, jogging, jumping and dancing over exercises such as swimming and cycling for building bone health.
  • Adolescent girls with eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and the female athlete triad experience bone loss. In the past, some physicians have suggested that these young women could improve their bone density by taking oral contraceptives, but the report notes that randomized controlled trials have not found any evidence that oral contraceptives increase bone mass for these patients.

Previously: Goo inside bones provides structural support, study finds, New genetic regions associated with osteoporosis and bone fracture and Avoiding sun exposure may lead to vitamin D deficiency in Caucasians
Photo by Stephanie Booth

Addiction, In the News, Public Health

Stanford experts skeptical about motives behind e-cigarette health warnings

11359245033_0a05d9c884_z

Quotes can sometimes make or break a news article. I was skimming a New York Times article on new, harsh health warnings from tobacco companies when a quote from Stanford otolaryngologist Robert Jackler, MD, stopped me in my tracks.

“When I saw it, I nearly fell off my chair,” Jackler told the Times. What made a renowned expert in tobacco advertising fall off his chair? I was hooked (and not on cigarettes, thankfully) and had to keep reading.

It turns out that Jackler had spotted the warning on MarkTen e-cigarette packs, which details many of the deleterious effects of nicotine, calling it “very toxic by inhalation, in contact with the skin, or if swallowed.” The product is not to be used by children, women who are pregnant or breast-feeding, anyone with heart disease or high blood pressure, or those taking medication for depression or asthma. The list goes on.

These warnings are voluntary, explained the Times‘ Matt Richtel, who also wrote:

Experts with years studying tobacco company behavior say they strongly suspect several motives, but, chiefly, that the e-cigarette warnings are a very low-risk way for the companies to insulate themselves from future lawsuits and, even more broadly, to appear responsible, open and frank. By doing so, the experts said, big tobacco curries favor with consumers and regulators, earning a kind of legitimacy that they crave and have sought for decades. Plus, they get to appear more responsible than the smaller e-cigarette companies that seek to unseat them.

The tobacco companies say they are striving to be honest and open. With another choice quote, Stephanie Cordisco, president of the R. J. Reynolds Vapor Company, told the Times: “We’re here to make sure we can put this industry on the right side of history.”

Not so, Stanford science historian Robert Proctor, PhD, responded. He called the voluntary warnings “totally Orwellian.”

“They do everything for legal reasons, otherwise they’d stop making the world’s deadliest consumer products,” Proctor said.

Becky Bach is a former park ranger who now spends her time writing about science and practicing yoga. She is an intern in the Office of Communications and Public Affairs. 

Previously: How e-cigarettes are sparking a new wave of tobacco marketing, E-cigarettes and the FDA: A conversation with a tobacco-marketing researcher and What the experience of Swedish snuff can teach us about e-cigarettes
Photo by Lindsay Fox

CDC, In the News, Infectious Disease, Pediatrics, Public Health

Q&A about enterovirus-D68 with Stanford/Packard infectious disease expert

Q&A about enterovirus-D68 with Stanford/Packard infectious disease expert

SONY DSCToday’s New York Times features a story on the accelerating spread of enterovirus-D68, a virus that is causing severe respiratory illness in children across the country. As the Times reports, some emergency departments in the Midwest have been so swamped with cases that they’ve had to divert ambulances to other hospitals. Although California is still only lightly affected, the state’s first four cases were confirmed by the California Department of Public Health late last week, with more expected to surface.

To help parents who may be wondering how to prevent, spot and care for EV-D68 infection, Yvonne Maldonado, MD, service chief of pediatric infectious disease at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford, answered some common questions about the virus:

Enteroviruses are not unusual. Why is there so much focus from health officials on this one, EV-D68?

The good news is that this virus comes from a very common family of viruses that cause most fever-producing illnesses in childhood. But it’s been more severe than other enteroviruses. Some hospitals in other parts of the country have had hundreds of children coming to their emergency departments with really bad respiratory symptoms. The fact that it’s been so highly symptomatic and that there has been a large volume of cases is why it has gotten so much attention.

Have any patients at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford been affected with EV-D68?

As of today (Sept. 26), we have not yet had a documented case at our hospital. However, there have been a total of 226 confirmed cases in 38 states across the country. Some children who have this virus are probably not being tested, so the real number of cases nationwide is likely to be higher.

If your child has respiratory symptoms and you suspect EV-D68, what should you do?

The virus causes symptoms such as coughing, sneezing and runny nose. In some cases but not all, kids also have a fever. If your child has respiratory symptoms with or without a fever, especially if he or she also has a history of asthma, monitor your child at home. If you feel that he or she has been sick for a long period, is getting worse or is experiencing worsening of asthma or difficulty breathing, go see your pediatrician.

Which groups are most at risk?

Children with a history of asthma have been reported to have especially bad respiratory symptoms with this virus. It can affect kids of all ages, from infants to teens. So far, only one case has been reported in an adult, which makes sense because adults are more likely to have immunity to enteroviruses. We do worry more about young infants than older children, just because they probably haven’t seen the virus before and can get sicker with these viral infections.

How can the illness be prevented?

This virus is spread by contact with secretions such as saliva. If your children are sick, they should stay home from school to avoid spreading the illness to others. To avoid getting sick, stay at least three feet from people with symptoms such as coughing and runny nose, wash your hands frequently, and make sure your kids wash their hands often, too.

What is the treatment for EV-D68?

There is no treatment that is specific to the virus. At home, parents can manage children’s fevers with over-the-counter medications, make sure they drink lots of fluids to avoid dehydration, and help them get plenty of rest. For children who are very ill, doctors will check for secondary illnesses such as bacterial pneumonia, which would be treated with antibiotics, and may hospitalize children who need oxygen or IV hydration to help them recover.

Previously: Tips from a child on managing asthma
Photo by Michelle Brandt

Stanford Medicine Resources: