Valacyclovir versus acyclovir for the treatment of herpes zoster ophthalmicus in immunocompetent patients

Current scenario and future applicability of antivirals against herpes zoster

Herpes zoster (HZ) is a common disease in the aging population and immunocompromised individuals, with a lifetime risk of 20%-30% that increases with age. HZ is caused by reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus (VZV), which remains latent in the spinal dorsal root ganglia and cranial sensory ganglia after resolution of the primary VZV infection. The main focus of HZ management is rapid recovery from VZV infection as well as the reduction and prevention of zoster-associated pain (ZAP) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). The use of antivirals against VZV is essential in the treatment of HZ. However, limited antivirals are only licensed clinically for the treatment of HZ, including acyclovir, valacyclovir, famciclovir, brivudine, and amenamevir. Fortunately, some new antivirals against different types of Herpesviridae have been investigated and suggested as novel drugs against VZV. Therefore, this review focuses on discussing the difference in efficacy and safety in the currently licensed antivirals for the treatment of HZ, the applicability of future novel antivirals against VZV, and the preventive or therapeutic effects of these antivirals on ZAP or PHN.

Valacyclovir-associated neurotoxicity among patients on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis: A nationwide population-based study

Whether valacyclovir-associated neurotoxicity (VAN) occurs more frequently in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on dialysis is unknown. This is the first population-based study to examine the risk of VAN associated with ESRD patients on dialysis. Among 2,284,800 patients diagnosed as having herpes zoster from 2002 to 2016, patients with ESRD on dialysis and individuals with normal renal function were enrolled in this study. Following propensity score matching, we compared the risk of altered mental status between valacyclovir users and non-users in the ESRD and normal renal function cohorts over a 30-day follow-up period. In the ESRD cohort, the incidence of altered mental status was 1.68 and 0.52 per 1,000 person-day in valacyclovir users and non-users, respectively, with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 3.22 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.04–4.99, P < 0.001). The incidence of altered mental status of valacyclovir users on hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) was higher than that of non-users. The adjusted HR was 3.20 (95% CI: 1.98–5.15, P < 0.001) for those on HD and 3.44 (95% CI: 1.13–10.49, P = 0.030) for those with PD. However, altered mental status was not observed in patients on HD receiving ≤500 mg of valacyclovir three times per week or in those on PD receiving ≤500 mg of valacyclovir per day. The findings demonstrate that adjusting the valacyclovir dosage and monitoring VAN in patients with HD and PD who have herpes zoster is crucial.

Difference between Acyclovir and Ganciclovir in the Treatment of Children with Epstein-Barr Virus-Associated Infectious Mononucleosis

Objective

To investigate the efficacy differences between acyclovir and ganciclovir in the treatment of children with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)- associated infectious mononucleosis (IM).

Methods

A total of 128 children with EBV-IM who were admitted to our hospital from February 2019 to February 2021 were selected and randomly divided into the acyclovir group (n = 64) and the ganciclovir group (n = 64) according to the random number table method. All the children were given symptomatic treatments such as protecting the liver and reducing fever. On this basis, the acyclovir group was given an intravenous drip of acyclovir, while the ganciclovir group was given an intravenous drip of ganciclovir. The treatment was continued for 7 days. After the treatment, the clinical efficacy, disappearance time of symptoms and signs, related blood routine indexes, EBV-DNA negative conversion rate, and the incidence of adverse reactions during the treatment were compared between the two groups.

Results

After treatment, the total effective rate of the ganciclovir group (92.19%) was higher than that of the acyclovir group (73.44%) and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The disappearance time for the symptoms and signs of angina, fever, lymphadenopathy, hepatomegaly, and splenomegaly in the ganciclovir group was lower than that in the acyclovir group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). After treatment, the levels of atypical lymphocyte proportion, lymphocyte proportion, and WBC count in the two groups were lower than those before treatment, the levels in the ganciclovir group were lower than those in the acyclovir group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). After treatment, the EBV-DNA negative conversion rate (81.25%) in the ganciclovir group was higher than that in the acyclovir group (60.93%) and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). During treatment, the incidence of adverse reactions in the ganciclovir group was significantly lower than that in the acyclovir group and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

In the treatment of children with EBV-IM, the therapeutic effect of ganciclovir is obviously superior to that of acyclovir. Ganciclovir can quickly eliminate the symptoms of angina, fever, enlarged lymph nodes, and other signs in children, can improve abnormal blood indicators, and has a higher negative conversion rate of EBV and less adverse reactions.

Antiviral Therapy for Varicella Zoster Virus (VZV) and Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV)-Induced Anterior Uveitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Topic: Herpes simplex virus (HSV) and varicella zoster virus (VZV) are the most common ocular pathogens associated with infectious anterior uveitis. Currently, there are a number of antiviral agents administered to treat viral anterior uveitis (VAU). However, there is no consensus or guidelines about the most appropriate approach leading for the best treatment outcomes with fewer ocular complications. Clinical Relevance: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of different antiviral therapies in the management of anterior uveitis secondary to HSV and VZV. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, OVID, and Embase up to January 2020. Randomized trials, non-randomized intervention studies, controlled before and after studies and observational studies assessing the effect of oral and or topical treatments for VAU were considered. Data extraction and analysis with evaluation of the risk of bias in the included trials were performed. Results: Oral acyclovir demonstrated a statistically significant good treatment outcome in the management of VZV anterior uveitis (vs. placebo) (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11-0.59), but did not have similar effect in HSV anterior uveitis (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.15-1.50). In the treatment of VZV anterior uveitis, there was significant superiority of oral acyclovir-7 day course-over topical acyclovir (OR 4.17, 95% CI 1.28-13.52). Whereas, there was no significant superiority of one of the following treatment regimens over the others: topical acyclovir over topical corticosteroids (OR 1.86, 95% CI 0.67-5.17), and oral acyclovir-7 day course-over oral acyclovir-14 day course-(OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01-4.50) or oral valaciclovir (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.48-4.07). Conclusion: Treatment of HSV and VZV anterior uveitis is currently based on individual experiences and limited literature, largely due to weak clinical trial evidence in this regard. Our results highlight the existence of a substantial gap in our evidence base. This finding might contribute to future research studies to ascertain the role of different antiviral therapies in the treatment of VAU. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD420202 00404.

Life-long passion for antiviral research and drug development: 80th birthday of Prof. Dr. Erik De Clercq

Since the 1950s, great efforts have been made to develop antiviral agents against many infectious diseases such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), human cytomegalovirus (HCMV), herpes simplex virus (HSV), and varicella-zoster virus (VZV). Among the list of nearly 106 antiviral agents approved in the past five decades, Prof. Erik De Clercq has contributed to the development of 7 antiviral drugs: tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (Viread®) for HIV and HBV treatment, tenofovir alafenamide (Vemlidy®) for HIV and HBV treatment, brivudine (Zostex®) for HSV-1 and VZV treatment, valacyclovir (Valtrex®) for HSV and VZV treatment, adefovir dipivoxil (Hepsera®) for HBV treatment, stavudine (Zerit®) for HIV treatment, and cidofovir (Vistide®) for treating HCMV retinitis in AIDS patients. In addition to the above antiviral drugs, his contributions include two anti-cancer drugs: rabacfosadine (Tanovea®-CA1) for canine lymphoma and plerixafor (Mozobil®) for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. These achievements are driven by his life-long passions for antiviral research and successful collaborations worldwide. To honor the 80th birthday of Prof. Erik De Clercq, this study highlights his scientific achievements and the importance of life-long passions and collaborations in the success of antiviral research and drug development.

Management of herpes zoster in Ayurveda through medicinal leeches and other composite Ayurveda Treatment

Herpes zoster commonly known as shingle's caused by varicella zoster virus (VZV). Recent studies have shown that exosomes play important role in pathogenesis as well as spread of herpes. Leeches when applied over affected part of herpes sucks the blood and there by interferes with extracellular communication through these exosomes and their by showing pain reduction, reduction in burning and arrest progression of disease. This technique is cost effective and easy to apply. In Ayurveda herpes can be correlated with Pittaj visarpa. Principle of treatment is Raktmokshan (~Bloodletting) and Pradeha (~Local application of medicines). Bloodletting with Jalauka (~Medicinal Leeches) is specifically indicated in management of Pitta dominant disorder. A 65-year-old female known case of Type 2 Diabetes (DM) and presented in Casualty of Government Ayurved College, Nagpur (GACN). We treated her Herpes zoster on the basic principles of management of Pittaj Visarpa. Management of Type 2 DM was continued as per modern medicine consultant. Rapid decrease in pain severity was observed after the 1st setting of leech therapy according to Zoster Specific Brief Pain Inventory (ZBPI) Questionnaire. After each seating pain reduction was observed. Repeated application of Jalauka along with internal medications gave complete relief. Ayurveda pain management in herpes zoster by leech therapy gives innovative easy, better and cost effective treatment. Adaptive trials are necessary to explore further practical applicability of Ayurveda and modern treatment together. Future research on effect of leech application on exosomes is necessary.

Current Antivirals and Novel Botanical Molecules Interfering With Herpes Simplex Virus Infection

Herpes simplex viruses type 1 (HSV-1) and type 2 (HSV-2) are highly prevalent within the human population and are characterized by lifelong infections and sporadic recurrences due to latent neuron infection. Upon reactivations, HSVs may manifest either, symptomatically or asymptomatically and be shed onto others through mucosae body fluids. Although, HSVs can produce severe disease in humans, such as life-threatening encephalitis and blindness, the most common symptoms are skin and mucosal lesions in the oro-facial and the genital areas. Nucleoside analogs with antiviral activity can prevent severe HSV infection, yet they are not very effective for treating skin manifestations produced by these viruses, as they only reduce in a few days at most the duration of lesions. Additionally, HSV variants that are resistant to these antivirals may arise, especially in immunosuppressed individuals. Thus, new antivirals that can reduce the severity and duration of these cutaneous manifestations would certainly be welcome. Here, we review currently available anti-herpetic therapies, novel molecules being assessed in clinical trials and new botanical compounds reported in the last 20 years with antiviral activities against HSVs that might represent future treatments against these viruses.

Virus-Induced Anterior Uveitis (VIAU) in Immunocompromised Patients

PURPOSE

To describe the clinical characteristics, diagnosis, and treatment of VIAU in immunocompromised patients.

METHODS

A critical review of literature was performed.

RESULTS

Diagnosis and treatment of VIAU in immunocompromised patients may be a challenge due to atypical clinical-courses, severe presentations, and more frequent recurrences. A conclusive diagnosis can be made by aqueous-humour PCR-analysis. Visual prognosis depends on early diagnosis and prompt treatment. Frequent ocular examinations are recommended in HIV patients with CD-4-counts below 100 in order to rule out opportunistic ocular coinfections. It is essential to bear in mind the potential side-effects of therapeutic interventions and consider the possibility of Immune Recovery Uveitis (IRU) in eyes with treated viral retinitis after the initiation of HAART.

CONCLUSIONS

Early diagnosis and treatment of VIAU in immunocompromised patients can be achieved with high suspicion, recognizing clinical features, and obtaining specimens for molecular diagnostic testing in order to avoid usually severe ocular morbidity.

Red Eye: A Guide for Non-specialists

BACKGROUND

Red eye can arise as a manifestation of many different systemic and ophthalmological diseases. The physician whom the patient first consults for this problem is often not an ophthalmologist. A correct assessment of the urgency of the situation is vitally important for the planning of further diagnostic evaluation and treatment.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective literature search in PubMed in August 2016 as well as on the authors' own clinical and scientific experience.

RESULTS

Primary care physicians typically see 4-10 patients per week who complain of ocular symptoms. Most of them have red eye as the major clinical finding. A detailed history, baseline ophthalmological tests, and accompanying manifestations can narrow down the differential diagnosis. The duration and laterality of symptoms (uni- vs. bilateral) and the intensity of pain are the main criteria allowing the differentiation of non-critical changes that can be cared for by a general practitioner from diseases calling for elective referral to an ophthalmologist and eye emergencies requiring urgent ophthalmic surgery.

CONCLUSION

The differential diagnosis of red eye can be narrowed down rapidly with simple baseline tests and targeted questioning. Patients with ocular emergencies should be referred to an ophthalmologist at once, as should all patients whose diagnosis is in doubt.

Valacyclovir versus acyclovir for the treatment of herpes zoster ophthalmicus in immunocompetent patients

BACKGROUND

Herpes zoster ophthalmicus affects the eye and vision, and is caused by the reactivation of the varicella zoster virus in the distribution of the first division of the trigeminal nerve. An aggressive management of acute herpes zoster ophthalmicus with systemic antiviral medication is generally recommended as the standard first-line treatment for herpes zoster ophthalmicus infections. Both acyclovir and its prodrug valacyclovir are medications that are approved for the systemic treatment of herpes zoster. Although it is known that valacyclovir has an improved bioavailability and steadier plasma concentration, it is currently unclear as to whether this leads to better treatment results and less ocular complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of valacyclovir versus acyclovir for the systemic antiviral treatment of herpes zoster ophthalmicus in immunocompetent patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2016, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2016), Embase (January 1980 to June 2016), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S; January 1990 to June 2016), BIOSIS Previews (January 1969 to June 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 13 June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which systemic valacyclovir was compared to systemic acyclovir medication for treatment of herpes zoster ophthalmicus. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, evaluated the risk of bias in included trials, and extracted and analysed data. We did not conduct a meta-analysis, as only one study was included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the selected outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

One study fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In this multicentre, randomised double-masked study carried out in France, 110 immunocompetent people with herpes zoster ophthalmicus, diagnosed within 72 hours of skin eruption, were treated, with 56 participants allocated to the valacyclovir group and 54 to the acyclovir group. The study was poorly reported and we judged it to be unclear risk of bias for most domains.Persistent ocular lesions after 6 months were observed in 2/56 people in the valacyclovir group compared with 1/54 people in the acyclovir group (risk ratio (RR) 1.93 (95% CI 0.18 to 20.65); very low certainty evidence. Dendritic ulcer appeared in 3/56 patients treated with valacyclovir, while 1/54 suffered in the acyclovir group (RR 2.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 26.96); very low certainty evidence), uveitis in 7/56 people in the valacyclovir group compared with 9/54 in the acyclovir group (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.57); very low certainty evidence). Similarly, there was uncertainty as to the comparative effects of these two treatments on post-herpetic pain, and side effects (vomiting, eyelid or facial edema, disseminated zoster). Due to concerns about imprecision (small number of events and large confidence intervals) and study limitations, the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach was rated as low to very low for the use of valacyclovir compared to acyclovir.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review included data from only one study, which had methodological limitations. As such, our results indicated uncertainty of the relative benefits and harms of valacyclovir over acyclovir in herpes zoster ophthalmicus, despite its widespread use for this condition. Further well-designed and adequately powered trials are needed. These trials should include outcomes important to patients, including compliance.