Journal Information
Vol. 36. Issue. 5.September - October 2016
Pages 465-582
Vol. 36. Issue. 5.September - October 2016
Pages 465-582
Letter to the Editor
DOI: 10.1016/j.nefroe.2016.05.006
Open Access
Necrotizing herpetic retinopathy in kidney-transplanted patients on mycophenolate mofetil
Retinopatía necrosante herpética en trasplantado renal con mofetil micofenolato
Visits
2718
Manuel Morión Grandea, M. Adoración Martín-Gómezb,
Corresponding author
doritamg@gmail.com

Corresponding author.
, Aurora Quereda Castañedaa, Verónica López Jiménezc, Teresa Cabezas Fernándezd
a Servicio de Oftalmología, Hospital de Poniente, El Ejido, Almería, Spain
b Unidad de Nefrología, Hospital de Poniente, El Ejido, Almería, Spain
c Unidad de Trasplante Renal, Servicio de Nefrología, Hospital Regional de Málaga, Málaga, Spain
d Unidad de Microbiología, Hospital de Poniente, El Ejido, Almería, Spain
This item has received
2718
Visits

Under a Creative Commons license
Article information
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (2)
Full Text
Dear Editor,

A 73-year-old male, with a kidney transplant in December 2006, and treated with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) 500mg/d and tacrolimus. In April 2012, he was admitted to another hospital for diffuse cutaneous varicella, which progressed favourably with oral acyclovir; source of infection unknown. In December 2012, he attended A&E at our hospital for one-week of history of floaters and decreased vision in the left eye. An ophthalmologic and funduscopic examination revealed retinitis of the affected eye with a visual acuity (VA) of 20/100 and an intraocular pressure of 18mmHg with a normal contralateral eye (Fig. 1A and B). PCR and viral serologic testing (IgG and IgM), and then a test for the varicella zoster virus (VZV), were negative (negative pre-transplant). A sample of aqueous humour from the anterior chamber for an analysis of viral DNA was obtained, and intravenous acyclovir was prescribed (the patient refused immediate intravitreal treatment). The patient's clinical progress was satisfactory, with rapid improvement after 11 days (Fig. 2), and initiation of a complete regression of lesions was evident. The PCR of aqueous humour confirmed that it was a VZV infection, and the rest of tests was negative. 360° laser photocoagulation of the retina was performed, while continuing with oral acyclovir. The patient was discharged 20 days after admission, with VA 20/32. Twelve weeks later, he presented with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, which, despite a successful replication by pars plana vitrectomy with scleral buckling and silicone oil, failed to achieve more than 20/200. Three years later, he has a VA of just light perception and residual inferior retinal detachment.

Fig. 1.

(A) Inflammatory reaction in the anterior chamber with thin retrokeratic precipitate, also discrete ciliary injection and a dense grade 5 cataract, LOCS II. (B) Funduscopy: moderate vitritis, optic nerve swelling and white-yellowish lesions in the upper and lower temporal nasal retina.

(0.08MB).
Fig. 2.

Upper nasal lesion with sharper edges and start of pigmentation in areas in resolution.

(0.08MB).

The incidence of VZV in the general population increases with age after, the age of 50. However, disseminated varicella is a rare presentation even in immunosuppressed patients, and when it occurs, it is usually during the first year after transplantation.1 This patient presented with clinical symptoms 9 years post-transplant with minimal doses of immunosuppression and without steroid therapy. His pre-transplant serology was negative, and so a primary infection due to varicella zoster was assumed; but he remained negative after 9 months of the cutaneous episode, which can be explained by the anergy of immunosuppression. To date, peri-transplant prophylaxis with acyclovir is not indicated in seronegative cases, but vaccination for VZV in waitlist patients, done at our centre since 2010, may reduce the incidence of this infection.

The time elapsed between the skin symptoms and the onset of retinopathy indicates virus latency in neurons. Primary VZV infection typically occurs in childhood, infecting the epidermal cells and causing the characteristic skin rash. Subsequently, the sensory nerve terminals of mucocutaneous tissue are infected reaching through axons the sensory roots of the dorsal root ganglia, where it remains dormant in neuronal bodies. Reactivation occurs with new virions in sensory neurons that migrate again through the axons to the epidermis (neuropathic pain and rash). It is known that cellular immune suppression plays an important role in this reactivation, such that these patients will present with VZV more often, with a prevalence between 3% and 14%.

Routine ophthalmologic examinations should be considered in patients with opportunistic viral infections. Retinal complications are rare,2 and amongst their most common causes is external progressive acute retinal necrosis (ARN), retinitis caused by cytomegalovirus (CMV) and toxoplasmosis. Necrotizing herpetic retinopathies are caused by VZV, herpes simplex virus I and II, CMV, and rarely, Epstein–Barr virus.3 Their most common presentations are decreased vision, pain and photophobia.4 On examination, multifocal yellowish-white patches are typical, which tend to coalesce in diffuse areas of full-thickness retinal necrosis. Other signs of ocular inflammation, such as vitritis, vasculitis, optic disc swelling, keratic precipitate and posterior synechiae, may accompany them. ARN is an ophthalmological emergency in which antiviral treatment should be started early, as it leads to blindness due to retinal scarring, retinal detachment or optic nerve atrophy. In addition, one-third of patients develop bilateral involvement within the first month of presentation.

The development of VZV in the transplant population has been associated to MMF5–7 This is due to viral thymidine kinase, which replaces the inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase inhibited by mycophenolate, thus allowing the cell to continue its life cycle. However, the specific involvement in this disease is not clear if compared with other immunosuppressants in clinical trials.8 In addition, MMF has been shown to play certain role in enhancing the antiviral activity of acyclovir.9 Thus the role of MMF in this type of viral infection or in this patient is not clear, especially when considering the low dose used. Clinical practice suggests that once disseminated disease presents, it makes sense to reduce the immunosuppressive burden, given the high morbidity and mortality of this disease.10

References
[1]
M. Rommelaere, C. Marechal, J.C. Yombi, E. Goffin, N. Kanaan.
Disseminated varicella zoster virus infection in adult renal transplant recipients: outcome and risk factors.
Transpl Proc, 44 (2012), pp. 2814-2817
[2]
H. Chung, K.H. Kim, L.G. Kim, S.Y. Lee, Y.H. Yoon.
Retinal complications in patients with solid organ or bone marrow transplantations.
Transplantation, 83 (2007), pp. 694-699
[3]
B. Wensing, J.D. de Groot-Mijines, A. Rothova.
Necrotizing and nonnecrotizing variants of herpetic uveitis with posterior segment involvement.
Arch Ophthalmol, 129 (2011), pp. 403-408
[4]
M.N. Muthiah, M. Michaelides, C.S. Child, S.M. Mitchel.
Acute retina necrosis: a national population – based study to assess the incidence, methods of diagnosis, treatment strategies and outcomes in the UK.
Br J Ophthalmol, 91 (2007), pp. 452-455
[5]
R. Lauzurica, B. Bayés, C. Frías, N. Fontseré, A. Hernandez, L. Matas, et al.
Disseminated varicela infection in adult renal allograft recipients: role of mycophenolate mofetil.
Transpl Proc, 35 (2003), pp. 1758-1759
[6]
W.S. Rothwell, J.M. Gloor, B.Z. Morgenstern, D.S. Milliner.
Disseminated varicella infection in pediatric renal transplant recipients treated with mycophenolate mofetil.
Transplantation, 68 (1999), pp. 158-161
[7]
Y. Koc, K.B. Miller, D.P. Schenkein, J. Griffith, M. Akhtar, J. DesJardin, et al.
Varicella zoster virus infections following allogeneic bone marrow transplantation: frequency, risk factors, and clinical outcome.
Biol Blood Marrow Transpl, 6 (2000), pp. 44-49
[8]
H.W. Sollinger.
Mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in primary cadaveric renal allograft recipients. U.S. Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group.
Transplantation, 60 (1995), pp. 225-232
[9]
J. Neyts, E. de Clerrcq.
Mycophenolate mofetil strongly potentiates the anti-herpesvirus activity of acyclovir.
Antiviral Res, 40 (1998), pp. 53-56
[10]
P. Errasti, M.L. Álvarez, G. Gómez, F.J. Lavilla, N. Garcia, B. Ballester, et al.
Chickenpox in four adult renal transplant recipients.
Transpl Proc, 31 (1999), pp. 2341-2342

Please cite this article as: Morión Grande M, Martín-Gómez MA, Quereda Castañeda A, López Jiménez V, Cabezas Fernández T. Retinopatía necrosante herpética en trasplantado renal con mofetil micofenolato. Nefrologia. 2016;36:575–577.

Copyright © 2016. Sociedad Española de Nefrología
Idiomas
Nefrología (English Edition)

Subscribe to our newsletter

Article options
Tools
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

es en
Política de cookies Cookies policy
Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar nuestros servicios y mostrarle publicidad relacionada con sus preferencias mediante el análisis de sus hábitos de navegación. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso. Puede cambiar la configuración u obtener más información aquí. To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here.