Anti-HSV type 2 Monoclonal antibody

BackgroundMaking a definite diagnosis of infectious uveitis is a challenging task because many other infectious, and non-infectious uveitis, may have similar non-specific symptoms and overlapping clinical appearances. Co-infections in immunocompetent patients are not frequently proved with traditional serologic-diagnostic tools.MethodsDescriptive transversal study, in a Uveitis Service of an Ophthalmology Reference Center, in Bogota, Colombia, from July 2014 to February 2016. Aqueous humor (AH) and/or vitreous fluid, blood and serum samples were collected from consecutive patients suspected of having infectious uveitis. The diagnosis of ocular toxoplasmosis (OT) was confirmed by the Goldmann-Witmer coefficient (GWC) and by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Differential diagnosis by PCR in AH was done for viral origin such as Cytomegalovirus (CMV), Herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV1), Herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV2), Varicella zoster virus (VZV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and Mycobacterium tuberculosis.ResultsIn 66 Colombian patients with uveitis of presumed infectious origin: 22 (33.3%) were confirmed as OT, 16 (24.2%) as undetermined OT, five (7.5%) as co-infections and 23 (34.8%) as other uveitis. Toxoplasma coinfection with M. tuberculosis was identified in one case by PCR and in four cases with HSV by GWC. The initial clinical diagnosis changed, after laboratory examination, in 21 cases (31.8%).ConclusionsClinical diagnosis can be changed by laboratory examination in a significant proportion of cases of uveitis. Diagnosis of OT should combine the use of PCR and GWC to reach the maximum of confirmation of cases. The use of multiple laboratory methods is necessary to identify co-infections and viral infections that can mimic OT in immunocompetent patients.

Recent proof-of-concept randomised controlled trials have shown a causal relation between herpes simplex virus (HSV) type 2 infection and HIV-1 replication in co-infected individuals. We explore the mechanisms that may operate to enhance reciprocal viral replication. Direct interactions could involve HIV-1-related immune deficiency, disruption of mucosal barrier by HSV infection/reactivation, HSV-induced mucosal cell recruitment, transactivation of HIV-1 replication by HSV proteins, and immune modulation by HSV decoys. Indirect interactions might coexist through disturbances of the vaginal flora during HSV shedding and systemic immune activation. In co-infected individuals, suppressive HSV treatment reduces HIV-1 genital and systemic excretion. This finding is a likely result of efficacious prevention of HSV2 reactivations, and perhaps of other herpesviruses. Strategies to control HSV2 and other herpesviruses deserve urgent attention and should become part of the HIV-1 prevention and care package.