Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

URGENT:  shingles/herpes(?) infection getting in/around eyes

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Jim - 31 Aug 2005 17:44 GMT
I have a shingles/herpes infection (not sure) that was responding
exceedingly well to 1 gm 2X/day of Valtrex but that really flared up again
with a day or two of reducing the dose to 500mg 2X/day.

I understand that this is quite serious if it gets into the eyes.   Last
night I had a leison inside my eyelid that ruptured as I was looking at it.

I went to one of  those walk-in places that was quite happy to serve me as I
had plenty of cash in pocket or on my debit card to pay upfront (new job:
healthcare already signed up for doesn't become for two more days) but it
was close to closing time and when the doc realised this might be more of a
complicated situation than he wanted to get into that close to closing, they
refunded my money (!) and told me to go straight  away to the emergency
room.

Unfortunately at the EM I didn't get the option to pay in advance (and thus
assuage their terror of the potentially unpaid account) and because my
healthcare plan wouldn't go into effect for the next 38 hours, was put into
the "have-not" category with the expected effects on treatment:    suddenly
there was no rush and the focus was firmly on finding any excuse to cover
the dr's @ss for a refusal to do anything costly (like, God forbid,
expensive antibiotics (which I had plenty of cash for, BTW but no one was
asking).   Waited 4 hours to see the doctor (and only then because I was
about to leave to go to some other EM!).    (Were they gonna charge me
megabucks just to sit in their facility until normal business hours?!)

Result:  "I'm not convinced it's shingles"  (basically he totally ignored
all symptoms/history/prior diagnosis and anything he couldn't see himself
right then (which included ruptured lesions inside  the lower eyelid ("but
the eye can get all kinds of rashes")) and told me to see his opthamologist
in the morning (_his_ opthamologist will be the last one on earth I'd see!)

Questions:

What is the appropriate treatment if it does/is getting into they eye(s)?

different oral antibiotics (to get into the eye)?

eye drop ABs?

IV ABs?

Wondering if the urgent care could have addressed the problem right there
with an appropriate prescription and just didn't because it was too close to
closing to check it out and what kind of treatment I might have received at
the EM had my healthcare plan already been in effect.

PS:   Getting my prescription refilled today and going to a _different_
opthamologist!

PPS:   this is ~some~  kind of viral infection:    very seriously
exacerbated by stress, sleep deficit and most especially chocolate/nuts*
and, to a lesser extent, caffeine; helped significantly by lysine (but that
effect has, unfortunately worn off so that even 1 gram every three hours
around the clock barely has an effect (and that's way too much of an amino
acid imbalance for more than a short period!)

* even a very small amount of either is absolutely positively guarenteeded
to cause a flare-up!
Scott Seidman - 31 Aug 2005 18:04 GMT
"Jim" <jamesbarron4699@earthlink.net> wrote in news:y7lRe.4601$_84.3138
@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> different oral antibiotics (to get into the eye)?

Antibiotics don't work on viruses.

Signature

Scott
Reverse name to reply

William Stacy - 31 Aug 2005 21:10 GMT
Right, if it's a virus, the Valtrex is an anti virus, which is what you
need. They do make anti-virals for the eye also, but I agree you'd want
to be sure that's what you're dealing with.  You may end up adding an
antibacterial as a preventative or if they aren't sure of the
diagnosis.  Stay on top of it, esp. if the eyeball itself is involved.

w.stacy, o.d.

>"Jim" <jamesbarron4699@earthlink.net> wrote in news:y7lRe.4601$_84.3138
>@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>  
RM - 31 Aug 2005 21:43 GMT


You need to see an eye doctor fast.  If you have shingles the standard dose
of Valtrex is 1gm 3X/day.  You want to take the proper dosage or the
infection can get worse.  It's a serious condition that you don't want to
mess with, regardless of whether there is ocular involvement or not.
Sometimes there can be secondary bacterial infections of the broken
vesicles-- these can be treated with oral antibiotics.

If there are open vesicles on your eyelid you should treat it as if there is
already ocular involvement.  Standard therapy is Viroptic 5X/day.

I have no comment regarding the influence of chocolate, caffeine, or nuts on
stimulating a zoster outbreak.

========================

> I have a shingles/herpes infection (not sure) that was responding
> exceedingly well to 1 gm 2X/day of Valtrex but that really flared up again
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
> * even a very small amount of either is absolutely positively guarenteeded
> to cause a flare-up!
David Robins, MD - 01 Sep 2005 07:34 GMT
On 8/31/05 1:43 PM, in article df54os01mue@enews4.newsguy.com, "RM"
<privacy@piracy.net> wrote:

> You need to see an eye doctor fast.  If you have shingles the standard dose
> of Valtrex is 1gm 3X/day.  You want to take the proper dosage or the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> If there are open vesicles on your eyelid you should treat it as if there is
> already ocular involvement. Standard therapy is Viroptic 5X/day.

SHOULD BE TREATED, YES, BUT VIROPTIC HAS LITTLE EFFECT ON HERPES ZOSTER
VIRUS (SHINGLES), WORKS BEST ON HERPES SIMPLEX. ACUTE USE IS EVERY 2 HOURS
UP TO 9X PER DAY, NOT 5X. EVE IF IT IS HERPES SIMPLEX, VIROPTIC IS
NOECESSARILY "STANDARD". MANY CORNEAL SPECIALISTS LIKE ORAL (ACYCLOVIR OR
VALTREX), SINCE IS NOT TOXIC TO THE EPITHELIUM, SO IT HEALS FASTER.

> I have no comment regarding the influence of chocolate, caffeine, or nuts on
> stimulating a zoster outbreak.
[quoted text clipped - 62 lines]
>> * even a very small amount of either is absolutely positively guarenteeded
>> to cause a flare-up!
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 01 Sep 2005 13:21 GMT
use viroptic.  oral antivirals have little or no effect with corneal
involvement.  whether or not you treat without corneal lesions (only
lid vesicles) is a matter of "style".  without clear corneal lesions 5
times per day is more like a prophylactic treatment and should be fine.
Apek - 01 Sep 2005 19:03 GMT
You deserve what you get if you treat your problems based on the advise
of unknow people on the net.
Here's my two cents:
Find an MD who you trust and stick with him.
Most things do get better on their own.
You will eventually convince yourself that you have done a great job
when really it would have gotten better by itself. And next time
perhaps you will do yourself some great damage.

PS. Viroptic is indicated ONLY in Simplex infections and even then
should never be used beyond 7-10 days and only at the recommended dose
because otherwise it is extremely epithelial toxic.  Not only does it
do piss all for everything else but will eventually lead to corneal
damage from toxic effects and must never be prescribed or dispensed by
anyone who is unfamiliar with correct ocular
examination/diagnosis/treatment.

best of luck
David Robins, MD - 02 Sep 2005 04:18 GMT
Where did you get your information from that oral treatment is not effective
for corneal involvement?

Oral antivirals are VERY EFFECTIVE for corneal involvement, per corneal
specialists, as well as being the treatment for recurrence prevention.


David Robins, MD
Board certified Ophthalmologist
Pediatric and adult strabismus subspecialty
Member of AAPOS
(American Association of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus)

On 9/1/05 5:21 AM, in article
1125577310.169778.112800@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "p.clarkii@gmail.com"

> use viroptic.  oral antivirals have little or no effect with corneal
> involvement.  whether or not you treat without corneal lesions (only
> lid vesicles) is a matter of "style".  without clear corneal lesions 5
> times per day is more like a prophylactic treatment and should be fine.
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 02 Sep 2005 06:01 GMT
the recent HEDS II trials show that, for HSV, the addition of oral
antivirals offers no added benefit over the use of viroptic alone in
the treatment of keratitis.  the only proven efficacy of acyclovir was
a moderate reduction in the risk of recurrence.

http://www.nei.nih.gov/neitrials/static/study38.asp
LarryDoc - 02 Sep 2005 18:39 GMT
> the recent HEDS II trials show that, for HSV, the addition of oral
> antivirals offers no added benefit over the use of viroptic alone in
> the treatment of keratitis.  the only proven efficacy of acyclovir was
> a moderate reduction in the risk of recurrence.
>
> http://www.nei.nih.gov/neitrials/static/study38.asp

I've read this study before and it and studies like it have not altered
the standard of care in the treatment of presumed HSV keratitis, as
you've read here in this thread.  And for good reason.

In any event, although oral antivirals may not alter the acute phase of
the disease *in the eye*, the even moderate reduction of risk recurrence
is certainly important.  Further, studies have shown that oral antiviral
treatment reduces virus particle shedding and thereby reduces the risk
of additional self re-innoculation and interpersonal
infection---certainly another important part of the whole picture.

Two other points I feel not adequately discussed here:

1. I wrote "presumed HSV" because it is not possible to be certain that
the lesions seen are varicella zoster or simplex and could be
potentially both at the same time. I have indeed seen a patient with a
primary zoster infection that also had simplex simultaneously,
thankfully with no cornea involvement.

2. We did not discuss the (previously taboo) treatment with
non-steroidal and steroid anti- inflammatory medication. The "standard"
treatment that I've been taught and utilize is oral and topical
anti-viral meds with non-steroidal drops for the first day or so and
then switch to corticosteroid drops (often antibiotic combo) in effort
to reduce the potential for scaring.  Not to mention oral analgesics
because the keratitis can be painful.

Finally, patients can have zoster or simplex lesions around their eyes
and have absolutely no impact on the ocular tissues. Different nerve
paths. Of course they have to careful not to put the virus in their
eyes, or anywhere else for that matter.

--LB, O.D.
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 03 Sep 2005 02:42 GMT
>I've read this study before and it and studies like it have not altered
the standard of care in the treatment of presumed HSV keratitis, as
you've read here in this thread.

there is nothing unusual about the results of this study.  i learned in
school, more recently than you went to school, that oral antivirals
have little impact on the clinical outcome of HSV keratitis.  this
study only proved it.  now if you want to be "extra cautious" and use
them anyway I don't think it hurts, but it has never been proven to be
standard of care.  oral antivirals certainly do help in the reduction
of herpes recurrence.

> then switch to corticosteroid drops (often antibiotic combo) in effort
to reduce the potential for scaring.

i hope that you do this only in the case of severe lesions or in the
case of stromal involvement.  otherwise you better have a good lawyer.
LarryDoc - 03 Sep 2005 03:40 GMT

> > then switch to corticosteroid drops (often antibiotic combo) in effort
> to reduce the potential for scaring.
>
> i hope that you do this only in the case of severe lesions or in the
> case of stromal involvement.  otherwise you better have a good lawyer.

Some would say it's actually the exact opposite of what you wrote. Read
the "Indications" for Inflamase, for example below. (All the other
steroids have similar indications and warnings.)

Recall that I wrote that the use of steroids FOLLOWS the use of topical
antivirals and non-steroidals. It is not meant to be used in the active
phase of the disease, at least as I've been taught, although as I've
cited below, some docs think it SHOULD be used in active phase of HSZ
and sometimes in HSV. Further, IMHO it is usually not necessary if the
lesions are squelched and are resolving quickly. But when they're not,
penetrating the stroma and threatening the central cornea with permanent
scarring, it's a different story. And if by the time the patient gets to
me and it's already penetrated into the deep stroma, that patient is out
of my office and off to the cornea specialist, anyway.

I fully understand the confusion that treatment of herpes infections
brings. Just as we cited the study that says that oral medication has no
effect on the topical eye disease, there are certainly plenty of studies
that say the exact opposite. Here's one:

Colin J, Prisant O, Cochener B, Lescale O, Rolland B, Hoang-Xuan T.
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of valaciclovir and acyclovir for
the treatment of herpes zoster ophthalmicus. Ophthalmology
2000;107:1507-11.

Additionally, not matter what it says on the Inflamase or Pred Forte
package insert, there are tons of articles that state that the
management of HSV and HZV should utilize topical steroids, some
specifically addressing stromal involvement as vital and others to use
with extreme caution, others that's it's OK with any superficial
epithelial disease and others only after it's controlled with
antivirals. An OM.D. that I respect greatly told me he's never seen the
so-called "herpes gone wild" from steroid use.
.
Here's a citation FOR using steroids:

Wilhelmus KR, Gee L, Hauck WW, et al. Herpetic Eye Disease Study. A
controlled trial of topical corticosteroids for herpes simplex stromal
keratitis. Ophthalmology. 1994;101(12):1883-95.

_______________________________

INDICATIONS AND USAGE: INFLAMASE MILD and INFLAMASE
FORTE Ophthalmic Solutions are indicated for the treatment of the
following conditions: steroid responsive inflammatory conditions of
the palpebral and bulbar conjunctiva, cornea, and anterior segment of
the globe, such as allergic conjunctivitis, acne rosacea, superficial
punctate keratitis, herpes zoster keratitis, iritis, cyclitis, selected
infective conjunctivitis.

And the "Contraindications":
The use of these preparations is contraindicated in the presence of
*acute* superficial herpes simplex keratitis, fungal diseases
........Employment of steroid medication in the treatment of herpes
simplex keratitis involving the stroma requires great caution; frequent
slit lamp microscopy is mandatory.

-------------------------------------------
Apparently, steriods are A-OK in HSZ and OK sometimes for some types of
HSV.  Oh.....whatever.

Pick your method. No lawyers need be involved if you do it right.

--LB, O.D.
David Robins, MD - 03 Sep 2005 07:21 GMT
In the study, oral antivirals IN ADDITION to Viroptic may have no ADDED
benefit, per your words. I am not disputing that statement.

I don't recall if the HED II trial tested oral antivirals alone, INSTEAD of
Viroptic.

Several corneal specials I know prefer acyclovir ALONE, instead of Viroptic,
in the initial treatment, and only add Viroptic if necessary. Based on
experience.

On 9/1/05 10:01 PM, in article
1125635698.220430.35050@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "p.clarkii@gmail.com"

> the recent HEDS II trials show that, for HSV, the addition of oral
> antivirals offers no added benefit over the use of viroptic alone in
> the treatment of keratitis.  the only proven efficacy of acyclovir was
> a moderate reduction in the risk of recurrence.
>
> http://www.nei.nih.gov/neitrials/static/study38.asp
RM - 02 Sep 2005 04:50 GMT

While I agree with treating with Viroptic, its use is considered standard of
care for Herpes Simplex and not Zoster.  What you say about the efficacy of
oral antivirals also pertains to Simplex and but not to Zoster.

Having said that, the medical practice that I work in also uses Viroptic,
along with Famvir, for treatment and prophylaxis of Zoster infections.  The
fact is that, although Viroptic can cause superficial keratitis, its toxic
effects are easily reversible once the drug is withdrawn.  The potential
negative effects of having a keratitis, in the opinion of the corneal
specialist in our practice, are outwayed by the potential benefits of
lessening a herpes outbreak.

Apply a little pathophysiology to the thinking here-- how different is
recurrent Simplex from Zoster?  Both are herpes viral infections arising
from dormant virus particles within nerve fibers.  Would you really look at
a dendritic lesion arising from Zoster and refuse to put Viroptic drops on
the wound and then go into the next exam room and prescribe them for an
identical looking lesion cased by the same virus that you ascribe to
Simplex?  Perhaps we are a little aggressive with our treatment but its
better than being conservative when dealing with herpes-related ocular
problems.

PS-- we also use Famvir routinely when treating Simplex if there is the
slightest hint of lid/skin involvement.  If the ocular involvement has been
severe, we sometimes keep the patient on a suppressive dose to reduce the
likelihood of recurrence.

===================

> use viroptic.  oral antivirals have little or no effect with corneal
> involvement.  whether or not you treat without corneal lesions (only
> lid vesicles) is a matter of "style".  without clear corneal lesions 5
> times per day is more like a prophylactic treatment and should be fine.
Dr. Leukoma - 02 Sep 2005 12:37 GMT
Having had to research this myself a few months back, I found that
topical acyclovir is currently under investigation as a treatment for
herpes zoster ophthalmicus.  Valtrex doesn't always work.

DrG
Dr. Leukoma - 02 Sep 2005 12:48 GMT
> Having had to research this myself a few months back, I found that
> topical acyclovir is currently under investigation as a treatment for
> herpes zoster ophthalmicus.  Valtrex doesn't always work.

Sorry.  I meant to say topical trifluridine -- Viroptic -- and NOT
acyclovir.  There are a few references for topical acyclovir in the
treatment of zoster as well.

DrG
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.