Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2005
URGENT: shingles/herpes(?) infection getting in/around eyes
|
|
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
|
|
|