Acute retinal necrosis (ARN) is a sight-threatening uveitis which commonly caused by Varicella-zoster virus (VZV), Herpes Simplex virus type 1 and 2 (HSV I and HSV II), Cytomegalovirus (CMV), and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) [5]. Recently Hüseyin Baran Özdemir et al. reported a case of acute retinal necrosis presenting with central retinal vascular occlusion caused by human adenovirus [5]. Both immunocompetent and immunosuppressed individuals may develop ARN. Thus, properties of causative agent may be more determining than status of host’s immune system [6]. Recent herpes virus infection, genetic factors, and immunosuppression may prone the patients to ARN [1]. In addition to corticosteroids, monoclonal antibodies such as Natalizumab using in the treatment of MS can be considered as a predisposing factor for developing ARN as occurred in our case [1].
Patients may complain ocular pain worsening with eye movements, red eye, decreased vision, and floaters [6]. Diagnosis of ARN is clinically; common clinical features include remarkable inflammatory reaction of both anterior chamber and vitreous, at least one foci of retinal necrosis in the peripheral retina with circumferential spread, rapid progression in the lack of appropriate treatment, and an arterial occlusive vasculopathy [5]. A well-defined, smooth, and geographic border separates necrotic retina from healthy parts. Also, scant areas of retinal hemorrhages may be present [6]. Despite clinical-based diagnosis, PCR technique on intraocular fluids is routinely used in practice to identify the causing virus [7].
The most commonly used antiviral agents in the treatment of ARN are intravenous acyclovir or oral valacyclovir[5]. Oral famciclovir, valganciclovir and acyclovir are the other useful drugs. It has been discussed fellow-eye involvement is frequent without antiviral therapy [5]. Although intravenous administration of high-dose acyclovir is recommended as the choice option of treatment, reports of usefulness of oral antiviral therapy are available. At the time being no studies on direct comparison between oral and intravenous routs of antiviral treatment has been conducted [7]. It is recommended the patient should be maintained on oral agents for 3–6 months to reduce the risk of fellow-eye involvement. However no clear strategy has been advised on duration and dosage of prophylaxis[7]. The role of corticosteroids in the treatment is controversial. Reducing the inflammation is accounted as their advantages whereas worsening the necrotizing retinopathy is a potential concern [3]. It is noticeable although acyclovir is effective in regression of the necrosis and also reducing the chance of second eye involvement, it does not have preventive role in developing of retinal detachment [6]. On this issue, it seems the role of performing prophylactic laser photocoagulation is controversial. In one side some studies reported laser photocoagulation posterior to the necrotic areas can decrease rate of retinal detachment about 50% and in the other side Sara Risseeuw et al. refused this result in condition of corrected disease severity and recommended future investigations to clarify the effects of prophylactic vitrectomy [6, 8].
Visual outcome is mainly poor due to undesirable sequels such as retinal detachment and ischemic accidents of the optic nerve or macula[7]. The chance of retinal detachment increases especially in cases with > 25% retinal necrosis [7].
To the best of our knowledge this is one of the extremely limited reports of the ARN with multiple viral infections. Previously, Shida Chen et al. reported a 52-year-old man with diagnosis of acute retinal necrosis caused by multiple viruses [9]. They initiated the treatment with high-dose oral valacyclovir which was successful. However their patient complicated with macular detachment at the 4th month of follow- up and underwent to sclera buckling and pars plana vitrectomy with a final vision of counting fingers to hand motions[9]. On the issue of viral DNA detection, they used two primer pairs on samples from diagnostic vitrectomy; the first one could detect the presence of HSV-1, HSV-2, EBV, or CMV and the second one could identify VZV, human herpes virus 6 (HHV-6), or HHV-7. Both primer pairs amplified showing infection by at least two different viruses. On the one hand, EBV and CMV are not common for developing ARN and on the other hand HHV-6 and HHV-7 are not discussed in pathogenesis of ARN. So the authors of mentioned case report concluded the most probably situation is co-infection of HSV and VZV. The other similar report was performed by Tomoko Nakamura et al. in 2015 [10]. They report identification of VZV and CMV DNA in the vitreous, tears, saliva, and skin of an old healthy woman. However they concluded according to clinical characteristics and response to acyclovir, CMV is not responsible for causing ARN in this woman. Unlike these two reports, results of PCR in our case showed exact simultaneous infection of three viruses (HSV-1, HSV-2, and VZV) which can be considered as the unique aspect of our report. To exclude the possibility of the lab error or contamination, we asked the laboratory to perform PCR on the specimens for the second time. The results were the same. Although this report was interesting and rare, it beseems multi viral infection did not affect the response to treatment in our case. Considering a separate role for multi viral infection in occurrence of refractory RRD is difficult since retinal detachment is a common complication of acute retinal necrosis. So, we speculate this finding has research values more than clinical.