Increased presence of Epstein–Barr virus DNA in ocular fluid samples from HIV negative immunocompromised patients with uveitis
- Jenny V Ongkosuwitoa,b,
- Allegonda Van der Lelijc,
- Marcel Bruinenbergb,
- Marian Wienesen-van Doornb,
- Eric J C Ferond,
- Carel B Hoynge,
- Rob J W de Keizerf,
- Anne-Marie Klokb,g,
- Aize Kijlstraa,b
- aDepartment of Ophthalmology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands, bDepartment of Ophthalmo-Immunology, The Netherlands Ophthalmic Research Institute, Netherlands, cF C Donders Institute for Ophthalmology, University Hospital Utrecht, Netherlands, dEye Hospital Rotterdam, Netherlands, eDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Nijmegen, Netherlands, fDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Leiden, Netherlands, gDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hospital of the Free University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Jenny V Ongkosuwito, MD, Department of Ophthalmo-Immunology, Netherlands Ophthalmic Research Institute, PO Box 12141, 1100 AC Amsterdam, Netherlands.
- Accepted 10 October 1997
Abstract
AIMS To investigate whether routine testing for Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) is necessary in the examination of a patient with uveitis.
METHODS Intraocular EBV DNA was determined in 183 ocular fluid samples taken from patients with AIDS and uveitis, HIV negative immunocompromised uveitis, acute retinal necrosis, toxoplasma chorioretinitis, intraocular lymphoma, anterior uveitis, and miscellaneous uveitis of unknown cause. In 82 samples from this group of patients paired serum/ocular fluid analysis was performed to detect local antibody production against EBV. Controls (n=46) included ocular fluid samples taken during surgery for diabetic retinopathy, macular pucker, or cataract.
RESULTS Serum antibody titres to EBV capsid antigen proved to be significantly increased in HIV negative immunocompromised patients with uveitis (p<0.01) compared with controls. Local antibody production revealed only three positive cases out of 82 patients tested, two results were borderline positive and one patient had uveitis caused by VZV. EBV DNA was detected in three out of 46 control ocular fluid samples. In the different uveitis groups EBV DNA was noted, but was not significantly higher than in the controls, except in six out of 11 HIV negative immunocompromised patients (p=0.0008). In four out of these six cases another infectious agent (VZV, HSV, CMV, or Toxoplasma gondii) had previously been identified as the cause of the uveitis.
CONCLUSIONS When comparing various groups of uveitis patients, EBV DNA was found more often in HIV negative immunocompromised patients with uveitis. Testing for EBV does not have to be included in the routine management of patients with uveitis, since indications for an important role of this virus were not found in the pathogenesis of intraocular inflammation.
