A COMBINATION OF HERPES VIRUS INFECTION (HSV-1, HHV-6) AND MULTI-RESISTANT BACTERIAL INFECTION IN A SEVERELY BURNED PEDIATRIC PATIENT - A CASE REPORT.

Serious burn trauma is associated with changes of the immune system, and immunosuppression induced by burn trauma can lead to reactivation of latent infections. Herpetic viruses are known for their lifelong persistence after primary infection and ability to reactivate. Their reactivation in the setting of burn trauma or primary infection can cause serious complications for a weakened burn patient. Presented is a case of a toddler who sustained second-degree scald burns over 20% of his body surface area. The injury was complicated by a multi-resistant bacterial infection in addition to reactivation of a latent HHV-6 infection concurrently with a primary HSV-1 infection. Described further are basic diagnostics, local and systemic treatment strategies, and other complications due to disseminated herpetic infections. To date, HHV-6 reactivation has not been described in conjunction with burn injury.

Antiviral activity of propolis special extract GH 2002 against Varicella zoster virus in vitro.

Propolis is a generic name for a biological substance produced by bees used for multiple purposes in folk medicine. Propolis special extract GH 2002 is crude propolis highly purified by a special procedure and freed from the accompanying substances like pollen, wax, resins. The cytotoxic and antiherpetic effect of propolis extracts against Varicella zoster virus (VZV) was analysed in cell culture, and revealed a moderate cytotoxicity on lung fibroblasts with a CC50 of 380 µg/ml. The 50 % inhibitory concentration (IC50) of GH 2002 propolis extract for VZV plaque formation was determined at 64 µg/ml. The propolis extract exhibited high levels of antiviral activity against VZV in viral suspension tests, infectivity was significantly reduced by 93.9 % and a direct concentration-dependent antiviral activity could be demonstrated. In order to determine the mode of virus suppression by propolis, the extract was added at different times during the viral infection cycle. Addition of propolis to uninfected cells (pretreatment cells) prior to infection or to infected cells (replication) during intracellular replication had no or only minor effect on virus multiplication. However, propolis exhibited high anti-VZV activity when viruses were pretreated with propolis prior to infection thus indicating an unspecific interaction between the virus and propolis. The antiviral activity is comparable to acyclovir.

[Differential diagnosis of the viral etiology of suspected mumps in a population with high vaccine coverage]. / Diferenciální diagnostika virové etiologie suspektních príusnic ve vysoce proockované populaci.

AIM: In this study, buccal swabs from patients with the clinical picture of parotitis epidemica in whom mumps virus (MV) infection was not confirmed by direct detection or serologically were tested. The aim was to detect by molecular methods nucleic acids (NAs) of other respiratory viruses possibly involved in salivary gland swelling. At the same time, paired sera, if available, were tested. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study group consisted of 72 buccal swabs from patients of the Clinic of infectious, tropical, and parasitic diseases, Na Bulovce Hospital. Paired sera were available from ten patients. Samples were collected in 2013 to 2015. Buccal swabs were tested by PCR for the presence of NAs of adenoviruses (AdV), bocaviruses (hBoV), parainfluenza viruses of types 1-4 (HPIV), human metapneumovirus (hMPV), coronaviruses (HCoV: NL63, OC43, HKU1, and 229E), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza A virus, influenza B virus, and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV). Paired sera were screened by the complement fixation test (AdV and influenza A and B viruses), hemagglutination inhibition test (HPIV types 2 and 3), ELISA (AdV, EBV), and immunofluorescence (EBV). RESULTS: NAs from viruses other than the mumps virus were detected in 27 of 72 patients with clinical symptoms of parotitis epidemica, and serological tests revealed etiological links with parainfluenza viruses in three more cases. Overall, 30 (41.7%) of 72 patients with suspected mumps tested positive for one or more viruses from the study panel. The most commonly detected viruses were AdV 11/72 (15.3%), EBV 9/72 (12.5%), and HPIV 3/72 (4.2%), but influenza A virus (H3N2) 1/72 (1.4%) was also found. Some patients tested positive for more than one virus: 2/72 (3%) for AdV plus hBoV and 1/72 (1.4%) for HPIV plus HCoV. In addition, examination of paired sera revealed HPIV positivity in three more patients. PCR and serology detected etiological link with HPIV in six (8.3%) of 72 patients tested. CONCLUSION: In our study group, nearly 42% of patients with the clinical picture of parotitis epidemica in whom mumps virus (MV) infection was not confirmed by direct detection or serologically tested positive for viruses other than the mumps virus. Thorough laboratory diagnosis of suspected mumps in vaccinated persons is important not only for the treatment of patients and adoption of isolation and other measures, but also for a better understanding of the epidemiology of the disease and outcomes of the immunisation programmes.