Previous Article | Next Article 
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, September 2001, p. 3414-3416, Vol. 39, No. 9
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.9.3414-3416.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Hemorrhagic Fever with Renal Syndrome: Diagnostic
Problems with a Known Disease
Dominic
Wichmann,1
Werner
Slenczka,1
Peter
Alter,2
Stephan
Boehm,2 and
Heinz
Feldmann1,3,*
Institut für Virologie,
Philipps-Universität, D-35037 Marburg,1
and Klinik für Innere Medizin,
Philipps-Universität, D-35033
Marburg,2 Germany, and Canadian Science
Centre for Human and Animal Health, National Microbiology
Laboratory, Special Pathogens Program, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3E 3R2
Canada3
Received 15 May 2001/Returned for modification 29 May 2001/Accepted 11 July 2001
 |
ABSTRACT |
Hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS), caused by different
hantaviruses, is a distinct clinical syndrome endemic in several parts
of Asia and Europe. However, the clinical picture can sometimes be
indistinguishable from that of other infectious or noninfectious
diseases. In this report we describe a clinical case, which is a rare
occurrence but is a prime example of the difficulties in the diagnosis
of HFRS in areas with a low prevalence of the disease.
 |
TEXT |
Hemorrhagic fever with renal
syndrome (HFRS) is a disease caused by viruses of the family
Bunyaviridae, genus Hantavirus. Worldwide,
several different human pathogenic hantaviruses are known (2, 9,
15). The subtypes Hantaan (HTN), Dobrova (DOB), and Seoul (SEO)
cause moderate to severe HFRS in Asia and Europe, whereas Puumala (PUU)
causes a mild form of HFRS in central Europe and Scandinavia also
referred to as nephropathia epidemica (13). There are also
several New World hantaviruses, the prototype of which is Sin Nombre
virus, that cause hantavirus pulmonary syndrome in the Americans
(1). Hantaviruses are rodent-borne pathogens and are
normally transmitted to humans via aerosols generated from feces,
urine, and saliva of infected rodents. In Germany two different
serotypes of hantaviruses are known to be endemic. The
predominant virus is PUU virus, mainly found in southwest Germany,
which is carried by the bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus) (5, 14, 15, 17; J. Pilaski, C. Ellerich, T. Kreutzer, A. Lang, W. Benik, A. Pohl-Koppe, L. Bode, E. Vanek, I. B. Autenrieth, K. Bigos, and H. W. Lee, Letter, Lancet
337:111, 1991). Recently several cases of DOB virus
infection in Northeast Germany have been described (12,
16). In this part of Germany, DOB virus is found in
Apodemus agrarius and seems to be less pathogenic to humans
than Apodemus flavicollis-derived DOB virus which is found
in the Balkans (16). In Germany, PUU and DOB viruses
usually cause a mild form of HFRS with occasional severe complications such as acute renal failure and bleeding (14).
With the exception of known areas of endemicity, such as the
Schwaebische Alp (Pilaski et al., Letter), clinical HFRS cases occur
relatively infrequently in most parts of Germany. Consequently, hantavirus infections are not always considered in the initial differential diagnosis of infectious and/or febrile diseases. In
addition, the use of commercial diagnostic tests is limited and
sometimes unreliable. The following clinical case description demonstrates the general difficulties associated with the diagnosis of
hantavirus infections in areas having low disease frequency.
Clinical case report and laboratory findings.
A 25-year old
plumber was admitted to a small hospital in Hessen, Germany, with a
39°C fever that had developed over the previous days. Based on the
clinical presentation, history, and laboratory parameters, acute
appendicitis was diagnosed and surgery was performed. In situ the
appendix appeared normal, but 800 ml of intraperitoneal fluid was
observed. Shortly after surgery the patient became oliguric and was
transferred to the intensive care unit of a nearby university hospital.
The physical examination on admission showed a febrile (39.9°C) male
patient who was somnolent but awake and well orientated. The patient
suffered from diffuse abdominal pain, but without any classical signs
of peritonitis, and presented bilateral pleural effusions, a reduction
in pulmonary ventilation, and tachycardia (120/min). Conspicuous
laboratory results were as follows: leukocytosis, 35,000/ml;
thrombocytopenia, 38,000/ml; creatinine, 3.8 mg/dl; urea, 134 mg/dl;
C-reactive protein, 115 mg/liter; and serum lactate, 3.2 mmol/liter.
The blood coagulation parameters suggested a disseminated intravascular
coagulopathy. Urine analysis displayed a nonselective proteinuria with
a total loss of 3.52 g/liter over 24 h and an osmolarity of 274 mosmol/kg. Autoantibodies were not detected, and a primary
hematological disease was also excluded. Three days after admission the
patient developed large diffuse hemorrhages in the thighs, the back,
and the intra-abominal area of the surgery. In order to stop the
intra-abdominal bleeding, a second surgical intervention became
necessary. Extensive capillary leakage led to multiple edema and
pleural effusions, the latter of which had to be treated by
punctuation. Hantavirus serology was ordered 2 days after admission to
the intensive care unit. Immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies specific to
PUU virus were detected using a µ-capture enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Subsequently, IgM and IgG titers and
specific parameters of kidney function were monitored over the next 3 months (Fig. 1). Reverse
transcription-PCR for hantaviruses on RNA isolated from blood (whole
blood, blood clots, and serum) and urine remained negative. On the
second and third days after admission, intravenous substitution of
9,000 ml of fluid was necessary to sustain blood circulation. Until day
5 postadmission, the patient had displayed oliguria with urine volumes
less than 70 ml/h; however, dialysis was not necessary. On day 6, polyuria started, with a urine volume of 250 ml/h. Leukocytes and
thrombocytes recovered to normal levels on days 5 and 11 postadmission, respectively. The patient was dismissed from the hospital in good physical condition on day 18 postadmission.

View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
Progression of selected laboratory parameters. (A)
Hantavirus-specific antibodies. ELISAs were performed as
described previously (3, 8, 14; Gerke et al., letter). (B)
Creatinine and urea.
|
|
Diagnostic assays.
Hantavirus-specific IgM and IgG antibodies
were detected using previously described ELISAs (3, 8,
14). Briefly, for IgM detection the serum antibodies were
captured with goat anti-human IgM µ chain adsorbed to the
wells of microtiter plates. The captured IgM was then allowed to react
with viral antigen, and bound antigen was measured by the use of
hyperimmune rabbit serum and appropriate enzyme conjugate and
substrate. The antigens for this ELISA were extracted from uninfected
and infected Vero cells (here, PUU and SEO) by several cycles of
freeze-thawing followed by sonication and inactivation with 5 × 106 rads from a 60Co source. The IgG ELISA was
performed by coating microtiter plates overnight with basic buffer
detergent extracts (borate saline, pH 9.0, with 1% Triton X-100) of
uninfected or infected Vero cells (here, PUU and SEO) previously
inactivated with 2 × 106 rads from a 60Co
source. Standard methodology was applied, with uninfected antigen controls run for each serum. For all ELISAs, optical densities at 410 nm were recorded and the optical density of the corresponding negative
control antigen was substracted to yield the adjusted value (adOD). The
cutoffs of the ELISAs were determined by using a panel of positive and
negative control sera and defined as an adOD of 0.100. Serum titers of
1:400 were considered seropositive if the added adOD of positively
reacting serum dilutions exceeded 1.0 (P. Gerke, D. Wichmann, U. Schonermarck, M. Schutt, H. Feldmann, T. G. Ksiazek, P. M. Rob, and W. L. Gross, Letter, Rheumatology 39:1424-1425, 2000).
PCR was performed using protocols established earlier and commonly used
in routine diagnostics for hantaviruses (
6,
14).
Briefly,
RNA was extracted from heparinized whole blood, blood
clots, serum, and
urine using different RNeasy kits (Qiagen, Düsseldorf,
Germany).
For urine, 30 ml collected over 24 h was pelleted at
~107,000 ×
g for 2 h (SW41 Beckman rotor) prior
to RNA extraction.
Amplification of RNA was done by reverse
transcription-PCR in
a single-step, single-tube reaction using
oligonucleotides previously
described (
6,
14).
Discussion.
The above-described clinical case may be rare, but
it is a prime example of the difficulties in diagnosing HFRS in areas
where the disease is not endemic and cases are sporadic. Hantavirus infections can appear clinically uncharacteristic and mimic syndromes such as an acute abdomen. Unnecessary surgeries with sometimes life-threatening complications can be the consequence of misinterpreted symptoms. Similar cases have occurred in Scandinavian countries and
Russia, especially when HFRS was not generally recognized (4). Increasing awareness of hantavirus infections in
Scandinavia has drastically reduced unnecessary surgical interventions.
This may be more difficult to achieve in Western and Central Europe, since HFRS case numbers are much smaller.
Serology is still the first choice for the diagnosis of hantavirus
infections. Most serological assays are set up to diagnose
groups of
hantaviruses rather than specific serotypes. Due to
serological
cross-reactivity between serotypes of such groups
(e.g., DOB, SEO, and
HTN), a positive result may occur in tests
against any of the related
antigens. Any laboratory offering hantavirus
diagnosis should fulfill
minimal requirements for the critical
interpretation of their tests and
should contact a reference center
for advice in critical and
questionable cases. Problems with quality
control and test evaluation
can be exacerbated by the facts that
infections are rare and several
serotypes may cocirculate. Seropanels
might be helpful in determining
the proper test antigen for a
given geographic
location.
Positive serology should be interpreted very cautiously in cases that
are based on a single serum sample and where IgG cannot
be detected.
Independent confirmatory testing should always be
attempted. In these
cases, PCR detection of viral nucleic acid
can be performed on blood
samples, but a positive result is to
be expected only if the samples
were taken within the first days
after onset of symptoms. Urine and
kidney biopsy materials are
sometimes better sources for this
particular detection assay but
are often not available (
6,
7,
14). The first sampling
on this case patient was done several
days after the appearance
of initial clinical symptoms, and therefore,
the negative PCR
results were not surprising. If clinical material is
only useful
for serological testing (sampling is performed at a
nonviremic
stage), serial serum samples are needed to confirm the
diagnosis
by demonstrating the appearance of IgG-specific antibodies,
as
was done in the described case. Virus isolation is normally done
on
Vero cells (American Type Culture Collection, C1008). Since
isolation
from human material is difficult (
10), attempts are
routinely made only following positive PCR
results.
Areas of hantavirus endemicity in Western and Central Europe are not
well defined, and hantavirus infections may be more common
than
expected. As we have learned from the experience of Scandinavian
countries, the problem needs to be widely addressed and discussed
with
physicians of different specialties. Hantavirus infections
should be
considered in differential diagnosis along with a series
of other acute
infectious diseases, especially scrub typhus, murine
typhus, spotted
fevers, and leptospirosis. Hantavirus infection
also needs to be
differentiated from hematological diseases, other
causes of acute renal
failure, acute abdomen, and neurological
diseases (
11).
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We thank Mike Drebot and Daryl Dick, Canadian Science Centre for
Human and Animal Health, for critical review of the manuscript. The
ELISA antigens were kindly provided by the Special Pathogens Branch,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga. (Thomas G. Ksiazek and Pierre E. Rollin).
Work on hantavirus at the Institute für Virologie,
Philipps-Universität, Marburg, Germany, was supported by grants
SFB286 and Fe286-5-1 from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and grant 72087 from the Volkswagen-Stiftung.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Canadian Science
Centre for Human and Animal Health, National Microbiology Laboratory, Special Pathogens Program, 1015 Arlington St., Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3E
3R2 Canada. Phone: (204) 789-6019. Fax: (204) 789-2140. E-mail: Heinz_Feldmann{at}hc-sc.gc.ca.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Duchin, J. S.,
F. T. Koster,
C. J. Peters,
G. L. Simpson,
B. Tempest,
S. R. Zaki,
T. G. Ksiazek,
P. E. Rollin,
S. T. Nichol,
E. T. Umland,
R. L. Moolenaar,
S. E. Reef,
K. B. Nolte,
M. M. Gallaher,
J. C. Butler,
R. F. Breiman, and The Hantavirus Study Group.
1994.
Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome: a clinical description of 17 patients with a newly recognized disease.
N. Engl. J. Med.
330:949-955[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 2.
|
Feldmann, H.
2000.
Hantaviruses.
In
Encyclopedia of life sciences. [Online.] Nature Publishing GroupLondon, United Kingdom.
|
| 3.
|
Feldmann, H.,
A. Sanchez,
S. Morzunov,
C. F. Spiropoulou,
P. E. Rollin,
T. G. Ksiazek,
C. J. Peters, and S. T. Nichol.
1993.
Utilization of autopsy RNA for the synthesis of the nucleoprotein antigen of a newly recognized virus associated with hantavirus pulmonary syndrome.
Virus Res.
30:351-367[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 4.
|
Gantser, S. K.,
S. Z. Zagidullin,
K. K. Gantseva, and M. P. Ataev.
1989.
Errors in the diagnosis of hemorrhagic fever with nephrotic syndrome in surgical practice.
Klin. Med. (Moscow)
67:42-44. (In Russian.)
|
| 5.
|
Heiske, A.,
B. Anheier,
J. Pilaski,
V. E. Volchkov, and H. Feldmann.
1999.
A new Clethrionomys-derived hantavirus from Germany: evidence for distinct genetic sublineages of Puumala viruses in Western Europe.
Virus Res.
61:101-112[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 6.
|
Heiske, A.,
B. Anheier,
J. Pilaski,
H. D. Klenk,
H. J. Gröne, and H. Feldmann.
1999.
Polymerase chain reaction detection of Puumala virus RNA in formaldehyde-fixed biopsy material.
Kidney Int.
55:2062-2069[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 7.
|
Hjelle, B.,
C. F. Spiropoulou,
N. Torrez-Martinez,
S. Morzunov,
C. J. Peters, and S. T. Nichol.
1994.
Detection of Muerto Canyon virus RNA in peripheral blood mononuclear cells in patients with hantavirus pulmonary syndrome.
J. Infect. Dis.
170:1013-1017[Medline].
|
| 8.
|
Ksiazek, T. G.,
C. J. Peters,
P. E. Rollin,
S. Zaki,
S. T. Nichol,
C. F. Spiropoulou,
S. Morzunov,
A. Sanchez,
H. Feldmann,
A. S. Khan,
K. Wachsmuth, and J. C. Butler.
1995.
Identification of a new north American hantavirus that causes acute pulmonary insufficiency.
Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg.
52:117-123.
|
| 9.
| Lee, H. W., C. Calisher, and C. Schmaljohn.
(ed.). 1999. Manual of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome and
hantavirus pulmonary syndrome. WHO Collaborating Center for Virus
Reference and Research (Hantaviruses), Asan Institute for Life
Sciences, Seoul, Korea.
|
| 10.
|
Lee, H. W.
1999.
Virus isolation, p. 74-79.
In
H. W. Lee, C. Calisher, and C. Schmaljohn (ed.), Manual of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome and hantavirus pulmonary syndrome. WHO Collaborating Center for Virus Reference and Research (Hantaviruses) Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Seoul, Korea.
|
| 11.
|
Lee, J. S.,
J. Lähdevirta,
F. Koster, and H. Levey.
1999.
Clinical manifestations and treatment of HFRS and HPS, p. 17-38.
In
H. W. Lee, C. Calisher, and C. Schmaljohn (ed.), Manual of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome and hantavirus pulmonary syndrome. WHO Collaborating Center for Virus Reference and Research (Hantaviruses) Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Seoul, Korea.
|
| 12.
|
Meisel,
H. A. Lundkvist,
K. Gantzer,
W. Bar,
C. Sibold, and D. H. Krueger.
1998.
First case of infection with hantavirus Dobrava in Germany.
Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.
17:884-885[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 13.
|
Papadimitriou, M.
1995.
Hantavirus nephropathy.
Kidney Int.
48:887-902[Medline].
|
| 14.
|
Pilaski, J.,
H. Feldmann,
S. Morzunov,
P. E. Rollin,
S. L. Ruo,
B. Lauer,
C. J. Peters, and S. T. Nichol.
1994.
Genetic identification of a new Puumala virus strain causing severe hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome in Germany.
J. Infect. Dis.
170:1456-1472[Medline].
|
| 15.
|
Schmaljohn, C. S., and B. Hjelle.
1997.
Hantaviruses: a global disease problem.
Emerg. Infect. Dis.
3:95-104[Medline].
|
| 16.
|
Sibold, C.,
R. Ulrich,
M. Labuda,
A. Lundkvist,
H. Martens,
M. Schutt,
P. Gerke,
K. Leitmeyer,
H. Meisel, and D. H. Krüger.
2001.
Dobrava hantavirus causes hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome in central Europe and is carried by two different Apodemus mice species.
J. Med. Virol.
63:158-167[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 17.
|
Zöller, L.,
M. Faulde,
H. Meisel,
B. Ruh,
P. Kimmig,
U. Schelling,
M. Zeier,
P. Kulzer,
C. Becker,
M. Roggendorf,
E. K. F. Bautz,
D. H. Krüger, and G. Darai.
1995.
Seroprevalence of hantavirus antibodies in Germany as determined by a new recombinant enzyme immunoassay.
Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis.
14:305-313[CrossRef][Medline].
|
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, September 2001, p. 3414-3416, Vol. 39, No. 9
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.9.3414-3416.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.