key: cord-281871-3j64de2i
authors: Sinagra, G; Porcari, A; Gentile, P; Artico, J; Fabris, E; Bussani, R; Merlo, M
title: Viral presence guided immunomodulation in lymphocytic myocarditis: An update
date: 2020-07-19
journal: Eur J Heart Fail
DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.1969
sha: 
doc_id: 281871
cord_uid: 3j64de2i

nan

Myocarditis is an inflammatory disease of the myocardium characterized by great heterogeneity in clinical presentation and natural history, ranging from asymptomatic to rapidly progressive syndromes 1 . Three main clinical scenarios can be encountered: a) acute clinically unstable or fulminant myocarditis; b) acute clinically stable myocarditis; and c) chronic myocarditis (i.e. symptoms lasting > 6 months). Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) remains the diagnostic gold standard for myocarditis, due to its definitive diagnosis capacity, particularly in patients presenting challenging clinical scenarios (i.e. acute clinically unstable or fulminant myocarditis). In patients with lymphocytic myocarditis and heart failure (HF) with severe left ventricular dysfunction or lifethreatening ventricular arrhythmias who do not respond to conventional treatments in the short term (i.e. 7-10 days), EMB may guide more advanced medical therapy, including immunosuppression and immunomodulation 1 state, "Immunosuppression should be started only after ruling out active infection on EMB by PCR," and, "Immunosuppression may be considered, on an individual basis, in infection-negative lymphocytic myocarditis refractory to standard therapy in patients with no contraindications to Accepted Article immunosuppression." 4 Accordingly, the latest version of the Cochrane bank analysis 5 reports, "Corticosteroids may have a role in treating myocarditis without viral evidence." The same recommendations have been reaffirmed in recent reviews 1, 6, 7 , where different international experts highlight the need for ruling out viral presence in EMB via PCR analysis before starting immunosuppression or immunomodulation in clinically suspected acute myocarditis patients presenting life-threatening scenarios. These indications have been further confirmed in the latest statement from the AHA, which recommends viral search in clinically suspected acute and fulminant myocarditis 8 . Therefore, viral presence appears relevant in the clinical management of high-risk lymphocytic myocarditis.

Immunosuppression appears mandatory in specific non-infectious myocarditis settings, such as giant cell myocarditis, necrotizing eosinophilic myocarditis and cardiac sarcoidosis 7 .

Approximately 90% of the myocarditis cases encountered in clinical practice are lymphocytic, mostly caused by viruses and subsequent immune response. The maladaptive immune response following cardiotropic virus infection has been characterized best in animal models of myocarditis sustained by enteroviruses 6 . Coxsackievirus groups A and B, belonging to the enteroviruses, were shown to enter within cardiomyocytes via the transmembrane coxsackievirus and adenovirus receptor (CAR) and to induce rapid cytolysis due to pronounced viral replication 9 . The potential mechanisms of direct cardiac damage induced by other non-enteroviruses are less defined 9 . In recent genome-wide association studies, specific genetic loci and innate and acquired immune response pathways have been associated with human host responses against infectious diseases 10 , especially HLA variants. These findings were not confirmed in the study by Belkaya et al 11 , where genetic mutations in interferon-mediated immunity investigated in human-induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes did not result in increased susceptibility to viral myocarditis, though the study did note a potential association between myocarditis and defects in cardiac structural Accepted Article proteins. Available evidence is clearly heterogeneous and further research on the pathophysiological mechanisms of viral heart damage is required, mostly regarding autoimmune reactions and genetically defined host factors. Furthermore, distinguishing innocent bystanders from causative myocarditis agents, among EMB-detected viruses, are of utmost importance to address tailored therapy. However, this is a challenging task to pursue and a major goal to achieve in the near future.

Currently, viral presence in the myocardium is a pathological finding; the only exception is Parvovirus B19 (PVB19), which, particularly at low viral burden, has been reported in noninflammatory cardiac 12 disease as well, and also requires further research.

In myocarditis, recommendations are mostly based on small and heterogeneous studies that enrolled patients with inflammatory cardiomyopathies and established HF; any definitive evidence of a survival benefit from immunomodulation is currently lacking [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] . Particularly in the minority of patients with clinically suspected acute myocarditis and positive viral presence upon PCR analysis, antiviral drugs 19, 20 and intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) 21 were shown to be well-tolerated and increase viral clearance 4 . However, controlled adult IVIG therapy experiences are limited 8 .

Immunosuppression guided by comprehensive EMB analysis may be considered in myocarditis with high-risk presentation, such as fulminant myocarditis, acute HF, electrical instability due to life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias and, rarely, patients with recurrent acute myocarditis and persistently elevated serum troponin values. Still, the value of immunosuppression in these scenarios has never been investigated in dedicated trials. Therefore, considerable divergence remains between official recommendations and clinical practice, and some Centres start immunosuppressive therapy empirically, without knowing the PCR results on viral presence in the myocardium 22 . This practice is mainly supported by data from a retrospective Italian registry, including a highly selected population of patients with clinically acute myocarditis. EMB was performed for most of the patients with fulminant myocarditis and only a minority of them were treated without knowing EMB results. Furthermore, molecular virus search Accepted Article via PCR analysis was not systematically performed and the implications of the presence of specific viruses for clinical management and prognosis could not be investigated 22 .

The following are the main observations to consider when conducting molecular analysis in EMB samples: However, these discrepancies partially derive from a more extensive search for the PVB19 viral genome, resulting from the heightened awareness of PVB19 as a potential viral agent in myocarditis over time; therefore, its prevalence in the Italian cohort might have been reasonably underestimated. The increased awareness over time of causative viral myocarditis agents due to molecular EMB analysis yields a more accurate characterization of virus-tailored clinical management of patients.

Lastly, enteroviruses are established viral myocarditis causative agents in animals and in humans 9 ; conversely, the role of other viruses (particularly PVB19 and HHV-6) is at present controversial and requires further scrutiny. 25 The contemporary PCR analysis for viral presence in EMB specimens and blood samples should always be investigated, as this technique is the gold standard to rule out the possibility of tissue contamination. The absence of a viral genome in a blood sample greatly reduces the likelihood of passive blood contamination of EMB specimen. The presence of a viral genome in both samples requires further investigation through quantitative PCR analysis to assess the viral load 4 .

Most currently, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID19), caused by SarsCov2, has emerged as a potential cause of myocarditis, mostly due to an important cytokine release and immune response 29 . SarsCov2 particles have recently been reported at EMB in macrophages of the interstitial space via electromicroscopy 30 , but no particles were detected in cardiomyocytes and viral PCR was negative. Therefore, the evidence of SarsCov2's direct cardiac involvement is still lacking. As a consequence, the implications of viral presence upon EMB need to be assessed in future studies and might be limited, at present, to highly selected, life-threatening acute scenarios.

As such, viral PCR analysis in EMB samples should be performed on a regular basis to better characterize the pathological substrate causing myocarditis and to guide clinical decision-making.

uncertain 15, 25 . PVB19 is the most frequently detected virus in PCR analyses 23 , having appeared in 33-64% of cases across different studies 6, 25 . However, similar percentages of PVB19-positive analyses have been demonstrated in patients with non-inflammatory cardiomyopathy (i.e. ischemic or valvular heart disease) who were undergoing cardiac surgery 12 , bringing PVB19's role as a pathogenic agent or innocent bystander into question.

For this reason, PCR-based quantification of viral genomes and replicative status are required, mostly for PVB19, before starting immunosuppression. On the one hand, low-copy PVB19 may enable the initiation of steroid therapy 15 , but on the other, patients with severe systemic PVB19 infections presenting with fulminant myocarditis can have a high viral load (> 500 copies/μg DNA) that prevents immunosuppressive drug administration, due to the risk of uncontrolled infection. Therefore, the differentiation between high and low viral loads is quite important. As reported by Block et al. 31 , the mean PVB19 viral load found in EMB specimens in clinically acute myocarditis is substantially higher than that detected in chronic myocarditis (709 vs 316 copies/μg DNA), thus suggesting its potential to trigger and foster persistent infection and inflammation.

Although recognized as a causative viral agent, the pathophysiological mechanisms of HHV-6 in acute myocarditis remain to be assessed 9 . The HHV-6 genome can be found in up to 20% of myocardial samples from subjects with myocarditis or dilated cardiomyopathy, but it rarely causes severe myocarditis in immunocompetent hosts 9 . However, when it does, fulminant hepatitis may be associated with it, and patients may face a fatal outcome accordingly 32 . Further, conventional treatment of HHV-6 positive myocarditis consists of acyclovir administration, and steroid therapy should be avoided due to a subsequent increase in viral load 9 .

Currently, there are cut-off values for the viral quantification of PVB19 (> 500 copies/μg DNA) 31, 33, 34 and HHV-6 (> 500 copies/μg DNA) 7 . These are considered clinically relevant thresholds for the maintenance of myocardial inflammation. Still, future research is required to better define the virus-specific cut-off values to distinguish innocent bystanders from real pathogenic agents and to confirm their implications for patient management.

investigating immunosuppression in patients with lymphocytic myocarditis were often retrospective and characterized by great heterogeneity in inclusion criteria, immunosuppressive regimens, pre-specified endpoints and follow-up time 18 Although this study did not report data on hard endpoints, such as mortality, at 6 months, 88% of the patients treated with immunosuppressive therapy had significant left ventricular Accepted Article reverse remodeling 14 . Of note, the lack of response to immunosuppressive therapy was found in 5 (12%) out of 43 patients, suggesting the presence of alternative mechanisms of myocardial damage that are not adequately targeted by immunosuppression.

Therefore, the rational indication to immunosuppression is based on the presence of biopsyproven, infection-negative active myocarditis and its specific aetiology 8 , regardless of clinical presentation (both recent onset and chronic HF). However, it must be acknowledged that more data about immunosuppression in myocarditis with HF symptoms developed < 6 months (acute or fulminant presentations) must be gathered; as such, controlled studies in this population are strongly advocated.

Patient-tailored diagnostics and therapeutic management are required, as immunosuppression carries a non-negligible risk of potentially major complications, including the suppression of appropriate immunologic response and the subsequent worsening of myocardial injury, an increase and proliferation of secondary "opportunistic" infections and drug-related toxicity. Knowledge of viral genome presence may influence therapeutic choices. In this perspective and also considering its viable costs and reasonable wait time, PCR-based viral genome quantification in biopsy-proven lymphocytic myocarditis should not be restricted in its application (Figure 1 ). At our institution, PCR results are available within 48-72 hours for the majority of viruses, with the exception of enterovirus and PVB19, which require 5 working days due to virus-specific features. Costs vary depending on the number of viruses being tested but all are easily affordable at third level centres, considering that just a few hundred euros are generally needed. Selecting the appropriate EMB timing is crucial as viral clearance increases after the acute phase. However, this procedure is burdened by a mild yet relevant rate of major complications (around 1%) even in experienced centres 1 . Myocardial samples can be collected from different sites in the left ventricle, right Accepted Article ventricle or interventricular septum with variable diagnostic accuracy. Regardless of collection site, however, it is crucial to obtain an adequate number (≥ 4) of tissue samples and to preserve them appropriately 1 . Therefore, EMB performed early in clinical presentation usually offers the most accurate diagnostic information 6 . In addition, although very little data is currently available, the replicative activity of viruses causing myocarditis could be a further element to consider, along with viral genome quantification when evaluating patients' eligibility to immunosuppression. Active viral replication might represent a contraindication to immunosuppression. In this respect, viral load quantification could prove important, mostly in PVB19-positive patients. Although PCR analysis allows quantification of viral load and replicative status from EMB specimens, this technique lacks standardization, as different protocols can be adopted. In addition, inter-laboratory variability and the absence of definite cut-off values for "significant" viral load and viral replication require cautious interpretation of results. Procedural standardization among different laboratories and future, focused research are thus required (Figure 1 ).

For the abovementioned reasons, the exclusion of viral presence before starting full immunosuppressive therapy (i.e. azathioprine and corticosteroids for at least 6 months) in lymphocytic myocarditis is recommended. This might decrease potential side effects, such as uncontrolled virus replication, subsequent active infection and additional global clinical deterioration, that are possibly life-threatening in to high-risk patients with lymphocytic myocarditis 18 . Notably, in highly selected patients presenting with severe fulminant myocarditis and who require temporary advanced mechanical circulatory support systems 1 , early immunosuppression may be crucial to survival. In this setting, a prompt EMB, including viral search, is recommended and the initiation of partial immunosuppressive treatment (e.g. pulse steroid therapy) while obtaining PCR results might represent a reasonable approach 33 . The subsequent decision of whether to implement or discontinue immunosuppression may be deferred after eventual virus detection.

The value of viral presence to guide immunosuppressive treatment in patients with lymphocytic myocarditis requires more evidence and remains a subject of debate among experts, especially when considering different viruses' clinical impacts 33 . In particular, the possibility of immunosuppression in PVB19-positive myocarditis, especially with a low replicative status, needs to be assessed in future controlled clinical trials (Figure 1 ). Therefore, future consensus documents and, mostly, dedicated randomized controlled trials will be pivotal in establishing the role of viral presence in guiding immunomodulation in lymphocytic myocarditis.

Myocarditis in Clinical Practice

Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Myocarditis

Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure

Current state of knowledge on aetiology, diagnosis, management, and therapy of myocarditis: a position statement of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases

Corticosteroids for viral myocarditis

Viral myocarditis--diagnosis, treatment options, and current controversies

The Quest for New Approaches in Myocarditis and Inflammatory Cardiomyopathy

Recognition and Initial Management of Fulminant Myocarditis

Viral myocarditis: from experimental models to molecular diagnosis in patients

Human genetic susceptibility to infectious disease

Autosomal Recessive Cardiomyopathy Presenting as Acute Myocarditis

Idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy and persistent viral infection: Lack of association in a controlled study using a quantitative assay

for Immunosuppressive Treatment of Inflammatory Dilated Cardiomyopathy

Randomized study on the efficacy of immunosuppressive therapy in patients with virus-negative inflammatory cardiomyopathy: the TIMIC study

Immunosuppression in inflammatory cardiomyopathy and parvovirus B19 persistence

A clinical trial of immunosuppressive therapy for myocarditis. The Myocarditis Treatment Trial Investigators

Efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil in patients with virus-negative lymphocytic myocarditis: A prospective cohort study

Immunosuppressive Therapy for Active Lymphocytic Myocarditis

Interferon-Beta Improves Survival in Enterovirus-Associated Cardiomyopathy

Betaferon in chronic viral cardiomyopathy (BICC) trial: Effects of interferon-β treatment in patients with chronic viral cardiomyopathy

Controlled Trial of Intravenous Immune Globulin in Recent-Onset Dilated Cardiomyopathy

Survival and Left Ventricular Function Changes in Fulminant Versus Nonfulminant Acute Myocarditis

A prospective study of biopsy-proven myocarditis: prognostic relevance of clinical and aetiopathogenetic features at diagnosis

Predictors of Outcome in Patients With Suspected Myocarditis

Virus serology in patients with suspected myocarditis: utility or futility?

Cardiac Involvement in a Patient With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Myocardial localization of coronavirus in COVID-19 cardiogenic shock

Human Parvovirus B19-Associated Myocarditis

Fulminant Human Herpesvirus 6 Myocarditis in an Immunocompetent Adult

Viral genome search in myocardium of patients with fulminant myocarditis

Low level myocardial parvovirus B19 persistence is a frequent finding in patients with heart disease but unrelated to ongoing myocardial injury

Acute inflammatory cardiomyopathy: apparent neutral prognostic impact of immunosuppressive therapy

We would like to thank Fondazione CRTrieste, Fondazione CariGO, Fincantieri and all the healthcare professionals for the continuous support to the clinical management of patients affected by cardiomyopathies and myocarditis. Furthermore, we would like to thank all the patients and their families, the nurses and the doctors who refer patients to the Cardiomyopathies Center of Trieste.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.Accepted Article