BackgroundHantavirus disease belongs to the emerging infections. The clinical picture and severity of infections differ between hantavirus species and may even vary between hantavirus genotypes. The mechanisms that lead to the broad variance of severity in infected patients are not completely understood. Host- and virus-specific factors are considered.Case presentationWe analyzed severe cases of hantavirus disease in two young women. The first case was caused by Puumala virus (PUUV) infection in Germany; the second case describes the infection with Dobrava-Belgrade virus (DOBV) in Russia. Symptoms, laboratory parameters and cytokine levels were analyzed and compared between the two patients. Serological and sequence analysis revealed that PUUV was the infecting agent for the German patient and the infection of the Russian patient was caused by Dobrava-Belgrade virus genotype Sochi (DOBV-Sochi). The symptoms in the initial phase of the diseases did not differ noticeably between both patients. However, deterioration of laboratory parameter values was prolonged and stronger in DOBV-Sochi than in PUUV infection. Circulating endothelial progenitor cells (cEPCs), known to be responsible for endothelial repair, were mobilized in both infections. Striking differences were observed in the temporal course and level of cytokine upregulation. Levels of angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and stromal derived factor-1 (SDF-1α) were increased in both infections; but, sustained and more pronounced elevation was observed in DOBV-Sochi infection.ConclusionsSevere hantavirus disease caused by different hantavirus species did not differ in the general symptoms and clinical characteristics. However, we observed a prolonged clinical course and a late and enhanced mobilization of cytokines in DOBV-Sochi infection. The differences in cytokine deregulation may contribute to the observed variation in the clinical course.

Abstract. In order to optimize the clinical application of an increasing number of proteasome inhibitors, investigations into the differences between their respective pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles, including their ability to act as a perpetrator in drug-drug interactions, are warranted. Therefore, in the present in vitro study, it was investigated whether bortezomib, carfilzomib and ixazomib are able to alter the expression, and/or the activity, of specific drug transporters generally relevant for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions. Through induction experiments, the current study demonstrated that the aforementioned three proteasome inhibitors do not induce mRNA expression of the transporter genes ATP binding cassette (ABC)B1, C1, C2 and G2 in the LS180 cell line, which was used as a model for systemic induction. By contrast, in certain myeloma cell lines, ixazomib provoked minor alterations in individual transporter gene expression. None of the proteasome inhibitors tested relevantly inhibited drug transporters within the range of physiological plasma concentrations. Taken together, transporter-based drug-drug interactions are unlikely to be a primary concern in the clinical application of the tested compounds.

Airways obstruction is frequent in patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH). Small airway disease (SAD) was identified as a major contributor to resistance and symptoms. However, it is easily missed using current diagnostic approaches. We aimed to evaluate more elaborate diagnostic tests such as impulse oscillometry (IOS) and SF6-multiple-breath-washout (MBW) for the assessment of SAD in PH. Twenty-five PH patients undergoing body-plethysmography, IOS and MBW testing were prospectively included and equally matched to pulmonary healthy and non-healthy controls. Lung clearance index (LCI) and acinar ventilation heterogeneity (Sacin) differed significantly between PH, healthy and non-healthy controls. Likewise, differences were found for all IOS parameters between PH and healthy, but not non-healthy controls. Transfer factor corrected for ventilated alveolar volume (TLCO/VA), frequency dependency of resistance (D5-20), resonance frequency (Fres) and Sacin allowed complete differentiation between PH and healthy controls (AUC (area under the curve) = 1.0). Likewise, PH patients were separated from non-healthy controls (AUC 0.762) by D5-20, LCI and conductive ventilation heterogeneity (Scond). Maximal expiratory flow (MEF) values were not associated with additional diagnostic values. MBW and IOS are feasible in PH patients both providing additional information. This can be used to discriminate PH from healthy and non-healthy controls. Therefore, further research targeting SAD in PH and evaluation of therapeutic implications is justified.