AIM: To study the clinical features of pneumococcal keratitis and response to ciprofloxacin therapy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken of 58 patients with culture-proven pneumococcal keratitis seen over a period of 2 years. RESULTS: Pneumococcal keratitis accounted for 33.3% of bacterial keratitis. Most cases presented with non-severe keratitis (77.5%). Co-existing sac pathology was more frequent in pneumococcal ulcers as compared to non-pneumococcal bacterial ulcers (50%vs 9%, P < 0.001). Characteristic clinical features enabling an accurate clinical diagnosis were found in 27.5% and lanceolate diplococci on Gram's stain were identified in 76% of cases. In vitro testing showed a high susceptibility to cephazolin and ciprofloxacin. All patients received ciprofloxacin as first-line therapy. Eighty per cent responded well with complete healing of the ulcer. A second drug was required in 8.5%. CONCLUSION: Ciprofloxacin therapy can be effective in the treatment of pneumococcal keratitis.
AIM: To study the clinical features of pneumococcal keratitis and response to ciprofloxacin therapy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken of 58 patients with culture-proven pneumococcal keratitis seen over a period of 2 years. RESULTS:Pneumococcal keratitis accounted for 33.3% of bacterial keratitis. Most cases presented with non-severe keratitis (77.5%). Co-existing sac pathology was more frequent in pneumococcal ulcers as compared to non-pneumococcal bacterial ulcers (50%vs 9%, P < 0.001). Characteristic clinical features enabling an accurate clinical diagnosis were found in 27.5% and lanceolate diplococci on Gram's stain were identified in 76% of cases. In vitro testing showed a high susceptibility to cephazolin and ciprofloxacin. All patients received ciprofloxacin as first-line therapy. Eighty per cent responded well with complete healing of the ulcer. A second drug was required in 8.5%. CONCLUSION:Ciprofloxacin therapy can be effective in the treatment of pneumococcal keratitis.
Authors: Erin W Norcross; Melissa E Sanders; Quincy C Moore; Sidney D Taylor; Nathan A Tullos; Rhonda R Caston; Sherrina N Dixon; Moon H Nahm; Robert L Burton; Hilary Thompson; Larry S McDaniel; Mary E Marquart Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-11-29 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Melissa E Sanders; Nathan A Tullos; Sidney D Taylor; Erin W Norcross; Lauren B King; Isaiah Tolo; Mary E Marquart Journal: Curr Eye Res Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.424
Authors: Jeena Mascarenhas; Muthiah Srinivasan; Michael Chen; Revathi Rajaraman; Meenakshi Ravindran; Prajna Lalitha; Catherine E Oldenburg; Kathryn J Ray; David V Glidden; Stephanie Costanza; Thomas M Lietman; Nisha R Acharya Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2012-06-30 Impact factor: 2.031
Authors: Mausita Karmakar; Michael Katsnelson; Hesham A Malak; Neil G Greene; Scott J Howell; Amy G Hise; Andrew Camilli; Aras Kadioglu; George R Dubyak; Eric Pearlman Journal: J Immunol Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: Wahaj Saleem; Angela H Benton; Mary E Marquart; Shuli Wang; Waqas Saleem; Randy Vigil; Bo Huang; Anjal C Sharma Journal: Clin Plasma Med Date: 2019-12-27
Authors: Quincy C Moore; Clare C McCormick; Erin W Norcross; Chinwendu Onwubiko; Melissa E Sanders; Jonathan Fratkin; Larry S McDaniel; Richard J O'Callaghan; Mary E Marquart Journal: Ophthalmic Res Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Mary E Marquart; Kathryn S Monds; Clare C McCormick; Sherrina N Dixon; Melissa E Sanders; Julian M Reed; Larry S McDaniel; Armando R Caballero; Richard J O'Callaghan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.799