OBJECTIVE: To compare topical natamycin vs voriconazole in the treatment of filamentous fungal keratitis. METHODS: This phase 3, double-masked, multicenter trial was designed to randomize 368 patients to voriconazole (1%) ornatamycin (5%), applied topically every hour while awake until reepithelialization, then 4 times daily for at least 3 weeks. Eligibility included smear-positive filamentous fungal ulcer and visual acuity of 20/40 to 20/400. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was best spectacle-corrected visual acuity at 3 months; secondary outcomes included corneal perforation and/or therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty. RESULTS:A total of 940 patients were screened and 323 were enrolled. Causative organisms included Fusarium (128 patients [40%]), Aspergillus (54 patients [17%]), and other filamentous fungi (141 patients [43%]). Natamycintreated cases had significantly better 3-month best spectacle-corrected visual acuity than voriconazole-treated cases (regression coefficient=0.18 logMAR; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.05; P=.006). Natamycin-treated cases were less likely to have perforation or require therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty (odds ratio=0.42; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.80; P=.009). Fusarium cases fared better with natamycin than with voriconazole (regression coefficient=0.41 logMAR; 95% CI,0.61 to 0.20; P<.001; odds ratio for perforation=0.06; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.28; P<.001), while non-Fusarium cases fared similarly (regression coefficient=0.02 logMAR; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.13; P=.81; odds ratio for perforation=1.08; 95% CI, 0.48 to 2.43; P=.86). CONCLUSIONS:Natamycin treatment was associated with significantly better clinical and microbiological outcomes than voriconazole treatment for smear-positive filamentous fungal keratitis, with much of the difference attributable to improved results in Fusarium cases. APPLICATION TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Voriconazole should not be used as monotherapy in filamentous keratitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00996736
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare topical natamycin vs voriconazole in the treatment of filamentous fungal keratitis. METHODS: This phase 3, double-masked, multicenter trial was designed to randomize 368 patients to voriconazole (1%) or natamycin (5%), applied topically every hour while awake until reepithelialization, then 4 times daily for at least 3 weeks. Eligibility included smear-positive filamentous fungal ulcer and visual acuity of 20/40 to 20/400. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was best spectacle-corrected visual acuity at 3 months; secondary outcomes included corneal perforation and/or therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty. RESULTS: A total of 940 patients were screened and 323 were enrolled. Causative organisms included Fusarium (128 patients [40%]), Aspergillus (54 patients [17%]), and other filamentous fungi (141 patients [43%]). Natamycintreated cases had significantly better 3-month best spectacle-corrected visual acuity than voriconazole-treated cases (regression coefficient=0.18 logMAR; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.05; P=.006). Natamycin-treated cases were less likely to have perforation or require therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty (odds ratio=0.42; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.80; P=.009). Fusarium cases fared better with natamycin than with voriconazole (regression coefficient=0.41 logMAR; 95% CI,0.61 to 0.20; P<.001; odds ratio for perforation=0.06; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.28; P<.001), while non-Fusarium cases fared similarly (regression coefficient=0.02 logMAR; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.13; P=.81; odds ratio for perforation=1.08; 95% CI, 0.48 to 2.43; P=.86). CONCLUSIONS:Natamycin treatment was associated with significantly better clinical and microbiological outcomes than voriconazole treatment for smear-positive filamentous fungal keratitis, with much of the difference attributable to improved results in Fusarium cases. APPLICATION TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Voriconazole should not be used as monotherapy in filamentous keratitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00996736
Authors: Muthiah Srinivasan; Jeena Mascarenhas; Revathi Rajaraman; Meenakshi Ravindran; Prajna Lalitha; David V Glidden; Kathryn J Ray; Kevin C Hong; Catherine E Oldenburg; Salena M Lee; Michael E Zegans; Stephen D McLeod; Thomas M Lietman; Nisha R Acharya Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2011-10-10
Authors: Emily W Gower; Lisa J Keay; Rafael A Oechsler; Alfonso Iovieno; Eduardo C Alfonso; Dan B Jones; Kathryn Colby; Sonal S Tuli; Seema R Patel; Salena M Lee; John Irvine; R Doyle Stulting; Thomas F Mauger; Oliver D Schein Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2010-06-29 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Namperumalsamy V Prajna; Jeena Mascarenhas; Tiruvengada Krishnan; P Ravindranath Reddy; Lalitha Prajna; Muthiah Srinivasan; C M Vaitilingam; Kevin C Hong; Salena M Lee; Stephen D McLeod; Michael E Zegans; Travis C Porco; Thomas M Lietman; Nisha R Acharya Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2010-06
Authors: Prajna Lalitha; N Venkatesh Prajna; Catherine E Oldenburg; Muthiah Srinivasan; Tiruvengada Krishnan; Jeena Mascarenhas; C M Vaitilingam; Stephen D McLeod; Michael E Zegans; Travis C Porco; Nisha R Acharya; Thomas M Lietman Journal: Cornea Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: M Jayahar Bharathi; R Ramakrishnan; R Meenakshi; S Padmavathy; C Shivakumar; M Srinivasan Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.648
Authors: Marlon Moraes Ibrahim; Rafael de Angelis; Acacio Souza Lima; Glauco Dreyer Viana de Carvalho; Fuad Moraes Ibrahim; Leonardo Tannus Malki; Marina de Paula Bichuete; Wellington de Paula Martins; Eduardo Melani Rocha Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-03-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: N Venkatesh Prajna; Naveen Radhakrishnan; Prajna Lalitha; Ariana Austin; Kathryn J Ray; Jeremy D Keenan; Travis C Porco; Thomas M Lietman; Jennifer Rose-Nussbaumer Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2019-09-04 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: N Venkatesh Prajna; Prajna Lalitha; Revathi Rajaraman; Tiruvengada Krishnan; Anita Raghavan; Muthiah Srinivasan; Kieran S O'Brien; Michael Zegans; Stephen D McLeod; Nisha R Acharya; Jeremy D Keenan; Thomas M Lietman; Jennifer Rose-Nussbaumer Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: N Venkatesh Prajna; Tiruvengada Krishnan; Revathi Rajaraman; Sushila Patel; Ranjeet Shah; Muthiah Srinivasan; Lumbini Devi; Manoranjan Das; Kathryn J Ray; Kieran S O'Brien; Catherine E Oldenburg; Stephen D McLeod; Michael E Zegans; Nisha R Acharya; Thomas M Lietman; Jennifer Rose-Nussbaumer Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Prajna Lalitha; Catherine Q Sun; N Venkatesh Prajna; Rajarathinam Karpagam; Manoharan Geetha; Kieran S O'Brien; Vicky Cevallos; Stephen D McLeod; Nisha R Acharya; Thomas M Lietman Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Jennifer Rose-Nussbaumer; N Venkatesh Prajna; K Tiruvengada Krishnan; Jeena Mascarenhas; Revathi Rajaraman; Muthiah Srinivasan; Anita Raghavan; Catherine E Oldenburg; Kieran S O'Brien; Kathryn J Ray; Stephen D McLeod; Travis C Porco; Thomas M Lietman; Nisha R Acharya; Jeremy D Keenan Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 7.389