Sheng Qiu1, Gui-Qiu Zhao2, Jing Lin2, Xue Wang1, Li-Ting Hu2, Zhao-Dong Du2, Qian Wang2, Cheng-Cheng Zhu1. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Medical College, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, Shandong Province, China. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao 266003, Shandong Province, China.
Abstract
AIM: To review published clinical studies examining the effect of natamycin in the treatment of fungal keratitis. METHODS: We selected the publications in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CNKI, and CBM. This study systematically reviewed published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared natamycin to other antifungal agents, and conducted feasible Meta-analysis of efficacy results using Revman 5.2 software. RESULTS: We included seven trials which were mainly carried out in developing countries of Asia, with five trials conducted in India, one each in China and Bangladesh. A total of 804 participants were randomized to following comparisons: 2% econazole versus 5% natamycin showed little difference in the effects of treatment of fungal keratitis [RR=0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.8 to 1.21]; chlorhexidine gluconate versus 5% natamycin indicated that the results on healing of the ulcer at 21d was less conclusive (RR=0.77, 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.08; I (2)=0%); 1% voriconazole versus 5% natamycin suggested that natamycin treatment appeared to be significantly better outcomes than voriconazole (regression coefficient =-0.18 logMAR; 95% CI, -0.30 to -0.05; P=0.006), especially in Fusarium cases (regression coefficient=-0.41 logMAR; 95% CI, -0.61 to -0.20; P<0.001); natamycin versus fluconazole showed a significant difference in cure rate (χ(2)=5.048, P<0.05) and natamycin group was more effective than fluconazole in average period of therapy (t=7.94, P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Natamycin was a preferable choice in the treatment of fungal keratitis, especially in the early period of Fusarium cases.
AIM: To review published clinical studies examining the effect of natamycin in the treatment of fungal keratitis. METHODS: We selected the publications in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CNKI, and CBM. This study systematically reviewed published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared natamycin to other antifungal agents, and conducted feasible Meta-analysis of efficacy results using Revman 5.2 software. RESULTS: We included seven trials which were mainly carried out in developing countries of Asia, with five trials conducted in India, one each in China and Bangladesh. A total of 804 participants were randomized to following comparisons: 2% econazole versus 5% natamycin showed little difference in the effects of treatment of fungal keratitis [RR=0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.8 to 1.21]; chlorhexidine gluconate versus 5% natamycin indicated that the results on healing of the ulcer at 21d was less conclusive (RR=0.77, 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.08; I (2)=0%); 1% voriconazole versus 5% natamycin suggested that natamycin treatment appeared to be significantly better outcomes than voriconazole (regression coefficient =-0.18 logMAR; 95% CI, -0.30 to -0.05; P=0.006), especially in Fusarium cases (regression coefficient=-0.41 logMAR; 95% CI, -0.61 to -0.20; P<0.001); natamycin versus fluconazole showed a significant difference in cure rate (χ(2)=5.048, P<0.05) and natamycin group was more effective than fluconazole in average period of therapy (t=7.94, P<0.01). CONCLUSION:Natamycin was a preferable choice in the treatment of fungal keratitis, especially in the early period of Fusarium cases.
Authors: Hala Mohamed El-Mofty; Mohamad Amr Salah Eddin Abdelhakim; Mohamed Farid El-Miligi; Mohamed A El-Nabarawi; Islam Ahmed Hamed Khalil Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 1.909
Authors: Ana Lara Oya; María Eloisa Medialdea Hurtado; María Dolores Rojo Martín; Antonia Aguilera Pérez; Ana Alastruey-Izquierdo; Consuelo Miranda Casas; Marina Rubio Prats; Santiago Medialdea Marcos; José María Navarro Marí Journal: Mycopathologia Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 2.574
Authors: Khaled M Hosny; Waleed Y Rizg; Hala M Alkhalidi; Walaa A Abualsunun; Rana B Bakhaidar; Alshaimaa M Almehmady; Adel F Alghaith; Sultan Alshehri; Amani M El Sisi Journal: Drug Deliv Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 6.819
Authors: Claudy Oliveira Dos Santos; Eva Kolwijck; Henrich A van der Lee; Marlou C Tehupeiory-Kooreman; Abdullah M S Al-Hatmi; Einoti Matayan; Matthew J Burton; Cathrien A Eggink; Paul E Verweij Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 5.191