Literature DB >> 29380807

Comment on: Fungal keratitis: The Aravind Experience.

Virgilio Galvis1, Alejandro Tello1, Augusto J Gomez2, Carmen A Castillo2, Néstor I Carreño1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29380807      PMCID: PMC5819144          DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1114_17

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0301-4738            Impact factor:   1.848


× No keyword cloud information.
Sir, We read with interest the article entitled, “Fungal keratitis: The Aravind experience” by Prajna et al.[1] First, in the compilation of the clinical articles published on this topic by the researcher from that institution, shown in the Fig. 1 included in the article by Prajna et al., an older study than those referred (a masked, randomized clinical trial of three concentrations of chlorhexidine compared with natamycin 5%, published in 1997) is missing from the list. In fact, that study showed that chlorhexidine might be superior to natamycin. Compared with the response to natamycin as the referent, the relative efficacy was 1.17 with chlorhexidine 0.05%, 1.43 with 0.1%, and reached 2.00 with 0.2%. The superiority of 0.2% chlorhexidine over natamycin was statistically significant (relative efficacy 2.20, P = 0.043) in patients not having had prior antimycotic medication.[2] Since the investigators did not mention chlorhexidine 0.2% in their recent review, we wonder if they had any posterior negative experience using this substance in fungal keratitis. The recent studies Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial I (MUTT I) and MUTT II, performed also by researchers from Aravind Eye Hospital, showed that topical natamycin was superior to topical voriconazole.[34] Since in the clinical trial from 1997, it was found that chlorhexidine 0.2% could be twice as effective as natamycin, would not it be worth conducting a new study with chlorhexidine and natamycin? Not only to probably corroborate the earlier findings from 1997 but also to evaluate a possible synergy between them? Furthermore, in the recently published results from the study MUTT II (both for all cases of keratomycosis and for Fusarium keratitis), the researchers from Aravind indicated that all patients received topical voriconazole, 1%, and that after the results of the MUTT II study became available, topical natamycin, 5%, was added for all patients.[45] It would be interesting to know if they have found any kind of synergy between these two medications. In the current protocol of their hospital, do they use both topical medications concurrently?

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.
  5 in total

1.  Adjunctive Oral Voriconazole Treatment of Fusarium Keratitis: A Secondary Analysis From the Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial II.

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

2.  Trial of chlorhexidine gluconate for fungal corneal ulcers.

Authors:  M R Rahman; D C Minassian; M Srinivasan; M J Martin; G J Johnson
Journal:  Ophthalmic Epidemiol       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 1.648

3.  Effect of Oral Voriconazole on Fungal Keratitis in the Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial II (MUTT II): A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  N Venkatesh Prajna; Tiruvengada Krishnan; Revathi Rajaraman; Sushila Patel; Muthiah Srinivasan; Manoranjan Das; Kathryn J Ray; Kieran S O'Brien; Catherine E Oldenburg; Stephen D McLeod; Michael E Zegans; Travis C Porco; Nisha R Acharya; Thomas M Lietman; Jennifer Rose-Nussbaumer
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 7.389

4.  The mycotic ulcer treatment trial: a randomized trial comparing natamycin vs voriconazole.

Authors:  N Venkatesh Prajna; Tiruvengada Krishnan; Jeena Mascarenhas; Revathi Rajaraman; Lalitha Prajna; Muthiah Srinivasan; Anita Raghavan; Catherine E Oldenburg; Kathryn J Ray; Michael E Zegans; Stephen D McLeod; Travis C Porco; Nisha R Acharya; Thomas M Lietman
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 7.389

Review 5.  Fungal keratitis: The Aravind experience.

Authors:  Venkatesh N Prajna; Lalitha Prajna; Srinivasan Muthiah
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.848

  5 in total
  1 in total

1.  Reply to Comment on: Fungal keratitis: The Aravind Experience.

Authors:  Venkatesh N Prajna; Lalitha Prajna; Srinivasan Muthiah
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 1.848

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.