Bhupesh Bagga 1 , Savitri Sharma 2 , Sai Jeevan Madhuri Guda 2 , Ritu Nagpal 1 , Joveeta Joseph 2 , Kodiganti Manjulatha 2 , Ashik Mohamed 3 , Prashant Garg 1 . Show Affiliations »
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pythium insidiosum is a parafungus that causes keratitis resembling fungal keratitis. This study compares outcome in a large cohort of patients with P insidiosum keratitis treated with antifungal drugs, to a pilot group treated with antibacterial antibiotics. METHODS: Between January 2014 and December 2016, 114 patients with culture positive P insidiosum keratitis were included in the study. A subset of culture isolates was tested in vitro for response to nine antibacterial antibiotics by disc diffusion and E test. Patients were treated with topical natamycin in 2014, 2015 and up until mid 2016. Thereafter, the patients received a combination of topical linezolid and topical and oral azithromycin. Therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty (TPK) was done for patients not responding to medical therapy. RESULTS: In vitro disc diffusion assay showed linezolid to be most effective. The rate of TPK was significantly higher in 2015 compared with 2016 (43/45, 95.6% vs 22/32, 68.8%; p=0.002). Eighteen patients were treated with antibacterial and 14 were treated with antifungal antibiotic in 2016. One patient was lost to follow-up in each group. The rate of TPK was higher and proportion of healed ulcers was lower (p=0.21, Fisher's exact test) in the group on antifungal therapy (TPK-11/13, 84.6%; Healed-2/13, 15.3%) compared with the group on antibacterial therapy (TPK-11/17, 64.7%; Healed-6/17, 35.2%). CONCLUSIONS: We report favourable but not statistically significant response of P insidiosum keratitis to antibacterial agents in a pilot series of patients. Further evaluation of this strategy in larger number of patients is recommended. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
BACKGROUND: Pythium insidiosum is a parafungus that causes keratitis resembling fungal keratitis . This study compares outcome in a large cohort of patients with P insidiosum keratitis treated with antifungal drugs, to a pilot group treated with antibacterial antibiotics. METHODS: Between January 2014 and December 2016, 114 patients with culture positive P insidiosum keratitis were included in the study. A subset of culture isolates was tested in vitro for response to nine antibacterial antibiotics by disc diffusion and E test. Patients were treated with topical natamycin in 2014, 2015 and up until mid 2016. Thereafter, the patients received a combination of topical linezolid and topical and oral azithromycin . Therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty (TPK) was done for patients not responding to medical therapy. RESULTS: In vitro disc diffusion assay showed linezolid to be most effective. The rate of TPK was significantly higher in 2015 compared with 2016 (43/45, 95.6% vs 22/32, 68.8%; p=0.002). Eighteen patients were treated with antibacterial and 14 were treated with antifungal antibiotic in 2016. One patient was lost to follow-up in each group. The rate of TPK was higher and proportion of healed ulcers was lower (p=0.21, Fisher's exact test) in the group on antifungal therapy (TPK-11/13, 84.6%; Healed-2/13, 15.3%) compared with the group on antibacterial therapy (TPK-11/17, 64.7%; Healed-6/17, 35.2%). CONCLUSIONS: We report favourable but not statistically significant response of P insidiosum keratitis to antibacterial agents in a pilot series of patients . Further evaluation of this strategy in larger number of patients is recommended. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
Entities: Chemical
Disease
Species
Keywords:
cornea; infection; microbiology; treatment medical; treatment surgery
Mesh: See more »
Substances: See more »
Year: 2018
PMID: 29545414 DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311360
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Ophthalmol ISSN: 0007-1161 Impact factor: 4.638