| Literature DB >> 34785887 |
Joseph M Blondeau1, Howard M Proskin2, Christine M Sanfilippo3, Heleen H DeCory3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The choice of empiric therapy for bacterial conjunctivitis should be guided by an awareness of typical causative pathogen distributions. Bacterial conjunctivitis can be polybacterial, although pediatric-specific data are lacking.Entities:
Keywords: besifloxacin; conjunctivitis; minimum inhibitory concentration; pediatric; polybacterial
Year: 2021 PMID: 34785887 PMCID: PMC8591116 DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S335197
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Ophthalmol ISSN: 1177-5467
Figure 1Distribution of subjects.
Figure 2Dominant, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary infecting species at baseline in polybacterial conjunctivitis infections. Dominant bacterial species are shown in the inner ring, whereas secondary, tertiary, and quaternary infecting bacterial species are shown by rank order moving outwards by ring. Only those polybacterial infections in which the same dominant species was identified in more than 10 infections are presented.
Pediatric Subject Demographics in Poly- and Monobacterial Conjunctivitis Infections
| Polybacterial (No. of Isolates=405; No. of Subjects=172) | Monobacterial (No. of Isolates=558; No. of Subjects=558) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age (SD), years | 5.0 (4.3) | 6.2 (4.6) | 0.007b |
| Gender, female n (%) | 84 (48.8) | 287 (51.4) | 0.838c |
| Viral coinfection, n (%)d | 9 (5.2) | 9 (1.6) | <0.007c |
| Dominant infecting speciese n (% subjects) | |||
| | 74 (43.0) | 270 (48.4) | 0.223f |
| | 24 (14.0) | 157 (28.1) | <0.001f |
| | 16 (9.3) | 50 (9.0) | 0.880f |
| | 15 (8.7) | 24 (4.3) | 0.032f |
| | 3 (1.7) | 17 (3.0) | 0.436f |
| | 8 (4.7) | 3 (0.5) | <0.001f |
| | 0 (0.0) | 7 (1.3) | 0.208f |
Notes: Bacteria names are written in italics. aComparison between poly- and monobacterial infections. bA two-way analysis of variance with fixed effects of infection type and clinical study. cCochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests stratified by clinical study. dAll subjects in each group were infected with adenovirus. eSpecies identified as dominant ≥5 times among either poly- or monobacterial infections are shown. fFisher’s exact tests.
Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations (MICs) of Besifloxacin and Comparator Antibacterial Agents for Baseline Isolates from Poly- and Monobacterial Conjunctivitis Infections in Pediatric Subjects
| MIC (µg/mL) | Besi | Moxi | Gati | Levo | Cipro | Azi | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All isolates (n=405) | Range | 0.015–4 | 0.008–32 | 0.008–64 | 0.008–>8 | 0.008–>8 | ≤0.008–>8 | ||
| MIC90 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | >8 | |||
| Gram-positive isolates (n=282) | Range | 0.015–4 | 0.015–32 | 0.015–64 | 0.06–>8 | 0.03–>8 | ≤0.008–>8 | ||
| MIC90 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 2 | 2 | >8 | |||
| Gram-negative isolates (n=123) | Range | 0.015–1 | 0.008–0.5 | 0.008–0.5 | 0.008–1 | 0.008–1 | 0.015->8 | ||
| MIC90 | 0.125 | 0.125 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 4 | |||
| Range | 0.015–0.06 | 0.008–0.125 | 0.008–0.06 | 0.008–0.06 | 0.008–1 | 0.015–4 | |||
| MIC90 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 4 | |||
| Range | 0.03–0.25 | 0.06–0.5 | 0.06–1 | 0.05–2 | 0.05–4 | 0.03–>8 | |||
| MIC90 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | |||
| Range | 0.015–0.5 | 0.03–4 | 0.03–8 | 0.06–>8 | 0.06–>8 | 0.06–>8 | |||
| MIC90 | 0.06 | 0.125 | 0.125 | 0.25 | 0.5 | >8 | |||
| Range | 0.06–0.25 | 0.06–1 | 0.125–0.5 | 0.5–2 | 0.25–2 | 0.125–>8 | |||
| MIC90 | 0.125 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 8 | |||
| Range | 0.03–4 | 0.06–32 | 0.06–64 | 0.125–>8 | 0.125–>8 | 0.5–>8 | |||
| MIC90 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | >8 | |||
| Range | 0.06–0.5 | 0.006–0.25 | 0.03–0.25 | 0.06–0.125 | 0.03–0.125 | 0.03–0.25 | |||
| MIC90 | 0.125 | 0.125 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.125 | |||
| All isolates (n=558) | Range | 0.008–2 | 0.008–2 | ≤0.004–>8 | 0.008–8 | ≤0.004–>8 | 0.015–>8 | ||
| MIC90 | 0.125 | 0.125 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 8 | |||
| Gram-positive isolates (n=273) | Range | 0.008–1 | 0.015–2 | 0.03–>8 | 0.06–>8 | 0.015–>8 | 0.015–>8 | ||
| MIC90 | 0.125 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | >8 | |||
| Gram-negative isolates (n=285) | Range | 0.008–2 | 0.008–2 | ≤0.004–1 | 0.008–1 | ≤0.004–>8 | 0.015–>8 | ||
| MIC90 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 4 | |||
| Range | 0.008–0.125 | 0.008–0.25 | ≤0.004–0.25 | 0.008–0.25 | ≤0.004–0.125 | 0.015–>8 | |||
| MIC90 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.015 | 4 | |||
| Range | 0.06–0.25 | 0.06–0.5 | 0.25–1 | 0.5–2 | 0.25–4 | 0.03–8 | |||
| MIC90 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 2 | 2 | 4 | |||
| Range | 0.008–0.5 | 0.015–2 | 0.06–>8 | 0.125–4 | 0.125–>8 | 1–>8 | |||
| MIC90 | 0.06 | 0.125 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.5 | >8 | |||
| Range | 0.03–0.25 | 0.06–0.5 | 0.06–1 | 0.125–2 | 0.125–>8 | 0.06–>8 | |||
| MIC90 | 0.125 | 0.125 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | >8 | |||
| Range | 0.03–0.5 | 0.06–2 | 0.125–1 | 0.125–8 | 0.125–16 | 0.5–>8 | |||
| MIC90 | 0.06 | 0.125 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | >8 | |||
| Range | 0.06 | 0.06–0.125 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.03–0.06 | 0.03–0.06 | |||
| MIC90 | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||
Notes: Bacteria names are written in italics. MIC90: Minimum inhibitory concentration that inhibits 90% of isolates. MIC data is only shown for those baseline species with ≥10 isolates in either subgroup.
Abbreviations: Azi, azithromycin; Besi, besifloxacin; Cipro, ciprofloxacin; Gati, gatifloxacin; Levo, levofloxacin; Moxi, moxifloxacin.
Efficacy of Treatment (Subjects with Microbial Eradication) as a Function of Most Prevalenta Ocular Pathogens in Subjects Aged 1–17 Years from Four Vehicle-Controlled Studiesb,22–26
| Polybacterial Infections | Monobacterial Infections | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % of Subjects (No. of Subjects) | % of Subjects (No. of Subjects) | ||||
| Visitc | Besifloxacin | Vehicle | Besifloxacin | Vehicle | |
| Gram-positive | Day 4 | 78.6% (33/42) | 68.3% (28/41) | 93.3% (84/90) | 62.0% (49/79) |
| Day 8 | 76.8% (63/82) | 58.3% (28/48) | 89.8% (106/118) | 71.6% (63/88) | |
| Gram-negative | Day 4 | 75.0% (18/24) | 71.4% (20/28) | 87.3% (69/79) | 59.8% (49/82) |
| Day 8 | 81.5% (44/54) | 80.6% (25/31) | 85.0% (91/107) | 67.7% (67/99) | |
| Day 4 | 80.0% (12/15) | 60.0% (9/15) | 100.0% (11/11) | 41.7% (5/12) | |
| Day 8 | 73.3% (22/30) | 64.7% (11/17) | 100.0% (22/22) | 40.0% (6/15) | |
| Day 4 | 66.7% (4/6) | 83.3% (5/6) | 100.0% (10/10) | 83.3% (5/6) | |
| Day 8 | 73.7% (14/19) | 36.4% (4/11) | 87.5% (14/16) | 55.6% (5/9) | |
| Day 4 | 66.7% (14/21) | 60.0% (12/20) | 86.5% (64/74) | 59.5% (47/79) | |
| Day 8 | 77.3% (34/44) | 71.4% (15/21) | 83.7% (87/104) | 67.0% (63/94) | |
| Day 4 | 75.0% (3/4) | 58.3% (7/12) | 90.3% (56/62) | 62.5% (30/48) | |
| Day 8 | 77.8% (7/9) | 71.4% (10/14) | 85.5% (59/69) | 80.0% (40/50) | |
Notes: Bacteria names are written in italics. aResults for S. mitis/S. mitis group not shown due to difference in organism classification between studies. bModified intent-to-treat (as treated) population. cOne study25 did not have a day 4 visit.