open access
A hospital-based observational comparative study of efficacy of intracameral voriconazole and oral ketoconazole in deep keratomycosis
- Sankar Foundation Eye Institute, Naiduthota, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India, Visakhapatnam, India
open access
Abstract
Background: Fungal keratitis, one of the most common causes of ocular mycosis, is the second most common cause of blindness in the world, after cataracts. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of conventional topical, systemic medications and intracameral voriconazole injection in visual and structural outcomes in keratomycosis.
Material and methods: We conducted a hospital-based observational study of 45 patients of 45 eyes with smear-positive fungal keratitis. Patients were categorized into three groups: Group I received systemic topical with oral ketoconazole 200 mg, Group II — topical medications with intracameral voriconazole 50 μgm/0.1 mL, Group III — topical medications with both oral ketoconazole 200 mg and intracameral voriconazole 50 μgm/0.1 mL.
Results: The common fungal organism is identified as Fusarium. The mean final visual acuity (VA) was 1.25 ± 0.32, 1.47 ± 1.05, and 1.22 ± 0.37 logMAR in Group I, group II, and Group III, respectively. The mean improvement in VA was 0.33 ± 0.07, 0.01 ± 0.71, and –0.19 ± 0.02 logMAR without significant change (p = 0.9). There was a significant difference in VA between the final postoperative follow-up period and baseline in Group I cases (p = 0.0019). Whereas no difference in VA between the final postoperative follow-up period and baseline in either Group II (p = 0.0671) or Group III (p = 0.1505) cases. The difference in time between the disappearance of hypopyon and the mean time to infection healing was not statistically significant (p = 0.1). Three cases in each group were perforated, and keratoplasty was performed. These perforated cases did not show culture positive. Histopathology identified the isolated organisms as Aspergillus species (n = 3) and Fusarium species (n = 2) in the corneal buttons.
Conclusion: The differences in VA between the three methods were not statistically significant, indicating no treatment method superior to others (inter-group). However, in Group I, there was a significant difference in VA between the final postoperative follow-up period and baseline (p = 0.0019). There was no difference in VA between these time intervals in either Group II (p = 0.0671) or Group III (p = 0.1505). Within-group or intra-group analysis reveals that the Group I method is more effective for VA. The success rate of the method depended cumulatively on the duration of intracameral voriconazole in the anterior chamber, non-drainage of hypopyon, and individual clinical response.
Abstract
Background: Fungal keratitis, one of the most common causes of ocular mycosis, is the second most common cause of blindness in the world, after cataracts. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of conventional topical, systemic medications and intracameral voriconazole injection in visual and structural outcomes in keratomycosis.
Material and methods: We conducted a hospital-based observational study of 45 patients of 45 eyes with smear-positive fungal keratitis. Patients were categorized into three groups: Group I received systemic topical with oral ketoconazole 200 mg, Group II — topical medications with intracameral voriconazole 50 μgm/0.1 mL, Group III — topical medications with both oral ketoconazole 200 mg and intracameral voriconazole 50 μgm/0.1 mL.
Results: The common fungal organism is identified as Fusarium. The mean final visual acuity (VA) was 1.25 ± 0.32, 1.47 ± 1.05, and 1.22 ± 0.37 logMAR in Group I, group II, and Group III, respectively. The mean improvement in VA was 0.33 ± 0.07, 0.01 ± 0.71, and –0.19 ± 0.02 logMAR without significant change (p = 0.9). There was a significant difference in VA between the final postoperative follow-up period and baseline in Group I cases (p = 0.0019). Whereas no difference in VA between the final postoperative follow-up period and baseline in either Group II (p = 0.0671) or Group III (p = 0.1505) cases. The difference in time between the disappearance of hypopyon and the mean time to infection healing was not statistically significant (p = 0.1). Three cases in each group were perforated, and keratoplasty was performed. These perforated cases did not show culture positive. Histopathology identified the isolated organisms as Aspergillus species (n = 3) and Fusarium species (n = 2) in the corneal buttons.
Conclusion: The differences in VA between the three methods were not statistically significant, indicating no treatment method superior to others (inter-group). However, in Group I, there was a significant difference in VA between the final postoperative follow-up period and baseline (p = 0.0019). There was no difference in VA between these time intervals in either Group II (p = 0.0671) or Group III (p = 0.1505). Within-group or intra-group analysis reveals that the Group I method is more effective for VA. The success rate of the method depended cumulatively on the duration of intracameral voriconazole in the anterior chamber, non-drainage of hypopyon, and individual clinical response.
Keywords
keratomycosis; Aspergillus; voriconazole; hypopyon
Title
A hospital-based observational comparative study of efficacy of intracameral voriconazole and oral ketoconazole in deep keratomycosis
Journal
Issue
Vol 7 (2022): Continuous Publishing
Article type
Original paper
Pages
6-11
Published online
2022-03-17
Page views
5109
Article views/downloads
604
DOI
Bibliographic record
Ophthalmol J 2022;7:6-11.
Keywords
keratomycosis
Aspergillus
voriconazole
hypopyon
Authors
Nasrin Y
Satya Hareesh Reddy L
Rashmi Rath
- Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya'ale D, et al. Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bull World Health Organ. 2004; 82(11): 844–851.
- Sony P, Sharma N, Sen S, et al. Indications of penetrating keratoplasty in northern India. Cornea. 2005; 24(8): 989–991.
- Bharathi MJ, Ramakrishnan R, Meenakshi R, et al. Microbial keratitis in South India: influence of risk factors, climate, and geographical variation. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2007; 14(2): 61–69.
- Wong TY, Ng TP, Fong KS, et al. Risk factors and clinical outcomes between fungal and bacterial keratitis: a comparative study. CLAO J. 1997; 23(4): 275–281.
- Sharma N, Chacko J, Velpandian T, et al. Comparative evaluation of topical versus intrastromal voriconazole as an adjunct to natamycin in recalcitrant fungal keratitis. Ophthalmology. 2013; 120(4): 677–681.
- Leck AK, Thomas PA, Hagan M, et al. Aetiology of suppurative corneal ulcers in Ghana and south India, and epidemiology of fungal keratitis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002; 86(11): 1211–1215.
- Sharma S. Diagnosis of fungal keratitis: current options. Expert Opin Med Diagn. 2012; 6(5): 449–455.
- Van Der Meer JW, Keuning JJ, Scheijgrond HW, et al. The influence of gastric acidity on the bio-availability of ketoconazole. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1980; 6(4): 552–554.
- Yoshida Y. Cytochrome P450 of fungi: primary target for azole antifungal agents. Curr Top Med Mycol. 1988; 2: 388–418.
- Sanati H, Belanger P, Fratti R, et al. A new triazole, voriconazole (UK-109,496), blocks sterol biosynthesis in Candida albicans and Candida krusei. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1997; 41(11): 2492–2496.
- Kaushik S, Ram J, Brar GS, et al. Intracameral amphotericin B: initial experience in severe keratomycosis. Cornea. 2001; 20(7): 715–719.
- Prakash G, Sharma N, Goel M, et al. Evaluation of intrastromal injection of voriconazole as a therapeutic adjunctive for the management of deep recalcitrant fungal keratitis. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008; 146(1): 56–59.
- Shen YC, Wang MY, Wang CY, et al. Pharmacokinetics of intracameral voriconazole injection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009; 53(5): 2156–2157.
- Lau D, Fedinands M, Leung L, et al. Penetration of voriconazole, 1%, eyedrops into human aqueous humor: a prospective open-label study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008; 126(3): 343–346.
- Klont RR, Eggink CA, Rijs AJ, et al. Successful treatment of Fusarium keratitis with cornea transplantation and topical and systemic voriconazole. Clin Infect Dis. 2005; 40(12): e110–e112.
- Mittal V, Mittal R. Intracameral and topical voriconazole for fungal corneal endoexudates. Cornea. 2012; 31(4): 366–370.
- Yoon KC, Jeong IY, Im SK, et al. Therapeutic effect of intracameral amphotericin B injection in the treatment of fungal keratitis. Cornea. 2007; 26(7): 814–818.
- Sharma N, Sankaran P, Agarwal T, et al. Evaluation of Intracameral Amphotericin B in the Management of Fungal Keratitis: Randomized Controlled Trial. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2016; 24(5): 493–497.
- Shao Yi, Yu Y, Pei CG, et al. Therapeutic efficacy of intracameral amphotericin B injection for 60 patients with keratomycosis. Int J Ophthalmol. 2010; 3(3): 257–260.
- Kuriakose T, Kothari M, Paul P, et al. Intracameral amphotericin B injection in the management of deep keratomycosis. Cornea. 2002; 21(7): 653–656.