OphSourceHomeJournal CollectionOphSource ShopEvents
Journal Home
Search for

Volume 113, Issue 4, Pages 526-530 (April 2006)


View previous. 6 of 41 View next.

Risk Factors for Treatment Outcome in Fungal Keratitis

Prajna Lalitha, MD1Corresponding Author Informationemail address, Namperumalsamy Venkatesh Prajna, DNB (FRCO)2, Amit Kabra, MD2, Kannan Mahadevan, MSc3, Muthaiah Srinivasan, MD2

Received 9 March 2005; accepted 31 October 2005.

Purpose

To identify risk factors at diagnosis that can serve as prognostic indicators of primary treatment failure in cases of fungal keratitis.

Design

Prospective, nonrandomized, interventional, comparative study.

Participants

A total of 115 consecutive patients with fungal keratitis treated at one center during a 6-month period.

Methods

Patients with a microscopic corneal ulcer smear that was positive for fungus were enrolled and treated with 5% natamycin monotherapy according to the protocol of the hospital. Treatment responses were assessed at the end of 4 weeks. The prognostic indicators were used in a Poisson model for multiple regression analysis to estimate the relative risk of the main prognostic variables.

Main Outcome Measures

Response of the ulcer to treatment.

Results

Of the 115 patients analyzed in the study, 52 (45.2%) were treatment successes, 27 (23.5%) had slow-healing ulcers, and 36 (31.3%) were refractory to primary treatment. Multivariate analysis showed that the predictors of treatment failure were ulcers that exceeded 14 mm2 (P = 0.009), the presence of hypopyon (P = 0.003), and identification of Aspergillus (P = 0.003).

Conclusion

In patients with fungal keratitis treated with 5% natamycin monotherapy, larger ulcer size and infection with Aspergillus were predictors of a poor outcome.

1 Department of Ocular Microbiology, Aravind Eye Hospital and PG Institute of Ophthalmology, Madurai, India.

2 Department of Cornea and Refractive Surgery, Aravind Eye Hospital and PG Institute of Ophthalmology, Madurai, India.

3 Department of Biostatistics, Aravind Eye Hospital and PG Institute of Ophthalmology, Madurai, India.

Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence to Prajna Lalitha, MD, Aravind Eye Hospital and PG Institute of Ophthalmology, 1, Anna Nagar, Madurai, Tamilnadu, India 625 020.

 Manuscript no. 2005-209

 No author has a financial interest or conflicting interest in any materials or methods mentioned in the article

PII: S0161-6420(05)01476-4

doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.10.063


View previous. 6 of 41 View next.