Objective
To compare the safety and efficacy of intrastromal voriconazole (IS-VCZ), amphotericin B (IS-AMB) and natamycin (IS-NTM) as an adjunct to topical natamycin (NTM) in cases of recalcitrant fungal keratitis.
Design
Prospective randomized trial.
Setting
Tertiary eye centre.
Participants
Sixty eyes of 60 patients with microbiologically proven recalcitrant fungal keratitis (ulcer size >2 mm, depth >50% of stroma, and not responding to topical NTM therapy for two weeks) were recruited.
Methods
patients were randomized into three groups of 20 eyes, each receiving ISVCZ 50ug/0.1 mL, ISAMB, 5ug/0.1 mL and ISNTM 10ug/0.1 mL (prepared aseptically in ocular pharmacology). The patients in all three groups continued topical NTM 5% every four hours until the ulcer healed. Primary outcome measure was time taken till complete clinical resolution of infection, and secondary outcome measure was best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at six months.
Results
All three groups had comparable baseline parameters. The mean duration of healing was significantly better (p=0.02) in the ISNTM group (34±5.2 days) as compared to the ISVCZ group (36.1±4.8 days) and the ISAMB group (39.2±7.2 days). About 95%, 90% and 95% patients healed successfully in the ISVCZ, ISAMB and ISNTM groups, respectively. In terms of healing, deep vascularization was significantly greater in the ISAMB group (55%, p=0.02) when compared to the ISVCZ and ISNTM groups (31% and 26%, respectively). There were fewer repeat injections in the ISNTM group (7/20 vs 8/20 and 9/20 in the ISVCZ and ISNTM groups, respectively).
Conclusion
Intrastromal injections are a safe and effective adjunct to conventional therapy in the management of recalcitrant fungal keratitis. ISNTM had a similar visual outcome with faster healing while ISAMB had a higher rate of deep vascularization after healing.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.