IntroductionFungal infections of the cornea, fungal keratitis (FK), are challenging to treat. Current topical antifungals are not always effective and are often unavailable, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries where most cases occur. Topical natamycin 5% is usually first-line treatment, however, even when treated intensively, infections may progress to perforation of the eye in around a quarter of cases. Alternative antifungal medications are needed to treat this blinding disease.Chlorhexidine is an antiseptic agent with antibacterial and antifungal properties. Previous pilot studies suggest that topical chlorhexidine 0.2% compares favourably with topical natamycin. Full-scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of topical chlorhexidine 0.2% are warranted to answer this question definitively.Methods and analysisWe will test the hypothesis that topical chlorhexidine 0.2% is non-inferior to topical natamycin 5% in a two-arm, single-masked RCT. Participants are adults with FK presenting to a tertiary ophthalmic hospital in Nepal. Baseline assessment includes history, examination, photography, in vivo confocal microscopy and cornea scrapes for microbiology. Participants will be randomised to alternative topical antifungal treatments (topical chlorhexidine 0.2% and topical natamycin 5%; 1:1 ratio, 2–6 random block size). Patients are reviewed at day 2, day 7 (with reculture), day 14, day 21, month 2 and month 3. The primary outcome is the best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) at 3 months. Primary analysis (intention to treat) will be by linear regression, with treatment arm and baseline BSCVA prespecified covariates. Secondary outcomes include epithelial healing time, scar/infiltrate size, ulcer depth, hypopyon size, perforation and/or therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty (corneal transplant), positive reculture rate (day 7) and quality of life (EuroQol-5 dimensions, WHO/PBD-VF20, WHOQOL-BREF).Ethics and disseminationThe Nepal Health Research Council, the Nepal Department of Drug Administration and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine ethics committee have approved the trial. The results will be presented at local and international meetings and submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication.Trial registration numberISRCTN14332621; pre-results.

Fungal corneal infection (keratitis) is a common clinical problem in South Asia. However, it is often challenging to distinguish this from other aetiologies, such as bacteria or acanthamoeba. In this prospective study, we investigated clinical and epidemiological features that can predict the microbial aetiology of microbial keratitis in Nepal. We recruited patients presenting with keratitis to a tertiary eye hospital in lowland eastern Nepal between June 2019 and November 2020. A structured assessment, including demographics, history, and clinical signs, was carried out. The aetiology was investigated with in vivo confocal microscopy and corneal scrape for microscopy and culture. A predictor score was developed using odds ratios calculated to predict aetiology from features.A fungal cause was identified in 482/642 (75.1%) of cases, which increased to 532/642 (82.9%) when including mixed infections. Unusually, dematiaceous fungi accounted for half of the culture-positive cases (50.6%). Serrated infiltrate margins, patent nasolacrimal duct, raised corneal slough, and organic trauma were independently associated with fungal keratitis (p < 0.01). These four features were combined in a predictor score. The probability of fungal keratitis was 30.1% if one feature was present, increasing to 96.3% if all four were present. Whilst microbiological diagnosis is the “gold standard” to determine the aetiology of an infection, certain clinical signs can help direct the clinician to find a presumptive infectious cause, allowing appropriate treatment to be started without delay. Additionally, this study identified dematiaceous fungi, specifically Curvularia spp., as the main causative agent for fungal keratitis in this region. This novel finding warrants further research to understand potential implications and any trends over time.

Clinically diagnosing fungal keratitis (FK) is challenging; diagnosis can be assisted by investigations including in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM), smear microscopy, and culture. The aim of this study was to estimate the sensitivity in detecting fungal keratitis (FK) using IVCM, smear microscopy, and culture in a setting with a high prevalence of FK. In this cross-sectional study nested within a prospective cohort study, consecutive microbial keratitis (MK) patients attending a tertiary-referral eye hospital in south-eastern Nepal between June 2019 and November 2020 were recruited. IVCM and corneal scrapes for smear microscopy and culture were performed using a standardised protocol. Smear microscopy was performed using potassium hydroxide (KOH), Gram stain, and calcofluor white. The primary outcomes were sensitivities with 95% confidence intervals [95% CI] for IVCM, smear microscopy and culture, and for each different microscopy stain independently, to detect FK compared to a composite referent. We enrolled 642 patients with MK; 468/642 (72.9%) were filamentous FK, 32/642 (5.0%) were bacterial keratitis and 64/642 (10.0%) were mixed bacterial-filamentous FK, with one yeast infection (0.16%). No organism was identified in 77/642 (12.0%). Smear microscopy had the highest sensitivity (90.7% [87.9–93.1%]), followed by IVCM (89.8% [86.9–92.3%]) and culture (75.7% [71.8–79.3%]). Of the three smear microscopy stains, KOH had the highest sensitivity (85.3% [81.9–88.4%]), followed by Gram stain (83.2% [79.7–86.4%]) and calcofluor white (79.1% [75.4–82.5%]). Smear microscopy and IVCM were the most sensitive tools for identifying FK in our cohort. In low-resource settings we recommend clinicians perform corneal scrapes for microscopy using KOH and Gram staining. Culture remains an important tool to diagnose bacterial infection, identify causative fungi and enable antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to describe the health-seeking journey for patients with microbial keratitis (MK) in Nepal and identify factors associated with delay.MethodsProspective cohort study where MK patients attending a large, tertiary-referral eye hospital in south-eastern Nepal between June 2019 and November 2020 were recruited. We collected demographic details, clinical history, and examination findings. Care-seeking journey details were captured including places attended, number of journeys, time from symptom onset, and costs. We compared “direct” with “indirect” presenters, analyzing for predictors of delay.ResultsWe enrolled 643 patients with MK. The majority (96%) self-referred. “Direct” attenders accounted for only 23.6% (152/643) of patients, the majority of “indirect” patients initially presented to a pharmacy (255/491). Over half (328/643) of all cases presented after at least 7 days. The total cost of care increased with increasing numbers of facilities visited (p &lt; 0.001). Those living furthest away were least likely to present directly (p &lt; 0.001). Factors independently associated with delayed presentation included distance &gt;50 km from the eye hospital [aOR 5.760 (95% CI 1.829–18.14, p = 0.003)], previous antifungal use [aOR 4.706 (95% CI 3.139–5.360)], and two or more previous journeys [aOR 1.442 (95% CI 1.111–3.255)].ConclusionsMost patients visited at least one facility prior to our institution, with time to presentation and costs increasing with the number of prior journeys. Distance to the eye hospital is a significant barrier to prompt, direct presentation. Based on these findings, improving access to eye care services, strengthening referral networks and encouraging early appropriate treatment are recommended to reduce delay, ultimately improving clinical outcomes.

BackgroundA new coronavirus causes COVID-19, a developing respiratory illness. Unfortunately, there is little information assessing healthcare workers' understanding of technology and preventative strategies during the Nepalese epidemic. Researchers from other subspecialties uncovered some mythical thoughts. As a result, we decided to put it to the test with healthcare personnel on the front lines. The research also looked at the problems experienced by frontline health care personnel (HCP) because of the COVID-19 strategic shift in work policy.MethodsNepalese healthcare workers participated in web-based cross-sectional research. A pre-tested, structured questionnaire utilizing a Google form was used to get self-informed, digitally typed consent, and examine critical perspectives and problems with current technology and COVID-19 prevention efforts.ResultsIn total, 243 participants with mean age of 29.66 ± 7.61 years agreed to participate and were doctors (n = 27), health assistants (n = 2), medical intern doctors (n = 1), paramedical (n = 139), pharmacy (n = 1), and paramedical interns (n = 73) in this study. The calculated mean percentage score of knowledge on instruments and tools was 73.64 (SD ± 10.43) %, and perception on COVID-19 transmission and control was 70.06 (SD ± 18.30) %. At various levels, frontline health workers faced significant challenges, including the adoption of digital health technology.ConclusionFrontline HCPs are anticipated to have updated knowledge from what the study has outlined. It is recommended to follow national guidelines. Policies should be put in place so that every frontline worker can demonstrate high standards in prevention, control, and equipment use that do not create misinformation among HCPs. Throughout, support for digital health materials and disease control methods for HCPs is essential.