Evidence Hub

Relationship of in vitro susceptibility to moxifloxacin and in vivo clinical outcome in bacterial keratitis

P. Lalitha, M. Srinivasan, P. Manikandan, M. Bharathi, R. Rajaraman, M. Ravindran, V. Cevallos, C. Oldenburg et al.

Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2012

87 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: For bacterial infections, the susceptibility to antibiotics in vitro has been associated with clinical outcomes in vivo, although the importance of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) has been debated. In this study, we analyzed the association of MIC on clinical outcomes in bacterial corneal ulcers, while controlling for organism and severity of disease at presentation.

METHODS: Data were collected as part of a National Eye Institute-funded, randomized, controlled trial (the Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial [SCUT]). All cases enrolled in SCUT had a culture-positive bacterial corneal ulcer and received moxifloxacin. The MIC to moxifloxacin was measured by E test. Outcomes included best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, infiltrate/scar size, time to re-epithelialization, and corneal perforation.

RESULTS: Five hundred patients with corneal ulcers were enrolled in the trial, and 480 were included in this analysis. The most commonly isolated organisms were Streptococcus pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. A 2-fold increase in MIC was associated with an approximately 0.02 logMAR decrease in visual acuity at 3 weeks, approximately 1 letter of vision loss on a Snellen chart (0.019 logMAR; 95% confidence interval [CI], .0040-.033; P = .01). A 2-fold increase in MIC was associated with an approximately 0.04-mm larger infiltrate/scar size at 3 weeks (0.036 mm; 95% CI, .010-.061; P = .006). After controlling for organism, a higher MIC was associated with slower time…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free