Evidence Hub

A comparison of antimicrobial regimen outcomes and antibiogram development in microbial keratitis: a prospective cohort study in Alexandria, Egypt

Nayel AA, Hamdy NA, Massoud TH, Mohamed NM

Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2024

51 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Antimicrobial resistance in microbial keratitis has not been previously explored in Alexandria. We aim to recommend effective therapies through identification of etiological agents, determination of antimicrobial susceptibilities, and comparing outcomes of empiric topical antimicrobials.

METHODS: In this 2022 prospective cohort conducted in Alexandria Main University Hospital cornea clinic, antimicrobial susceptibilities of isolated microorganisms from corneal scrapings were detected and antibiograms were developed. Bacterial (BK), fungal (FK), or mixed fungal/bacterial keratitis (MFBK) patients on empiric regimens were compared for ulcer healing, time-to-epithelialization, best-corrected visual acuity, interventions, and complications.

RESULTS: The prevalent microorganisms in 93 positive-cultures were coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS, 30.1%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (14%), and Aspergillus spp. (12.9%). CoNS were susceptible to vancomycin (VAN, 100%) and moxifloxacin (MOX, 90.9%). Gram-negative bacteria showed more susceptibility to gatifloxacin (90.9%) than MOX (57.1%), and to gentamicin (GEN, 44.4%) than ceftazidime (CAZ, 11.8%). Methicillin-resistance reached 23.9% among Gram-positive bacteria. Fungi exhibited 10% resistance to voriconazole (VRC). Percentages of healed ulcers in 49 BK patients using GEN + VAN, CAZ + VAN and MOX were 85.7%, 44.4%, and 64.5%, respectively (p = 0.259). Their median time-to-epithelialization reached 21, 30, and 30 days,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 51 participants or records.

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