Evidence Hub

Spectrum and resistance in bacterial infections of the ocular surface in a German tertiary referral center 2009-2019

Roth M, Goerke P, Holtmann C, Frings A, MacKenzie CR, Geerling G

Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2022

680 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: Aim of this study was to evaluate the frequencies, trends, and antibiotic resistance of bacteria collected from ocular surface or contact lens material in a German tertiary referral center from 2009 to 2019.

METHODS: Microbiological data from 2009 to 2019 was analyzed. Culture-dependent microbial identification and analysis of antibiotic sensitivity was completed by the Institute of Microbiology. Statistical analysis of age- and sex-specific differences as well as changes in the microbial spectrum and resistance over the study period was performed with GraphPad Prism 9.0 applying nonparametric tests (level of significance: p ≦ 0.05).

RESULTS: A total of 6361 specimens were analyzed. Positivity rate was 18.6%. Sixty-three percent (n = 680) of the bacterial isolates were derived from ocular surface and 37% (n = 399) from contact lens material. The ratio of gram-negative bacteria was significantly higher in contact lens material. Multiresistant bacteria showed a significant increase with patient age (p < 0.0001). An overall increase in resistance to levofloxacin (p = 0.0239) was detected. Only 2.4% and 3.1% isolates were resistant to a combination of moxifloxacin and gentamicin, respectively, levofloxacin and gentamicin.

CONCLUSIONS: The reported bacterial spectrum is similar to comparable centers. Our data show that it should not be assumed that the newest classes of antibiotics have the best efficacy or lowest resistance levels. In suspected bacterial conjunctivitis,…

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: 680 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