Topical Chlorhexidine 0.2% versus Topical Natamycin 5% for the Treatment of Fungal Keratitis in Nepal: A Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial.
Chlorhexidine
Clinical trial
Corneal ulcer
Fungal keratitis
Natamycin
Nepal
Journal
Ophthalmology
ISSN: 1549-4713
Titre abrégé: Ophthalmology
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7802443
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2022
05 2022
Historique:
received:
07
10
2021
revised:
02
12
2021
accepted:
02
12
2021
pubmed:
14
12
2021
medline:
27
4
2022
entrez:
13
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To investigate if topical chlorhexidine 0.2%, which is low cost and easy to formulate, is noninferior to topical natamycin 5% for the treatment of filamentous fungal keratitis. Randomized controlled, single-masked, noninferiority clinical trial. Adults attending a tertiary-level ophthalmic hospital in Nepal with filamentous fungal infection confirmed on smear or confocal microscopy. Participants were randomly allocated to receive topical chlorhexidine 0.2% or topical natamycin 5%. Primary analysis (intention-to-treat) was by linear regression, using baseline logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) and treatment arm as prespecified covariates. Mixed fungal-bacterial infections were excluded from the primary analysis but included in secondary analyses and secondary safety-related outcomes. The noninferiority margin was 0.15 logMAR. This trial was registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN14332621. The primary outcome measure was BSCVA at 3 months. Secondary outcome measures included perforation or therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty by 90 days. Between June 3, 2019, and November 9, 2020, 354 eligible participants were enrolled and randomly assigned: 178 to chlorhexidine and 176 to natamycin. Primary outcome data were available for 153 and 151 of the chlorhexidine and natamycin groups, respectively. Of these, mixed bacterial-fungal infections were found in 20 cases (12/153 chlorhexidine, 8/151 natamycin) and excluded from the primary analysis. Therefore, 284 patients were assessed for the primary outcome (141 chlorhexidine, 143 natamycin). We did not find evidence to suggest chlorhexidine was noninferior to natamycin and in fact found strong evidence to suggest that natamycin-treated participants had significantly better 3-month BSCVA than chlorhexidine-treated participants, after adjusting for baseline BSCVA (regression coefficient, -0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.42 to -0.18; P < 0.001). There were more perforations and emergency corneal grafts in the chlorhexidine arm (24/175, 13.7%) than in the natamycin arm (10/173, 5.8%; P = 0.018, mixed infections included), whereas natamycin-treated cases were less likely to perforate or require an emergency corneal graft, after adjusting for baseline ulcer depth (odds ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.79; P = 0.013). Treatment with natamycin is associated with significantly better visual acuity, with fewer adverse events, compared with treatment with chlorhexidine. Natamycin remains the preferred first-line monotherapy treatment for filamentous fungal keratitis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34896126
pii: S0161-6420(21)00921-0
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.12.004
pmc: PMC9037000
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antifungal Agents
0
Natamycin
8O0C852CPO
Voriconazole
JFU09I87TR
Chlorhexidine
R4KO0DY52L
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN14332621']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
530-541Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 207472/Z/17/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R010161/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Br J Ophthalmol. 1998 Aug;82(8):919-25
pubmed: 9828778
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016 Dec 1;134(12):1365-1372
pubmed: 27787540
Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2020 Apr;27(2):98-104
pubmed: 31640454
Arch Ophthalmol. 2006 Jun;124(6):923
pubmed: 16769857
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016 Dec 1;134(12):1372-1373
pubmed: 27787542
Am J Ophthalmol. 2016 Aug;168:227-236
pubmed: 27287820
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013 Apr;131(4):422-9
pubmed: 23710492
Br J Ophthalmol. 2003 Oct;87(10):1235-7
pubmed: 14507756
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013 Mar;251(3):817-24
pubmed: 23064697
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Apr 09;(4):CD004241
pubmed: 25855311
J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2015 Apr-Jun;10(2):106-11
pubmed: 26425310
Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997 Sep;4(3):141-9
pubmed: 9377282
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015 Aug;133(8):930-7
pubmed: 26022921
J Fungi (Basel). 2021 Apr 03;7(4):
pubmed: 33916767
Clin Microbiol Rev. 1999 Jan;12(1):147-79
pubmed: 9880479
Br J Ophthalmol. 2015 Sep;99(9):1190-5
pubmed: 25740805
Singapore Med J. 2012 Apr;53(4):264-7
pubmed: 22511050
AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1959 Apr;61(4):547-52
pubmed: 13636542
Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2019 Oct;26(5):311-320
pubmed: 31088316
Am J Ophthalmol. 2009 Oct;148(4):487-499.e2
pubmed: 19660733
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Mar;21(3):e49-e57
pubmed: 33645500
Ophthalmology. 1994 Dec;101(12):1883-95; discussion 1895-6
pubmed: 7997324
Control Clin Trials. 1999 Dec;20(6):573-600
pubmed: 10588299
Cornea. 2019 Feb;38(2):141-145
pubmed: 30334872
BMJ Open. 2020 Sep 30;10(9):e038066
pubmed: 32998924
Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2011 Aug;18(4):158-63
pubmed: 21780874
Arch Ophthalmol. 2010 Jun;128(6):672-8
pubmed: 20547942
Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011 Jul;39(5):434-40
pubmed: 21105974
Int Ophthalmol. 1995-1996;19(5):299-302
pubmed: 8864814