Advertisement

International Ophthalmology

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 531–538 | Cite as

Differentiation of etiologic agents of bacterial keratitis from presentation characteristics

  • Jeena Mascarenhas
  • Muthiah Srinivasan
  • Michael Chen
  • Revathi Rajaraman
  • Meenakshi Ravindran
  • Prajna Lalitha
  • Catherine E. Oldenburg
  • Kathryn J. Ray
  • David V. Glidden
  • Stephanie Costanza
  • Thomas M. Lietman
  • Nisha R. Acharya
Original Paper

Abstract

Presenting characteristics of bacterial corneal ulcers may suggest particular causative organisms, helping to guide treatment decisions before cultures become available. In this study, we analyze the association between presentation demographic and clinical characteristics, using data collected as part of a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Data for this study were collected as part of the Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial, a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked trial. All patients had a culture-proven bacterial corneal ulcer. Patient history, clinical examination, and photography were performed in a standardized fashion at enrollment. Analysis of variance or Fisher’s exact test was used to compare characteristics by organism. Univariate logistic regression was used to analyze predictors of the most common organisms. Five hundred patients were enrolled in the trial, of whom 488 were included in this analysis. The most common organism was Streptococcus pneumoniae (N = 248, 51 %) followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (N = 110, 23 %). Compared to other organisms, P. aeruginosa was significantly associated with a larger baseline infiltrate/scar size [odds ratio (OR) 1.6, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.4–1.8] and deeper infiltrate (OR 2.4, 95 % CI 1.5–3.8). S. pneumoniae was significantly associated with a smaller baseline infiltrate/scar size (OR 0.8, 95 % CI 0.7–0.9) and dacryocystitis (OR 7.3, 95 % CI 4.1–13.3). Nocardia spp. were significantly associated with longer duration of symptoms prior to presentation (OR 1.4, 95 % CI 1.2–1.6), more shallow infiltrate (OR 0.3, 95 % CI 0.2–0.5), and better baseline visual acuity (OR 0.4, 95 % CI 0.2–0.65). Staphylococcus spp. were less likely to be central in location (OR 0.16, 95 % CI 0.08–0.3). Baseline characteristics of bacterial ulcers may suggest the likely etiology and guide early management.

Keywords

Bacteria Keratitis Pseudomonas Risk factors 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the patients who enrolled in the SCUT trial and their families, as well as the research staff at each of the trial sites. We are also grateful for the invaluable guidance and advice of the SCUT data and safety monitoring board: Marian Fisher, Ph.D. (chair), Anthony Aldave, M.D., Donald Everett, M.A., Jacqueline Glover, Ph.D., K. Ananda Kannan, M.D., Steven Kymes, Ph.D., G.V.S. Murthy, M.D., and Ivan Schwab, M.D. Funding for the SCUT was from the National Eye Institute, U10 EY015114. Dr. Acharya is supported by a National Eye Institute K23EY017897 grant and a Research to Prevent Blindness Award. The Department of Ophthalmology at UCSF is supported by a core grant from the National Eye Institute, EY02162, an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, NY, and That Man May See, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.

Conflicts of interest

None of the authors has any conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    Whitcher J, Srinivasan M, Upadhyay M (2001) Corneal blindness: a global perspective. Bull World Health Organ 79:214–221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bharathi MJ, Ramakrishnan R, Meenakshi R, Padmavathy S, Shivakumar C, Srinivasan M (2007) Microbial keratitis in South India: influence of risk factors, climate, and geographical variation. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 14(2):61–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dunlop A, Wright E, Howlader S, Nazrul I, Husain R, McClellan K et al (1994) Suppurative corneal ulceration in Bangladesh. Aust NZ J Ophthalmol 22(2):105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keay L, Edwards K, Naduvilath T, Taylor H, Snibson G, Forde K et al (2006) Microbial keratitis: predisposing factors and morbidity. Ophthalmology 113:109–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leck A, Thomas P, Hagan M, Kaliamurthy J, Ackuaku E, John M et al (2002) Aetiology of suppurative corneal ulcers in Ghana and South India, and epidemiology of fungal keratitis. Br J Ophthalmol 86:1211–1215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Varaprasathan G, Miller K, Lietman T, Whitcher J, Cevallos V, Okumoto M et al (2004) Trends in the etiology of infectious corneal ulcers at the F.I. Proctor Foundation. Cornea 23:360–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Srinivasan M, Mascarenhas J, Rajaraman R, Ravindran M, Lalitha P, Glidden DV, Ray KJ, Hong KC, Oldenburg CE, Lee SM, Zegans ME, McLeod, SD, Lietman TM, Acharya NR, the Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial Group (2012) The Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial (SCUT): study design and baseline characteristics. Arch Ophthalmol 130(2):151–157Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wilhelmus K, Liesegang T, Osato M, Jone D (1994) Laboratory diagnosis of ocular infections. American Society for Microbiology Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) (2000) Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. NCCLS document M100-S10, 10th edn. NCCLS, Wayne, PAGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rietveld P, ter Riet G, Bindels P, Sloos J, van Weert H (2004) Predicting bacterial cause in infectious conjunctivitis: a cohort study on informativeness of combinations of signs and symptoms. BMJ 329:206–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krachmer J, Mannis M, Holland E (eds) (1997) Cornea: cornea and external disease: clinical diagnosis and management. Mosby, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sridhar M, Sharma S, Reddy M, Mruthyunjay P, Rao G (1998) Clinicomicrobiological review of Nocardia keratitis. Cornea 17(1):17–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lalitha P, Tiwari M, Prajna N, Gilpin C, Prakash K, Srinivasan M (2007) Nocardia keratitis: species, drug sensitivities, and clinical correlation. Cornea 26(3):255–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aasuri M, Reddy M, Sharma S, Rao G (1999) Co-occurrence of pneumococcal keratitis and dacryocystitis. Cornea 18(3):273–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parmar P, Salman A, Kalavathy M, Jesudasan C, Thomas P (2003) Pneumococcal keratitis: a clinical profile. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 31:44–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Green M, Apel A, Stapleton F (2008) Risk factors and causative organisms in microbial keratitis. Cornea 27(1):22–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oldenburg C, Prajna N, Lalitha P, Krishnan T, Mascarenhas J, Vaitilingam C et al (2011) Clinical signs in dematiaceous and hyaline fungal keratitis. Br J Ophthalmol 95(5):750–751PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bourcier T, Thomas F, Borderie V, Chaumeil C, Laroche L (2003) Bacterial keratitis: predisposing factors, clinical and microbiological review of 300 cases. Br J Ophthalmol 87:834–838PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Green M, Apel A, Stapleton F (2008) A longitudinal study of trends in keratitis in Australia. Cornea 27(1):33–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Srinivasan M, Gonzales C, George C, Cevallos V, Mascarenhas J, Asokan B et al (1997) Epidemiology and aetiological diagnosis of corneal ulceration in Madurai, South India. Br J Ophthalmol 81:965–971PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeena Mascarenhas
    • 1
  • Muthiah Srinivasan
    • 1
  • Michael Chen
    • 2
  • Revathi Rajaraman
    • 3
  • Meenakshi Ravindran
    • 4
  • Prajna Lalitha
    • 1
  • Catherine E. Oldenburg
    • 5
  • Kathryn J. Ray
    • 5
  • David V. Glidden
    • 6
  • Stephanie Costanza
    • 5
  • Thomas M. Lietman
    • 2
    • 5
    • 6
  • Nisha R. Acharya
    • 2
    • 5
    • 7
  1. 1.Aravind Eye Care SystemMaduraiIndia
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.Aravind Eye Care SystemCoimbatoreIndia
  4. 4.Aravind Eye Care SystemTirunelveliIndia
  5. 5.F.I. Proctor FoundationUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  6. 6.Department of Epidemiology & BiostatisticsUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  7. 7.F.I. Proctor FoundationUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations