Re-appraisal of topical 1% voriconazole and 5% natamycin in the treatment of fungal keratitis in a randomised trial

PurposeTo compare the efficacy of topical 1% voriconazole vs 5% natamycin for the treatment of fungal keratitis.MethodsIn a prospective, double-masked, randomised, controlled, registered clinical trial, 118 patients with fungal keratitis were treated using identical dosage schedule with either voric...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:British journal of ophthalmology 2015-09, Vol.99 (9), p.1190-1195
Hauptverfasser: Sharma, Savitri, Das, Sujata, Virdi, Ajoy, Fernandes, Merle, Sahu, Srikant K, Kumar Koday, Nagendra, Ali, Md Hasnat, Garg, Prashant, Motukupally, Swapna R
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:PurposeTo compare the efficacy of topical 1% voriconazole vs 5% natamycin for the treatment of fungal keratitis.MethodsIn a prospective, double-masked, randomised, controlled, registered clinical trial, 118 patients with fungal keratitis were treated using identical dosage schedule with either voriconazole (58) or natamycin (60) as inpatients for 7 days and followed up weekly. The outcome measures were percentage of patients with healed or resolving ulcer and final visual acuity at last follow-up (primary) and on day 7 (secondary) in each group.ResultsMore patients (p=0.005) on natamycin (50/56, 89.2%) had healed or resolving ulcer compared with voriconazole (34/51, 66.6%) at last follow-up. The improvement in vision was marginally greater in patients in the natamycin group compared with the voriconazole group at day 7 (p=0.04) and significantly greater at final visit (p=0.01). In univariate analysis, drug, age and mean size of corneal infiltrate and epithelial defect had a significant effect on the final visual outcome. In multivariate analysis, the effect of drug (voriconazole vs natamycin, adjusted coefficient 0.27 (−0.04 to 0.57), p=0.09) was marginal while the effect of age and epithelial defect was significant (p
ISSN:0007-1161
1468-2079
DOI:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-306485