Interventions for preventing ophthalmia neonatorum

The safety profile of Bald's eyesalve for the treatment of bacterial infections

The rise in antimicrobial resistance has prompted the development of alternatives to combat bacterial infections. Bald's eyesalve, a remedy used in the Early Medieval period, has previously been shown to have efficacy against Staphylococcus aureus in in vitro and in vivo models of chronic wounds. However, the safety profile of Bald's eyesalve has not yet been demonstrated, and this is vital before testing in humans. Here, we determined the safety potential of Bald's eyesalve using in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo models representative of skin or eye infections. We also confirmed that Bald's eyesalve is active against an important eye pathogen, Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Low levels of cytotoxicity were observed in eyesalve-treated cell lines representative of skin and immune cells. Results from a bovine corneal opacity and permeability test demonstrated slight irritation to the cornea that resolved within 10 min. The slug mucosal irritation assay revealed that a low level of mucus was secreted by slugs indicating moderate mucosal irritation. We obtained promising results from mouse wound closure experiments; no visible signs of irritation or inflammation were observed. Our results suggest that Bald's eyesalve could be tested further on human volunteers to assess safety for topical application against bacterial infections.

Interventions for preventing ophthalmia neonatorum

BACKGROUND

Ophthalmia neonatorum is an infection of the eyes in newborns that can lead to blindness, particularly if the infection is caused by Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Antiseptic or antibiotic medication is dispensed into the eyes of newborns, or dispensed systemically, soon after delivery to prevent neonatal conjunctivitis and potential vision impairment.

OBJECTIVES

1. To determine if any type of systemic or topical eye medication is better than placebo or no prophylaxis in preventing ophthalmia neonatorum. 2. To determine if any one systemic or topical eye medication is better than any other medication in preventing ophthalmia neonatorum.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and three trials registers, date of last search 4 October 2019. We also searched references of included studies and contacted pharmaceutical companies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of any topical, systemic, or combination medical interventions used to prevent ophthalmia neonatorum in newborns compared with placebo, no prophylaxis, or with each other.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. Outcomes were: blindness or any adverse visual outcome at 12 months, conjunctivitis at 1 month (gonococcal (GC), chlamydial (CC), bacterial (BC), any aetiology (ACAE), or unknown aetiology (CUE)), and adverse effects.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 trials with a total of 79,198 neonates. Eighteen studies were conducted in high-income settings (the USA, Europe, Israel, Canada), and 12 were conducted in low- and middle-income settings (Africa, Iran, China, Indonesia, Mexico). Fifteen of the 30 studies were quasi-randomised. We judged every study to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain. Ten studies included a comparison arm with no prophylaxis. There were 14 different prophylactic regimens and 12 different medications in the 30 included studies. Any prophylaxis compared to no prophylaxis  Unless otherwise indicated, the following evidence comes from studies assessing one or more of the following interventions: tetracycline 1%, erythromycin 0.5%, povidone-iodine 2.5%, silver nitrate 1%. None of the studies reported data on the primary outcomes: blindness or any adverse visual outcome at any time point. There was only very low-certainty evidence on the risk of GC with prophylaxis (4/5340 newborns) compared to no prophylaxis (5/2889) at one month (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 2.65, 3 studies). Low-certainty evidence suggested there may be little or no difference in effect on CC (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.61, 4874 newborns, 2 studies) and BC (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.93, 3685 newborns, 2 studies). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested a probable reduction in risk of ACAE at one month (RR 0.65, 95% 0.54 to 0.78, 9666 newborns, 8 studies assessing tetracycline 1%, erythromycin 0.5%, povidone-iodine 2.5%, silver nitrate 1%, colostrum, bacitracin-phenacaine ointment). There was only very low-certainty evidence on CUE  (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.37 to 8.28, 330 newborns, 1 study). Very low-certainty evidence on adverse effects suggested no increased nasolacrimal duct obstruction (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.28, 404 newborns, 1 study of erythromycin 0.5% and silver nitrate 1%) and no increased keratitis (single study of 40 newborns assessing silver nitrate 1% with no events).    Any prophylaxis compared to another prophylaxis Overall, evidence comparing different interventions did not suggest any consistently superior intervention. However, most of this evidence was of low-certainty and was extremely limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are no data on whether prophylaxis for ophthalmia neonatorum prevents serious outcomes such as blindness or any adverse visual outcome. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the use of prophylaxis may lead to a reduction in the incidence of ACAE in newborns but the evidence for effect on GC, CC or BC was less certain. Comparison of individual interventions did not suggest any consistently superior intervention, but data were limited. A trial comparing tetracycline, povidone-iodine (single administration), and chloramphenicol for GC and CC could potentially provide the community with an effective, universally applicable prophylaxis against ophthalmia neonatorum.

Euphrasia Eye Drops in Preterm Neonates With Ocular Discharge: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial

Aim: To investigate whether the early administration of Euphrasia eye drops® in preterm neonates presenting with ocular discharge fosters the resolution of the ocular discharge and reduces the need for topical antibiotic therapy, as compared to placebo. Methods: We conducted a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial at the University Children's Hospital Bern, Switzerland. Preterm neonates with white, yellow, or green ocular discharge were included. Infants were randomly assigned (1:1) to the Euphrasia arm (Euphrasia eye drops®, Weleda AG, Arlesheim) or the placebo arm (NaCl 0.9%). Euphrasia or placebo was administrated at a dose of one drop in each eye four times a day over a period of 96 h. The primary outcome was the treatment success, defined as no ocular discharge at 96 h and no use of topical antibiotic therapy during the 96-h intervention. Results: A total of 114 neonates were screened and 84 were randomized. Among neonates in the Euphrasia arm, 22 (55.0%) achieved our primary outcome compared to 21 (51.2%) in the placebo arm (p = 0.85). In the Euphrasia arm, time to resolution of reddening tended to fall within the shorter bracket of 24 to 48 h (24 (92.3%) vs. 12 (80.0%) in the placebo arm, p = 0.34) and relapse or first signs of reddening during the 96-h intervention tended to be lower [3 (7.9%) eyes vs. 8 (18.2%) eyes in the placebo arm, p = 0.17]. Tearing at 96 h tended to be lower in the Euphrasia arm [5 (12.8%) eyes in the Euphrasia arm vs. 12 (27.3%) eyes in the placebo arm, p = 0.10]. Discussion: Euphrasia did not significantly improve treatment success, defined as no ocular discharge at 96 h and no use of topical antibiotic therapy during the 96-h intervention. However, results suggest that Euphrasia may be of benefit for symptoms such as reddening and tearing, and thus improve the comfort of patients. Trial Registration: The trial is registered at the US National Institutes of Health (ClinicalTrials.gov) NCT04122300 and at the portal for human research in Switzerland SNCTP000003490.