Comparison of two methods for obtaining and transporting corneal samples in suspected infectious keratitis

Factors Associated With Laboratory Test Negativity Following a Transition in Specimen Collection in Microbial Keratitis Cases

PURPOSE

Negative laboratory results make targeting microbial keratitis treatment difficult. We investigated factors associated with laboratory negativity in patients with microbial keratitis in the context of a transition to a new specimen collection method.

METHODS

Microbial keratitis patients with associated laboratory tests were identified in the electronic health record of a tertiary care facility from August 2012 to April 2022. Patient demographics and laboratory results were obtained. Random sampling of 50% of charts was performed to assess the impact of the ocular history and pretreatment measures. The relationship between probability of negative laboratory results with demographics, ocular history, pretreatment measures, and utilization of a new specimen collection method (i.e. ESwab) was evaluated by multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 3395 microbial keratitis patients identified, 31% (n = 1051) had laboratory tests. Laboratory testing increased over time (slope = 2.5% per year, p < 0.001; 19.6% in 2013 to 42.2% in 2021). Laboratory negative rate increased over time (slope = 2.2% per year, p = 0.022; 48.5% in 2013 to 62.3% in 2021). Almost one-third of patients (31.2%, n = 164) were pretreated with steroids. Over two-thirds of patients were pretreated with antibiotics (69.5%, n = 367). 56.5% (n = 297) of patients were outside referrals. In multivariable regression, patients with corticosteroid pretreatment had lower odds of negative laboratory results (odds ratio [OR] = 0.49, p = 0.001). There were higher odds of negative laboratory results for every additional antibiotic prescribed to a patient prior to presentation (OR = 1.30, p = 0.006) and for specimens collected using ESwabs (OR = 1.69, p = 0.005). Age, prior eye trauma, outside referrals, and contact lens wear were not significantly associated with negative laboratory results.

CONCLUSION

More microbial keratitis associated laboratory tests are being taken over time. Over 60% of tests were negative by 2022. Factors associated with negative laboratory test results included pretreatment with antibiotics and specimens collected with the new collection method.

Usefulness of smear microscopy for therapeutic decision-making in patients with infectious keratitis

PURPOSE

To determine the usefulness of smears in the diagnosis of infectious keratitis by comparing smears and 2 different culture methods.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective, observational study.

METHODS

The foci of 73 patients diagnosed with infectious keratitis at Hiroshima University Hospital between July 2011 and September 2015 were abraded, and smear microscopy and culturing were performed. The microorganism detection rates and other parameters were compared.

RESULTS

Microorganisms were detected in 47 of 73 specimens. Microorganisms were identified in 32 of 69 cases cultured on plain medium (detection rate, 46.4%) compared with 22 of 61 cases cultured on swab transport medium (detection rate, 36.1%). There was no significant difference in the microbial detection rate between the plain medium method and the swab transport medium method (P = 0.23). Smear microscopy and culture findings were concordant in 21 (28.8%) cases, and different microorganisms were detected in 9 cases. In 17 cases, the culture was negative, despite the presence of microorganisms on smear microscopy, and in 7 cases, the culture was positive, despite the absence of microorganisms on smear microscopy. The positivity rate of microbial detection was significantly higher when no antimicrobial agents had been administered previously (odds ratio 7.50, P = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

Smear microscopy of abrasions from lesions is useful for the initiation of treatment for infectious keratitis. However, culture studies should be conducted at the same time to confirm antimicrobial sensitivity. If possible, smear microscopy should be performed before the initiation of antimicrobial therapy.

Urgent unmet needs in the care of bacterial keratitis: An evidence-based synthesis

Bacterial corneal infections, or bacterial keratitis (BK), are ophthalmic emergencies that frequently lead to irreversible visual impairment. Though increasingly recognized as a major cause of global blindness, modern paradigms of evidence-based care in BK have remained at a diagnostic and therapeutic impasse for over half a century. Current standards of management - based on the collection of corneal cultures and the application of broad-spectrum topical antibiotics - are beset by important yet widely underrecognized limitations, including approximately 30% of all patients who will develop moderate to severe vision loss in the affected eye. Though recent advances have involved a more clearly defined role for adjunctive topical corticosteroids, and novel therapies such as corneal crosslinking, overall progress to improve patient and population-based outcomes remains incommensurate to the chronic morbidity caused by this disease. Recognizing that the care of BK is guided by the clinical axiom, "time equals vision", this chapter offers an evidence-based synthesis for the clinical management of these infections, underscoring critical unmet needs in disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.

Comparison of corneal culture results obtained using the ESwab™ and Amies charcoal swab in canine and feline patients

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to compare corneal culture results using the ESwab™ and Amies charcoal swab.

ANIMALS STUDIED

One hundred fourteen canine and fifteen feline eyes.

PROCEDURES

Retrospective analysis of Dick White Referrals bacterial and fungal corneal culture data was conducted. Results were included from canine and feline patients, which presented with suspected infectious keratitis that had samples taken using an Amies charcoal swab followed by an ESwab™ in the same eye. In respect to positive and negative cultures, a McNemar test was conducted comparing instances of disagreement between swab types, and the Kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated to assess the level of agreement between swab types.

RESULTS

The ESwab™ produced more positive corneal cultures (71/129 [55.0%]) than the Amies charcoal swab (41/129 [31.8%]). 2/129 eyes produced positive fungal cultures. Considering 37/129 eyes in which both swab types detected a positive corneal culture, the same bacterial species were cultured from each swab type in 34/37 (91.9%) eyes, and an additional bacterial species was cultured by the ESwab™ in 3/37 (8.1%) eyes. In 34/38 (89.5%), instances of disagreement between swab types, the ESwab™ showed a positive culture, and the Amies charcoal swab showed a negative culture from the same eye, and this difference was significant (p < 0.0001). There was a moderate level of agreement between results from both swab types (κ = 0.432).

CONCLUSIONS

ESwab™ sampling alone may be superior to Amies charcoal swabs for detecting presence of bacteria in suspected infectious keratitis in cats and dogs.