Corticosteroids Versus Cyclosporine for Subepithelial Infiltrates Secondary to Epidemic Keratoconjunctivitis: A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Study

Steroids in the Management of Infectious Keratitis

PURPOSE

To summarize the evidence base on the use of topical corticosteroids for infectious keratitis.

METHODS

Narrative review.

RESULTS

Infectious keratitis is a painful condition that often results in visually significant corneal stromal scarring, even when antimicrobial therapy is successful. Corticosteroids may reduce inflammation and subsequent scar formation and while relieving the acute ocular pain associated with a corneal ulcer. However, corticosteroids also reduce the host immune response, which could hinder the ability to clear infection. The safety and effectiveness of corticosteroids depends to a large part on the efficacy of the antimicrobials being used to treat the underlying infection. Randomized trials have found that corticosteroids are safe and effective for herpetic keratitis when used with appropriate antiviral therapy, and are safe for bacterial keratitis when used with broad spectrum topical antibiotics. The effectiveness of corticosteroids for bacterial keratitis has not been shown conclusively, although more advanced bacterial corneal ulcers may do better with corticosteroids. No randomized trials have assessed the safety and effectiveness of steroids for fungal or acanthamoeba keratitis. Animal studies suggest corticosteroids may be harmful in fungal keratitis, and observational human studies have found that steroids are harmful for fungal and acanthamoeba keratitis when started prior to anti-amoebics.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical corticosteroids, when used as an adjunct to antimicrobial therapy, may be beneficial if the antimicrobial being used can effectively clear or suppress the infection, such as in bacterial and herpetic keratitis. Randomized trials would be helpful to further delineate the role of corticosteroids for infectious keratitis.

Efficacy and Safety of Ophthalmic Preparations of Glucocorticoids in Patients with Epidemic Keratoconjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis (EKC) is a highly contagious infectious ocular disease that has been widespread worldwide. Ophthalmic preparations of glucocorticoids (OPGs) are the supportive therapies for EKC; however, they are still controversial.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OPGs in patients with EKC. Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI), and Wanfang Database from inception to 25 Aug 2022. We included and analyzed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared OPGs to other positive drugs or placebo in patients with EKC.

RESULTS

Six studies (five RCTs and one retrospective cohort) involving 286 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with artificial tears, OPGs could relieve ocular symptoms faster in the acute phase of epidemic keratoconjunctivitis (AEKC). There was no significant difference in the incidence of corneal subepithelial infiltrates (SEIs) in AEKC when OPGs were used for 7 days, but there was a substantial difference for 21 and 28 days. In the chronic phase of epidemic keratoconjunctivitis (CEKC), there was no significant difference in the rate of complete elimination of SEIs at 6 months of OPGs treatment compared with immunosuppressants [RR = 1.07,95%CI (0.71,1.61), p = 0.75], as well as in the recurrence rate of SEIs after 6 months [RR = 2.05,95%CI (0.82,5.12), P = 0.13]. OPGs significantly increased intraocular pressure (IOP) at 6 months compared with immunosuppressants [MD = - 1.13,95%CI (- 1.97, - 0.30), P = 0.007]. There was no significant difference in cessation of therapy due to drug intolerance between OPGs and immunosuppressants [RR = 0.69,95%CI (0.16,2.94), p = 0.62].

CONCLUSIONS

OPGs might relieve ocular symptoms and reduce the incidence of SEIs in AEKC, whereas not recommended the therapy in CEKC. More high-quality clinical evidence is required to confirm our findings.

Topical Pharmacologic Interventions Versus Active Control, Placebo, or No Treatment for Epidemic Keratoconjunctivitis: Findings From a Cochrane Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To summarize key findings from a Cochrane systematic review of the effectiveness and safety of topical pharmacologic interventions compared with active control or placebo for epidemic keratoconjunctivitis (EKC).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials that compared antiseptic agents, virustatic agents, or immune-modulating topical therapies with placebo or an active control. We adhered to Cochrane methods for trial selection, data extraction, risk of bias evaluation, and data synthesis.

RESULTS

Ten randomized controlled trials with 892 participants with acute or chronic EKC were included. Eight trials compared interventions with artificial tears or saline (n = 4) or with steroids (n = 4); two 3-arm trials contributed data to both comparisons. Estimates suggested that compared with tears, after povidone-iodine (PVP-I) alone (2 studies, 409 participants) more participants with acute EKC had resolution of symptoms (risk ratio [RR] 1.15 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.07-1.24]) and signs (RR 3.19 [95% CI 2.29-4.45]) within 10 days. In 2 trials comparing treatments with steroid alone or steroid with levofloxacin, fewer eyes treated with PVP-I or polyvinyl alcohol iodine (PVA-I) plus steroid developed subepithelial infiltrates within 21 days (RR 0.08 [95% CI 0.01-0.55]; 69 eyes). No treatment was shown to improve resolution of infiltrates.

CONCLUSIONS

Low- to very low-level certainty of evidence suggested that PVP-I or PVA-I with steroid may confer some benefit in acute EKC, but imprecision from small sample sizes, the potential risk of bias from inadequate reporting or trial design, and variability in participant selection, outcome measurement, and reporting limit the amount and quality of evidence.

Topical pharmacologic interventions versus placebo for epidemic keratoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Viruses cause about 80% of all cases of acute conjunctivitis. Human adenoviruses are believed to account for 65% to 90% of cases of viral conjunctivitis, or 20% to 75% of all causes of infectious keratoconjunctivitis worldwide. Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis (EKC) is a highly contagious subset of adenoviral conjunctivitis that has been associated with large outbreaks at military installations and at medical facilities. It is accompanied by severe conjunctival inflammation, watery discharge, and light sensitivity, and can lead to chronic complications such as corneal and conjunctival scarring with discomfort and poor quality of vision. Due to a lack of consensus on the efficacy of any pharmacotherapy to alter the clinical course of EKC, no standard of care exists, therefore many clinicians offer only supportive care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of topical pharmacological therapies versus placebo, an active control, or no treatment for adults with EKC.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), with no restrictions on language or year of publication. The date of the last search was 27 April 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials in which antiseptic agents, virustatic agents, or topical immune-modulating therapy was compared with placebo, an active control, or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 studies conducted in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa with a total of 892 participants who were treated for 7 days to 6 months and followed for 7 days up to 1.5 years. Study characteristics and risk of bias In most studies participants were predominantly men (range: 44% to 90%), with an age range from 9 to 82 years. Three studies reported information on trial registration, but we found no published study protocol. The majority of trials had small sample sizes, ranging from 18 to 90 participants enrolled per study; the only exception was a trial that enrolled 350 participants. We judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias across risk of bias domains. Findings We included 10 studies of 892 EKC participants and estimated combined intervention effects in analyses stratified by steroid-containing control treatment or artificial tears. Six trials contributed to the comparisons of topical interventions (povidone-iodine [PVP-I], trifluridine, ganciclovir, dexamethasone plus neomycin) with artificial tears (or saline). Very low certainty evidence from two trials comparing trifluridine or ganciclovir with artificial tears showed inconsistent effects on shortening the mean duration of cardinal symptoms or signs of EKC. Low certainty evidence based on two studies (409 participants) indicated that participants treated with PVP-I alone more often experienced resolution of symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.24) and signs (RR 3.19, 95% CI 2.29 to 4.45) during the first week of treatment compared with those treated with artificial tears. Very low certainty evidence from two studies (77 participants) suggested that PVP-I or ganciclovir prevented the development of subepithelial infiltrates (SEI) when compared with artificial tears within 30 days of treatment (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.56). Four studies compared topical interventions (tacrolimus, cyclosporin A [CsA], trifluridine, PVP-I + dexamethasone) with topical steroids, and one trial compared fluorometholone (FML) plus polyvinyl alcohol iodine (PVA-I) with FML plus levofloxacin. Evidence from one trial showed that more eyes receiving PVP-I 1.0% plus dexamethasone 0.1% had symptoms resolved by day seven compared with those receiving dexamethasone alone (RR 9.00, 95% CI 1.23 to 66.05; 52 eyes). In two trials, fewer eyes treated with PVP-I or PVA-I plus steroid developed SEI within 15 days of treatment compared with steroid alone or steroid plus levofloxacin (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55; 69 eyes). One study found that CsA was no more effective than steroid for resolving SEI within four weeks of treatment (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.06; N = 88). The evidence from trials comparing topical interventions with steroids was overall of very low level certainty. Adverse effects Antiviral or antimicrobial agents plus steroid did not differ from artificial tears in terms of ocular discomfort upon instillation (RR 9.23, 95% CI 0.61 to 140.67; N = 19). CsA and tacrolimus eye drops were associated with more cases of severe ocular discomfort, and sometimes intolerance, when compared with steroids (RR 4.64, 95% CI 1.15 to 18.71; 2 studies; N = 141). Compared with steroids, tacrolimus did not increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0 to 1.13; 1 study; N = 80), while trifluridine conferred no additional risk compared to tear substitute (RR 5.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 96.49; 1 study; N = 97). Overall, bacterial superinfection was rare (one in 23 CsA users) and not associated with use of the intervention steroid (RR 3.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 84.98; N = 51). The evidence for all estimates was of low or very low certainty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for the seven specified outcomes was of low or very low certainty due to imprecision and high risk of bias. The evidence that antiviral agents shorten the duration of symptoms or signs when compared with artificial tears was inconclusive. Low certainty evidence suggests that PVP-I alone resolves signs and symptoms by seven days relative to artificial tears. PVP-I or PVA-I, alone or with steroid, is associated with lower risks of SEI development than artificial tears or steroid (very low certainty evidence). The currently available evidence is insufficient to determine whether any of the evaluated interventions confers an advantage over steroids or artificial tears with respect to virus eradication or its spread to initially uninvolved fellow eyes. Future updates of this review should provide evidence of high-level certainty from trials with larger sample sizes, enrollment of participants with similar durations of signs and symptoms, and validated methods to assess short- and long-term outcomes.