Ciprofloxacin Ophthalmic Solution in the Treatment of Conjunctivitis and Blepharitis: A Comparison with Fusidic Acid

Interventions for chronic blepharitis

BACKGROUND

Blepharitis, an inflammatory condition associated with itchiness, redness, flaking, and crusting of the eyelids, is a common eye condition that affects both children and adults. It is common in all ethnic groups and across all ages. Although infrequent, blepharitis can lead to permanent alterations to the eyelid margin or vision loss from superficial keratopathy (abnormality of the cornea), corneal neovascularization, and ulceration. Most importantly, blepharitis frequently causes significant ocular symptoms such as burning sensation, irritation, tearing, and red eyes as well as visual problems such as photophobia and blurred vision. The exact etiopathogenesis is unknown, but suspected to be multifactorial, including chronic low-grade infections of the ocular surface with bacteria, infestations with certain parasites such as demodex, and inflammatory skin conditions such as atopy and seborrhea. Blepharitis can be categorized in several different ways. First, categorization is based on the length of disease process: acute or chronic blepharitis. Second, categorization is based on the anatomical location of disease: anterior, or front of the eye (e.g. staphylococcal and seborrheic blepharitis), and posterior, or back of the eye (e.g. meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD)). This review focuses on chronic blepharitis and stratifies anterior and posterior blepharitis.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness of interventions in the treatment of chronic blepharitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1950 to February 2012), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2012), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We searched the reference lists of included studies for any additional studies not identified by the electronic searches. There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 9 February 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials (CCTs) in which participants were adults aged 16 years or older and clinically diagnosed with chronic blepharitis. We also included trials where participants with chronic blepharitis were a subset of the participants included in the study and data were reported separately for these participants. Interventions within the scope of this review included medical treatment and lid hygiene measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed search results, reviewed full-text copies for eligibility, examined risk of bias, and extracted data. Data were meta-analyzed for studies comparing similar interventions and reporting comparable outcomes with the same timing. Otherwise, results for included studies were summarized in the text.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 34 studies (2169 participants with blepharitis) included in this review: 20 studies (14 RCTs and 6 CCTs) included 1661 participants with anterior or mixed blepharitis and 14 studies (12 RCTs and 2 CCTs) included 508 participants with posterior blepharitis (MGD). Due to the heterogeneity of study characteristics among the included studies, with respect to follow-up periods and types of interventions, comparisons, and condition of participants, our ability to perform meta-analyses was limited. Topical antibiotics were shown to provide some symptomatic relief and were effective in eradicating bacteria from the eyelid margin for anterior blepharitis. Lid hygiene may provide symptomatic relief for anterior and posterior blepharitis. The effectiveness of other treatments for blepharitis, such as topical steroids and oral antibiotics, were inconclusive.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite identifying 34 trials related to treatments for blepharitis, there is no strong evidence for any of the treatments in terms of curing chronic blepharitis. Commercial products are marketed to consumers and prescribed to patients without substantial evidence of effectiveness. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of such treatments. Any RCT designed for this purpose should separate participants by type of condition (e.g. staphylococcal blepharitis or MGD) in order to minimize imbalances between groups (type I errors) and to achieve statistical power for analyses (prevent type II errors). Medical interventions and commercial products should be compared with conventional lid hygiene measures, such as warm compresses and eyelid margin washing, to determine effectiveness, as well as head-to-head to show comparative effectiveness between treatments. Outcomes of interest should be patient-centered and measured using validated questionnaires or scales. It is important that participants be followed long-term, at least one year, to assess chronic outcomes properly.

Acute infectious conjunctivitis in childhood

OBJECTIVE

To review the etiology, clinical features and management of acute infectious conjunctivitis in children after the newborn period.

DATA SOURCES

Articles obtained from MEDLINE published before March 2000.

DATA SELECTION AND EXTRACTION

Representative articles on the etiology and clinical features were selected. Twenty-four clinical trials were also selected. From these articles, the main findings from three placebo controlled trials and two comparative clinical trials involving children are summarized in detail. The main findings from 19 comparative clinical trials in adults are briefly summarized.

DATA SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Acute infectious conjunctivitis caused by bacteria or viruses is a very common problem in children after the neonatal period. The most common bacterial pathogens are nontypable Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Diagnostic microbiology tests are not indicated for uncomplicated cases but may be useful for very young or very ill children if there is no response to initial therapy; for nosocomial cases; for cases suspected to be caused by sexually transmitted pathogens; and for outbreaks. Conjunctivitis is usually a mild, self-limited disease, but topical antibiotics are superior to placebo in reducing the duration and severity of symptoms. Most topical agents have equivalent efficacy; therefore, the selection of first-line agents should include inexpensive drugs with few adverse effects. Good choices include polymyxin/gramicidin, polymyxin/trimethoprim or sulfacetamide. Referral to an ophthalmologist should be considered in situations in which the diagnosis of uncomplicated conjunctivitis is in doubt or if there is no prompt response to therapy.

Phase III efficacy and safety study of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical and antimicrobial efficacy of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% with that of vehicle in the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a randomized, multicenter, double-masked, vehicle-controlled study. A total of 957 patients aged 1 year and older with bacterial conjunctivitis were randomized to treatment with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% or vehicle applied topically three times daily for 5 days.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary endpoints were clinical resolution and microbial eradication of baseline bacterial infection at Visit 2 (Day 5 +/- 1). Secondary endpoints included clinical resolution and microbial eradication at Visit 3 (Day 8 or 9), individual clinical outcomes at follow-up visits, and safety.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT number, NCT00347932.

RESULTS

Three hundred and ninety patients had culture-confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis. Clinical resolution and microbial eradication were significantly greater with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension than with vehicle at Visit 2 (45.2% vs. 33.0%, p = 0.0084; and 91.5% vs. 59.7%, p < 0.0001, respectively) and Visit 3 (84.4% vs. 69.1%, p = 0.0011; and 88.4% vs. 71.7%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Results for secondary endpoints of individual clinical outcomes were consistent with primary endpoints. Fewer eyes receiving besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension experienced adverse events than those receiving vehicle (9.2% vs. 13.9%; p = 0.0047).

CONCLUSIONS

Besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension produces clinical resolution and microbial eradication rates significantly better than vehicle and is safe for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis.

LIMITATIONS

A limitation of this study is the lack of a non-treatment control group.

A prospective study determining the efficacy of topical 0.5% levofloxacin on bacterial flora of patients with chronic blepharoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

To determine the efficacy of conjunctival bacterial eradication following a 1-day, 3-day and 7-day application of topical 0.5% levofloxacin, with and without eyelid scrub, in patients with chronic blepharoconjunctivitis (CBC).

METHODS

Patients with CBC (n = 60) were prospectively randomized to three groups (n = 20 in each group): no antibiotic treatment, topical levofloxacin four times per day in both eyes, and eyelid scrub in addition to topical levovofloxacin four times a day in both eyes. Patients without CBC (n = 40) were enrolled as the negative control group. Cultures of the conjunctiva were obtained from both eyes at baseline, 1 day, 3 days, and 7 days following treatment.

RESULTS

The most common bacteria isolated for all groups at baseline were coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. Eight patients did not complete the study. The remaining 52 patients with CBC had a significantly higher rate of positive thioglycolate broth cultures (94%) compared to a 58% positive culture rate in patient without CBC (P < 0.0001). Treatment with at least 3 days of topical antibiotic in patient with CBC resulted in a significant reduction (P < 0.05) in the number of thioglycolate positive cultures (<or= 60%) compared to non-treated eyes (>or= 88%). Following a minimum of a 1-day application of antibiotic, the median colony-forming unit was 0-1 compared to 3-8 for eyes without antibiotic treatment (P < 0.05). Scrubbing of the eyelids did not provide further benefit compared to antibiotic treatment alone.

CONCLUSIONS

CBC eyes have a significantly higher number of positive cultures than eyes without CBC. The application of topical 0.5% levofloxacin for at least 3 days provided a significant reduction in the number of positive cultures as well as the number of bacteria harbored on the conjunctival surface.

Fusidic acid viscous eyedrops - an evaluation of pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics and clinical use for UK optometrists

Recent changes in UK law have allowed UK-based optometrists to sell and supply fusidic acid viscous eyedrops, providing it is in the course of their professional activity and in an emergency. Alternatively, the optometrist may access fusidic acid viscous eyedrops, for a named patient, using a written order supplied to a pharmacy. This review provides details of the legal background to these changes, examines the common causes of a bacterial conjunctivitis, examines the mechanism of action of this narrow spectrum antibiotic as a bacteriostatic agent, reviews the susceptibility of common ocular isolates of bacteria to the drug and presents details of the expected pharmacokinetics of the viscous eyedrops. From this perspective, a systematic review is provided of the clinical studies which have investigated the use of fusidic acid viscous eyedrops and their outcome. The indicated use is generally for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis and/or blepharoconjunctivitis, especially that caused by Staphylococcus, but not Streptococcus or Haemophilus sp. (more likely associated with concurrent nasopharyngeal infections). The usual regimen for use is twice daily for 5-10 days, depending on severity, and can initially be used more intensively (four times per day). It may also be used for the management of corneal and conjunctival abrasions and foreign body injuries, or some cases of chronic blepharitis.

Comparison of antibiotic drops placed in the conjunctival cul-de-sac to antibiotic ointment applied to the lid margin in reduction of bacterial colonization on the lid margin

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of antibiotic drops placed in the conjunctival cul-de-sac to antibiotic ointment applied to the lid margin in reduction of bacterial colonization on the lid margin.

METHODS

A randomized, prospective, single-masked study was conducted on 19 patients with culture-proven colonization of bacteria on the lid margins. Ophthalmic eligibility criteria included the presence of > or =50 colony-forming units/mL (CFU/mL) of bacteria on both right and left lids. Each patient received one drop of ofloxacin in one eye every night for one week, followed by one drop once a week for one month. In the same manner, each patient received bacitracin ointment (erythromycin or gentamicin ointment if lid margin bacteria were resistant to bacitracin) to the lid margin of the fellow eye. Quantitative lid cultures were taken at initial visit, one week, one month, and two months. Fifteen volunteers (30 lids) served as controls. Lid cultures were taken at initial visit, one week, and one month.

RESULTS

Both antibiotic drop and ointment reduced average bacterial CFU/mL at one week and one month. Average bacterial CFU/mL reestablished to baseline values at two months. There was no statistically significant difference between antibiotic drop and ointment in reducing bacterial colonization on the lid margin.

CONCLUSION

Antibiotic drops placed in the conjunctival cul-de-sac appear to be as effective as ointment applied to the lid margins in reducing bacterial colonization in patients with > or =50 CFU/mL of bacteria on the lid margins.