0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.190.232. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Clinical Sciences |

The Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial:  Study Design and Baseline Characteristics FREE

Muthiah Srinivasan, MD; Jeena Mascarenhas, MD; Revathi Rajaraman, MD; Meenakshi Ravindran, MD; Prajna Lalitha, MD; David V. Glidden, PhD; Kathryn J. Ray, MA; Kevin C. Hong, BA; Catherine E. Oldenburg, MPH; Salena M. Lee, OD; Michael E. Zegans, MD; Stephen D. McLeod, MD; Thomas M. Lietman, MD; Nisha R. Acharya, MD, MS; for the Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial Group
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Aravind Eye Care System, Madurai (Drs Srinivasan, Mascarenhas, and Lalitha), Coimbatore (Dr Rajaraman), and Tirunelveli (Dr Ravindran), India; Francis I. Proctor Foundation (Mss Ray and Oldenburg, Mr Hong, Drs Lee, McLeod, Lietman, and Acharya) and Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Drs Glidden and Lietman) and Ophthalmology (Drs McLeod, Lietman, and Acharya), University of California, San Francisco; and Departments of Surgery (Ophthalmology) and Microbiology and Immunology (Dr Zegans), Dartmouth Medical School, Lebanon, New Hampshire.


Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130(2):151-157. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.303.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objectives To provide comprehensive trial methods and baseline data for the Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial and to present epidemiological characteristics such as risk factors, causative organisms, and ulcer severity.

Methods Baseline data from a 1:1 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked clinical trial comparing prednisolone phosphate, 1%, with placebo as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of bacterial corneal ulcers. Eligible patients had a culture-positive bacterial corneal ulcer and had been taking moxifloxacin for 48 hours. The primary outcome for the trial is best spectacle-corrected visual acuity at 3 months from enrollment. This report provides comprehensive baseline data, including best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, infiltrate size, microbiological results, and patient demographics, for patients enrolled in the trial.

Results Of 500 patients enrolled, 97% were in India. Two hundred twenty patients (44%) were agricultural workers. Median baseline visual acuity was 0.84 logMAR (Snellen, 20/125) (interquartile range, 0.36-1.7; Snellen, 20/50 to counting fingers). Baseline visual acuity was not significantly different between the United States and India. Ulcers in India had larger infiltrate/scar sizes (P = .04) and deeper infiltrates (P = .04) and were more likely to be localized centrally (P = .002) than ulcers enrolled in the United States. Gram-positive bacteria were the most common organisms isolated from the ulcers (n = 366, 72%).

Conclusions The Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial will compare the use of a topical corticosteroid with placebo as adjunctive therapy for bacterial corneal ulcers. Patients enrolled in this trial had diverse ulcer severity and on average significantly reduced visual acuity at presentation.

Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00324168

Infectious corneal ulcers are a major cause of vision loss, with an annual occurrence estimated conservatively at 1.5 to 2 million globally.1 The World Health Organization estimates that corneal opacities, including corneal ulceration, are the fourth leading cause of blindness.2 Studies in South India indicate that approximately half of corneal ulcers are bacterial, and this proportion is typically higher in the United States and Europe.36 Clearance of the infectious agent in bacterial keratitis is usually successful, yet visual outcomes may be poor. Scarring that accompanies the resolution of infection is thought to be a major contributor to visual impairment.

It has been debated whether topical corticosteroids along with antibiotics reduce immune-mediated tissue damage and improve clinical outcomes. Potential negatives of corticosteroids include worsening of the infection, corneal thinning, perforation, increased intraocular pressure, and cataract development. A lack of evidence exists on the effect of topical corticosteroids for bacterial keratitis. There have been 3 small clinical trials that studied the effect of topical corticosteroids, but these were not powered to achieve statistical significance.79

To provide evidence on whether the use of adjunctive topical corticosteroids results in better visual outcomes, we undertook a randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial comparing outcomes in patients receiving topical corticosteroids or placebo in addition to topical antibiotics. This report describes the design of the trial and also provides demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with bacterial corneal ulcers from South India and the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

The Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial (SCUT) is a National Eye Institute–supported, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, comparative, multicenter clinical trial with 2 arms, comparing clinical outcomes in patients with bacterial corneal ulcers receiving topical moxifloxacin, 0.5% (Vigamox; Alcon, Fort Worth, Texas) and topical prednisolone phosphate, 1% (Bausch & Lomb Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Tampa, Florida) or topical moxifloxacin, 0.5%, and topical placebo (sodium chloride, 0.9%, and preservative, prepared by Leiter's Pharmacy, San Jose, California). Institutional review board approval was granted by the Aravind Eye Hospitals institutional review board, the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center Committee for Protection of Human Subjects, and the University of California, San Francisco, Committee on Human Research. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects.

The primary aim of the study is to determine whether the addition of topical corticosteroids to the treatment of bacterial corneal ulcers improves best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) at 3 months after enrollment. Secondary aims include determining if adjunctive topical corticosteroids affect the following outcomes: adverse events including corneal perforation; size of the infiltrate/scar and rigid contact lens–corrected visual acuity at 3 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months after enrollment; time to resolution of the epithelial defect; and BSCVA at 3 weeks and 12 months. An additional aim is to assess the correlation between minimum inhibitory concentration to moxifloxacin and clinical outcomes. Subgroup analyses will also be performed to assess outcomes across groups based on causative organism, duration of symptoms prior to enrollment, baseline visual acuity, baseline infiltrate/scar size, and location and depth of ulcer.

A sample size of 500 patients (250 per arm) was estimated to have 80% power to detect a 0.20-logMAR (2 lines of visual acuity) difference in BSCVA 3 months after enrollment between the 2 study arms, with a 2-tailed α of .05 and assuming a 20% loss to follow-up. The sample size calculation was based on data from the SCUT pilot study,8 with an SD of 0.65 logMAR and controlling for the correlation between 3-month and enrollment BSCVA.

Eligible patients had a culture-positive bacterial corneal ulcer with no evidence of fungal, acanthamoebal, or herpetic keratitis (Table 1). Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio either to placebo drops or prednisolone phosphate drops using permuted blocks within study centers. Block sizes were randomized in sizes of 4, 6, and 8. Double-masking was achieved because the prednisolone phosphate solution was identical to placebo. Only the study biostatisticians were unmasked. Enrollment centers included the Aravind Eye Care System (Madurai, Tirunelveli, and Coimbatore, India), Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, and the Francis I. Proctor Foundation at the University of California, San Francisco.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for the Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial
INTERVENTION

Patients were randomized to corticosteroid or placebo after they had a confirmed bacterial culture from the cornea and received 48 hours of topical moxifloxacin. The moxifloxacin treatment regimen consisted of 1 drop applied every hour while awake for the first 48 hours, then 1 drop applied every 2 hours until reepithelialization, and then 4 times a day until 3 weeks from enrollment. The corticosteroid regimen consisted of 1 drop applied topically 4 times per day for 1 week after randomization, then twice a day for 1 week, and then once per day for 1 week. Placebo drops were given according to the same schedule. Treating physicians were allowed to stop or change medications at any point during the treatment of the ulcer if they felt it was medically necessary. Study medications were prepared in the United States and shipped to India.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Assessments of BSCVA and infiltrate/scar size were performed at enrollment, 3 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months. Epithelial defect size was measured every 3 days ±1 day from presentation until reepithelialization. In addition to BSCVA, rigid contact lens–corrected visual acuity was measured at 3 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months. Visual acuity was measured by refractionists certified for the study, using a protocol adapted from the Age-Related Eye Disease Study using a tumbling “E” chart at 4 m and logMAR visual acuity (charts 2305 and 2305A; Precision Vision, La Salle, Illinois) (eAppendix).10 If a patient read fewer than 10 letters at 4 m, acuity was measured at 1 m. If fewer than 10 letters were read at 1 m, low vision was assessed by counting fingers, hand motions, light perception, and no light perception.

A calibrated slitlamp biomicroscope (900; Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland) was used to assess the size of the infiltrate/scar, epithelial defect, depth, hypopyon, and ocular adverse events including corneal perforation. Infiltrate/scar size and epithelial defect were assessed by measuring the longest dimension and the longest perpendicular to the first measurement, a protocol adapted from the Herpetic Eye Disease Study.11 These measurements were read to the nearest 0.1 mm. As in the Herpetic Eye Disease Study, no differentiation was made between infiltrate and scar. Reepithelialization was defined as the absence of an epithelial defect with administration of fluorescein. Depth was measured in thirds (>0%-33%, >33%-67%, or >67%-100%). All study ophthalmologists were certified for this study.

Photographs were used to determine the location and size of ulcers using newly developed cornea-specific software that superimposed an artificial 4-mm pupil on the photograph, facilitating the grading of the location. A Nikon (Tokyo, Japan) D-series digital SLR camera with a 105-mm f/2.8D AF Micro Nikkor Autofocus Lens and a modified Nikon SB29s electronic flash or Nikon R1 Wireless Close-up Speedlight system was used for corneal photography, performed at enrollment, 3 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months.

Corneal scraping was performed after slitlamp examination at presentation. Two scrapings were smeared for gram stain and potassium hydroxide wet mount. Three scrapings were inoculated onto sheeps' blood agar, chocolate agar, and potato dextrose agar or Sabouraud agar. The criterion for a positive bacterial culture was growth of the organism on 1 solid medium at the site of inoculation. For Staphylococcus epidermis and diphtheroids, cultures were considered positive only if moderate growth was seen on at least 2 solid media or on 1 solid medium plus a gram-stained corneal smear.12 All patients were checked for fungal elements on smear and culture. Any evidence of fungal infection resulted in exclusion. Repeated cultures were not part of the study protocol but were allowed if deemed necessary by the treating ophthalmologist. Antibiotic susceptibility testing was performed using the Etest method (AB BIODISK, Solna, Sweden), as was done in the SCUT pilot study.13 Quality control was performed according to the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards performance standards, recommendations, guidelines, and reports.14 All microbiologists were certified for the study.

STATISTICAL METHODS

The primary analysis was prespecified as BSCVA at 3 months, analyzed using a linear regression model controlling for enrollment BSVCA. The primary analysis is intention to treat and only includes visits that fall within the 3-month visit window (2.5-5 months from enrollment). Three-week and 12-month BSCVA, rigid contact lens–corrected visual acuity, and infiltrate/scar size will be analyzed in a similar fashion. Infiltrate/scar size and epithelial defect were calculated as the geometric mean of the 2 principal axes in millimeters. Time to reepithelialization is defined as the midpoint between the last observed date with an epithelial defect and the first visit with no epithelial defect and will be analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for baseline epithelial defect size. Visual acuity in logMAR was used for statistical analyses. Acuities worse than 1.6 logMAR (about 20/800) were recorded as counting fingers (1.7 logMAR), hand motions (1.8 logMAR), light perception (1.9 logMAR), and no light perception (2.0 logMAR), as in the Herpetic Eye Disease Study.11 Corneal perforations between the 2 groups will be compared using a Fisher exact test. For visual acuity measurements taken after therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty, we used the last observation carried forward or 1.7 logMAR acuity, whichever was worse. For infiltrate/scar size following therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty, last observation carried forward was used.

In this report, baseline data are summarized for the study population as a whole. Continuous variables were analyzed with a Wilcoxon rank sum test. Categorical variables were analyzed with a Fisher exact test. All analyses were performed using STATA version 10.0 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas).

Five hundred patients were enrolled between September 11, 2006, and February 22, 2010. Of these patients, 485 (97%) were enrolled in India (Table 2). The most common reason for ineligibility was impending perforation (316 of 1259, 25%) (Table 3). The majority of patients enrolled in the trial were agricultural manual laborers (220 of 500, 44%). The most common object of injury was vegetative matter. Eight patients were contact lens wearers (Table 4).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Screened, Eligible, and Enrolled Patientsa
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Baseline Characteristics Comparison Between Patients in India and the United States

Median visual acuity was 0.84 logMAR (approximate Snellen equivalent, 20/125) (interquartile range, 0.36-1.7 logMAR; approximate Snellen equivalent, 20/50 to counting fingers) (Table 4). Baseline visual acuity was not significantly different between the United States and India (P = .55). Median infiltrate/scar size was 2.7 mm (interquartile range, 1.9-4.1 mm). Infiltrate/scar size in India was significantly larger than in the United States (P = .04). Ulcers in India were graded as significantly deeper than those in the United States (P = .04) and more likely to be in a central location (P = .002). Coexisting conditions included dacryostenosis/dacryocystitis (103 of 500, 21%) and ocular surface disease (43 of 500, 9%). Patients with corneal ulcer at Aravind Eye Hospital are checked routinely for tear duct obstruction. Six patients had 2 distinct bacterial isolates on culture, so a total of 506 bacterial isolates were obtained in this study (Table 5). The most common organisms isolated were Streptococcus pneumoniae (250 of 506; 49%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (111 of 506; 22%), and Nocardia species (56 of 506, 11%). The most common organism in the United States was P aeruginosa (5 of 16, 31%).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Microbiological Culture Results

Use of corticosteroids in the treatment of bacterial corneal ulcers remains controversial, with no definitive evidence to guide treatment decisions.7,8,15,16 Corticosteroids, if applied in conjunction with appropriate antibacterial therapy, may reduce inflammation that is thought to result in ocular damage including scarring of the cornea.17,18 While animal studies show corticosteroids do not directly inhibit the activity of antibiotics, they have been shown to increase the severity of keratitis when administered in the absence of antibiotic therapy.1921 To our knowledge, the SCUT is the first large, prospective randomized clinical trial assessing the impact of adjunctive topical corticosteroids in patients with bacterial corneal ulcers.

Visual acuity was selected as the primary outcome in this trial because it is the most important, clinically relevant long-term outcome for patients. Previous corneal ulcer studies have focused on time to reepithelialization, treatment failure, or poor outcome (eg, increase or no change in infiltrate/scar size, poor final visual acuity, perforation, and/or requiring surgical intervention).7,2224 Corticosteroids may increase the healing time of the ulcer8 but still have a beneficial effect on vision. While other outcomes such as scar size or density may be affected by corticosteroids, we believe that visual acuity is the most objective assessment and will take into account these factors.

Corneal ulcers disproportionately affect developing countries; the annual incidence rate has been reported at 113 per 100 000 person-years in Madurai, South India, compared with 27 per 100 000 person-years in Northern California.25,26 This makes a sufficiently powered trial much more feasible with the majority of patients enrolled in India. However, this may have implications for generalizability. Contact lens wear is a common risk factor for ulcers in the United States, in contrast to agricultural work in India. The distribution of organisms was statistically different between the United States and India, but all 5 types of bacteria isolated from US ulcers could be found in the top 8 most common bacterial isolates from India.

The ulcers enrolled in this study in India may have been more severe on average than ulcers in the United States. Median baseline visual acuity in the United States was better than in India; however, this difference was not significant. There was a wide range of baseline visual acuities. More than a quarter of patients were enrolled with low visual acuity (counting fingers or worse). More than 20% of patients had visual acuity of 20/40 or better at enrollment, indicating that less severe ulcers were also represented in the trial. Ulcers in the United States had a significantly smaller baseline infiltrate/scar size than those in India. Corneal ulcers from India were more likely to be central in location and to have a deeper infiltrate compared with ulcers from the United States. This variability will facilitate subgroup analyses by ulcer severity, and it is expected that randomization will result in balanced baseline characteristics between the treatment groups.

This report provides comprehensive methods for a corneal ulcer clinical trial. The strengths of this trial include the large sample size and a randomized, masked, controlled trial method; all patients were prospectively followed up with standardized treatment and standardized assessments at prespecified times. The results of this trial will guide treatment practices regarding corticosteroid use in bacterial corneal ulcers. In addition, the data set and specimen bank generated from conducting this trial will enable a multitude of additional research questions to be answered.

Correspondence: Nisha R. Acharya, MD, MS, Francis I. Proctor Foundation, Room S309, 513 Parnassus Ave, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-0412 (nisha.acharya@ucsf.edu).

Submitted for Publication: April 1, 2011; final revision received July 11, 2011; accepted July 20, 2011.

Published Online: October 10, 2011. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.303

Financial Disclosure: Alcon provided moxifloxacin (Vigamox) for the trial.

Funding/Support: Funding for the trial was from National Eye Institute grant U10 EY015114 (Dr Lietman). Dr Acharya is supported by National Eye Institute grant K23 EY017897 and a Research to Prevent Blindness Award. The Department of Ophthalmology at University of California, San Francisco, is supported by core grant EY02162 from the National Eye Institute.

Role of the Sponsors: The sponsors did not have a role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Box Reference
Clinical Centers, Committees, and Resource Centers for the Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial

Clinical Centers

Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India: Muthiah Srinivasan, MD (principal investigator), Prajna Lalitha, MD, Jeena Mascarenhas, MD, N. Venkatesh Prajna, MD, FRCOphth, T. S. Chandravathi, R. S. Saravanan, Karpagam, Rajkumar, Rajendran Mahalakshmi, MSc; Aravind Eye Hospital, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu: Meenakshi Ravindran, DO, DNB (site director), M. Jayahar Bharathi, PhD, Lionel Raj, DO, DNB, M. Meena, MCA; Aravind Eye Hospital, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu: Revathi Rajaraman, MD (site director), Anita Raghavan, MD, P. Manikandan, MPhil, Geetha; Dartmouth Medical School, Lebanon, New Hampshire: Michael E. Zegans, MD (coinvestigator, site director), Christine Toutain-Kidd, PhD, Donald Miller, MD; Francis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco: Thomas M. Lietman, MD (principal investigator), Nisha R. Acharya, MD, MS (principal investigator), Stephen D. McLeod, MD, John P. Whitcher, MD, MPH, Salena Lee, OD, Vicky Cevallos, MT(ASCP), Catherine E. Oldenburg, MPH, Kevin C. Hong, BA, Stephanie Costanza, MA.

Data and Safety Monitoring Committee

Marian Fisher, PhD (chair); Anthony Aldave, MD; Donald Everett, MA; Jacqueline Glover, PhD; K. Ananda Kannan, MD; Steven Kymes, PhD; G. V. S. Murthy, MD; Ivan Schwab, MD.

Resource Centers

Coordinating center, Francis I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco: Thomas M. Lietman, MD (principal investigator), Nisha R. Acharya, MD, MS (principal investigator), David V. Glidden, PhD, Stephen D. McLeod, MD, John P. Whitcher, MD, MPH, Salena Lee, OD, Kathryn Ray, MA, Vicky Cevallos, MT(ASCP), Catherine E. Oldenburg, MPH, Kevin C. Hong, BA, Stephanie Costanza, MA; project office, National Eye Institute, Rockville, Maryland: Donald F. Everett, MA; photography reading center, Dartmouth Medical School: Michael E. Zegans, MD, Christine M. Kidd, PhD.

Whitcher JP, Srinivasan M, Upadhyay MP. Corneal blindness: a global perspective.  Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(3):214-221
PubMed
Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya’ale D,  et al.  Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002.  Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82(11):844-851
PubMed
Bourcier T, Thomas F, Borderie V, Chaumeil C, Laroche L. Bacterial keratitis: predisposing factors, clinical and microbiological review of 300 cases.  Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87(7):834-838
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Schaefer F, Bruttin O, Zografos L, Guex-Crosier Y. Bacterial keratitis: a prospective clinical and microbiological study.  Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85(7):842-847
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Srinivasan M, Gonzales CA, George C,  et al.  Epidemiology and aetiological diagnosis of corneal ulceration in Madurai, south India.  Br J Ophthalmol. 1997;81(11):965-971
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Varaprasathan G, Miller K, Lietman T,  et al.  Trends in the etiology of infectious corneal ulcers at the F. I. Proctor Foundation.  Cornea. 2004;23(4):360-364
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Carmichael TR, Gelfand Y, Welsh NH. Topical steroids in the treatment of central and paracentral corneal ulcers.  Br J Ophthalmol. 1990;74(9):528-531
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Srinivasan M, Lalitha P, Mahalakshmi R,  et al.  Corticosteroids for bacterial corneal ulcers.  Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93(2):198-202
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Blair J, Hodge W, Al-Ghamdi S,  et al.  Comparison of antibiotic-only and antibiotic-steroid combination treatment in corneal ulcer patients: double-blinded randomized clinical trial.  Can J Ophthalmol. 2011;46(1):40-45
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group.  The Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS): design implications. AREDS report No. 1.  Control Clin Trials. 1999;20(6):573-600
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wilhelmus KR, Gee L, Hauck WW,  et al.  Herpetic Eye Disease Study: a controlled trial of topical corticosteroids for herpes simplex stromal keratitis.  Ophthalmology. 1994;101(12):1883-1895
PubMed
Wilhelmus K, Liesegang T, Osato M, Jone D. Laboratory Diagnosis of Ocular Infections. Vol 13A. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology Press; 1994
Chen A, Prajna L, Srinivasan M,  et al.  Does in vitro susceptibility predict clinical outcome in bacterial keratitis?  Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145(3):409-412
PubMed   |  Link to Article
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS).  NCCLS Document M100-S10 (M2)Wayne, PA: NCCLS; 2000
Hindman HB, Patel SB, Jun AS. Rationale for adjunctive topical corticosteroids in bacterial keratitis.  Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(1):97-102
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wilhelmus KR. Indecision about corticosteroids for bacterial keratitis: an evidence-based update.  Ophthalmology. 2002;109(5):835-842
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Engel LS, Callegan MC, Hobden JA, Reidy JJ, Hill JM, O’Callaghan RJ. Effectiveness of specific antibiotic/steroid combinations for therapy of experimental Pseudomonas aeruginosa keratitis.  Curr Eye Res. 1995;14(3):229-234
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ohadi C, Litwin KL, Moreira H,  et al.  Anti-inflammatory therapy and outcome in a guinea pig model of Pseudomonas keratitis.  Cornea. 1992;11(5):398-403
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Badenoch PR, Hay GJ, McDonald PJ, Coster DJ. A rat model of bacterial keratitis: effect of antibiotics and corticosteroid.  Arch Ophthalmol. 1985;103(5):718-722
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Davis SD, Sarff LD, Hyndiuk RA. Corticosteroid in experimentally induced Pseudomonas keratitis: failure of prednisolone to impair the efficacy of tobramycin and carbenicillin therapy.  Arch Ophthalmol. 1978;96(1):126-128
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Suie T, Taylor FW. The effect of cortisone on experimental pseudomonas corneal ulcers.  AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1956;56(1):53-56
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Green MD, Apel AJ, Naduvilath T, Stapleton FJ. Clinical outcomes of keratitis.  Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2007;35(5):421-426
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kim RY, Cooper KL, Kelly LD. Predictive factors for response to medical therapy in bacterial ulcerative keratitis.  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1996;234(12):731-738
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Morlet N, Minassian D, Butcher J.Ofloxacin Study Group.  Risk factors for treatment outcome of suspected microbial keratitis.  Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83(9):1027-1031
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gonzales CA, Srinivasan M, Whitcher JP, Smolin G. Incidence of corneal ulceration in Madurai district, South India.  Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1996;3(3):159-166
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Jeng BH, Gritz DC, Kumar AB,  et al.  Epidemiology of ulcerative keratitis in Northern California.  Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128(8):1022-1028
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for the Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Screened, Eligible, and Enrolled Patientsa
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Baseline Characteristics Comparison Between Patients in India and the United States
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Microbiological Culture Results

References

Whitcher JP, Srinivasan M, Upadhyay MP. Corneal blindness: a global perspective.  Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(3):214-221
PubMed
Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Etya’ale D,  et al.  Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002.  Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82(11):844-851
PubMed
Bourcier T, Thomas F, Borderie V, Chaumeil C, Laroche L. Bacterial keratitis: predisposing factors, clinical and microbiological review of 300 cases.  Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87(7):834-838
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Schaefer F, Bruttin O, Zografos L, Guex-Crosier Y. Bacterial keratitis: a prospective clinical and microbiological study.  Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85(7):842-847
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Srinivasan M, Gonzales CA, George C,  et al.  Epidemiology and aetiological diagnosis of corneal ulceration in Madurai, south India.  Br J Ophthalmol. 1997;81(11):965-971
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Varaprasathan G, Miller K, Lietman T,  et al.  Trends in the etiology of infectious corneal ulcers at the F. I. Proctor Foundation.  Cornea. 2004;23(4):360-364
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Carmichael TR, Gelfand Y, Welsh NH. Topical steroids in the treatment of central and paracentral corneal ulcers.  Br J Ophthalmol. 1990;74(9):528-531
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Srinivasan M, Lalitha P, Mahalakshmi R,  et al.  Corticosteroids for bacterial corneal ulcers.  Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93(2):198-202
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Blair J, Hodge W, Al-Ghamdi S,  et al.  Comparison of antibiotic-only and antibiotic-steroid combination treatment in corneal ulcer patients: double-blinded randomized clinical trial.  Can J Ophthalmol. 2011;46(1):40-45
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Age-Related Eye Disease Study Research Group.  The Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS): design implications. AREDS report No. 1.  Control Clin Trials. 1999;20(6):573-600
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wilhelmus KR, Gee L, Hauck WW,  et al.  Herpetic Eye Disease Study: a controlled trial of topical corticosteroids for herpes simplex stromal keratitis.  Ophthalmology. 1994;101(12):1883-1895
PubMed
Wilhelmus K, Liesegang T, Osato M, Jone D. Laboratory Diagnosis of Ocular Infections. Vol 13A. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology Press; 1994
Chen A, Prajna L, Srinivasan M,  et al.  Does in vitro susceptibility predict clinical outcome in bacterial keratitis?  Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;145(3):409-412
PubMed   |  Link to Article
National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS).  NCCLS Document M100-S10 (M2)Wayne, PA: NCCLS; 2000
Hindman HB, Patel SB, Jun AS. Rationale for adjunctive topical corticosteroids in bacterial keratitis.  Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(1):97-102
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wilhelmus KR. Indecision about corticosteroids for bacterial keratitis: an evidence-based update.  Ophthalmology. 2002;109(5):835-842
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Engel LS, Callegan MC, Hobden JA, Reidy JJ, Hill JM, O’Callaghan RJ. Effectiveness of specific antibiotic/steroid combinations for therapy of experimental Pseudomonas aeruginosa keratitis.  Curr Eye Res. 1995;14(3):229-234
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ohadi C, Litwin KL, Moreira H,  et al.  Anti-inflammatory therapy and outcome in a guinea pig model of Pseudomonas keratitis.  Cornea. 1992;11(5):398-403
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Badenoch PR, Hay GJ, McDonald PJ, Coster DJ. A rat model of bacterial keratitis: effect of antibiotics and corticosteroid.  Arch Ophthalmol. 1985;103(5):718-722
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Davis SD, Sarff LD, Hyndiuk RA. Corticosteroid in experimentally induced Pseudomonas keratitis: failure of prednisolone to impair the efficacy of tobramycin and carbenicillin therapy.  Arch Ophthalmol. 1978;96(1):126-128
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Suie T, Taylor FW. The effect of cortisone on experimental pseudomonas corneal ulcers.  AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1956;56(1):53-56
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Green MD, Apel AJ, Naduvilath T, Stapleton FJ. Clinical outcomes of keratitis.  Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2007;35(5):421-426
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kim RY, Cooper KL, Kelly LD. Predictive factors for response to medical therapy in bacterial ulcerative keratitis.  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1996;234(12):731-738
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Morlet N, Minassian D, Butcher J.Ofloxacin Study Group.  Risk factors for treatment outcome of suspected microbial keratitis.  Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83(9):1027-1031
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gonzales CA, Srinivasan M, Whitcher JP, Smolin G. Incidence of corneal ulceration in Madurai district, South India.  Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1996;3(3):159-166
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Jeng BH, Gritz DC, Kumar AB,  et al.  Epidemiology of ulcerative keratitis in Northern California.  Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128(8):1022-1028
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Correspondence

June 1, 2012
Simon Dulku, MA, FRCOphth
Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130(6):807-808. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.1919.
June 1, 2012
Muthiah Srinivasan, MD; Jeena Mascarenhas, MD; Revathi Rajaraman, MD; Meenakshi Ravindran, MD; David Glidden, PhD; Catherine E. Oldenburg, MPH; John P. Whitcher, MD; Michael E. Zegans, MD; Stephen D. McLeod, MD; Thomas M. Lietman, MD; Nisha R. Acharya, MD, MS; for the Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial Group
Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130(6):807-808. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2012.352.
CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
PubMed Articles