0
Letters |

The Steroid Controversy in Bacterial Keratitis

Nisha R. Acharya, MD, MS; Muthiah Srinivasan, MD; Jeena Mascarenhas, MD; Meenakshi Ravindran, MD; Revathi Rajaraman, MD; Michael Zegans, MD; Stephen McLeod, MD; Thomas M. Lietman, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Copyright 2009 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.

More Author Information
Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(9):1231-1231. doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.221
Text Size: A A A
Published online

The January 2009 Controversies series of articles highlights a major debate.1 2 Some corneal specialists use adjunctive corticosteroids to reduce scarring in bacterial keratitis. Others fear that suppressing the immune system is the worst thing you can do. Hindman and Patel et al1 state that only a single, underpowered trial has addressed this and suggest that a large definitive trial is necessary to end the debate. By the time this Controversies series was published, there had actually been 2 published trials,3 4 and a third, large trial is well under way.

We recently published the results of a randomized trial of 42 patients that studied the effect of adjunctive topical steroids in bacterial keratitis.4 Although steroids affected neither acuity nor scar size, they did significantly delay reepithelialization. Dr Cohen2 discontinued her trial because of a poor outcome in a case of Pseudomonas infection. We too had adverse events—all 4 were in the placebo arm. Although this is the largest study published to date, it was clearly underpowered to put the controversy to rest.

We are now in the midst of the Steroids for Corneal Ulcers Trial, which addresses this very question (NEI U10-EY015114). As of June 2009, we have enrolled 417 of 500 cases (including many ulcers caused by Pseudomonas bacteria) at the University of California, San Francisco, Dartmouth Medical Center, and in India, with by far the greatest number from the Aravind Eye Care system. With standardized treatment and assessments, we hope our study will provide definitive evidence to guide clinicians through this controversy. In the meantime, doubts remain. When we announced our trial at a national meeting, one researcher told us that our steroid regimen was timid; another told us we had better have a good lawyer.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Correspondence: Dr Acharya, FI Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, 513 Parnassus Ave, Room S334, San Francisco, CA 94143-0412 (nisha.acharya@ucsf.edu).

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

REFERENCES

Hindman  HB, Patel  SB, Jun  AS. Rationale for adjunctive topical corticosteroids in bacterial keratitis. Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127 (1) 97- 102
PubMed
Cohen  EJ. The case against the use of steroids in the treatment of bacterial keratitis. Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127 (1) 103- 104
PubMed
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
Srinivasan  M, Lalitha  P, Mahalakshmi  R.  et al.  Corticosteroids for bacterial corneal ulcers. Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93 (2) 198- 202
PubMed

First Page Preview

First page PDF preview

Figures

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

Hindman  HB, Patel  SB, Jun  AS. Rationale for adjunctive topical corticosteroids in bacterial keratitis. Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127 (1) 97- 102
PubMed
Cohen  EJ. The case against the use of steroids in the treatment of bacterial keratitis. Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127 (1) 103- 104
PubMed
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
Srinivasan  M, Lalitha  P, Mahalakshmi  R.  et al.  Corticosteroids for bacterial corneal ulcers. Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93 (2) 198- 202
PubMed

Correspondence

CME Course for:


You need to register in order to view this quiz.


To understand the clinical management of acute heart failure syndromes.
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.
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:
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.
To view and print your certificate and access a summary of your CME courses go to My CME.
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

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.