The current issue of the Indian Journal of Ophthalmology (IJO) features an interesting article[1] on fungal predominance and increasing antibiotic resistance patterns in microbial keratitis occurring in central rural India. Microbial keratitis is a major cause of corneal blindness, especially in agriculture-based economies. The causative organisms vary in geographical areas and the antibiotic sensitivity patterns also differ.[2] It is important to be aware of the common causative agents and their response to antibiotics in one’s place of practice. It may not be possible to have access to a microbiologist who has experience in processing small samples that are sent by ophthalmologists. We collected (unpublished) data on microbial keratitis in a microbiology laboratory in the northern part of India, especially in Delhi and the adjoining national capital region, for over three years from 2016 to 2019 (pre-COVID era). All samples were sent by various private practitioners and institutions to the microbiology laboratory. Cultures were inoculated from corneal scrapings of patients with infective keratitis by cornea specialists and sent to a microbiologist (NS) with a specialization in ocular microbiology. There were 466 bacterial isolates. Three hundred twenty-nine (70.6%) bacterial isolates were gram-positive cocci (GPC). Sensitivity patterns to the first line of treatment for GPCs were as follows: cefazoline (225 isolates, 68.3%), ciprofloxacin (203 isolates, 61.7%), ceftazidime (129 isolates, 39.2%), moxifloxacin (282 isolates, 85.7%), amikacin (295 isolates, 89.6%), amoxiclav (162 isolates, 49.2%), amoxicillin (198 isolates, 60.18%), chloramphenicol (236 isolates, 71.%), gatifloxacin (202 isolates, 61.3%), tobramycin (286 isolates, 86%), and vancomycin (285 isolates, 86.6%). Sensitivity patterns to the first line of treatment in gram-negative isolates (total 137) were amikacin (68 isolates, 49.27%), ciprofloxacin (95 isolates, 69.3%), gatifloxacin (41 isolates, 29.9%), moxifloxacin (79 isolates, 57.6%), tobramycin (91 isolates, 66.4%), and doxycycline (61 isolates, 44.5%). Sensitivity patterns to the second line of treatment included imipenem (60 isolates, 43.7%), piperacillin-tazobactam (73 isolates, 53.3%), colistin (72 isolates, 52.5%), and meropenem (68 isolates, 49.6%). Among gram-positive isolates, the most common organisms were coagulase-negative Staphylococcus followed by diphtheroids, Bacillus species, Streptococcus pneumoniae, alpha-hemolytic Streptococcus, and, rarely, Staphylococcus aureus. Among gram-negative organisms, the most common was Pseudomonas aeruginosa followed by other Pseudomonas species, Neisseria species, and very few Acinetobacter and Moraxella. In a study by Das et al.[3] published in the Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 3981 corneal scrapings were processed in over eight years. Pathogens grew in culture in 1914 samples (48.1%). Bacteria grew in 60% of isolates. The most common gram-positive bacteria were Streptococcus pneumoniae (217/1125, 19.3%) and Staphylococcus aureus (185/1125, 16.4%). Amongst the gram-negative bacteria, Pseudomonas species (99/219, 45.2%) was the most common. In a Korean study by Mun et al.,[4] a 10-year analysis of the microbiological profile and sensitivity of bacterial keratitis was done. Bacteria were isolated in 101 out of 129 samples (78.3%). Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) (15.9%), Staphylococcus aureus (12.1%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (10.3%) were the most common isolates. All gram-positive isolates were sensitive to vancomycin, but methicillin resistance was found in 29.4% of CNS and 15.4% of Staphylococcus aureus. All gram-negative isolates were susceptible to ceftazidime and carbapenem, and 11.5%, 3.3%, and 2.8% of gram-negative isolates were resistant to gentamicin, tobramycin, and amikacin, respectively. Ciprofloxacin resistance was observed in 10.3% of gram-positive isolates and 8.8% of gram-negative isolates. Yin et al.[5] evaluated tigecycline susceptibility testing of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae and Acinetobacter baumannii.[5] They compared the broth microdilution method (BMD), VITEK, and the modified Kirby–Bauer method. No major difference was found. The Kirby–Bauer method is simple, cheap, conventional, and accurate. Rapid identification methods (MALDITOF) have been introduced.[6] They are fast and identify proteins of pathogens, and we get the sensitivity and identification on the same day. The disadvantage is that it is not endowed with standardized protocols. It is expensive and maintenance cost is high. Comparison of culture and sensitivity patterns in different geographical areas may show similarities or, in some instances, several variabilities.[2,7,8] Fluoroquinolones are easily available and can treat infections caused by gram-positive and -negative organisms. They do not need fortification and reconstitution. But resistance to every generation of fluoroquinolones has developed over the years. It is important to know and document resistance patterns which keep changing now and then. The general ophthalmologist needs to be up-to-date on the most likely organisms in their geographical areas and the sensitivity patterns of those organisms so that infections can be controlled in their initial phases. The study published in IJO from central India has a small sample size but concurs with other Indian studies on the larger percentage of fungal infections compared to bacterial keratitis.[3,7] One important caveat is that the patterns can vary in the same geographical area in different periods and that it is the responsibility of the specialists in that area to continue updating the data.
Read full abstract