Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2015 Apr 9;2015(4):CD004241.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004241.pub4.

Medical interventions for fungal keratitis

Nilo Vincent FlorCruz  1 , Jennifer R Evans
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Medical interventions for fungal keratitis

Nilo Vincent FlorCruz et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Fungal keratitis is a fungal infection of the cornea. It is common in lower income countries, particularly in agricultural areas but relatively uncommon in higher income countries. Although there are medications available, their effectiveness is unclear.

Objectives: To assess the effects of different antifungal drugs in the management of fungal keratitis.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015, Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to March 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to March 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 16 March 2015.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials of medical therapy for fungal keratitis.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors selected studies for inclusion in the review, assessed trials for risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcome was clinical cure at two to three months. Secondary outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity, time to clinical cure, compliance with treatment, adverse outcomes and quality of life.

Main results: We included 12 trials in this review; 10 trials were conducted in India, one in Bangladesh and one in Egypt. Seven of these trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains, two of these studies were at low risk of bias in all domains. Participants were randomised to the following comparisons: topical 5% natamycin compared to topical 1% voriconazole; topical 5% natamycin compared to topical 2% econazole; topical 5% natamycin compared to topical chlorhexidine gluconate (0.05%, 0.1% and 0.2%); topical 1% voriconazole compared to intrastromal voriconazole 50 g/0.1 mL (both treatments combined with topical 5% natamycin); topical 1% voriconazole combined with oral voriconazole compared to both oral voriconazole and oral itraconazole (both combined with topical 5% natamycin); topical 1% itraconazole compared to topical 1% itraconazole combined with oral itraconazole; topical amphotericin B compared to topical amphotericin B combined with subconjunctival injection of fluconazole; intracameral injection of amphotericin B with conventional treatment compared to conventional treatment alone (severe fungal ulcers); topical 0.5% and 1% silver sulphadiazine compared to topical 1% miconazole. Overall the results were inconclusive because for most comparisons only one small trial was available. The exception was the comparison of topical natamycin and topical voriconazole for which three trials were available. In one of these trials clinical cure (healed ulcer) was reported in all 15 people allocated to natamycin and in 14/15 people allocated to voriconazole (risk ratio (RR) 1.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.28, low quality evidence). In one trial people randomised to natamycin were more likely to have a microbiological cure at six days (RR 1.64; 95% CI 1.38 to 1.94, 299 participants). On average, people randomised to natamycin had better spectacle-corrected visual acuity at two to three months compared to people randomised to voriconazole but the estimate was uncertain and the 95% confidence intervals included 0 (no difference) (mean difference -0.12 logMAR, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.06, 434 participants; 3 studies, low quality evidence) and a decreased risk of corneal perforation or therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty, or both (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.94, 434 participants, high quality evidence). There was inconclusive evidence on time to clinical cure. Compliance with treatment and quality of life were not reported. One trial comparing natamycin and voriconazole found the effect of treatment greater in Fusarium species, but this subgroup analysis was not prespecified by this review.

Authors' conclusions: The trials included in this review were of variable quality and were generally underpowered. There is evidence that natamycin is more effective than voriconazole in the treatment of fungal ulcers. Future research should evaluate treatment effects according to fungus species.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None known.

Figures

1
1
Results of searching for studies for inclusion in the review
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
3
3
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
4
4
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Topical natamycin compared to topical voriconazole, outcome: 1.1 Best corrected visual acuity [logMAR].
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: 1 Topical 5% natamycin versus topical 1% voriconazole, outcome: 1.2 Corneal perforation.
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: 2 Natamycin versus chlorhexidine, outcome: 2.1 Clinical cure.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Natamycin compared to voriconazole, Outcome 1 Best corrected visual acuity.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Natamycin compared to voriconazole, Outcome 2 Corneal perforation.
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Natamycin compared to chlorhexidine, Outcome 1 Clinical cure.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Agarwal 2001 {published data only}
    1. Agarwal PK, Roy P, Das A, Banerjee A, Maity PK, Banerjee AR. Efficacy of topical and systemic itraconazole as a broad‐spectrum antifungal agent in mycotic corneal ulcer. A preliminary study. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 2001;49(3):173‐6. - PubMed
Arora 2011 {published data only}
    1. Arora R, Gupta D. Voriconazole versus natamycin as primary treatment in fungal ulcers. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2011;39(5):434‐40. - PubMed
Basak 2004 {published data only}
    1. Basak SK, Mahanta A, Bhowmick A, Bhattacharya D. Intracameral amphotericin B in deep keratomycosis with hypopyon: a randomized controlled clinical trial. American Academy of Ophthalmology 2004:176.
Mahdy 2010 {published data only}
    1. Mahdy RA, Nada WM, Wageh MM. Topical amphotericin B and subconjunctival injection of fluconazole (combination therapy) versus topical amphotericin B (monotherapy) in treatment of keratomycosis. Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2010;26(3):281‐5. - PubMed
Mohan 1987 {published data only}
    1. Mohan M, Gupta SK, Kalra VK, Vajpayee RB, Sachdev MS. Silver sulphadiazine in the treatment of mycotic keratitis. Indian Journal of Medical Research 1987;85:572‐5. - PubMed
MUTT 2010 {published data only}
    1. Lalitha P, Sun CQ, Prajna NV, Karpagam R, Geetha M, O'Brien KS, et al. In vitro susceptibility of filamentous fungal isolates from a corneal ulcer clinical trial. American Journal of Ophthalmology 2014;157(2):318‐26. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Prajna NV, Krishnan T, Mascarenhas J, Rajaraman R, Prajna L, Srinivasan M, et al. The mycotic ulcer treatment trial: a randomized trial comparing natamycin vs voriconazole. JAMA Ophthalmology 2013;131(4):422‐9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Prajna NV, Srinivasan M, Lalitha P, Krishnan T, Rajaraman R, Ravindran M, et al. Differences in clinical outcomes in keratitis due to fungus and bacteria. JAMA Ophthalmology 2013;131(8):1088‐9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sun CQ, Prajna NV, Krishnan T, Mascarenhas J, Rajaraman R, Srinivasan M, et al. Expert prior elicitation and Bayesian analysis of the Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial I. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 20103;54(6):4167‐73. - PMC - PubMed
Parchand 2012 {published data only}
    1. Parchand S, Gupta A, Ram J, Gupta N, Chakrabarty A. Voriconazole for fungal corneal ulcers. Ophthalmology 2012;119(5):1083. - PubMed
Prajna 2003 {published data only}
    1. Prajna NV, John RK, Nirmalan PK, Lalitha P, Srinivasan M. A randomised clinical trial comparing 2% econazole and 5% natamycin for the treatment of fungal keratitis. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2003;87(10):1235‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Prajna 2010 {published data only}
    1. Krishnan T, Prajna NV, Gronert K, Oldenburg CE, Ray KJ, Keenan JD, et al. Gender differences in re‐epithelialisation time in fungal corneal ulcers. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2012;96(1):137‐8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lalitha P, Prajna NV, Oldenburg CE, Srinivasan M, Krishnan T, Mascarenhas J, et al. Organism, minimum inhibitory concentration, and outcome in a fungal corneal ulcer clinical trial. Cornea 2012;31(6):662‐7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Prajna NV, Krishnan T, Mascarenhas J, Srinivasan M, Oldenburg CE, Toutain‐Kidd CM, et al. Predictors of outcome in fungal keratitis. Eye 2012;26(9):1226‐31. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Prajna NV, Lalitha PS, Mascarenhas J, Krishnan T, Srinivasan M, Vaitilingam CM, et al. Natamycin and voriconazole in Fusarium and Aspergillus keratitis: subgroup analysis of a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2012;96(11):1440‐1. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Prajna NV, Mascarenhas J, Krishnan T, Reddy PR, Prajna L, Srinivasan M, et al. Comparison of natamycin and voriconazole for the treatment of fungal keratitis. Archives of Ophthalmology 2010;128(6):672‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Rahman 1997 {published data only}
    1. Rahman MR, Minassian DC, Srinivasan M, Martin MJ, Johnson GJ. Trial of chlorhexidine gluconate for fungal corneal ulcers. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 1997;4(3):141‐9. - PubMed
Rahman 1998 {published data only}
    1. Rahman MR, Johnson GJ, Husain R, Howlader SA, Minassian DC. Randomised trial of 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 2.5% natamycin for fungal keratitis in Bangladesh. British Journal of Ophthalmology 1998;82(8):919‐25. - PMC - PubMed
Sharma 2013 {published data only}
    1. Sharma N, Chacko J, Velpandian T, Titiyal JS, Sinha R, Satpathy G, et al. Comparative evaluation of topical versus intrastromal voriconazole as an adjunct to natamycin in recalcitrant fungal keratitis. Ophthalmology 2013;120(4):677‐81. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Chen 2013 {published data only}
    1. Chen TH, Li SW, Niu XX, Ning JH, Lu FQ, Guo ZF. Clinical study of domestic natamycin medication for the treatment of fungal corneal ulcer. International Eye Science 2013;13(2):356‐8.
Gupta 2006 {published data only}
    1. Gupta A, Ram J, Brar GS, Pandav SS. Early vs. late intracameral amphotericin B in nonresponding severe keratomycosis. American Academy of Ophthalmology 2006:220.
ISRCTN84613089 {published data only}
    1. ISRCTN84613089. Intracameral voriconazole injection in the treatment of fungal endophthalmitis developed from keratitis. www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN84613089 (accessed 30 April 2013).
Jones 1975 {published data only}
    1. Jones BR. Principles in the management of oculomycosis. XXXI Edward Jackson memorial lecture. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1975;79(5):719‐51. - PubMed
Kalavathy 2002 {published data only}
    1. Kalavathy CM, Thomas PA. Efficacy of topical and systemic itraconazole as a broad‐spectrum antifungal agent in mycotic corneal ulcer. A preliminary study. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 2002;50(1):71‐2. - PubMed
Kalavathy 2005 {published data only}
    1. Kalavathy CM, Parmar P, Kaliamurthy J, Philip VR, Ramalingam MD, Jesudasan CA, et al. Comparison of topical itraconazole 1% with topical natamycin 5% for the treatment of filamentous fungal keratitis. Cornea 2005;24(4):449‐52. - PubMed
Lavingia 1986 {published data only}
    1. Lavingia B, Dave S. Comparative study of amphotericin‐B pimaricin and gentian violet on ocular fungi. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 1986;34:73‐7. - PubMed
Li 2011 {published data only}
    1. Li QT. Clinical curative effect of irrigating the anterior chamber with solution of amphotericin B to treat the fungal keratitis. International Journal of Ophthalmology 2011;11(7):1194‐6.
Mabon 1998 {published data only}
    1. Mabon M. Fungal keratitis. International Ophthalmology Clinics 1998;38(4):115‐23. - PubMed
Mahashabde 1987 {published data only}
    1. Mahashabde S, Nahata MC, Shrivastava U. A comparative study of anti‐fungal drugs in mycotic corneal ulcer. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 1987;35(5‐6):149‐52. - PubMed
Maichuk 1990 {published data only}
    1. Maichuk I, Karimov MK, Lapshina NA. Ketoconazole in the treatment of ocular mycoses [Ketokonazol v lechenii mikozov glaza]. Vestnik Oftalmologii 1990;106(1):44‐6. - PubMed
Maichuk 1991 {published data only}
    1. Maichuk I, Lapshina NA, Diadina UV. Midazoles in the treatment of ocular mycoses [Imidazoly v lechenii mikozov glaza]. Antibiotiki i Khimioterapiia 1991;36(1):45‐6. - PubMed
Maichuk 1994 {published data only}
    1. Maichuk I, Diadina UV. Itraconazole in the treatment of ophthalmomycoses [Itrakonazol v lechenii oftal'momikozov]. Antibiotiki i Khimioterapiia 1994;39(7):54‐6. - PubMed
Maichuk 1995 {published data only}
    1. Maichuk I, Diadina UV. Metamphocin in the treatment of ocular mycoses [Metamfotsin v lechenii mikozov glaza]. Antibiotiki i Khimioterapiia 1995;40(11‐12):55‐6. - PubMed
Martin 1996 {published data only}
    1. Martin MJ, Rahman MR, Johnson GJ, Srinivasan M, Clayton YM. Mycotic keratitis: susceptibility to antiseptic agents. International Ophthalmology 1996;19(5):299‐302. - PubMed
Mitsui 1987 {published data only}
    1. Mitsui Y, Kitano S, Uchida Y, Tanaka N, Kobayashi S, Tokuda H, et al. Effect of 1% pimaricin ophthalmic ointment in the treatment of keratomycosis. Nippon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi 1987;91(2):304‐11. - PubMed
Mohan 1988 {published data only}
    1. Mohan M, Gupta SK, Kalra VK, Vajpayee RB, Sachdev MS. Topical silver sulphadiazine ‐ a new drug for ocular keratomycosis. British Journal of Ophthalmology 1988;72(3):192‐5. - PMC - PubMed
NCT00516399 {published data only}
    1. NCT00516399. A clinical trial of the treatment of fungal corneal ulcers with povidone‐iodine. ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT00516399 (accessed 20 Sept 2011).
Oude Lashof 2011 {published data only}
    1. Oude Lashof AM, Rothova A, Sobel JD, Ruhnke M, Pappas PG, Viscoli C, et al. Ocular manifestations of candidemia. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2011;53(3):262‐8. - PubMed
Panda 1996 {published data only}
    1. Panda A, Sharma N, Angra SK. Topical fluconazole therapy of Candida keratitis. Cornea 1996;15(4):373‐5. - PubMed
Rao 1997 {published data only}
    1. Rao SK, Madhavan HN, Rao G, Padmanabhan P. Fluconazole in filamentous fungal keratitis. Cornea 1997;16(6):700. - PubMed
Ray 2002 {published data only}
    1. Ray A, Rao SK, Fogla R, Padmanabhan P, Kalavathy CM, Thomas PA, et al. Efficacy of topical and systemic itraconazole as a broad‐spectrum antifungal agent in mycotic corneal ulcer. A preliminary study. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 2002;50(1):70‐2. - PubMed
Reddy 1982 {published data only}
    1. Reddy PR, Reddy PS, Reddy AR, Saboo NK. A comparative evaluation of nystatin, amphotericin‐b and miconazole in keratomycosis. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 1982;30(4):249‐50. - PubMed
Shuai 2012 {published data only}
    1. Shuai SS, Ning HZ, Chen F, He XY, Yu QS. Clinical observation of povidone iodine combined with carbolic acid in the treatment of fungal corneal ulcer. International Eye Science 2012;12(12):2329‐30.
Sun 1996 {published data only}
    1. Sun B, He Y, Wang Y. Comparison of various types of imidazole derivatives for treatment of filamentous fungal keratitis. Chung Hua Yen Ko Tsa Chih 1996;32(4):260‐3. - PubMed
Xie 2001 {published data only}
    1. Xie L, Dong X, Shi W. Treatment of fungal keratitis by penetrating keratoplasty. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2001;85(9):1070‐4. - PMC - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

Qu 2013 {published data only}
    1. Qu XL, Zhao GQ, Gao A, Che CY, Lin J, Hu LT, et al. Efficacy observation of the fungal keratitis treated by the Natamycin and recombinant bovine basic fibroblast growth factor ophthalmic gel. International Eye Science 2013;13(7):1322‐5.

References to ongoing studies

CTR 2011 091 000107 {published data only}
    1. CTRI/2011/091/000107. Evaluation of intracameral amphotericin B in the management of deep fungal keratitis:randomized controlled trial. www.ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=2625 (accessed 18 March 2015).
MUTT II {published data only}
    1. NCT00997035. Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial II. ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT00997035 (accessed 18 March 2015).

Additional references

Galarreta 2007
    1. Galarreta DJ, Tuft SJ, Ramsay A, Dart JK. Fungal keratitis in London: microbiological and clinical evaluation. Cornea 2007;26(9):1082‐6. - PubMed
Glanville 2006
    1. Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Miles JN, Camosso‐Stefinovic J. How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2006;94(2):130‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Gopinathan 2002
    1. Gopinathan U, Garg P, Fernandes M, Sharma S, Athmanathan S, Rao GN. The epidemiological features and laboratory results of fungal keratitis: a 10 year review at a referral eye care center in South India. Cornea 2002;21(6):555‐9. - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins J P, Thompson S G, Deeks J J, Altman D G. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557‐60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (editors). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Liesegang 1980
    1. Liesegang TJ, Forster RK. Spectrum of microbial keratitis in South Florida. American Journal of Ophthalmology 1980;90(1):38‐47. - PubMed
O' Brien 1997
    1. O' Brien TP, Rhee P. Pharmacotherapy of fungus infections of the eye. In: Zimmerman TJ, Koonere KS, Fecthner RD, Sharir M editor(s). Textbook of ocular pharmacology. Hagerstown: Lipincott‐Raven, 1997:587‐607.
O' Day 1996
    1. O' Day D. Fungal keratitis. In: Pepose JS editor(s). Ocular infection and immunity. St Louis: Moseby, 1996:1048‐61.
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Tu 2007
    1. Tu EY, Park AJ. Recalcitrant Beauveria bassiana keratitis: confocal microscopy findings and treatment with posaconazole (Noxafil). Cornea 2007;26(8):1008‐10. - PubMed
Valenton 2000
    1. Valenton M. Central microbial keratitis. Philippine Journal of Ophthalmology 2000;25(1):10‐21.

References to other published versions of this review

FlorCruz 2003
    1. FlorCruz NV, Peczon Jr, I. Medical interventions for fungal keratitis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004241] - DOI - PubMed
FlorCruz 2008
    1. FlorCruz NV, Peczon IV. Medical interventions for fungal keratitis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004241.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
FlorCruz 2012
    1. FlorCruz NV, Peczon IV, Evans JR. Medical interventions for fungal keratitis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004241.pub3] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms