Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Conjunctivitis is one of the diverse range of etiologies ing. Seasonal and perennial
most common reasons for viral, bacterial, allergic, toxic allergic conjunctivitis, often
acute eye-related primary care contact lens-related, lid and accompanied by rhinitis,
visits. At a leading cornea dermatologicresult in simi- account for the vast major-
service (Wills Eye Hospital), lar presentations that can be ity of ocular allergy cases.
blepharoconjunctivitis was challenging to differentiate. These are caused by Type
the most common diagnosis In this monograph, we will I IgE/mast cell reactions to
in children, accounting for provide practical, evidence- airborne allergens such as
15% of all pediatric referrals.1 based guidance to assist the pollen, mold, pet dander and
Some forms are highly conta- clinician in making the differ- dust mites. Less common, but
gious, while other forms, such ential diagnosis and appropri- potentially more challenging
as allergic conjunctivitis, are ately managing the range of forms include giant papillary
non-infectious. clinical presentations. conjunctivitis (GPC), vernal
The term conjunctivitis is keratoconjunctivitis and atopic
a non-specific term that sim- Allergic Conjunctivitis keratoconjunctivitis. This
ply means inflammation of Allergic conjunctivitis is an panel previously published an
the conjunctiva resulting in important and growing health in-depth monograph on ocular
hyperemia, general discom- problem, characterized by allergy (http://www.revop-
fort and other symptoms. A its hallmark symptom: itch- tom.com/email/2011_allergy.
By and large, optometrists need not worry about rampant methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus (MRSA) conjunctivitis. However, large national surveillance programs have shown that the
incidence of MRSA may be on the rise, so clinicians should maintain a healthy awareness of the
potential for methicillin-resistant S. aureus and be prepared to treat suspected cases.3133 In addi-
tion, current resistance trends should be considered before initiating empiric treatment of com-
mon eye infections.
If an eye does not respond to your typical initial management of bacterial conjunctivitis, first re-
assess the accuracy of your diagnosis. If you are still convinced it is bacterial conjunctivitis, MRSA
should be considered. Even though we rarely culture conjunctivitis in clinical practice, this might
be a good time to do so.
When MRSA conjunctivitis is diagnosed or suspected, it is appropriate to add Polytrim (trime-
thoprim/polymyxin B, Allergan) to your regimen. This drug is also available generically. In severe
cases of bacterial conjunctivitis and in postoperative management of suspected MRSA infection,
fortified vancomycin may be the antibiotic of choice. Besivance may also be appropriate, as recent
data suggest that besifloxacin has potent activity against resistant organisms.
The Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring in Ocular micRorganisms (ARMOR) study has found
that antibacterial resistance is a significant concern in ocular isolates of S. aureus and coagulase-
negative staphylococci (CNS) and that there are significant differences in the potency of com-
monly used antibiotics against these organisms.27,28
For example, of the 228 S. aureus isolates collected, 50% were MRSA, 40% were ciprofloxacin
non-susceptible (CIP-NS) and 36% were both MRSA and CIP-NS. By the MIC90 values, besi-
floxacin, vancomycin and imipenem were the most potent, while ciprofloxacin, tobramycin and
azithromycin were the least potent. Go to www.revoptom.com/email/MICactivity.pdf to view a
table of MIC (g/mL) activity of besifloxacin and comparators against S. aureus. Against MRSA,
besifloxacin maintained potency with an MIC50/MIC90 of 0.5/1 g/mL (moxifloxacin: 2/8
g/mL; ciprofloxacin: 8/256 g/mL).32
Of the 165 collected CNS isolates, 57% were methicillin-resistant (MRCNS), 40% were CIP-
NS and 34% were both MRCNS and CIP-NS. According to the MIC90 values, imipenem,
besifloxacin and vancomycin were the most potent agents, while levofloxacin, trimethoprim and
azithromycin were the least potent.32
A smaller percentage of S. pneumoniae isolates were nonsusceptible to commonly used topi-
cal ocular antibiotics. According to the MIC90 values, imipenem and besifloxacin were the most
potent agents, while trimethoprim and azithromycin were the least. And among the H. influenzae
isolates tested, 100% were susceptible to all the antibacterial drugs tested.32
Conclusions
Clinical Pearl With careful questioning
Consider adding low-dose doxycycline in the following and a thorough examination,
types of blepharitis cases: clinicians can accurately dif-
Very advanced ferentiate among the vari-
Chronic, recurrent ous types of conjunctivitis.
Associated with rosacea Appropriate treatment in
Significant eyelid telangiectetic vascular activity. many cases requires us to
address both the infectious
and inflammatory compo-
auricular or submandibular might consider a combination nents of the condition, in
lymph node involvement. antibiotic-steroid. order to treat the underly-
Patients nearly always experi- The major exception to this ing cause and fully resolve
ence photophobia. In fact, a rule of thumb is the contact lens patient symptoms.
surprising level of pain and wearer. Sterile corneal infiltrates
photophobia, given the low- are not the result of infection, References
1. Hammersmith KM, Cohen EJ, Blake TD, et al.
level of hyperemia, is highly and studies indicate that even Blepharoconjunctivitis in children. Arch Ophthalmol.
2005;123(12):1667-1670.
characteristic of CLARE. in contact lens wearers, a topical 2. Bartlett JD, Karpecki P, Melton R, Thomas R.
Diagnostic and Treatment Algorithms for Ocular
Although it is often associ- corticosteroid alone may have Surface Disease States: New paradigms in the under-
standing and management of ocular allergy (Updated
ated with overnight wear, a role in treatment.42 However, Edition). Rev Ophthalmol. June 2011.
3. Sambursky RP, Fram N, Cohen EJ. The prevalence
simple overweartoo many because lens wear may predis- of adenoviral conjunctivitis at the Wills Eye Hospital
Emergency Room. Optometry. 2007;78(5):236-239.
hours in a daycan also be pose patients to ocular infec- 4. Marangon FB. Laboratory results in ocular viral dis-
the culprit. CLARE is more tions, the conservative clinician eases: Implications in clinical-laboratory correlation. Arq
Bras Oftalmol. 2007;70(2):189-194.
common in people who have may wish to employ a combina- 5. Dosso AA, Runger-Brandle E. Clinical course of epi-
demic keratoconjunctivitis: Evaluation by in vivo confo-
been wearing lenses longer, tion antibiotic-steroid in the set- cal microscopy. Cornea. 2008;27(3):263-268.
6. Hvding G. Acute bacterial conjunctivitis. Acta
have some dryness issues or ting of CLARE. Ophthalmol. 2008;86(1):5-17.
7. Vichyarond P, Brown Q, Jackson D. Acute bacterial
have had a prior occurrence. In such patients, a combi- conjunctivitis. Clin Pediatr. 1986;25(10):506-509.
8. Mannis MJ, Plotnik RD. Bacterial conjunctivitis. In:
The clinician should probe nation product such as Zylet Tasman M & Jaeger EA (eds) Duanes clinical ophthal-
mology, vol. 4. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams &
the patient for more detail on every 2 hours for 24 to 48 Wilkins, 1-11.
9. Jackson WB. Blepharitis: current strategies for
contact lens history to deter- hours, then q.i.d. for four diagnosis and management. Can J Ophthalmol.
2008;43(2):170-179. in the treatment of acute herpetic keratitis. Clin from the antibiotic resistance monitoring in coular
10. McCulley JP, Dougherty JM, Deneau DG. Ophthalmol. 2010;4:905-12. micro-organisms (ARMOR) 2009 surveillance study.
Classification of chronic blepharitis. Ophthalmol. 24. Croxtall JD. Ganciclovir ophthalmic gel 0.15% Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;Epub ahead of print.
1982;89(10):1173-1180. in acute herpetic keratitis (dendritic ulcers). Drugs. 34. Tabbara KF, al-Kharashi SA, al-Mansouri SM, et
11. Dumbleton K. Adverse events with silicone 2011;71(5):603-10. al. Ocular levels of azithromycin. Arch Ophthalmol.
hydrogel continuous wear. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 25. Holland EJ, Schwartz GS, Neff KD. Herpes sim- 1998;116(12):1625-8.
2002;25(3):137-146. plex keratitis. In: Krachmer H, Mannis MJ, Holland EJ, 35. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.2006
12. Holden BA, La Hood D, Grant T, et al. Gram- eds. Cornea, 3rd ed. St. Louis; Elsevier. 2011:953-84. guidelines for treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.
negative bacteria can induce contact lens related acute 26. Haas W, Pillar CM, Hesje CK, et al. Bactericidal (http:www.cdc.gov/std/treatment/2006/clinical.htm).
red eye (CLARE) responses. CLAO J. 1996; 22:47-52. activity of besifloxacin against staphylococci, 36. Preschel N, Hardten DR. Management of
13. Sweeney DF, Naduvilath TJ. Are inflammatory Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influen- coincident corneal disease and cataract. Curr Opin
events a marker for an increased risk of microbial zae. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(7):1441-7. Ophthalmol 1999;10(1):59-65.
keratitis? Eye Contact Lens. 2007;33(6 Pt 2):383-387; 27. Haas W, Pillar CM, Hesje CK, et al. In vitro 37. Levinson BA, Rapuano CJ, Cohen EJ, et al.
discussion 399-400. time-kill experiments with besifloxacin, moxifloxa- Referrals to the Wills Eye Institute Cornea Service after
14. Bruno B, Gooley T, Hackman RC, et al. cin and gatifloxacin in the absence and presence of laser in situ keratomileusis: Reasons for patient dissatis-
Adenovirus infection in hematopoietic stem cell trans- benzalkonium chloride. J Antimicrob Chemother. faction. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34(1):32-9.
plantation: effect of ganciclovir and implant on sur- 2011;66(4):840-4. 38. Karimian F, Baradaran-Rafii A, Javadi MA, et
vival. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2003; 9:341-52. 28. Silverstein BE, Allaire C, Bateman KM, et al. al. Bilateral bacterial keratitis in three patients fol-
15. Kinchington PR, Romanowski DG, Gordon Y, et Efficacy and tolerability of besifloxacin ophthalmic lowing photorefractive keratectomy. J Refract Surg.
al. Prospects for adenovirus antivirals. J Antimicrob suspension 0.6% administered twice daily for 3 days in 2007;23(3):312-5.
Chemother. 2005; 55:424-9. the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis: a multicenter, 39. Ambrosio R Jr, Periman LM, Netto MV, Wilson
16. Naesens L, Lenaerts L, Andrei G, et al. Anti- randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, SE. Bilateral marginal sterile infiltrates and diffuse
Adenovirus activities of several classes of nucleoside and parallel-group study in adults and children. Clin Ther. lamellar keratitis after laser in-situ keratomileusis. J
nucleotide analogues. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;33(1):13-26. Refract Surg. 2003;19(2):154-8.
2005; 49:1010-6. 29. Comstock TL, Paterno MR, Usner DW, 40. White EM, Macy JI, Bateman KM, Comstock
17. Tabbara KF, et al. Ganciclovir effects in adenovi- Pichichero ME. Efficacy and safety of besifloxacin TL. Comparison of the safety and efficacy of
ral keratoconjunctivitis. Posterior B253. Association ophthalmic suspension 0.6% in children and adoles- loteprednol 0.5%/tobramycin 0.3% with dexametha-
for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology. Fort cents with bacterial conjunctivitis: a post hoc, sub- sone 0.1%/tobramycin 0.3% in the treatment of
Lauderdale, Florida. 2001. group analysis of three randomized, double-masked, blepharokeratoconjunctivitis. Curr Med Res Opin.
18. Vrin P, Mortemousque B, Barach D. Ganciclovir parallel-group, multicenter clinical trials. Paediatr 2008;24(1):287-96.
0.15% gel: A new treatment of epidemic keratoconjuncti- Drugs. 2010;12(2):105-12. 41. Comstock TL, Holland EJ. Loteprednol and
vitis (EKC). Ophthalmic Res. 1997;29(Suppl 11):1227. 30. McDonald MB, Protzko EE, Brunner LS, et al. tobramycin in combination: a review of their impact on
19. Pavesio CE, Decory HH. Treatment of ocular Efficacy and safety of besifloxacin ophthalmic suspen- current treatment regimens. Expert Opin Pharmacother
inflammatory conditions with loteprednol etabonate. Br sion 0.6% compared with moxifloxacin ophthalmic 2010;11(5):843-52.
J Ophthalmol. 2008: 92: 455-459. solution 0.5% for treating bacterial conjunctivitis. 42. Baum J, Dabezies OH. Pathogenesis and treatment
20. Loteprednol Etabonate Postoperative Inflammation Ophthalmology. 2009;116(9):1615-23. of sterile midperipheral corneal infiltrates associated
Study Group 2. A double-masked, placebo-controlled 31. Asbell PA, Sahm DF. Nationwide surveillance of with soft contact lens use. Cornea 2000;19:777-81.
evaluation of 0.5% loteprendol etabonate in the treat- antimicrobial susceptibility in ocular isolates (Ocular 43. Luchs J. Azithromycin in DuraSite for the treat-
ment of postoperative inflammation. Ophthalmol. TRUST 2). Presented at the American Society of ment of blepharitis. Clin Ophthalmol. 2010;4:681-8.
1998;105(9):1780-1786. Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2008 annual sympo- 44. Luchs J. Efficacy of topical azithromycin ophthal-
21. Isenberg SJ, Apt L, Valenton M, et al. A sium, Chicago, April, 2008. mic solution 1% in the treatment of posterior blephari-
controlled trial of povidone-iodine to treat infec- 32. Haas W, Pillar CM, Morris TW, Sahm DF. tis. Adv Ther. 2008;25(9):858-70.
tious conjunctivitis in children. Am J Ophthalmol. Antibiotic resistance trends in ocular pathogens An 45. Torkildsen GL, Cockrum P, Meier E, et al.
2002;134(5):681-688. update from the ARMOR 2009 and ARMOR 2010 Evaluation of clinical efficacy and safety of tobramycin/
22. Shiuey Y, Ambati BK, Adamis AP. A randomized, surveillance studies. Poster presentation, Association dexamethasone ophthalmic suspension 0.3%/0.05%
double-masked trial of topical ketorolac versus artificial for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, 2011, Ft. compared to azithromycin ophthalmic solution 1%
tears for treatment of viral conjunctivitis. Ophthalmol. Lauderdale, Fla. in the treatment of moderate to severe acute blepha-
2000;107(8):1512-1517. 33. Haas W, Pillar CM, Torres M, et al. Monitoring ritis/blepharoconjunctivitis. Curr Med Res Opin.
23. Tabbara KF, Al Balushi N. Topical ganciclovir antibiotic resistance in ocular microorganisms: Results 2011;27(1):171-8.