4.2 Article

Fungal Keratitis: Epidemiology, Rapid Detection, and Antifungal Susceptibilities of Fusarium and Aspergillus Isolates from Corneal Scrapings

Journal

BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
Volume 2019, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2019/6395840

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, India [2008-03140]
  2. Deanship of Scientific Research at Majmaah University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [38/128]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fungal aetiology of keratitis/corneal ulcer is considered to be one of the leading causes of ocular morbidity, particularly in developing countries including India. More importantly, Fusarium and Aspergillus are reported commonly implicating corneal ulcer and against this background the present work was undertaken so as to understand the current epidemiological trend of the two fungal keratitis. During the project period, a total of 500 corneal scrapings were collected from suspected mycotic keratitis patients, of which 411 (82.2%) were culture positive for bacteria, fungi, and parasites. Among fungal aetiologies, Fusarium (216, 52.5% of 411) and Aspergillus (68, 16.5% of 411) were predominantly determined. While the study revealed a male preponderance with both the fungal keratitis , it further brought out that polyene compounds (natamycin and amphotericin B) and azoles were active, respectively, against Fusarium spp. and Aspergillus spp. Additionally, 94.1% of culture proven Fusarium keratitis and, respectively, 100% and 63.6% of A. flavus and A. fumigatus were confirmed by multiplex PCR. The sensitivity of the PCR employed in the present study was noted to be 10 fg/l, 1pg/l, and 300pg/l of DNA, respectively, for Fusarium, A. flavus, and A. fumigatus. Alarming fact was that Fusarium and Aspergillus regionally remained to be the common cause of mycotic keratitis and the Fusarium isolates had a higher antifungal resistance than Aspergillus strains against most of the test drugs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available