4.4 Article

Practice Patterns and Opinions in the Treatment of Acanthamoeba Keratitis

Journal

CORNEA
Volume 30, Issue 12, Pages 1363-1368

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31820f7763

Keywords

monotherapy; combination therapy; corticosteroids; keratoplasty; Bayesian

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health/National Eye Institute [K23EY017897, K12EX017269, K23 EY019071]
  2. National Institutes of Health/National Center for Research Resources/Office of the Director [KL2 RR024130]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Management of acanthamoeba keratitis remains challenging for ophthalmologists. We conducted a survey of members of The Cornea Society to elicit expert opinions on the diagnosis and treatment of acanthamoeba keratitis. Methods: An online survey was sent to all subscribers of The Cornea Society via the kera-net listserv. Descriptive statistics were performed. Results: Eighty-two participants completed the online survey. Of the 82 respondents, 76.8% included the combination of clinical examination and culture in their diagnostic strategy and 43.9% used confocal microscopy. Most respondents (97.6%) had used combination therapy with multiple agents to treat acanthamoeba keratitis at some point in the past, whereas a smaller proportion (47.6%) had ever used monotherapy. Respondents most commonly chose polyhexamethylene biguanide as the ideal choice for monotherapy (51.4%), and dual therapy with a biguanide and diamidine as the ideal choice for combination therapy (37.5%). The majority of respondents (62.2%) reported using topical corticosteroids at least some of the time for acanthamoeba keratitis. Keratoplasty was an option considered by most respondents (75.6%), although most (85.5%) would only perform surgery after medical treatment failure. Conclusions: There was a wide range of current practice patterns for the diagnosis and treatment of acanthamoeba keratitis. The lack of sufficiently powered comparative effectiveness studies and clinical trials makes evidence-based decision-making for this disease difficult.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available