Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34896126›Full record

Trial reportOphthalmology2022

Topical Chlorhexidine 0.2% versus Topical Natamycin 5% for the Treatment of Fungal Keratitis in Nepal: A Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial.

Jeremy J Hoffman, Reena Yadav, Sandip D Sanyam, Pankaj Chaudhary, Abhishek Roshan, Sanjay K Singh, Sanjay K Singh, Sailesh K Mishra, Simon Arunga, Victor H Hu and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. How to prepare chlorhexidine eye drops.Community eye health · 2023
    Article
  12. Management of Filamentous Fungal Keratitis: A Pragmatic Approach.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Emerging treatments in fungal keratitis.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Jeremy J HoffmanInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; Sagarmatha Choudhary Eye Hospital, Lahan, Nepal; Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre, Moshi, Tanzania. Electronic address: jeremy.hoffman@lshtm.ac.uk.
Reena YadavSagarmatha Choudhary Eye Hospital, Lahan, Nepal.
Sandip D SanyamSagarmatha Choudhary Eye Hospital, Lahan, Nepal.
Pankaj ChaudharySagarmatha Choudhary Eye Hospital, Lahan, Nepal.
Abhishek RoshanSagarmatha Choudhary Eye Hospital, Lahan, Nepal.
Sanjay K SinghSagarmatha Choudhary Eye Hospital, Lahan, Nepal.
Sanjay K SinghEastern Region Eye Care Programme, Biratnagar, Nepal.
Sailesh K MishraNepal Netra Jyoti Sangh, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Simon ArungaInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Mbarara, Uganda.
Victor H HuInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
David MacleodInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; International Statistics & Epidemiology Group, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Astrid LeckInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Matthew J BurtonInternational Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom; National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, United Kingdom.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBBiratnagar Eye Hospital · NPMbarara University of Science and Technology · UGMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R010161/1Wellcome Trust 207472/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate if topical chlorhexidine 0.2%, which is low cost and easy to formulate, is noninferior to topical natamycin 5% for the treatment of filamentous fungal keratitis.

designRandomized controlled, single-masked, noninferiority clinical trial.

participantsAdults attending a tertiary-level ophthalmic hospital in Nepal with filamentous fungal infection confirmed on smear or confocal microscopy.

methodsParticipants were randomly allocated to receive topical chlorhexidine 0.2% or topical natamycin 5%. Primary analysis (intention-to-treat) was by linear regression, using baseline logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) and treatment arm as prespecified covariates. Mixed fungal-bacterial infections were excluded from the primary analysis but included in secondary analyses and secondary safety-related outcomes. The noninferiority margin was 0.15 logMAR. This trial was registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN14332621.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was BSCVA at 3 months. Secondary outcome measures included perforation or therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty by 90 days.

resultsBetween June 3, 2019, and November 9, 2020, 354 eligible participants were enrolled and randomly assigned: 178 to chlorhexidine and 176 to natamycin. Primary outcome data were available for 153 and 151 of the chlorhexidine and natamycin groups, respectively. Of these, mixed bacterial-fungal infections were found in 20 cases (12/153 chlorhexidine, 8/151 natamycin) and excluded from the primary analysis. Therefore, 284 patients were assessed for the primary outcome (141 chlorhexidine, 143 natamycin). We did not find evidence to suggest chlorhexidine was noninferior to natamycin and in fact found strong evidence to suggest that natamycin-treated participants had significantly better 3-month BSCVA than chlorhexidine-treated participants, after adjusting for baseline BSCVA (regression coefficient, -0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.42 to -0.18; P < 0.001). There were more perforations and emergency corneal grafts in the chlorhexidine arm (24/175, 13.7%) than in the natamycin arm (10/173, 5.8%; P = 0.018, mixed infections included), whereas natamycin-treated cases were less likely to perforate or require an emergency corneal graft, after adjusting for baseline ulcer depth (odds ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.79; P = 0.013).

conclusionsTreatment with natamycin is associated with significantly better visual acuity, with fewer adverse events, compared with treatment with chlorhexidine. Natamycin remains the preferred first-line monotherapy treatment for filamentous fungal keratitis.

Indexed as

Corneal UlcerEye Infections, FungalKeratitisMycosesAdultAntifungal AgentsChlorhexidineFungiHumansNatamycinNepalTreatment OutcomeVoriconazoleAntifungal AgentsChlorhexidineNatamycinVoriconazoleChlorhexidineClinical trialCorneal ulcerFungal keratitisNatamycinNepal

Identifiers

PMID34896126
PMCPMC9037000
OpenAlexW4200055596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.