- •Corneal Disease
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Core Messages
- •Organisms
- •Detection
- •Acid Fast Smears
- •Culture Media
- •Molecular Tests
- •Nucleic Acid Hybridization Probes
- •Line Probes
- •DNA Sequencing
- •FISH (Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization) Assay
- •DNA Microarray
- •Pulse Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE)
- •Management
- •Clinical Diagnosis
- •Medical Therapy
- •Surgical Intervention
- •Penetrating Keratoplasty
- •Corneal Cross-Linking
- •Summary for the Clinician
- •References
- •Core Messages
- •Introduction
- •Epidemiology
- •Visual Morbidity
- •Documentation
- •Causative Factors
- •Causative Bacteria
- •Investigation of Keratitis
- •Laboratory Diagnosis: Susceptibility Testing
- •Susceptibility and Resistance of Bacterial Isolates
- •Treatment: Antimicrobials
- •Current Antimicrobials in Use
- •The Fluoroquinolones
- •Aminoglycosides
- •Cephalosporins
- •Other Antimicrobials Used
- •Development of Existing and New Classes of Drugs
- •Tigecycline
- •Linezolid
- •Meropenem
- •Combination Therapy
- •Drug Delivery to the Cornea
- •Novel Methods of Drug Delivery to the Cornea
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •3: Heredity of Keratoconus
- •Introduction
- •Is Keratoconus a Heritable or Genetic Disease?
- •Mutational Screening of Candidate Genes in Keratoconus
- •Visual System Homeobox Gene 1 (VSX1)
- •Superoxide Dismutase 1 (SOD1)
- •Interleukin 1 (IL1) Superfamily
- •Collagen Genes
- •Genetic Mapping in Keratoconus
- •Genetics of Keratoconus – Mendelian or Complex?
- •References
- •4: Advance in Corneal Imaging
- •Introduction
- •In Vivo Confocal Microscopy (IVCM)
- •Principles of Confocal Microscopy
- •The Normal Cornea
- •Clinical Applications
- •Infectious Keratitis
- •Corneal Dystrophies
- •Refractive Surgery
- •Corneal Surgery
- •Other Clinical Applications
- •Limitations of IVCM
- •Anterior Segment Ocular Coherence Tomography (OCT)
- •Clinical Applications
- •Corneal Thickness Assessment
- •Refractive Surgery
- •Corneal Grafts
- •Limitations
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Core Messages
- •Introduction
- •“Angiogenic Privilege of the Cornea” or “How Does the Normal Corneal Maintain Its Avascularity?”
- •General Mechanisms
- •Corneal Hemangiogenesis After Low-Risk Keratoplasty
- •Corneal Hemangiogenesis After High-Risk Keratoplasty
- •Corneal Lymphangiogenesis: Essential for Corneal Graft Rejection
- •Corneal Lymphangiogenesis in Dry Eye
- •Imaging of Corneal Lymphatic Vessels
- •Novel Anti(lymph)Angiogenic Treatment Options at the Cornea
- •Current Treatment Options for Immature Corneal (Blood and Lymphatic) Vessels
- •Steroids
- •Anti-VEGFs (Bevazicumab, Ranibuzumab, Pegaptanib, VEGF Trap)
- •Anti-IRS 1-Strategies (Antisense Oligonucleotides Against IRS 1)
- •Treatment Options for Mature Corneal Vessels
- •Unmet Needs and Future Directions
- •References
- •Core Messages
- •Introduction
- •Retrieval of Donor Tissue
- •Technical Aspects
- •Microbiological Aspects
- •Tissue Evaluation Aspects
- •Corneal Storage
- •Moist Chamber Storage of the Donor Eye
- •Technical Aspects
- •Storage Period
- •Microbiological Safety
- •Tissue Evaluation
- •Hypothermic Storage of the Corneoscleral Button
- •Technical Aspects
- •Storage Period
- •Microbiological Safety
- •Tissue Evaluation
- •Organ Culture (Normothermic Storage) of the Corneoscleral Button
- •Technical Aspects
- •Storage Period
- •Microbiological Safety
- •Tissue Evaluation
- •Other Aspects
- •Pre-cutting of Corneal Tissue for Endothelial Keratoplasty (EK)
- •Microkeratome Cutting
- •Femtosecond Laser Cutting
- •Stripping of Descemet’s Membrane with Endothelium
- •Donor Considerations for EK
- •References
- •7: Infant Keratoplasty
- •Core Messages
- •Introduction
- •Indications for Surgery
- •Visual Outcome
- •Patient Selection
- •Patient Assessment
- •Ancillary Testing
- •Donor Tissue
- •Intraoperative Considerations
- •Concurrent Surgical Procedures
- •Postoperative Considerations
- •Suture Management
- •Optical Correction and Amblyopia Therapy
- •Postoperative Complications
- •Glaucoma
- •Graft Rejection
- •Graft Failure
- •Alternatives to Penetrating Keratoplasty
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Index
2 New Developments in Antibacterial Chemotherapy for Bacterial Keratitis |
27 |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Component R |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TA2-1 |
|
CO- |
|
|
|
|
HO |
NHR |
|
|
|
TA2-2 |
|
CO- |
|
|
|
|
HO |
|
|
|
TA2-3 |
|
CO- |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TA2-4 |
|
CO- |
|
|
|
|
|
CH2OH O |
O |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TA2-5 |
|
CO- |
|||
|
|
|
|
Cl |
O |
|
|
Cl |
|
|
||
CH2OH |
|
|
|
|
|
O |
|
|
|
|
|
|
O |
O |
H |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
OH |
HNCOCH3 |
O |
H |
|
O H |
H |
|
O |
+ |
|
||
HO |
H |
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
O |
N |
|
N |
|
N |
N |
|
N |
NH3 |
|
|
|
HN |
H H |
|
O |
H |
H |
|
O H |
H H |
|
|
|
|
H |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C |
|
|
|
|
|
|
O |
|
|
|
|
|
− |
|
|
|
|
HO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O |
|
OH |
|
|
|
HO |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
O |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HO |
CH2OH |
|
|
|
|
O |
|
|
|
|
|
|
OH |
|
|
|
|
HO |
OH |
|
|
|
|
Fig. 2.4 Molecular structure of teicoplanin: molecular mass 1,907 |
|
|
|
|
|
Fig. 2.5 Molecular structure of |
|
O |
|||
ciprofloxacin: molecular mass 331 |
F |
|
|
|
COOH. HCI |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N |
N |
|||
|
HN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
between the chemical concentration and biological activity of ciprofloxacin following topical administration to the cornea.
Current Antimicrobials in Use
The ophthalmologist has a number of potential antimicrobials at their disposal to treat bacterial keratitis. When choosing an antimicrobial prior to the results of bacterial culture and sensitivity, the choice of one drug over another may be determined by a variety of factors, for example local bacterial epidemiology, drug cost, and drug toxicity.
28 |
H. Sueke et al. |
|
|
The Fluoroquinolones
The development of an old class of antimicrobials, the fluoroquinolones, in the 1990s, provided for the first time a class of drugs with broad Gram-positive and Gram-negative activity and little corneal toxicity [20]. Fluoroquinolones work by inhibiting DNA gyrase (also known as Topoisomerase II) and topoisomerase IV, enzymes necessary in bacterial DNA synthesis. Second-generation fluoroquinolones, ciprofloxacin (see Fig. 2.4) and ofloxacin, are widely used in treating bacterial keratitis. They offer a great potency against Gram-negative bacilli (including P. aeruginosa), moderate activity against S. aureus and little activity against streptococci and the pneumococci. Despite the success of the firstand second-generation fluoroquinolones, there has been a trend (based on systemic breakpoints) towards an increase in resistance of both S. aureus [21] and P. aeruginosa [22].
Further molecular modifications of the fluoroquinolones in 2000s lead to the development of the third-generation levofloxacin, and the fourth-generation moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin. These agents have greater potency against Gram-positive bacteria, in particular the Streptococci. The later-generation fluoroquinolones unfortunately have not been a treatment panacea because of the emergence of resistance (albeit based on systemic breakpoint data) [23, 24]. Park et al. [25] showed a rate of 2% resistance (based again on systemic breakpoint data) to moxifloxacin and 5% to gatifloxacin in isolates of normal bacterial ocular flora. Sueke et al. [11] showed a rate of 2% resistance using systemic breakpoint data to moxifloxacin and 16% to ciprofloxacin in S. aureus isolates from patients with bacterial keratitis. A number of pharmacokinetic studies have shown moxifloxacin to have superior corneal penetration compared to the other fluoroquinolones [26–28]. For example, in a rabbit endophthalmitis model [28], aqueous levels of levofloxacin were 9.4 mg/L, and moxifloxacin was 43.3 mg/L after topical administration. The greater lipophilicity of moxifloxacin compared to the other fluoroquinolones may explain this phenomenon.
Aminoglycosides
Aminoglycosides such as gentamicin and tobramicin are often used in treating bacterial keratitis. They have a broad range of bactericidal activity against many bacterial species, particularly Gram-negative rods. They have an affinity to bacterial 30 S and 50 S ribosomal subunits producing a non-functional 70 S initiation complex resulting in an inhibition of protein synthesis. They are sometimes given in combination with predominantly Gram-positive antimicrobials. Their use is limited by their associated corneal toxicity [29].
Sueke et al. [11] showed gentamicin to have 4% resistance using systemic breakpoints against S. aureus and P. aeruginosa, whereas amikacin had no resistance to S. aureus and 4% to P. aeruginosa. Gentamicin has, however, been shown to have poor corneal penetration which may be due to the hydrophobic nature of the compound. Baum et al. [30] showed that the concentration of gentamicin in the aqueous at 1 hour is only 1 mg/L, which is lower than the suggested MIC using systemic breakpoints.
