Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 354
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

   Table of Contents      
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 66  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 345-346

Comment on: Fungal keratitis: The Aravind Experience

1 Department of Ophthalmology, Fundación Oftalmológica de Santander FOSCAL; Centro Oftalmológico Virgilio Galvis; Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Ophthalmology, Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga UNAB, Floridablanca, Colombia
2 Department of Ophthalmology, Fundación Oftalmológica de Santander FOSCAL, Floridablanca; Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Ophthalmology, Universidad Industrial de Santander UIS, Bucaramanga, Colombia

Date of Web Publication30-Jan-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Alejandro Tello
Virgilio Galvis Ophthalmological Center, Street 158 20-95, Office 301, Tower C, Cañaveral-Floridablanca
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1114_17

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Galvis V, Tello A, Gomez AJ, Castillo CA, Carreño NI. Comment on: Fungal keratitis: The Aravind Experience. Indian J Ophthalmol 2018;66:345-6

How to cite this URL:
Galvis V, Tello A, Gomez AJ, Castillo CA, Carreño NI. Comment on: Fungal keratitis: The Aravind Experience. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2018 [cited 2020 Sep 18];66:345-6. Available from: http://www.ijo.in/text.asp?2018/66/2/345/224065


We read with interest the article entitled, “Fungal keratitis: The Aravind experience” by Prajna et al.[1] First, in the compilation of the clinical articles published on this topic by the researcher from that institution, shown in the [Figure 1] included in the article by Prajna et al., an older study than those referred (a masked, randomized clinical trial of three concentrations of chlorhexidine compared with natamycin 5%, published in 1997) is missing from the list. In fact, that study showed that chlorhexidine might be superior to natamycin. Compared with the response to natamycin as the referent, the relative efficacy was 1.17 with chlorhexidine 0.05%, 1.43 with 0.1%, and reached 2.00 with 0.2%. The superiority of 0.2% chlorhexidine over natamycin was statistically significant (relative efficacy 2.20, P = 0.043) in patients not having had prior antimycotic medication.[2] Since the investigators did not mention chlorhexidine 0.2% in their recent review, we wonder if they had any posterior negative experience using this substance in fungal keratitis.

The recent studies Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial I (MUTT I) and MUTT II, performed also by researchers from Aravind Eye Hospital, showed that topical natamycin was superior to topical voriconazole.[3],[4] Since in the clinical trial from 1997, it was found that chlorhexidine 0.2% could be twice as effective as natamycin, would not it be worth conducting a new study with chlorhexidine and natamycin? Not only to probably corroborate the earlier findings from 1997 but also to evaluate a possible synergy between them?

Furthermore, in the recently published results from the study MUTT II (both for all cases of keratomycosis and for Fusarium keratitis), the researchers from Aravind indicated that all patients received topical voriconazole, 1%, and that after the results of the MUTT II study became available, topical natamycin, 5%, was added for all patients.[4],[5] It would be interesting to know if they have found any kind of synergy between these two medications. In the current protocol of their hospital, do they use both topical medications concurrently?

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

  References Top

Prajna VN, Prajna L, Muthiah S. Fungal keratitis: The Aravind experience. Indian J Ophthalmol 2017;65:912-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Rahman MR, Minassian DC, Srinivasan M, Martin MJ, Johnson GJ. Trial of chlorhexidine gluconate for fungal corneal ulcers. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 1997;4:141-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
Prajna NV, Krishnan T, Mascarenhas J, Rajaraman R, Prajna L, Srinivasan M, et al. The mycotic ulcer treatment trial: A randomized trial comparing natamycin vs. voriconazole. JAMA Ophthalmol 2013;131:422-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
Prajna NV, Krishnan T, Rajaraman R, Patel S, Srinivasan M, Das M, et al. Effect of oral voriconazole on fungal keratitis in the mycotic ulcer treatment trial II (MUTT II): A Randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol 2016;134:1365-72.  Back to cited text no. 4
Prajna NV, Krishnan T, Rajaraman R, Patel S, Shah R, Srinivasan M, et al. Adjunctive oral Voriconazole treatment of fusarium keratitis: A Secondary analysis from the Mycotic ulcer treatment trial II. JAMA Ophthalmol 2017;135:520-5.  Back to cited text no. 5


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded98    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal