Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Susceptibility of Ocular Surface Bacteria to Various Antibiotic Agents

Altmetrics

Downloads

134

Views

65

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

04 October 2023

Posted:

05 October 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Periodic assessment of bacterial contamination is necessary as it allows proper guidance in cases of eye infections through the use of appropriate antibiotics. Due to the extensive use of antibiotic treatment, most of the contamination flora is resistant to the usual ophthalmic antibiotics. The present study shows an updated picture of the susceptibility of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria found on the ocular surface to the most commonly used antibiotic agents in patients undergoing cataract surgery. A total of 993 patients were included in the study with ages between 44 and 98 years old. Conjunctival culture was collected 7 days before cataract surgery. The response of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria to various antibiotic classes like glycopeptides, cephalosporins, carbapenems, fluoroquinolones, aminoglycosides, phenicols, tetracyclines, rifamycins, macrolides and penicillins was assessed. From the tested antibiotics, vancomycin had 97.8% efficacy on Gram-positive bacteria. In the cephalosporin category, we observed an increased resistance of the cefuroxime for both Gram-positive and negative bacteria. Antibiotics that have more than 90% efficacy on Gram-positive bacteria are: meropenem, imipenem, netilmicin, amikacin and rifampicin. On Gram-negative bacteria, we found 100% efficacy of all tested fluoroquinolones, aminoglycosides (except for tobramycin), doxycycline, azithromycin, clarithromycin and chloramphenicol. The current study illustrates patterns of increased resistance of certain bacteria present on ocular surface to some of the commonly used antibiotics in ophthalmological clinical practice. One such revealing example is cefuroxime, which has been highly used as an intracameral antibiotic for the prevention of bacterial endophthalmitis after cataract surgery.
Keywords: 
Subject: Medicine and Pharmacology  -   Ophthalmology

1. Introduction

Periodic assessment of bacterial contamination is necessary as it allows proper guidance in the use of antibiotics in cases of eye infections. Due to extensive use of antibiotic treatment, most of the contamination flora is resistant to usual ophthalmic antibiotics. The present study shows an updated picture of the susceptibility to commonly used antibiotic agents of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria found in patients that had ocular surface contamination before undergoing cataract surgery.
Although rare, eye infections are vision-threatening conditions which have a highly negative potential on the quality of life of the patient. Endogenous or exogenous endophthalmitis remains one of the most redundant eye infections. Postoperative endophthalmitis is a major challenge that can result in eye loss despite proper treatment. Even though the most frequent cause of iatrogenic endophthalmitis was cataract surgery, its percentage from the total number of cases has dropped, as the number of intravitreal injection procedures have seen an important increase [1]. From the microbial causes of endophthalmitis, 85.1% are represented by gram positive agents, 10.3% by gram negative bacteria and the rest of the percentage by other types of microorganisms [2]. The most frequent pathogens found on the ocular surface are Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus and Corynebacterium [3,4]. The usual bacteria in the conjunctival flora and on the ocular surface are the most common etiological agents found in iatrogenic eye infections. The method of prescription of antibiotic medication varies depending on the geographical region but most of the medical practice implies prescribing a broad-spectrum antibiotic. Most often used topical antibiotics are tobramycin, ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, moxifloxacin, chloramphenicol, gentamicin, azithromycin, erythromycin [3,5,6]. Tobramycin is more frequently used in children while fluoroquinolones are usually prescribed in adults [7].
By knowing as accurately as possible the bacterial spectrum and antibiotic sensitivity, a therapeutic strategy can be established to prevent bacterial contamination by using pre-, peri- and postoperative antibiotics. In cases of eye infection, broad spectrum antibiotics may be used until bacterial culture and antibiogram are obtained.

2. Materials and Methods

A total of 993 patients were included in the study with ages between 44 and 98 years old. Ocular pathogens were collected between January 2022 and August 2023. Conjunctival swab was collected 7 days before surgery from the eye undergoing surgical intervention for cataract. In case of a positive result, an antibiogram was performed. The bacterial cultures and antibiograms of the patients were performed in approved laboratories. Only those antibiotics that were tested in all laboratories were considered for analysis. As the present study is based on a laboratory research analysis, no informed consent or ethical committee approval was required. Personal data of the patients was kept in strict confidence, as well as any patient-related results. The conjunctival ocular samples that were taken are part of the standard medical practice that patients undergo before cataract surgery. The results were displayed as a percentage for each type of bacterial response to the antibiotic. The number of samples tested for the antibiotic was also considered out of the total number of positive samples. All collected samples were tested for microorganism species and analyzed through the microdilution technique. Bacterial isolated were inoculated onto blood agar and agar chocolate plates and were incubated in a 5% CO2 atmosphere for 24 hours at 35-37 degrees Celsius. Bacteria were identified according to the conventional methods used for each microorganism class in accordance with Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) protocols [8].
The bacteria susceptibility to antibiotics was interpreted as follows: resistant, intermediate, and sensitive by following the response compared to the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC). MIC is established as the minimal concentration of antibiotic agent that blocks the growth of the microorganism. Sensitive result implies that the organism is inhibited by the serum concentration of the drug that is achieved using the usual dosage; intermediate result implies that the organisms are inhibited only by the maximum recommended dosage; and resistant result implies that the organisms are resistant to the usually achievable serum drug levels. When an intermediate sensitivity response of the bacteria to a certain antibiotic is present the therapeutic effect of the medication is unreliable. These interpretative standards have been established by the CLSI procedures. For each bacteria category, the response to several antibiotics was evaluated. The susceptibility of bacteria was tested for various antibiotics from the following classes: glycopeptides (vancomycin), cephalosporins (ceftriaxone, cefuroxime, cefazolin), carbapenems (meropenem, imipenem), fluoroquinolones (moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, ofloxacin, ciprofloxacin), aminoglycosides (tobramycin, netilmicin, amikacin, kanamycin, gentamicin), phenicol’s (chloramphenicol), tetracyclines (tetracycline, doxycycline), rifamycin’s (rifampicin), macrolides (azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin) and penicillin’s ( ampicillin, amoxicillin). Data was stored in an Excel table and statistically analyzed in IBM SPSS Statistics.

3. Results

From all positive tested probes, 86.33% were identified as Gram-positive bacteria, while 13.66% were Gram-negative. For the Gram-positive bacteria, methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus had the highest prevalence (55.9%), followed by coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (21.73%), Methicilin-Resistent Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (3.1%) and Streptococcus (1.86%) (Figure 1). Other identified gram-positive bacteria were Enterococcus (2.48%) and Corynebacterium macginleyi (1.24%). From the Gram-negative bacteria, the highest prevalence was found for Klebsiella (4.34%), Proteus (3.72%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (1.86%). Other less frequent Gram-negative bacteria were Haemophilus spp. (1.24%), Escherichia coli (1.24%), Serratia marcescens (0.62%) and Enterobacter spp. (0.62%). For each bacteria isolates resistance patterns have been summarized in Table 1.
From the tested antibiotics, vancomycin had 97.8% efficacy on Gram-positive bacteria. It has not been tested on Gram-negative bacteria as it is not on their action spectrum. 2.2% of the Gram-positive microorganisms had an intermediate response for vancomycin. In the studied group no resistance for vancomycin was detected. In the cephalosporin category, we observed an increased resistance of the highly used cefuroxime for both Gram-positive and negative bacteria (Table 2). 76.9% of the Gram-positive and 45.5% of the Gram-negative were sensitive to cefuroxime. On the other hand, Gram-negative bacteria were 100% sensitive to ceftriaxone. Very few bacteria were tested for cefazolin, a first-generation cephalosporin antibiotic, nevertheless those manifested very high resistance. Other effective antibiotic agents are from the carbapenem class. Over 90% of the Gram-positive and 100% of the Gram-negative bacteria were sensitive to meropenem and imipenem. Other antibiotics that have more than 90% efficacy on Gram-positive bacteria are: netilmicin and rifampicin (Table 3). Moderate efficacy on Gram-positive microorganisms (80% to 90% of the bacteria were sensitive to antibiotics) was evident for fluoroquinolones (moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, ofloxacin, ciprofloxacin) and chloramphenicol. Decreased therapeutic effect on Gram-positive (less than 80% of the bacteria respond to antimicrobial treatment) was seen for cephalosporins, penicillin’s, aminoglycosides (except for netilmicin), macrolides and tetracyclines.
On Gram-negative bacteria, we found 100% efficacy of all tested fluoroquinolones (moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, ofloxacin, ciprofloxacin), carbapenems (meropenem, imipenem), aminoglycosides (amikacin, kanamycin, gentamicin), chloramphenicol, some of the macrolides (azithromycin, clarithromycin) and doxycycline (Table 4). The exception regarding the efficacy of aminoglycosides on Gram-negative was observed for tobramycin which was sensitive for 90% of the bacteria. Decreased efficacy on Gram-negative was observed for antibiotics like tetracycline (85.7%) and rifampicin (66.7%). Far less efficient on Gram-negative are antimicrobials from the penicillin’s class.

4. Discussion

The susceptibility of bacteria to antibiotics in our study was similar to those reported in the literature but not for all types of antibiotic agents. Gram-positive bacteria responded well to vancomycin in all tested cases, except one were the bacteria had intermediate sensitivity to the antimicrobial. This fact makes it extremely valuable in the treatment of bacterial endophthalmitis administrated through intravitreal injections. Nevertheless, intracameral administration of vancomycin as a prevention strategy for endophthalmitis has been associated with the development of retinal vasculitis [9,10,11]. This prevention treatment is mainly practiced in Australia and less common in European countries [11]. Vancomycin does not have an antimicrobial effect on Gram-negative bacteria and is usually associated with other antibiotic classes like aminoglycosides or ceftazidime in the treatment of bacterial endophthalmitis [12]. Adjunctive systemic antibiotics that achieve intravitreal therapeutic levels can also be administered, best known agents being meropenem, moxifloxacin and linezolid [13]. Very rare gram-positive bacteria like coagulase-negative staphylococcus and enterococcus have been found to express reduced susceptibility to vancomycin in bacterial endophthalmitis [14,15,16]. For such rare cases of vancomycin resistant enterococci, intravitreal administration of linezolid was attempted but concerns regarding the safety and adverse reactions are still raised [17]. Nevertheless, the association of vancomycin 1.0 mg/0.1 ml together with ceftazidime 2.25 mg/0.1 ml remains the most frequently used therapeutic scheme in the management of bacterial endophthalmitis [18]. This combination covers a broad-spectrum of microbial agents. In allergic patients to ceftazidime, vancomycin can be associated instead with amikacin 0.4 mg/0.1 ml [19,20,21]. Some reports suggested an even greater susceptibility of Gram-negative bacteria to amikacin than ceftazidime [22]. In the present study we found no resistance of Gram-negative bacteria to amikacin. Even though earlier endophthalmitis vitrectomy studies showed that intravitreal antibiotic injections should be the first line of treatment for cases of endophthalmitis following cataract surgery, newer studies show promising result and better visual outcomes as well as fewer total number of procedures when primary vitrectomy is performed [19,23,24].
Evaluating the response to cephalosporins, cefuroxime (which is still often used intracameral as prevention therapy against bacterial infections after cataract surgery) displayed a moderate efficiency on Gram-positive bacteria and a weak therapeutic effect upon Gram-negative bacteria. Only 76.9% of the Gram-positive and 45.5% of the Gram-negative bacteria were sensitive to cefuroxime. Prophylactic intracameral cefuroxime has been used for over 20 years in the prevention of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery [25]. When intraoperative anterior chamber irrigation of cefuroxime was compared to balanced salt solution, the rate of postoperative endophthalmitis after cataract surgery decreased by 7-fold [26]. Multiple studies also showed a decreased incidence of endophthalmitis after introducing cefuroxime in their surgery protocol [27,28,29,30,31]. Even though reports of routinely used intracameral cefuroxime for the prevention of postoperative endophthalmitis show good results, this protocol must be regularly reevaluated, and signs of antimicrobial resistance must be thoroughly reported [12,32]. Despite the fact that postoperative endophthalmitis incidence after usage of intracameral cefuroxime was reported to be only 0.033%, newer protocols which tested intracameral moxifloxacin or vancomycin showed even lower incidences (0.015% and 0.01%). This difference could be an indication of increased bacterial resistance to cefuroxime [33]. A bacteriology profile and sensitivity to cefuroxime study conducted on a 20-year period showed an important shift to resistant organism. From the evaluated 20 years’ timeline, in the first period of the study endophthalmitis after cataract surgery was mainly caused by coagulase-negative Staphylococci, Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococci, while in the second period of the study, after introduction of intracameral cefuroxime, the incidence of enterococci and cefuroxime-resistant bacteria increased significantly [30]. Other studies also reported endophthalmitis with cefuroxime-resistant bacteria after phacoemulsification [34,35,36,37]. Some clinical trials have suggested that topical antibiotics used in addition to intracameral cefuroxime lowers the chance of post-operative endophthalmitis when compared to cefuroxime injection alone [38]. Other studies with low or moderate risk of bias reported no difference between the two protocols [33]. Surgeons must take into consideration that intraoperative administration of cefuroxime can reduce the bacterial infection rate but also should not ignore the possibility of Gram-positive resistance development or the Gram-negative weak effect of the antibiotic [39]. Ceftriaxone, another antibiotic evaluated from the cephalosporin class, showed moderate effect on Gram-positive bacteria (only 72.72% of the bacteria sensitive to the antibiotic) but excellent effect on Gram-negative bacteria (100% of the bacteria were sensitive to the antibiotic). In the treatment of endophthalmitis, ceftriaxone (at concentrations more than 50 mg/dose) cannot be administered as an intravitreal medication due to ocular toxicity but can by utilized as a systemic adjuvant therapy [40,41]. Systemic delivery of ceftriaxone will produce intravitreal antibiotic levels which inhibit Streptococci and Enterobacteriaceae but not Staphylococcus aureus [42].
Our study showed that carbapenems are a highly efficient antibiotic class against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial (100% of the Gram-negative probes and over 90% of the Gram-positive probes were sensitive to meropenem and imipenem). For ocular infections, carbapenems are mainly used as an adjuvant systemic therapy in the treatment of endophthalmitis as it achieves efficient vitreous concentrations that are well above the necessary breakpoints of the Gram positive and negative bacteria [43]. On the other hand, despite reports of proper intravitreal concentration of meropenem after systemic delivery, some studies show no additional benefit in visual outcome when compared to conventional systemic antibiotics in the treatment of postoperative endophthalmitis [44]. Experimental models that evaluated topical meropenem in comparison to other antibiotic treatments showed promising result for the treatment of ocular infections with Pseudomonas [45]. Studies also revealed that administration of topical meropenem as bacterial keratitis treatment has good corneal penetration as well as low toxicity. Besides Pseudomonas, the efficacy of meropenem was proved on Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci, streptococcus and Enterobacteriaceae infections [46]. In vitro studies have shown higher susceptibility of both Gram-positive (including Methicilin-Resistent Coagulase -negative Staphylococcus) and Gram-negative bacteria to imipenem when compared to linezolid, tigecycline or fluoroquinolones [47]. Also, attempts to treat post-traumatic Pseudomonas endophthalmitis through intravitreal injections of meropenem have shown, in experimental models promising result when compared to intravitreal ceftazidime [48]. An important aspect to be noted is that meropenem, unlike ceftazidime, necessitates 3 intravitreal doses. Even though, meropenem is a potent antibiotic, very few studies analyze its therapeutic effect, adverse reactions on the retina and other ocular structures and the remanence time in the vitreous. The latter point appears to be one of the major problems that must be further studied, as meropenem has been reported in one study to have a half-life (t(1/2)) in the vitreous of only 2.6 h [49]. To review, topical carbapenems emerge as a potent treatment for severe ocular surface infections, as its efficacy has been demonstrated to be great on both Gram- positive and -negative organisms, but few studies are available that assess any adverse effects, while treatment through intravitreal administration faces the problem of high vitreous washout dynamics.
In the present study, the therapeutic response to fluoroquinolones has been found to be moderate for Gram-positive bacteria (80.6%, 85.2%, 82.1% and 82.8% sensitive to moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, ofloxacin and ciprofloxacin) and excellent for Gram-negative organisms (100% sensitive for all four tested agents). Adequate efficiency on microorganisms of fluoroquinolones makes them appropriate as prevention treatment before surgery and decreases bacterial contamination. Nevertheless, prolonged use of antibiotics like fluoroquinolones induces antimicrobial resistance, which has become increasingly prevalent in situations of ocular infections [50,51,52,53]. Use of fluoroquinolones empirically as a broad-spectrum antibiotic for ocular infections as well as excessive administration in the perioperative period for procedures like intravitreal injections have increased its antimicrobial resistance. This is supported by result that reveal an increased risk of endophthalmitis after fluoroquinolones antibiotic prophylaxis due to selection of resistant conjunctival flora [54,55]. Resistance patterns depend not only on the type of antibiotic but also the regional prescription habits, with great variability between countries [56]. In our study, increased resistance was observed for fluoroquinolones among Gram-positive bacteria, moxifloxacin being the least effective antimicrobial, even though it is a 4th generation fluoroquinolone. This trend was highlighted also by other recent studies [52,57]. Moreover, studies show that one-month prophylactic treatment of levofloxacin after cataract intervention yields fluroquinolone-resistant microorganisms [58]. While reports on ciprofloxacin resistant Gram-positive bacteria have been also observed, other fluoroquinolones like besifloxacin have shown good therapeutic result in ocular infections with Staphylococcus aureus or Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis [59]. Other studies likewise observed no difference in final outcome between moxifloxacin and fortified vancomycin in the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [60]. For Gram-negative bacteria, fluroquinolones are extremely useful in the prevention of endophthalmitis before surgery. Fluoroquinolones were considered, in general, not suitable for intravitreal injections due to their toxicity. Still, few cases have been published showing good results after intravitreal injections of moxifloxacin for the treatment of acute post-operative endophthalmitis or for the prevention of it, following cataract surgery [61,62]. While some scientific papers reveal the tendency of moxifloxacin to exhibit increased antimicrobial resistance, others provide evidence that intracameral moxifloxacin could be a proper alternative for the prevention of endophthalmitis after surgery. As highlighted previously, some of the regularly used intracameral antibiotics (especially cefuroxime) raise concerns of bacterial resistance. Therefore, moxifloxacin is being investigated as a more adequate option. When compared to topical antibiotics given after surgery, intracameral moxifloxacin has shown a reduction of the endophthalmitis incidence rate by up to 4-fold. Nevertheless, when compared to intracameral cefuroxime, statistics indicated no significant benefit [62,63,64,65].
Aminoglycosides have long been used for the treatment of ocular infections both as a topical and as intravitreal medication. In our study, Gram-positive bacteria showed quite high resistance to aminoglycosides, mostly for tobramycin and kanamycin (only 72.9%, respectively 62.5% of the bacteria were sensitive to them). Netilmicin was the most effective antibiotic tested on Gram-positive organisms (94.7%). Regarding the Gram-negative bacteria, tobramycin was the least effective antimicrobial, while 100% were sensitive to amikacin, kanamycin, and gentamicin. Overall, this antibiotic class showed moderate potency on Gram-positive microorganisms and a better efficacy on Gram-negative. Retrospective studies have also confirmed a trend of antimicrobial resistance of aminoglycosides on Gram-positive, especially Staphylococcus aureus and Coagulase-Negative Staphylococcus, which are among the most frequent pathogens involved in ocular infections [66,67]. Not all studies reported a progressive increase of tobramycin bacterial resistance. This aspect is highly dependent on the prescription pattern of the region. In US, the Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring in Ocular Microorganisms (ARMOR) surveillance study reported a small decrease of the Staphylococcus aureus resistance rates to tobramycin at least for the timeline 2009-2016 [68]. While other antibiotic classes penetrate the aqueous humor after topical administration, netilmicin and tobramycin do not reach detectable concentrations. Thus, they are not adequate for intraocular infections when used as topical treatment [69]. For the prophylaxis of endophthalmitis in patients that underwent cataract surgery, topical aminoglycosides were ineffective when compared to gatifloxacin [70]. On the other hand, gentamicin attained good out-turn in reducing the incidence of endophthalmitis when injected into the surgical perfusion solution. Still, some result indicate that gentamicin may ease the development of resistant strains of Enterococcus [71]. For the prophylaxis of endophthalmitis after intravitreal injections with anti-VEGF, aminoglycosides are not indicated, especially when they are associated with corticosteroids, as the risk of infection is actually higher for the later, when compared to no antibiotic prophylaxis [72,73]. Aminoglycosides can be used as intravitreal treatment being both effective and with a much lower toxicity level compared to fluoroquinolones. Nevertheless, caution still must be expressed regarding the retinal toxicity.
We observed a good efficacy of chloramphenicol for both Gram-positive and negative bacteria. We cannot assess with high accuracy the efficiency on Gram-negative bacteria due to the small sample of culture tests. Nevertheless, chloramphenicol remains a viable option as prevention treatment before and after ocular surgery and is still an active antibiotic against ocular infections [74,75]. It has also shown limited bacterial resistance when compared to other broadly used antibiotics like fluoroquinolones [76,77,78]. A 30-year study, that focused on antimicrobial resistance trends showed that overall, chloramphenicol is one of the most effective antibiotics against bacterial ocular infections [79]. Even more severe eye infections induced by Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, showed a general good response to chloramphenicol and an uncommon bacterial resistance [77,80,81,82]. For chloramphenicol-resistant microorganisms, newer derivates like chloramphenicol-borate have emerged as a potential new antibiotic treatment [83]. In recent years the use of chloramphenicol has been reestablished after a period of reduced usage due to reports of aplastic anemia adverse reactions [84,85].
Tetracyclines have been used most commonly in ophthalmological practice as topical or oral antibiotics for the treatment of Chlamydia trachomatis, which is a Gram-negative bacterium that determines one of the leading infectious causes of blindness in the world [86]. No significant difference was detected for the treatment outcome of active trachoma at 3 and 12 months when oral and topical treatments were compared. On the other hand, in the present study, we reported 14.3% resistance of Gram-negative microorganisms to tetracycline and zero to doxycycline. Increased resistance was observed for Gram-positive microorganisms (47.1%, respectively 47.4% of the reported samples were sensible to tetracycline, respectively to doxycycline). This trend of increased bacterial resistance is in accordance with other recent studies [87,88,89,90]. Nevertheless, reports have shown that for certain bacterial species like Coagulase-negative Staphylococci the resistance rates to tetracycline have dropped [91]. Resistance report of Chlamydia trachomatis to tetracycline as scarce, even though they seem to be increasing [86,92]. Beside the antibacterial effect, tetracyclines exhibit anti-inflammatory properties that renders them appropriate as an adjunctive therapy for posterior blepharitis or rosacea associated ocular manifestations [93,94,95,96,97,98].
Macrolides (azithromycin, erythromycin and clarithromycin being the most prescribed) have been used in ophthalmological practice for the treatment of Chlamydia trachomatis and Gonococcus ocular infections. They have been administrated in the form of oral tablets, ophthalmic ointment, topical gel, or eye drops solutions [99,100,101,102]. In the present study we found no resistance of the Gram-negative bacteria for azithromycin and clarithromycin. Even though macrolides have been characterized as having a broad antimicrobial spectrum, we found reduced sensitivity of Gram-positive bacteria to this antibiotic class, clarithromycin being the most effective, while azithromycin being the least efficient. Penicillins are not usually used for ocular infections due to the increased bacterial resistance.
The limitations of the study are the inhomogeneous testing settings (not all laboratories used the same antibiotic set), the relative smaller number of Gram-negative bacteria tested. The lower number of Gram-negative samples is due to the fact that Gram-positive contamination of the ocular surface and lid margin is more frequent.
The novelties and contributions of the present study are un updated picture of the dynamics of antibiotic treatments in bacterial contamination of the ocular surface and an increased awareness of the antimicrobial resistance that cefuroxime developed due to long-term usage as an intracameral prevention treatment for endophthalmitis. Also, we report an increased bacterial resistance to moxifloxacin, another frequently used broad-spectrum antibiotic. Knowledge of the regional rates of bacterial resistance to antibiotic is extremely important for proper management of ophthalmologic infections. Also, the current study illustrates the real life setting and offers guidance for the prevention and treatment of ocular infections.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M.G and A.C.G; methodology, A.M.G; validation, A.M.G., D.A.I and A.C.G.; formal analysis, A.M.G. and D.A.I.; investigation, A.M.G and L.A.I.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M.G., D.A.I, A.C.G and L.A.I; writing—review and editing, A.M.G and D.A.I; supervision, A.M.G.; project administration, A.M.G; funding acquisition, A.M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Publication of this paper was supported by the University of Medicine and Pharmacy Carol Davila, through the institutional program "Publish not Perish".

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable (laboratory study investigation).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Publication of this paper was supported by the University of Medicine and Pharmacy Carol Davila, through the institutional program "Publish not Perish"

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bisorca-Gassendorf, L.; Boden, K.T.; Szurman, P.; Al-Nawaiseh, S.; Rickmann, A.; Januschowski, K. Postoperative Endophthalmitis Im Spiegel Der Literatur. Der Ophthalmologe 2021, 118, 210–218. [CrossRef]
  2. Gentile, R.C.; Shukla, S.; Shah, M.; Ritterband, D.C.; Engelbert, M.; Davis, A.; Hu, D.-N. Microbiological Spectrum and Antibiotic Sensitivity in Endophthalmitis: A 25-Year Review. Ophthalmology 2014, 121, 1634–1642. [CrossRef]
  3. Bremond-Gignac, D.; Chiambaretta, F.; Milazzo, S. A European Perspective on Topical Ophthalmic Antibiotics: Current and Evolving Options. Ophthalmol Eye Dis 2011, 3, 29–43. [CrossRef]
  4. Simina, D.S.; Larisa, I.; Otilia, C.; Ana Cristina, G.; Liliana, M.V.; Aurelian, M.G. The Ocular Surface Bacterial Contamination and Its Management in the Prophylaxis of Post Cataract Surgery Endophthalmitis. Rom J Ophthalmol 2021, 65, 2–9. [CrossRef]
  5. Gutiérrez-Abejón, E.; Herrera-Gómez, F.; Ayestarán-Martínez, I.J.; Álvarez, F.J. Trend in the Use of Topical Ocular Anti-Infectives in a Region of Spain between 2015 and 2019: A Population-Based Registry Study. Rev Esp Quimioter 2020, 33, 453–458. [CrossRef]
  6. Yu, Z.; Zhu, J.; Jin, J.; Yu, L.; Han, G. Trends in Outpatient Prescribing Patterns for Ocular Topical Anti-Infectives in Six Major Areas of China, 2013-2019. Antibiotics (Basel) 2021, 10. [CrossRef]
  7. O’Gallagher, M.; Bunce, C.; Hingorani, M.; Larkin, F.; Tuft, S.; Dahlmann-Noor, A. Topical Treatments for Blepharokeratoconjunctivitis in Children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017, 2, CD011965. [CrossRef]
  8. Wayne, P. Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria That Grow Aerobically; Approved Standard-Tenth Edition; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Ed.; 10th ed.; 2015;
  9. Peck, T.J.; Patel, S.N.; Ho, A.C. Endophthalmitis after Cataract Surgery: An Update on Recent Advances. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2021, 32, 62–68. [CrossRef]
  10. Bowen, R.C.; Zhou, A.X.; Bondalapati, S.; Lawyer, T.W.; Snow, K.B.; Evans, P.R.; Bardsley, T.; McFarland, M.; Kliethermes, M.; Shi, D.; et al. Comparative Analysis of the Safety and Efficacy of Intracameral Cefuroxime, Moxifloxacin and Vancomycin at the End of Cataract Surgery: A Meta-Analysis. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2018, 102, 1268–1276. [CrossRef]
  11. Grzybowski, A.; Brona, P.; Zeman, L.; Stewart, M.W. Commonly Used Intracameral Antibiotics for Endophthalmitis Prophylaxis: A Literature Review. Surv Ophthalmol 2021, 66, 98–108. [CrossRef]
  12. George, N.K.; Stewart, M.W. The Routine Use of Intracameral Antibiotics to Prevent Endophthalmitis After Cataract Surgery: How Good Is the Evidence? Ophthalmol Ther 2018, 7, 233–245. [CrossRef]
  13. Brockhaus, L.; Goldblum, D.; Eggenschwiler, L.; Zimmerli, S.; Marzolini, C. Revisiting Systemic Treatment of Bacterial Endophthalmitis: A Review of Intravitreal Penetration of Systemic Antibiotics. Clin Microbiol Infect 2019, 25, 1364–1369. [CrossRef]
  14. Chen, K.-J.; Sun, M.-H.; Hou, C.-H.; Chen, H.-C.; Chen, Y.-P.; Wang, N.-K.; Liu, L.; Wu, W.-C.; Chou, H.-D.; Kang, E.Y.-C.; et al. Susceptibility of Bacterial Endophthalmitis Isolates to Vancomycin, Ceftazidime, and Amikacin. Sci Rep 2021, 11, 15878. [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, K.-J.; Sun, M.-H.; Hou, C.-H.; Chen, H.-C.; Chen, Y.-P.; Wang, N.-K.; Liu, L.; Wu, W.-C.; Chou, H.-D.; Kang, E.Y.-C.; et al. Susceptibility of Bacterial Endophthalmitis Isolates to Vancomycin, Ceftazidime, and Amikacin. Sci Rep 2021, 11, 15878. [CrossRef]
  16. Relhan, N.; Albini, T.A.; Pathengay, A.; Kuriyan, A.E.; Miller, D.; Flynn, H.W. Endophthalmitis Caused by Gram-Positive Organisms with Reduced Vancomycin Susceptibility: Literature Review and Options for Treatment. Br J Ophthalmol 2016, 100, 446–452. [CrossRef]
  17. Babalola, O.E. Intravitreal Linezolid in the Management of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcal Endophthalmitis. Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep 2020, 20, 100974. [CrossRef]
  18. Reddy, A.K.; Reddy, R.R.; Paruvelli, M.R.; Ambatipudi, S.; Rani, A.; Lodhi, S.A.K.; Reddy, J.M.L.; Reddy, K.R.; Pandey, N.; Videkar, R.; et al. Susceptibility of Bacterial Isolates to Vancomycin and Ceftazidime from Patients with Endophthalmitis: Is There a Need to Change the Empirical Therapy in Suspected Bacterial Endophthalmitis? Int Ophthalmol 2015, 35, 37–42. [CrossRef]
  19. Shao, E.H.; Yates, W.B.; Ho, I.-V.; Chang, A.A.; Simunovic, M.P. Endophthalmitis: Changes in Presentation, Management and the Role of Early Vitrectomy. Ophthalmol Ther 2021, 10, 877–890. [CrossRef]
  20. Fliney, G.D.; Pecen, P.E.; Cathcart, J.N.; Palestine, A.G. Trends in Treatment Strategies for Suspected Bacterial Endophthalmitis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2018, 256, 833–838. [CrossRef]
  21. Patel, S.N.; Storey, P.P.; Levin, H.; Pancholy, M.; Obeid, A.; Wibbelsman, T.D.; Kuley, B.; Ho, A.C.; Hsu, J.; Garg, S.J.; et al. Endophthalmitis after Cataract Surgery: Changes in Management Based on Microbiologic Cultures. Ophthalmol Retina 2021, 5, 16–22. [CrossRef]
  22. Liu, C.; Ji, J.; Li, S.; Wang, Z.; Tang, L.; Cao, W.; Sun, X. Microbiological Isolates and Antibiotic Susceptibilities: A 10-Year Review of Culture-Proven Endophthalmitis Cases. Curr Eye Res 2017, 42, 443–447. [CrossRef]
  23. Tabatabaei, S.A.; Aminzade, S.; Ahmadraji, A.; Soleimani, M.; Sefidan, B.B.; Kasaee, A.; Cheraqpour, K. Early and Complete Vitrectomy versus Tap and Inject in Acute Post Cataract Surgery Endophthalmitis Presenting with Hand Motion Vision; a Quasi-Experimental Study. BMC Ophthalmol 2022, 22, 16. [CrossRef]
  24. Muqit, M.M.; Mehat, M.; Bunce, C.; Bainbridge, J.W. Early Vitrectomy for Exogenous Endophthalmitis Following Surgery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2022, 2022. [CrossRef]
  25. Montan, P.G.; Wejde, G.; Koranyi, G.; Rylander, M. Prophylactic Intracameral Cefuroxime. Efficacy in Preventing Endophthalmitis after Cataract Surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002, 28, 977–981. [CrossRef]
  26. Ma, X.; Xie, L.; Huang, Y. <p>Intraoperative Cefuroxime Irrigation Prophylaxis for Acute-Onset Endophthalmitis After Phacoemulsification Surgery</P>. Infect Drug Resist 2020, Volume 13, 1455–1463. [CrossRef]
  27. Rahman, N.; Murphy, C.C. Impact of Intracameral Cefuroxime on the Incidence of Postoperative Endophthalmitis Following Cataract Surgery in Ireland. Ir J Med Sci 2015, 184, 395–398. [CrossRef]
  28. Röck, T.; Bramkamp, M.; Bartz-Schmidt, K.-U.; Mutlu, U.; Yörük, E.; Röck, D.; Thaler, S. Reduktion Der Postoperativen Endophthalmitisrate Durch Intrakamerale Cerfuroximgabe: Ergebnisse Aus 5 Jahren Erfahrungen an Der Universitäts-Augenklinik Tübingen. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2014, 231, 1023–1028. [CrossRef]
  29. Conci, L. da S.; Favarato, A.P.; Pinheiro, A.G. Cost Effectiveness of Intracameral Cefuroxime Prophylaxis and Its Efficacy in Preventing Endophthalmitis after Cataract Surgery in a Referral Hospital. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2022, 86. [CrossRef]
  30. Friling, E.; Montan, P. Bacteriology and Cefuroxime Resistance in Endophthalmitis Following Cataract Surgery before and after the Introduction of Prophylactic Intracameral Cefuroxime: A Retrospective Single-Centre Study. Journal of Hospital Infection 2019, 101, 88–92. [CrossRef]
  31. Ng, A.L.-K.; Tang, W.W.-T.; Li, P.S.-H.; Li, K.K.-W. Intracameral Cefuroxime in the Prevention of Postoperative Endophthalmitis: An Experience from Hong Kong. Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2016, 254, 1987–1992. [CrossRef]
  32. Ng, A.L.-K.; Tang, W.W.-T.; Li, P.S.-H.; Li, K.K.-W. Intracameral Cefuroxime in the Prevention of Postoperative Endophthalmitis: An Experience from Hong Kong. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2016, 254, 1987–1992. [CrossRef]
  33. Bowen, R.C.; Zhou, A.X.; Bondalapati, S.; Lawyer, T.W.; Snow, K.B.; Evans, P.R.; Bardsley, T.; McFarland, M.; Kliethermes, M.; Shi, D.; et al. Comparative Analysis of the Safety and Efficacy of Intracameral Cefuroxime, Moxifloxacin and Vancomycin at the End of Cataract Surgery: A Meta-Analysis. Br J Ophthalmol 2018, 102, 1268–1276. [CrossRef]
  34. Arshinoff, S.A.; Felfeli, T.; Modabber, M. Aqueous Level Abatement Profiles of Intracameral Antibiotics: A Comparative Mathematical Model of Moxifloxacin, Cefuroxime, and Vancomycin with Determination of Relative Efficacies. J Cataract Refract Surg 2019, 45, 1568–1574. [CrossRef]
  35. Suzuki, T.; Yamamoto, T.; Torikai, T.; Ohashi, Y. Combination Effect of Cefuroxime and Levofloxacin Against Bacteria Isolated from the Healthy Conjunctival Sac and Endophthalmitis Cases Using a Fractional Inhibitory Concentration Index. Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2017, 33, 19–23. [CrossRef]
  36. Shorstein, N.H.; Liu, L.; Carolan, J.A.; Herrinton, L. Endophthalmitis Prophylaxis Failures in Patients Injected With Intracameral Antibiotic During Cataract Surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 2021, 227, 166–172. [CrossRef]
  37. Mesnard, C.; Beral, L.; Hage, R.; Merle, H.; Farès, S.; David, T. Endophthalmitis after Cataract Surgery despite Intracameral Antibiotic Prophylaxis with Licensed Cefuroxime. J Cataract Refract Surg 2016, 42, 1318–1323. [CrossRef]
  38. Gower, E.W.; Lindsley, K.; Tulenko, S.E.; Nanji, A.A.; Leyngold, I.; McDonnell, P.J. Perioperative Antibiotics for Prevention of Acute Endophthalmitis after Cataract Surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017, 2, CD006364. [CrossRef]
  39. Sun, J.; Guo, Z.; Li, H.; Yang, B.; Wu, X. Acute Infectious Endophthalmitis After Cataract Surgery: Epidemiological Characteristics, Risk Factors and Incidence Trends, 2008-2019. Infect Drug Resist 2021, 14, 1231–1238. [CrossRef]
  40. Shockley, R.K.; Jay, W.M.; Friberg, T.R.; Aziz, A.M.; Rissing, J.P.; Aziz, M.Z. Intravitreal Ceftriaxone in a Rabbit Model. Dose- and Time-Dependent Toxic Effects and Pharmacokinetic Analysis. Arch Ophthalmol 1984, 102, 1236–1238. [CrossRef]
  41. Tiecco, G.; Laurenda, D.; Mulè, A.; Arsuffi, S.; Storti, S.; Migliorati, M.; Boldini, A.; Signorini, L.; Castelli, F.; Quiros-Roldan, E. Gram-Negative Endogenous Endophthalmitis: A Systematic Review. Microorganisms 2022, 11, 80. [CrossRef]
  42. Brockhaus, L.; Goldblum, D.; Eggenschwiler, L.; Zimmerli, S.; Marzolini, C. Revisiting Systemic Treatment of Bacterial Endophthalmitis: A Review of Intravitreal Penetration of Systemic Antibiotics. Clinical Microbiology and Infection 2019, 25, 1364–1369. [CrossRef]
  43. SCHAUERSBERGER, J.; AMON, M.; WEDRICH, A.; NEPP, J.; EL MENYAWI, I.; DERBOLAV, A.; GRANINGER, W. Penetration and Decay of Meropenem into the Human Aqueous Humor and Vitreous. Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1999, 15, 439–445. [CrossRef]
  44. Tappeiner, C.; Schuerch, K.; Goldblum, D.; Zimmerli, S.; Fleischhauer, J.; Frueh, B. Combined Meropenem and Linezolid as a Systemic Treatment for Postoperative Endophthalmitis. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2010, 227, 257–261. [CrossRef]
  45. Bozkurt, E.; Muhafiz, E.; Kepenek, H.S.; Bozlak, Ç.E.B.; Koç Saltan, S.; Bingol, S.A. A New Treatment Experience in Pseudomonas Keratitis: Topical Meropenem and Cefepime. Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice 2021, 47, 174–179. [CrossRef]
  46. Sueke, H.; Kaye, S.; Wilkinson, M.C.; Kennedy, S.; Kearns, V.; Zheng, Y.; Roberts, P.; Tuft, S.; Neal, T. Pharmacokinetics of Meropenem for Use in Bacterial Keratitis. Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science 2015, 56, 5731. [CrossRef]
  47. Galvis, V.; Tello, A.; Sánchez, W.; Camacho, P.; Villarreal, D.; García, D. Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations and Resistance for Selected Antimicrobial Agents (Including Imipenem, Linezolid and Tigecycline) of Bacteria Obtained from Eye Infections. Rom J Ophthalmol 2020, 64, 269–279.
  48. Gulten, M.Ay.S.C.Akhan.S.Erturk.E.S.Aktas.S.K.Ozkara.Y.Caglar. Comparison of Intravitreal Ceftazidime and Meropenem in Treatment of Experimental Pseudomonal Posttraumatic Endophthalmitis in a Rabbit Model. J Appl Res 2004, 4, 336–345.
  49. Radhika, M.; Mithal, K.; Bawdekar, A.; Dave, V.; Jindal, A.; Relhan, N.; Albini, T.; Pathengay, A.; Flynn, H.W. Pharmacokinetics of Intravitreal Antibiotics in Endophthalmitis. J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect 2014, 4, 22. [CrossRef]
  50. Sharma, S. Antibiotic Resistance in Ocular Bacterial Pathogens. Indian J Med Microbiol 2011, 29, 218–222. [CrossRef]
  51. McDonald, M.; Blondeau, J.M. Emerging Antibiotic Resistance in Ocular Infections and the Role of Fluoroquinolones. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010, 36, 1588–1598. [CrossRef]
  52. Grandi, G.; Bianco, G.; Boattini, M.; Scalabrin, S.; Iannaccone, M.; Fea, A.; Cavallo, R.; Costa, C. Bacterial Etiology and Antimicrobial Resistance Trends in Ocular Infections: A 30-Year Study, Turin Area, Italy. Eur J Ophthalmol 2021, 31, 405–414. [CrossRef]
  53. Miller, D. Update on the Epidemiology and Antibiotic Resistance of Ocular Infections. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2017, 24, 30–42. [CrossRef]
  54. Milder, E.; Vander, J.; Shah, C.; Garg, S. Changes in Antibiotic Resistance Patterns of Conjunctival Flora Due to Repeated Use of Topical Antibiotics after Intravitreal Injection. Ophthalmology 2012, 119, 1420–1424. [CrossRef]
  55. Baudin, F.; Benzenine, E.; Mariet, A.-S.; Ghezala, I. Ben; Bron, A.M.; Daien, V.; Gabrielle, P.-H.; Quantin, C.; Creuzot-Garcher, C. Topical Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Intravitreal Injections: Impact on the Incidence of Acute Endophthalmitis—A Nationwide Study in France from 2009 to 2018. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 2133. [CrossRef]
  56. Sanfilippo, C.M.; Morrissey, I.; Janes, R.; Morris, T.W. Surveillance of the Activity of Aminoglycosides and Fluoroquinolones Against Ophthalmic Pathogens from Europe in 2010–2011. Curr Eye Res 2015, 1–9. [CrossRef]
  57. Chatterjee, S.; Agrawal, D.; Gomase, S.; Parchand, S.; Gangwe, A.; Mishra, M. Fluoroquinolone Resistance in Bacterial Isolates from Ocular Infections: Trend in Antibiotic Susceptibility Patterns between 2005-2020. Indian J Ophthalmol 2022, 70, 4391. [CrossRef]
  58. Iwasaki, T.; Nejima, R.; Miyata, K. Ocular Surface Flora and Prophylactic Antibiotics for Cataract Surgery in the Age of Antimicrobial Resistance. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2022. [CrossRef]
  59. Schechter, B.A.; Sheppard, J.D.; Sanfilippo, C.M.; DeCory, H.H.; Asbell, P.A. An Evaluation of Staphylococci from Ocular Surface Infections Treated Empirically with Topical Besifloxacin: Antibiotic Resistance, Molecular Characteristics, and Clinical Outcomes. Ophthalmol Ther 2020, 9, 159–173. [CrossRef]
  60. Durrani, A.F.; Atta, S.; Bhat, A.K.; Mammen, A.; Dhaliwal, D.; Kowalski, R.P.; Jhanji, V. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Keratitis: Initial Treatment, Risk Factors, Clinical Features, and Treatment Outcomes. Am J Ophthalmol 2020, 214, 119–126. [CrossRef]
  61. Ahmad, A.; Rehman, M. EFFICACY OF INJECTING INTRA-VITREAL MOXIFLOXACIN IN ACUTE POST-OPERATIVE ENDOPHTHALMITIS. Journal of Ayub Medical College Abbottabad 2023, 35. [CrossRef]
  62. Kuriakose, R.K.; Cho, S.; Nassiri, S.; Hwang, F.S. Comparative Outcomes of Standard Perioperative Eye Drops, Intravitreal Triamcinolone Acetonide-Moxifloxacin, and Intracameral Dexamethasone-Moxifloxacin-Ketorolac in Cataract Surgery. J Ophthalmol 2022, 2022, 1–8. [CrossRef]
  63. Lucena, N. de P.; Pereira, I.M. de S.; Gaete, M.I.L.; Ferreira, K.S.A.; Mélega, M.V.; Lira, R.P.C. Intracameral Moxifloxacin after Cataract Surgery: A Prospective Study. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2018, 81. [CrossRef]
  64. Leung, E.H.; Gibbons, A.; Stout, T.J.; Koch, D.D. Intracameral Moxifloxacin for Endophthalmitis Prophylaxis after Cataract Surgery: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg 2018, 44, 971–978. [CrossRef]
  65. Mitchell, W.; Tom, L.; Durai, I.; Rajagopal, S.; Vimalanathan, M.; Rengaraj, V.; Srinivasan, K.; Zebardast, N. The Effectiveness of Intracameral Moxifloxacin Endophthalmitis Prophylaxis for Trabeculectomy. Ophthalmol Glaucoma 2021, 4, 11–19. [CrossRef]
  66. Bispo, P.J.M.; Sahm, D.F.; Asbell, P.A. A Systematic Review of Multi-Decade Antibiotic Resistance Data for Ocular Bacterial Pathogens in the United States. Ophthalmol Ther 2022, 11, 503–520. [CrossRef]
  67. Petrillo, F.; Pignataro, D.; Di Lella, F.M.; Reibaldi, M.; Fallico, M.; Castellino, N.; Parisi, G.; Trotta, M.C.; D’Amico, M.; Santella, B.; et al. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Patterns and Resistance Trends of Staphylococcus Aureus and Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci Strains Isolated from Ocular Infections. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 527. [CrossRef]
  68. Asbell, P.A.; DeCory, H.H. Antibiotic Resistance among Bacterial Conjunctival Pathogens Collected in the Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring in Ocular Microorganisms (ARMOR) Surveillance Study. PLoS One 2018, 13, e0205814. [CrossRef]
  69. Cagini, C.; Piccinelli, F.; Lupidi, M.; Messina, M.; Cerquaglia, A.; Manes, S.; Fiore, T.; Pellegrino, R.M. Ocular Penetration of Topical Antibiotics: Study on the Penetration of Chloramphenicol, Tobramycin and Netilmicin into the Anterior Chamber after Topical Administration. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2013, 41, 644–647. [CrossRef]
  70. Herrinton, L.J.; Shorstein, N.H.; Paschal, J.F.; Liu, L.; Contreras, R.; Winthrop, K.L.; Chang, W.J.; Melles, R.B.; Fong, D.S. Comparative Effectiveness of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Cataract Surgery. Ophthalmology 2016, 123, 287–294. [CrossRef]
  71. Ma, W.; Hou, G.; Wang, J.; Liu, T.; Tian, F. Evaluation of the Effect of Gentamicin in Surgical Perfusion Solution on Cataract Postoperative Endophthalmitis. BMC Ophthalmol 2022, 22, 410. [CrossRef]
  72. Torres-Costa, S.; Ramos, D.; Brandão, E.; Carneiro, Â.; Rosas, V.; Rocha-Sousa, A.; Falcão-Reis, F.; Falcão, M. Incidence of Endophthalmitis after Intravitreal Injection with and without Topical Antibiotic Prophylaxis. Eur J Ophthalmol 2021, 31, 600–606. [CrossRef]
  73. Baudin, F.; Benzenine, E.; Mariet, A.-S.; Ghezala, I. Ben; Bron, A.M.; Daien, V.; Gabrielle, P.-H.; Quantin, C.; Creuzot-Garcher, C. Topical Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Intravitreal Injections: Impact on the Incidence of Acute Endophthalmitis-A Nationwide Study in France from 2009 to 2018. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14. [CrossRef]
  74. Kareem Rhumaid, A.; Alak Mahdi Al-Buhilal, J.; Al-Rubaey, N.K.F.; Yassen Al-Zamily, K. Prevalence and Antibiotic Susceptibility of Pathogenic Bacteria Associated with Ocular Infections in Adult Patients. Arch Razi Inst 2022, 77, 1917–1924. [CrossRef]
  75. Oong, G.C.; Tadi, P. Chloramphenicol; 2023;
  76. Bale, B.I.; Elebesunu, E.E.; Manikavasagar, P.; Agwuna, F.O.; Ogunkola, I.O.; Sow, A.U.; Lucero-Prisno, D.E. Antibiotic Resistance in Ocular Bacterial Infections: An Integrative Review of Ophthalmic Chloramphenicol. Trop Med Health 2023, 51, 15. [CrossRef]
  77. Nithya, V.; Rathinam, S.; Siva Ganesa Karthikeyan, R.; Lalitha, P. A Ten Year Study of Prevalence, Antimicrobial Susceptibility Pattern, and Genotypic Characterization of Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Causing Ocular Infections in a Tertiary Eye Care Hospital in South India. Infect Genet Evol 2019, 69, 203–210. [CrossRef]
  78. Lorenzo, D. Chloramphenicol Resurrected: A Journey from Antibiotic Resistance in Eye Infections to Biofilm and Ocular Microbiota. Microorganisms 2019, 7. [CrossRef]
  79. Grandi, G.; Bianco, G.; Boattini, M.; Scalabrin, S.; Iannaccone, M.; Fea, A.; Cavallo, R.; Costa, C. Bacterial Etiology and Antimicrobial Resistance Trends in Ocular Infections: A 30-Year Study, Turin Area, Italy. Eur J Ophthalmol 2021, 31, 405–414. [CrossRef]
  80. Wong, E.S.; Chow, C.W.Y.; Luk, W.K.; Fung, K.S.C.; Li, K.K.W. A 10-Year Review of Ocular Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Infections: Epidemiology, Clinical Features, and Treatment. Cornea 2017, 36, 92–97. [CrossRef]
  81. Harford, D.A.; Greenan, E.; Knowles, S.J.; Fitzgerald, S.; Murphy, C.C. The Burden of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus in the Delivery of Eye Care. Eye (Lond) 2022, 36, 1368–1372. [CrossRef]
  82. Croghan, C.; Lockington, D. Management of MRSA-Positive Eye Swabs and the Potential Advantages of Chloramphenicol Availability in the United Kingdom. Eye (Lond) 2018, 32, 157–159. [CrossRef]
  83. Bhattacharya, P.; Singha, M.; Senapati, K.; Saha, S.; Mandal, S.; Mandal, S.M.; Ghosh, A.K.; Basak, A. Chloramphenicol-Borate/Boronate Complex for Controlling Infections by Chloramphenicol-Resistant Bacteria. RSC Adv 2018, 8, 18016–18022. [CrossRef]
  84. Andaluz-Scher, L.; Medow, N.B. Chloramphenicol Eye Drops: An Old Dog in a New House. Ophthalmology 2020, 127, 1289–1291.
  85. Cave, J.A. Chloramphenicol Eye Drops, Boron, Infants and Fertility. Drug Ther Bull 2021, 59, 98.
  86. Evans, J.R.; Solomon, A.W.; Kumar, R.; Perez, Á.; Singh, B.P.; Srivastava, R.M.; Harding-Esch, E. Antibiotics for Trachoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019, 9, CD001860. [CrossRef]
  87. Ta, C.N.; Chang, R.T.; Singh, K.; Egbert, P.R.; Shriver, E.M.; Blumenkranz, M.S.; Miño de Kaspar, H. Antibiotic Resistance Patterns of Ocular Bacterial Flora: A Prospective Study of Patients Undergoing Anterior Segment Surgery. Ophthalmology 2003, 110, 1946–1951. [CrossRef]
  88. Belyhun, Y.; Moges, F.; Endris, M.; Asmare, B.; Amare, B.; Bekele, D.; Tesfaye, S.; Alemayehu, M.; Biadgelegne, F.; Mulu, A.; et al. Ocular Bacterial Infections and Antibiotic Resistance Patterns in Patients Attending Gondar Teaching Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes 2018, 11, 597. [CrossRef]
  89. Khan, M.; Willcox, M.D.P.; Rice, S.A.; Sharma, S.; Stapleton, F. Development of Antibiotic Resistance in the Ocular Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Clone ST308 over Twenty Years. Exp Eye Res 2021, 205, 108504. [CrossRef]
  90. Toribio, A.; Marrodán, T.; Fernández-Natal, I.; Martínez-Blanco, H.; Rodríguez-Aparicio, L.; Ferrero, M.Á. Conjunctival Flora in Anophthalmic Patients: Microbiological Spectrum and Antibiotic Sensitivity. Int J Ophthalmol 2019, 12, 765–773. [CrossRef]
  91. Petrillo, F.; Pignataro, D.; Di Lella, F.M.; Reibaldi, M.; Fallico, M.; Castellino, N.; Parisi, G.; Trotta, M.C.; D’Amico, M.; Santella, B.; et al. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Patterns and Resistance Trends of Staphylococcus Aureus and Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci Strains Isolated from Ocular Infections. Antibiotics (Basel) 2021, 10. [CrossRef]
  92. Gaynor, B.D.; Chidambaram, J.D.; Cevallos, V.; Miao, Y.; Miller, K.; Jha, H.C.; Bhatta, R.C.; Chaudhary, J.S.P.; Osaki Holm, S.; Whitcher, J.P.; et al. Topical Ocular Antibiotics Induce Bacterial Resistance at Extraocular Sites. Br J Ophthalmol 2005, 89, 1097–1099. [CrossRef]
  93. Jabbehdari, S.; Memar, O.M.; Caughlin, B.; Djalilian, A.R. Update on the Pathogenesis and Management of Ocular Rosacea: An Interdisciplinary Review. Eur J Ophthalmol 2021, 31, 22–33. [CrossRef]
  94. Stone, D.U.; Chodosh, J. Ocular Rosacea: An Update on Pathogenesis and Therapy. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2004, 15, 499–502.
  95. Stone, D.U.; Chodosh, J. Oral Tetracyclines for Ocular Rosacea: An Evidence-Based Review of the Literature. Cornea 2004, 23, 106–109. [CrossRef]
  96. Sharma, A.; Kroumpouzos, G.; Kassir, M.; Galadari, H.; Goren, A.; Grabbe, S.; Goldust, M. Rosacea Management: A Comprehensive Review. J Cosmet Dermatol 2022, 21, 1895–1904. [CrossRef]
  97. Schaller, M.; Kemény, L.; Havlickova, B.; Jackson, J.M.; Ambroziak, M.; Lynde, C.; Gooderham, M.; Remenyik, E.; Del Rosso, J.; Weglowska, J.; et al. A Randomized Phase 3b/4 Study to Evaluate Concomitant Use of Topical Ivermectin 1% Cream and Doxycycline 40-Mg Modified-Release Capsules, versus Topical Ivermectin 1% Cream and Placebo in the Treatment of Severe Rosacea. J Am Acad Dermatol 2020, 82, 336–343. [CrossRef]
  98. Halim, M.S.; Onghanseng, N.; Hassan, M.; Besalti, Z.; Ng, S.M.; Nguyen, Q.D. Oral Antibiotics for Chronic Blepharitis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2020. [CrossRef]
  99. Garnock-Jones, K.P. Azithromycin 1.5% Ophthalmic Solution: In Purulent Bacterial or Trachomatous Conjunctivitis. Drugs 2012, 72, 361–373. [CrossRef]
  100. Opitz, D.L.; Harthan, J.S. Review of Azithromycin Ophthalmic 1% Solution (AzaSite(®)) for the Treatment of Ocular Infections. Ophthalmol Eye Dis 2012, 4, 1–14. [CrossRef]
  101. Kagkelaris, K.A.; Makri, O.E.; Georgakopoulos, C.D.; Panayiotakopoulos, G.D. An Eye for Azithromycin: Review of the Literature. Ther Adv Ophthalmol 2018, 10, 2515841418783622. [CrossRef]
  102. Patel, P.H.; Hashmi, M.F. Macrolides; StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL), 2023.
Preprints 86939 g001
Figure 1. Distribution of bacterial isolates from the ocular surface of the tested subjects.
Figure 1. Distribution of bacterial isolates from the ocular surface of the tested subjects.
Preprints 86939 g001
Table 1. Resistance patterns to antibiotics of different bacterial isolates.
Table 1. Resistance patterns to antibiotics of different bacterial isolates.
Bacterial Isolates Species No. Antibiotic Sensitivity Commonly Tested Antimicrobial, No. (%)
AMP AMX CLR CXM CIP ERY GEN LVX OFX TET TOB VAN
Staphylococcus aureus
 
 90

 S 3 (15.7) 6(46.15) 12(52.17) 19(82.6) 54(84.37) 34(47.22) 55(82.08) 29(82.85) 15(75) 24(52.17) 25(75.75) 26(100)
I 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 5(7.81) 4(5.55) 2(2.98) 4(11.42) 1(5) 2(4.34) 4(12.12) 0(0)
R 16(84.2) 7(53.84) 11(47.8) 4(17.39) 5(7.81) 34(47.220 10(14.92) 2(5.71) 4(20) 20(43.47) 4(12.12) 0(0)
Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci
 
 35

 S 1(12.5) 3(60) 5(45.45) 10(76.92) 19(79.16) 7(30.43) 21(70) 12(85.71) 5(100) 7(41.17) 9(69.23) 11(91.67)
I 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 1(7.69) 2(8.33) 2(8.69) 1(3.33) 0(0) 0(0) 1(5.88) 3(23.07) 1(8.33)
R 7(87.5) 2(40) 6(54.54) 2)15.38) 3(12.5) 14(60.86) 8(26.67) 2(14.2) 0(0) 9(52.94) 1(7.69) 0(0)
Klebsiella Spp
 
 7

 S 0(0) 1(100) - 2(33.33) 3(100) - 6(100) 4(100) 4(100) 1(100) 2(100) -
I 0(0) 0(0) - 0(0) 0(0) - 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) -
R 5(100) 0(0) - 4(66.67) 0(0) - 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) -
Methicilin-ResistentStaphylococcus Aureus
 
 5

 S - 0(0) 1(100) 1 4(80) 1(33.33) 2(66.67) 1(100) 3(100) 0(0) 1(33.33) 1(100)
I - 0(0) 0(0) 0 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 1(33.33) 0(0)
R - 1(100) 0(0) 2 1(20) 2(66.67) 1(33.33) 0(0) 0(0) 3(100) 1(33.33) 0(0)
Enterococcus Spp
 
 4

 S 1(33.33) - - 0 3(100) - 1(100) 3(100) - 1(50) - 3(75)
I 0(0) - - 0 0(0) - 0(0) 0(0) - 0(0) - 0(0)
R 2(66.7) - - 0 0(0) - 0(0) 0(0) - 1(50) - 1(25)
Proteus Spp
 
 6

 S 1(33.33) 0(0) - 1 5(100) - 5(100) 5(100) 1(100) 0(0) 2(100) -
I 0(0) 0(0) - 0 0(0) - 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 1(100) 0(0) -
R 2(66.67) 1(100) - 1 0(0) - 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) -
Corynebacterium macginleyi
 
 2

 S - - - - 2(100) - - - - 2(100) - 1(100)
I - - - - 0(0) - - - - 0(0) - 0(0)
R - - - - 0(0) - - - - 0(0) - 0(0)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
 
 3

 S 0(0) - - - 3(100) - 2(100) 1(100) 1(100) - 2(100) -
I 0(0) - - - 0(0) - 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) - 0(0) -
R 1(100) - - - 0(0) - 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) - 0(0) -
Streptococcus pyogenes (Beta-hemolytic)
 
 3

 S - - - - 1(100) 2(100) 1(100) 1(100) - 1(50) - 2(100)
I - - - - 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) - 0(0) - 0(0)
R - - - - 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) - 1(50) - 0(0)
Escherichia coli
 
 2

 S 0(0) 1(50) 1(100) 1(100) 2(100) - 2(100) 2(100) 2(100) 2(100) 1(100) -
I 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) - 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) -
R 2(100) 1(50) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) - 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) -
Enterobacter spp
 
 1

 S 0(0) 1(50) - - - - 1(100) - - - - -
I 0(0) 0(0) - - - - 0(0) - - - - -
R 1(100) 0(0) - - - - 0(0) - - - - -
Haemophilus spp
 
 2

 S 1(50) 0(0) - - 2(100) - - 1(100) 1(100) 1(100) - -
I 0(0) 0(0) - - 0(0) - - 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) - -
R 1(50) 1(100) - - 0(0) - - 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) - -
Serratia marcescens
 
 1

 S - - - 0(0) 1(100) - 1(100) 1(100) - - 1(100) -
I - - - 0(0) 0(0) - 0(0) 0(0) - - 0(0) -
R - - - 1(100) 0(0) - 0(0) 0(0) - - 0(0) -
S - bacteria sensitive to antibiotic, I - bacteria with intermediate sensitivity to antibiotic, R - bacteria resistant to antibiotic; AMP-ampicillin, AMX-amoxicillin, CLR-clarithromycin, CXM-cefuroxime, CIP-ciprofloxacin, DOX-doxycycline, ERY-erythromycin, GEN-gentamycin, LVX-levofloxacin, OFX-ofloxacin, TET-tetracycline, TOB-tobramycin, VAN-vancomycin.
Table 2. Susceptibility of all types of bacteria to antibiotics.
Table 2. Susceptibility of all types of bacteria to antibiotics.
Type of Antibiotic Tested Abbrev. Total Number of Bacteria Response of Bacteria to Antibiotic
S I R S % I % R %
Vancomycin VAN 46 44 1 1 97.8 2.2 0
Ceftriaxone CRO 24 18 2 4 75 8.3 16.7
Cefuroxime CXM 50 35 1 14 70 2 28
Cefazolin CFZ 3 1 0 2 33.3 0 66.7
Meropenem MEM 17 16 0 1 94.1 0 5.9
Imipenem IPM 15 14 0 1 93.3 0 6.7
Moxifloxacin MXF 39 32 4 3 82.1 7.7 10.3
Levofloxacin LVX 68 60 4 4 88.2 5.9 5.9
Ofloxacin OFX 38 33 1 4 86.8 2.6 10.5
Ciprofloxacin CIP 117 100 7 10 85.5 6 8.5
Netilmicin NET 20 19 1 0 95 5 0
Tobramycin TOB 58 44 8 6 75.9 13.8 10.3
Amikacin AMK 20 19 0 1 95 0 5
Kanamycin KAN 9 6 0 3 66.7 0 33.3
Gentamicin GEN 121 99 3 19 81.8 2.5 15.7
Chloramphenicol CHL 54 49 1 4 90.7 7.4 1.9
Tetracycline TET 77 39 4 34 50.6 5.2 44.2
Doxycycline DOX 24 14 0 10 58.3 0 41.7
Rifampicin RIF 41 38 1 2 92.7 2.4 4.9
Azithromycin AZM 19 6 0 13 31.6 0 68.4
Clarithromycin CLR 36 19 0 17 52.8 0 47.2
Erythromycin ERY 100 44 6 50 44 6 50
Ampicillin AMP 45 7 0 38 15.6 0 84.4
Amoxicillin AMX 20 19 0 1 95 0 5
S - bacteria sensitive to antibiotic, I - bacteria with intermediate sensitivity to antibiotic, R - bacteria resistant to antibiotic; S % - percentage of all-type bacteria sensitive to antibiotic, I % - percentage of all-type bacteria with intermediate sensitivity to antibiotic, R % - percentage of all-type bacteria resistant to antibiotic.
Table 3. Susceptibility of Gram-positive bacteria to antibiotics.
Table 3. Susceptibility of Gram-positive bacteria to antibiotics.
Type of Antibiotic Tested Abbrev. Total Number of Gram-Positive Bacteria Response of Bacteria to Antibiotic
S I R S % I % R %
Vancomycin VAN 45 44 1 0 97.8 2.2 0
Ceftriaxone CRO 15 9 2 4 60 13.3 26.7
Cefuroxime CXM 39 30 1 8 76.9 2.6 20.5
Cefazolin CFZ 1 0 0 1 0 0 100
Meropenem MEM 11 10 0 1 90.9 0 9.1
Imipenem IPM 12 11 0 1 91.7 0 8.3
Moxifloxacin MXF 36 29 3 4 80.6 8.3 11.1
Levofloxacin LVX 54 46 4 4 85.2 7.4 7.4
Ofloxacin OFX 28 23 1 4 82.1 3.6 14.3
Ciprofloxacin CIP 99 82 7 10 82.8 7.1 10.1
Netilmicin NET 19 18 1 0 94.7 5.3 0
Tobramycin TOB 48 35 7 6 72.9 14.6 12.5
Amikacin AMK 10 9 0 1 90 0 10
Kanamycin KAN 8 5 0 3 62.5 0 37.5
Gentamicin GEN 102 80 3 19 78.4 2.9 18.6
Chloramphenicol CHL 47 42 1 4 89.4 2.1 8.5
Tetracycline TET 70 33 3 34 47.1 4.3 48.6
Doxycycline DOX 19 9 0 10 47.4 0 52.6
Rifampicin RIF 38 36 1 1 94.7 2.6 2.6
Azithromycin AZM 18 5 0 13 27.8 0 72.2
Clarithromycin CLR 35 18 0 17 51.4 0 48.6
Erythromycin ERY 99 44 6 49 44.4 6.1 49.5
Ampicillin AMP 29 5 0 24 17.2 0 82.8
Amoxicillin AMX 19 9 0 10 47.4 0 52.6
S - Gram-positive bacteria sensitive to antibiotic, I - Gram-positive bacteria with intermediate sensitivity to antibiotic, R Gram-positive bacteria resistant to antibiotic; S % - percentage of Gram-positive bacteria sensitive to antibiotic, I % - percentage of Gram-positive bacteria with intermediate sensitivity to antibiotic, R % - percentage of Gram-positive bacteria resistant to antibiotic.
Table 4. Susceptibility of Gram-negative bacteria to antibiotics.
Table 4. Susceptibility of Gram-negative bacteria to antibiotics.
Type of Antibiotic Tested Abbrev. Total Number of Gram-Negative Bacteria Response of Bacteria to Antibiotic
S I R S % I % R %
Vancomycin VAN 1 0 0 1 0 0 100
Ceftriaxone CRO 9 9 0 0 100 0 0
Cefuroxime CXM 11 5 0 6 45.5 0 54.5
Cefazolin CFZ 2 1 0 1 50 0 50
Meropenem MEM 6 6 0 0 100 0 0
Imipenem IPM 3 3 0 0 100 0 0
Moxifloxacin MXF 3 3 0 0 100 0 0
Levofloxacin LVX 14 14 0 0 100 0 0
Ofloxacin OFX 10 10 0 0 100 0 0
Ciprofloxacin CIP 18 18 0 0 100 0 0
Netilmicin NET 1 1 0 0 100 0 0
Tobramycin TOB 10 9 1 0 90 10 0
Amikacin AMK 10 10 0 0 100 0 0
Kanamycin KAN 1 1 0 0 100 0 0
Gentamicin GEN 19 19 0 0 100 0 0
Chloramphenicol CHL 7 7 0 0 100 0 0
Tetracycline TET 7 6 1 0 85.7 14.3 0
Doxycycline DOX 5 5 0 0 100 0 0
Rifampicin RIF 3 2 0 1 66.7 0 33.3
Azithromycin AZM 1 1 0 0 100 0 0
Clarithromycin CLR 1 1 0 0 100 0 0
Erythromycin ERY 1 0 0 1 0 0 100
Ampicillin AMP 16 2 0 14 12.5 0 87.5
Amoxicillin AMX 6 3 0 3 50 0 50
S - Gram-negative bacteria sensitive to antibiotic, I - Gram-negative bacteria with intermediate sensitivity to antibiotic, R Gram-negative bacteria resistant to antibiotic; S % - percentage of Gram-negative bacteria sensitive to antibiotic, I % - percentage of Gram-negative bacteria with intermediate sensitivity to antibiotic, R % - percentage of Gram-negative bacteria resistant to antibiotic
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated