Next Article in Journal
Bacillus velezensis YXDHD1-7 Prevents Early Blight Disease by Promoting Growth and Enhancing Defense Enzyme Activities in Tomato Plants
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessing PCR-Positive Acanthamoeba Keratitis—A Retrospective Chart Review
Previous Article in Journal
Identification of the Microbiota in Coconut Water, Kefir, Coconut Water Kefir and Coconut Water Kefir-Fermented Sourdough Using Culture-Dependent Techniques and Illumina–MiSeq Sequencing
Previous Article in Special Issue
Ocular Bacterial Infections: A Ten-Year Survey and Review of Causative Organisms Based on the Oklahoma Experience
 
 
Case Report
Peer-Review Record

Efficacy of the Combined Intrastromal Injection of Voriconazole and Amphotericin B in Recalcitrant Fungal Keratitis

Microorganisms 2024, 12(5), 922; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12050922
by Antonio Moramarco 1,2,*, Arianna Grendele 1,2, Danilo Iannetta 3, Simone Ottoboni 1,2, Giulia Gregori 4, Natalie di Geronimo 1,2, Margherita Ortalli 5,6, Tiziana Lazzarotto 5,6 and Luigi Fontana 1,2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Microorganisms 2024, 12(5), 922; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12050922
Submission received: 12 April 2024 / Revised: 28 April 2024 / Accepted: 28 April 2024 / Published: 30 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Ocular Infections and Microbiota in Health and Disease 2.0)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors explore the effectiveness of intrastromal injections of voriconazole and amphotericin B for managing refractory fungal keratitis. While certain severe cases still necessitate corneal transplantation, the study's outcomes demonstrate the combined treatment's efficacy. However, a question arises regarding the authors' criteria for defining "poorly responding" when selecting patients for the study. Additionally, although the authors mention monitoring the toxicity associated with stromal injections, they don't provide specific information on how toxicity was assessed or its outcomes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a manuscript describing the efficacy of intrastromal antifungal treatment of recalcitrant fungal keratitis. Several revisions should be made to strengthen the manuscript. 

 

Were antifungal susceptibility tests performed for the fungal isolates to natamycin, voriconazole, and amphotericin B? If so, this data should be included. If not, then state the reason. 

Define BCVA in the abstract. Microorganisms is not an ophthalmic journal therefore all common ophthalmic abbreviations must be defined. 

Use the conventional abbreviation for micrograms (µg) rather than µgm. 

Use the standard American numerical system for decimals, for example, 2.5 rather than the European numerical system (2,5). This must be consistent throughout the manuscript. 

Italicize the genus of all fungal species throughout the manuscript and Table 1. 

Capitalize Figure 1 and Figure 2 when cited in the text. 

Define all abbreviations in Table 1 (both headers and data). In addition, include the means and standard deviations of the data from all columns when applicable. 

Figure 1 Legend: Revise “Case 1-5. (A-C)” to “Cases 1 (A) and 5 (C).” Also revise “(B-D)” to “(B, D)”.

Line 52, revise the term “therapeutic keratoplasty (TPK)” to “therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty (TPK)”.

 

Line 74, capitalize Gram.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop