Next Article in Journal
Tinea Imbricata among the Indigenous Communities: Current Global Epidemiology and Research Gaps Associated with Host Genetics and Skin Microbiota
Next Article in Special Issue
Pulmonary and Extrapulmonary Manifestations of Fungal Infections Misdiagnosed as Tuberculosis: The Need for Prompt Diagnosis and Management
Previous Article in Journal
Talaromyces marneffei Infection: Virulence, Intracellular Lifestyle and Host Defense Mechanisms
Previous Article in Special Issue
Global Distribution and Clinical Features of Pythiosis in Humans and Animals
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Microbial Keratitis in Nepal: Predicting the Microbial Aetiology from Clinical Features

1
International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK
2
Sagarmatha Choudhary Eye Hospital, Lahan 56502, Nepal
3
Department of Ophthalmology, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Mbarara P.O. Box 1410, Uganda
4
MRC International Statistics & Epidemiology Group, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK
5
National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London EC1V 9EL, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2022, 8(2), 201; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8020201
Submission received: 27 January 2022 / Revised: 15 February 2022 / Accepted: 17 February 2022 / Published: 19 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Novel, Emerging and Neglected Fungal Pathogens for Humans and Animals)

Abstract

:
Fungal corneal infection (keratitis) is a common clinical problem in South Asia. However, it is often challenging to distinguish this from other aetiologies, such as bacteria or acanthamoeba. In this prospective study, we investigated clinical and epidemiological features that can predict the microbial aetiology of microbial keratitis in Nepal. We recruited patients presenting with keratitis to a tertiary eye hospital in lowland eastern Nepal between June 2019 and November 2020. A structured assessment, including demographics, history, and clinical signs, was carried out. The aetiology was investigated with in vivo confocal microscopy and corneal scrape for microscopy and culture. A predictor score was developed using odds ratios calculated to predict aetiology from features. A fungal cause was identified in 482/642 (75.1%) of cases, which increased to 532/642 (82.9%) when including mixed infections. Unusually, dematiaceous fungi accounted for half of the culture-positive cases (50.6%). Serrated infiltrate margins, patent nasolacrimal duct, raised corneal slough, and organic trauma were independently associated with fungal keratitis (p < 0.01). These four features were combined in a predictor score. The probability of fungal keratitis was 30.1% if one feature was present, increasing to 96.3% if all four were present. Whilst microbiological diagnosis is the “gold standard” to determine the aetiology of an infection, certain clinical signs can help direct the clinician to find a presumptive infectious cause, allowing appropriate treatment to be started without delay. Additionally, this study identified dematiaceous fungi, specifically Curvularia spp., as the main causative agent for fungal keratitis in this region. This novel finding warrants further research to understand potential implications and any trends over time.

1. Introduction

Microbial keratitis (MK) is responsible for over 2 million cases of monocular blindness annually in Africa and Asia [1]. It can result in significant morbidity, including stigma and pain. Recently, there have been calls for MK to be recognised as a neglected tropical disease by the World Health Organization [2]. Causative organisms include bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and viruses. In tropical regions, fungal infections may account for more than half of reported cases, so a key distinction for management is whether the cause is bacterial or fungal [3]. Effective treatment relies on accurately and promptly diagnosing the organism responsible, usually through smear microscopy and confirmation by culture. However, anecdotally many eye care practitioners in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) do not have access to microbiology, relying on clinical signs alone to guide treatment [4,5]. Empirical treatment is often used, but typically this is antibiotic monotherapy, as antifungals are expensive and frequently in short supply, leading to treatment delay for fungal keratitis patients [6]. Microbial keratitis typically presents with pain, conjunctival hyperaemia (redness), corneal stromal infiltration, and epithelial ulceration. Unfortunately, differentiating between bacterial, fungal, and other types of infection clinically is challenging.
Several studies have described clinical features that are more likely to be associated with fungal versus bacterial keratitis. Earlier studies have suggested that fungal keratitis (FK) might be associated with features such as Descemet’s membrane folds, serrated margins, elevated surfaces, hypopyon, and satellite lesions; however, these were limited in the authors’ sample sizes [7,8]. Subsequent, larger cross-sectional studies have reported the frequency of clinical features for bacterial keratitis (BK) and FK, rather than attempting to objectively quantify the predictive value of each sign to make an accurate diagnosis [9,10]. One study by Thomas et al. developed a scoring tool to aid in the diagnosis of FK in the absence of laboratory tests [4]. However, this tool did not incorporate other potentially useful relevant factors, including the patient’s history. Furthermore, it did not attempt to distinguish between the major fungal genera based on clinical signs. No subsequent scoring tools have been published since.
In this study, we report the aetiology of MK from a large prospective cross-sectional study in Nepal in relation to the patient presentation and clinical signs. The incidence of MK in Nepal is amongst the highest reported in the world, at 799/100,000/year [11]. Using this dataset, we explored which clinical signs are predictive of FK or BK, formulating a clinical score that can be used to make a predictive diagnosis in the absence of further investigations. We also attempted to further distinguish three clinically distinct mycological groups of FK based on clinical signs: Fusarium spp., Aspergillus spp., and infection caused by the most commonly identified ocular dematiaceous fungal pathogens (predominantly Curvularia spp.).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ethical Statement

This study followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. It was approved by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Ethics Committee (Ref. 14841) and the Nepal Health Research Council Ethical Review Board (Ref. 1937). Written informed consent was obtained in Nepali before enrolment. If the patient was unable to read, the information was read to them and they were asked to indicate their consent by the application of their thumbprint, which was independently witnessed.

2.2. Study Design and Setting

We prospectively recruited patients at Sagarmatha Choudhary Eye Hospital (SCEH) in Lahan, Nepal, between 3 June 2019 and 9 November 2020 for a cross-sectional analysis. This formed part of the triaging assessment used to enrol eligible patients with FK into a randomised controlled trial comparing natamycin 5% to chlorhexidine 0.2%. The full protocol for this study has been published in [12]. SCEH is a tertiary ophthalmic referral hospital in southeastern Nepal that serves a population of approximately 5 million people.

2.3. Study Participants

Eligible patients were adults (>18 years) with acute MK, defined as having corneal epithelial ulceration > 1 mm in diameter, corneal stromal infiltrate, and signs of acute inflammation (conjunctival hyperaemia, anterior chamber inflammatory cells, or hypopyon).

2.4. Clinical Findings

Demographic details and ophthalmic clinical history were collected using a structured case record form. This included the duration of symptoms, any preceding trauma, medication (conventional or traditional), and past medical and ophthalmic history. Baseline clinical assessment included visual acuity (best spectacle-corrected visual acuity, BSCVA; presenting and pinhole visual acuity), slit-lamp examination using a structured protocol including eyelid assessment, corneal ulcer features, anterior chamber (flare, cells, hypopyon shape, and size), and perforation status. The infiltrate and epithelial defect size was calculated as the mean of the maximum diameter of the infiltrate and the widest perpendicular diameter [13]. High-resolution digital photographs with and without fluorescein staining were captured.

2.5. Investigations

In vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) was performed, prior to corneal sample collection, by experienced operators using the HRT II/RCM confocal microscope (Heidelberg Engineering, Dossenheim, Germany) with a previously described technique [14,15]. All the images were reviewed during the procedure in real-time and classified by type of keratitis by one experienced observer. IVCM was used in this study to detect either fungal or amoebic keratitis; the unequivocal presence of fungal hyphae or cysts on IVCM was considered diagnostic.
Laboratory diagnosis was determined using microscopy and culture. Corneal scrape specimens were collected from the base and edge of the ulcer using a slit lamp and 21G needles after the application of topical proxymetacaine. Samples underwent processing for Gram, potassium hydroxide, calcofluor white, and lactophenol blue preparations as well as direct inoculation on solid culture media (fresh blood agar, chocolate agar, and Sabouraud dextrose agar). Media were incubated and read daily at 35–37 °C for up to 7 days for bacteria and at 25–27 °C for up to 21 days for fungi. Organism identification was performed using standard microbiological techniques.
We followed a previously described approach for reporting positive microbiological results [4]. In brief, culture results were significant if one of the following conditions were met:
  • growth of the same organism was demonstrated on two or more solid culture media;
  • semi-confluent growth at the site of inoculation or growth on one solid medium consistent with microscopy;
  • semi-confluent growth at the site of inoculation on one solid medium (if bacteria);
  • growth of the same organism on repeated scraping.
Culture positivity is the “gold standard” for the diagnosis of BK. As such, microscopy alone was not considered to be conclusive evidence if only a few organisms were seen; the exception to this rule was if many bacteria were observed in multiple fields of view. However, if fungal hyphae were visible by microscopy, the causative organism was reported as fungal (regardless of the culture results).
An overall “composite” diagnosis of definite fungal, bacterial, and mixed fungal–bacterial keratitis, or unknown aetiology, was obtained by combining the results of IVCM with cases meeting the microbiological diagnostic criteria described above.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Data were analysed in STATA 17 (STATA Corp., College Station, TX, USA). Only patients with confirmed bacterial or fungal keratitis were included in the analysis to determine the diagnostic scoring. Mixed bacterial–fungal infections were included, with a sensitivity analysis performed for non-mixed infections. Unknown cases were coded as neither bacterial nor fungal. Summary frequency tables were generated to describe the demographics, presentation time, clinical history. and features. We classified presentation time as prompt (0–3 days), early (4–7 days), intermediate (8–14 days), late (15–30 days), and very late (more than 30 days), as previously reported [16,17]. LogMAR BSCVA measurements were converted to their Snellen equivalent and categorised according to the WHO classification system [18]. Pairwise associations between clinical features (including clinical history and signs) were investigated using univariable logistic regression. Factors with univariable associations with a p-value < 0.2 or odds ratios (OR) greater than 2 or less than 0.5 were included in an initial multivariable logistic regression model; then, factors with associations with a p-value > 0.05 were removed one by one using backwards elimination. A predictive score was derived from a count of the features independently and positively associated with fungal aetiology, similar to in previous work [4]. Diagnostic accuracy indices were calculated for each score value for diagnosing FK. The probability of fungal infection was calculated by running our logistic regression model with score as the exposure, calculating the log odds of each person (based on their score) and the standard error, and converting these to probability. The 95% confidence intervals were calculated in a similar fashion. Rainfall data were obtained for Janakpur (the capital of Province 2, 56 km from Lahan) from the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology [19].

3. Results

3.1. Participants

Between 3 June 2019 and 9 November 2020, 890 patients with suspected MK were assessed at SCEH. Of these, 643 participants consented and were included in this study. The reasons for exclusion are listed in Supplementary Table S1. One patient fainted following visual acuity assessment; some clinical data are therefore missing for this patient. All cases of keratitis were unilateral (331/643, 51.5% left eye). Recruitment was paused on 24 March 2020 and resumed on 13 June 2020 due to emergency COVID-19 legislation. Demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1. The median age was 45.9 years (IQR 35.7–57.7, total range 18.1–100.1). The majority of patients were female (61.0%), Nepali (374/643, 58.2%), agricultural labourers (332/643, 51.6%), illiterate (499/643, 77.6%), and had no formal education (494/643, 76.8%).

3.2. Presentation

The number of patients with MK attending SCEH varied on a monthly basis (Figure 1), with the highest numbers presenting in November and December 2019. The overall patient numbers from March 2020 were low, coinciding with COVID-19-related restrictions. Patient numbers were at their highest during the dry, winter months (October–January), which correspond to the main harvest months in the region. There was no apparent direct relationship between case numbers and the monsoon rains that occur between June and September. The median time from the onset of symptoms to presentation at SCEH was 8 days (IQR 4–13, total range 0–92 days, Table 1). Only 14% of patients presented “promptly” within 3 days of symptom onset. A definite history of trauma was reported in 49.3% (317/643) of cases. Of the cases with a history of trauma, 71.3% (226/317) reported trauma with vegetative material. Preceding use of traditional eye medication (TEM) was reported very infrequently (1.6%, 10/643), whilst 7.8% (50/643) had used topical steroids prior to attendance. Of note, 463/643 (72%) of cases reported the use of topical antibiotics prior to presentation.

3.3. Clinical Features and Diagnosis

Table 2 shows the clinical features at presentation. Over one-quarter of patients (26.6%) were classed as blind in the affected eye at presentation with a BSCVA of less than 3/60. The median infiltrate size and epithelial defect sizes were 2.75 mm (IQR 1.75–4.0) and 2.90 mm (2.0–4.25), respectively.

3.4. Aetiology and Diagnosis of Microbial Keratitis

Combining the microbiology and IVCM results, fungi alone were identified as the main causative agent of infection, being responsible for 75.1% of MK cases (Table 3). Mixed fungal–bacterial infections were present in 50/642 (7.8%) of cases, whilst bacteria alone were identified in 33/642 (5.1%) of cases. No causative agent could be identified in 77/642 (12.0%) of cases by either IVCM or microbiology. In each case of mixed infection, a single bacterial species was associated with a single fungal species. No cases of Acanthamoeba keratitis were identified in this study.
There were 111/642 (17.3%) cases with no microbiological diagnosis. Microscopy and culture were negative in 84/111 cases, microscopy was positive for bacteria but cultures were negative in 17/111 cases, cultures were not performed for 6/111 cases, and microscopy was negative with no cultures performed in 4/111 cases. Of these “negative” results, 41/111 (36.9%) showed unequivocal diagnostic evidence of fungal hyphae visible by IVCM. Of the cases with bacteria detected on microscopy but no culture results, 15/23 (65.2%) were Gram-positive cocci. Bacterial infection alone was identified by microbiology in 53/642 (8.3%) of cases (i.e., no evidence of fungal infection was identified by microbiological investigations). However, 20/53 (37.7%) of these had evidence of fungal infection by IVCM and so were diagnosed as mixed fungal–bacterial infections.

3.5. Fungal and Bacterial Organisms

The fungal organisms identified by culture are presented in Table 4. Curvularia spp. was the most frequently identified fungal genus, isolated in 170/397 (42.8%) of positive fungal cultures. Dematiaceous fungi accounted for over half of all fungal organisms cultured (201/397, 50.6%). The second and third most commonly isolated genera were Fusarium spp. (63/397, 15.9%) and Aspergillus spp. (54/397, 13.6%). It was not possible to identify the fungal organism in 51/397 (12.8%) of cases because they either failed to grow or it was not possible to induce sporulation in vitro. Two cases of yeast infection were identified (0.5%), and there were two mixed filamentous fungal infections (0.5%).
Of the bacterial isolates identified, Gram-positive cocci (S. aureus (11.8%), coagulase-negative staphylococci (17.2%), and pneumococci (19.4%) were the most common cause of infection. There were just 3 cases (3.6%) of Pseudomonas spp. Streptococcus spp. was the most common bacterial genus identified (23/83, 27.7%), followed by Staphylococcus spp. (Staphylococcus aureus 6/83, 7.2%). Due to resource limitations, further identification was limited.

3.6. Clinical Features and Causative Agent

The frequency of various clinical features observed in FK and BK cases (including mixed infections) is shown in Table 5. Features significantly (p < 0.05) associated with fungal keratitis by univariate analysis were as follows: serrated margin, absence of hypopyon, raised slough, satellite lesions, absence of nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO), vegetative trauma, delayed presentation (>3 days), previous antibiotics, and previous steroids (Table 5). There was no evidence of an association between the frequency of occurrence of fibrin, reduced corneal sensation, the presence of an immune ring, keratic precipitates, perineural infiltrates, endothelial plaque, flare or cells in the anterior chamber, or previous TEM use with FK. In a multivariable logistic regression model, the clinical features predictive of fungal infection were serrated margins, the absence of NLDO, raised slough, and vegetative trauma (Table 6). The presence of NLDO, the absence of serrated margins, and no prior use of topical antibiotics were associated with BK.
A score was derived from the four clinical features associated with FK (serrated margin, raised slough, trauma with vegetative object, and absence of NLDO): a score of +1 was given for each feature present (Table 7, Figure 2). The probability of FK if only one sign was present was 30.1% (95% CI 17.8–47.2%), compared to a probability of 96.3% (95% CI 91.3–98.4%) if all four clinical features were present.
A sensitivity analysis that excluded mixed infections was carried out (Supplementary Tables S2–S4). This found that the same clinical parameters were statistically independent risk factors associated with FK. There was very little difference between the screening test indices calculated for each score or the probability of FK at different scores (Supplementary Figure S1).
Univariable logistic regression found that the presence of serrated margins, raised slough, and pigmented colour, in addition to a history of preceding steroids, were risk factors for dematiaceous FK (Supplementary Table S5). The presence of satellite lesions and reduced corneal sensation were more strongly associated with other aetiologies. Only 11% of all the dematiaceous fungi isolated had pigmented corneal ulcers at presentation. The multivariate logistic regression model found that clinical features predictive of dematiaceous FK were a pigmented colour and the presence of serrated margins, as well as an absence of satellite lesions and/or fibrin (Supplementary Table S6).
No clinical parameters were found to be predictive for either Fusarium or Aspergillus keratitis by univariable or multivariable logistic regression models, possibly due to the small sample size used (data not shown).

4. Discussion

In this prospective study from eastern Nepal, fungal organisms were found to be the sole cause of infection in 75.1% of patients with microbial keratitis, with fungal organisms implicated in 82.9% of MK cases when mixed fungal–bacterial infections were included. To the best of our knowledge, our study reports the highest proportion of FK cases amongst MK anywhere in the world. With the highest previous reported proportion being 81.5% in Sri Lanka (1976–1981) [5,20], this is considerably higher than the proportions reported in previous studies from Nepal (ranging from 25% in Kathmandu to 70% in Biratnagar) [21,22,23,24,25,26,27].
Furthermore, another surprising finding from this study was that Curvularia spp. was the most frequently isolated fungal genus (42.8%). We believe that this is the only study to report a dematiaceous fungus as the leading causative organism. Over half the cases in our study were dematiaceous moulds. This is in itself unusual; FK caused by dematiaceous or melanised species is usually less common than Fusarium spp. and other hyaline filamentous fungi, which typically account for the majority of FK cases [28,29,30]. The only study to date with a similar proportion of dematiaceous fungi was a prospective study from North India conducted between 1999 and 2001 on 485 cases of MK, of which 39% were found to be fungal in aetiology. Although Aspergillus spp. (41%) was the most common fungal isolate, followed by Curvularia spp. (29%), dematiaceous fungi as a group (Curvularia spp., Bipolaris spp. and Alternaria spp.) accounted for 43.2% of cases [31]. Our finding that Curvularia spp. is the most commonly isolated dematiaceous genus is supported by the majority of other studies [28,32,33,34,35], with only one study from South India and one recent study from Thailand finding Cladosporium spp. and Lasiodiplodia spp. to be the most commonly isolated dematiaceous fungal genus, respectively [36,37].
Dematiaceous fungi and Fusarium spp. are plant pathogens which are frequently found in soil in tropical and sub-tropical regions [28,33]. As a result, one would typically expect a history of trauma, particularly with organic material, to precede FK. Indeed, a break in the corneal epithelium is required for all but a handful of microorganisms to establish an infection, which is usually the result of trauma. However, in our study only 33% of FK cases gave a definitive history of trauma, whilst 25% of BK cases also reported such a history. This proportion was similar for dematiaceous fungi alone (32%). Despite this relatively small difference, organic trauma was independently associated with FK versus non-fungal keratitis at presentation. This relatively low proportion of patients with a definite history of trauma contrasts with an earlier study from a similar location in Nepal (Nepalgunj, 2011–2012), where 58% of patients gave a history of trauma [23]. Studies from India also typically report a history of trauma greater than that found in ours, with a range of 40–92% in all studies included in a recent review of FK [5], other than one study from Delhi which had a similar number to ours (32%) [38]. This is surprising, given that the majority of the study participants were either farmers (51.5%) or likely subsistence farmers, given that they were unemployed (40.9%), as found in previous studies from Nepal and India [23,39]. The plains or “terai” area of Nepal is predominantly an agricultural society mainly involved in “paddy” farming, and it is likely that fungal spores are ubiquitous. One possible explanation for the lack of preceding trauma could be that some people may not recall minor abrasive events, which could be a sufficient breach for infections to develop.
In terms of patient demographics, the median age of 45.9 is similar to that found in other studies from the region [5]. We found there was also no change in the frequency of FK with increasing age, but that BK became slightly more frequent in patients aged 50 or older (60% of all BK cases including mixed infections compared to 42% of all non-BK cases, p = 0.049). BK was previously shown to be more common in older patients [36], and our results support this finding. In LMICs, MK has typically been more common in males [40], regardless of its aetiology [5]. However, in this study 61% of patients were female, with a similar female predominance found if stratified according to aetiology. There has been one other study from Nepal where the majority of cases occurred in women [25]. The reason for this is unclear, but may represent increased exposure amongst women in this region to agricultural work and trauma or possibly different health-seeking behaviours. Further epidemiological research is required to investigate this. Most patients were from low socio-economic groups, as evidenced by 76.7% reporting no formal education and 77.8% being illiterate. These findings highlight important opportunities and challenges for primary prevention strategies within Nepal.
There was considerable variation in the numbers of people presenting with MK per month; the highest numbers were seen between September 2019 and January 2020. This contrasts with the results of a five-year retrospective study conducted from the same institution between 2010 and 2015, which found little variation and with the peak attendance occurring between June and August [41]. Our observations obtained from March 2020 onwards are greatly affected by travel restrictions imposed to control the COVID-19 pandemic. The winter months in Nepal (October–January), when the numbers presenting in our study were at their highest, are the cool, dry harvest months, when the number of fungal spores in the atmosphere are likely to be at their highest [42]. Interestingly, we did not find any increase in cases during the monsoon rains. In particular, the number of dematiaceous fungal cases presenting to SCEH appear to follow this trend. It is likely that the seasonal distribution reflects periods of increased risk of trauma through occupational risk factors, such as corneal abrasions from the direct inoculation of plant material and dust during harvesting, threshing, and winnowing, which are seasonal activities intrinsically linked with climate. A recent study from North India reported a similar seasonal trend for dematiaceous fungi, with the majority of cases presenting between September and December [33]. Although we did not collect data on the number of non-microbial keratitis patients attending SCEH during this period, historically the number of cases attending is constant throughout the year, other than a slight increase in elective surgical procedures such as cataract surgery occurring between December and March. It is therefore unlikely that this observed increase is simply due to an inflated denominator.
Clinically differentiating FK from BK is challenging. The sensitivity of experienced ophthalmologists clinically diagnosing FK has been reported as very low (38%) [43], whilst corneal specialists have been shown to only be able to correctly diagnose fungal keratitis from clinical photographs in 66% of cases [44]. Several clinical signs have been found to be helpful in discriminating FK from BK: serrated margin, raised slough, colouration other than yellow, and the absence of fibrin [4]. In an earlier analysis, in patients who had raised slough, serrated margins, and no anterior chamber fibrin the probability of fungal keratitis was 89% [45], compared to 16% if the margins were defined with a flat surface and fibrin present. In our study, we also found serrated margins and raised slough to be independently predictive of FK, with higher odds ratios (95% CI in brackets) than those seen in the previous study (serrated margins OR 7.50 [4.09–13.78] vs. 3.45 [2.12–5.64]; raised slough OR 4.25 [2.51–7.24] vs. 2.32 [1.43–3.74]). We did not find colour or the absence of fibrin to be independently associated with FK. However, a history of organic trauma (OR 2.65 [1.32–5.32]) was found to be associated with fungal infection, whilst nasolacrimal duct obstruction was not (OR 0.18 [0.07–0.42]). The previous study by Thomas and co-workers only included clinical signs and therefore did not assess a positive history of trauma, as they were concerned about recall bias and the fact that, pathologically speaking, nearly all microbiological organisms require a defect in the corneal epithelium in order to enter, which is usually a result of mechanical trauma [4]. The probability of FK in our series was 96.3% if all four clinical features were present. The one clinical sign most likely to distinguish FK from BK is the presence of a serrated or irregular margin, as this was the only clinical sign whose presence or absence was found to be independently significantly associated with fungal and not with bacterial keratitis, respectively.
Satellite lesions, which have previously been thought to be indicative of FK based on limited case reports, were not found to be significant predictors in our multivariate model, despite occurring more frequently in fungal than in bacterial cases. This is in keeping with the results from other cross-sectional studies [4,46].
Although NLDO has been suggested as a major risk factor for non-healing bacterial keratitis (BK) [47], until recently few studies have confirmed an association between NLDO and BK [48,49]. Recent work from India adds weight to this by demonstrating that patients with untreated NLDO and MK have a worse clinical outcome [50]. For this reason, at our institution all patients with MK undergo lacrimal syringing. In this study, 16% of BK patients had NLDO, compared to only 3.1% of FK patients (p < 0.001). We would therefore recommend clinicians consider lacrimal syringing as part of their MK diagnostic work-up, as this can help to differentiate BK from FK, as well as potentially detecting patients at risk of recurrence and a poor outcome.
Although microscopy and culture remain the “gold standard” in terms of diagnosing MK, a clinical score based on predictive factors for FK can help guide the clinician to start antifungal treatment promptly if these investigations are not possible. This also allows for the more rational use of antifungals, helping to reduce the cost to the patient and the risk of resistance whilst ensuring that the limited supplies of antifungals reach those most in need.
We found that raised slough, pigmentation, the absence of satellite lesions, and/or the absence of fibrin were clinical features predictive of dematiaceous fungal infection. A previous study from India also found that raised slough and pigmentation were predictive features for dematiaceous fungal infection [51], although it did not mention the other two clinical features. Consistent with our study, only 16% of dematiaceous cases were pigmented, whilst recent studies from India and Thailand found 18% and 26% of dematiaceous cases to be pigmented, respectively [33,37]. We did not find any features that were predictive of Fusarium or Aspergillus keratitis, likely due to the relatively small sample size. Given the delay between corneal scrape and culture results, using these four clinical signs may be helpful to guide preliminary diagnosis and management, although if microscopy is available with a quick turn-around time, this should remain the gold standard for diagnosing fungal keratitis.
Our study has several strengths. It was a large, prospective study that utilised IVCM to help identify cases of FK which may otherwise have been missed. We had a relatively low culture-negative rate. However, there were several possible limitations. Firstly, this series may not be fully representative of all MK occurring in this population, as it was conducted at a tertiary referral centre; the cases presenting to the hospital may be more severe if milder diseases can be managed effectively in the community. Furthermore, it is possible that BK is more adequately treated than FK in primary care settings, leading to fewer BK cases being referred for treatment. This possibility is supported by the widespread prior use of topical antibiotics amongst our participants (72%), whilst only 21% had used topical antifungals. The relatively low number of patients with BK in the analysed population reduces the ability of our method to adequately detect differences between groups. Secondly, we included mixed infections in our analyses in order to include as many bacterial cases as possible, in contrast to previous work [4]. This was decided at the outset in the analytical plan and was deemed a pragmatic, real-world approach. However, sensitivity analyses did not find any significant difference if mixed infections were excluded (Supplementary Tables S2–S4). Thirdly, given that only conventional diagnostic resources were available (i.e., no molecular diagnostic testing was available), it was not possible to speciate some of the pathogens at our centre. This is true of many hospital laboratories in LMICs where molecular methods are unavailable. Many genera are difficult to speciate based on phenotypic characteristics alone due to inter- and intra-species variation. Fourthly, the clinical score that we calculated to aid in diagnosis needs to be replicated and assessed in other settings where the prevalence of fungal keratitis differs. Finally, we did not detect any cases of Acanthamoeba in this study. There were no cases which appeared clinically suspicious for amoebic keratitis. Although we used IVCM, accurately diagnosing Acanthamoeba infection with IVCM can be challenging and requires a highly skilled operator [52]. No Acanthamoeba cysts were visualised using microscopy and culture was not performed routinely due to the very low incidence of cases reported in the region.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this large, prospective study found dematiaceous fungi to be the most common cause of FK cases in eastern Nepal (there is variation within the country). To the best of our knowledge, this study reports the highest ever proportion of FK found amongst MK cases. Although there is significant clinical variation in presentation, certain clinical signs can help to distinguish FK from other causes: specifically serrated margins, raised slough, no NLDO, and organic trauma. We also identified raised slough, pigmentation, the absence of satellite lesions, and the absence of fibrin to be predictive of dematiaceous FK. Although microscopy and culture remain the gold standard for diagnosis, using these clinical signs may help direct clinicians without access to a microbiology service, or, in cases where microscopy and culture results are negative, to a presumptive aetiology, allowing appropriate treatment to be started without delay.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jof8020201/s1. Figure S1: Operating characteristic curve showing probability of fungal infection at different scores (mixed infections excluded); Table S1: Reasons for exclusion of potential participants from the study; Table S2: Univariable analysis for features associated with fungal keratitis (mixed infections excluded); Table S3: Multivariable analysis of clinical features occurring in fungal and bacterial keratitis (mixed infections excluded); Table S4: Screening test indices for each score (mixed infections excluded); Table S5: Clinical features occurring in dematiaceous, Fusarium spp., and Aspergillus spp. keratitis, and univariable analysis for features associated with dematiaceous fungal keratitis; Table S6: Multivariable analysis of clinical features occurring in dematiaceous fungal keratitis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, J.J.H. and M.J.B.; methodology, J.J.H., S.A., D.M. and M.J.B.; formal analysis, J.J.H. and D.M.; investigation, J.J.H., R.Y., S.D.S., P.C. and A.L.; resources, A.R. and S.K.S.; data curation, J.J.H., S.D.S., P.C. and A.L.; writing—original draft preparation, J.J.H.; writing—review and editing, all co-authors; supervision, V.H.H., A.L. and M.J.B.; project administration, J.J.H., S.D.S. and A.R.; funding acquisition, M.J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded through a Senior Research Fellowship to M.J.B. from the Wellcome Trust (207472/Z/17/Z). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. It was approved by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Ethics Committee (Ref. 14841) and the Nepal Health Research Council Ethical Review Board (Ref. 1937).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained in Nepali from all subjects before enrolment in the study. If the patient was unable to read, the information was read to them, and they were asked to indicate their consent by the application of their thumbprint, which was independently witnessed.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study will be available upon request from M.J.B. ([email protected]). The full data set will be available with all patient identifiable details removed. Data will be available after formal reporting of the study findings in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. Datasets will only be available to bona fide scientific investigators. Requests should be made to the Chief Investigator in writing detailing the scientific investigators background and intended use for the data. Consideration will be given to all proposed analyses, with likely envisaged uses including investigators planning on conducting meta-analyses, for example. Patient Information Sheets and consent forms specifically referenced making anonymised data available, and this has been approved by the relevant ethic committees.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Eastern Region Eye Care Programme (EREC-P), Nepal Netra Jyoti Sangh (NNJS), and the Nepal Health Research Council (NHRC) for helping with the study coordination and implementation. The authors would like to thank the staff and management board at Sagarmatha Choudhary Eye Hospital (SCEH) for their continued support, coordination, and implementation of the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Collaborators

Sagarmatha Choudhary Eye Hospital: Abhishek Roshan (Hospital Manager); Sanjay Kumar Singh (Medical Superintendent); Reena Yadav (Primary Investigator); Sandip Das Sanyam (Study Co-Ordinator); Pankaj Chaudhary (Microbiologist); Rabi Shankar Sah, Kamlesh Yadav (Investigators); Ram Narayan Bhandari, Aasha Chaudhary, Sharban Mandal (Eye Health Workers); Raja Ram Mahato (Randomisation Administrator and Logistics); Lalita Rajbanshi (Laboratory Assistant); Ramesh Sah, Arvind Ray, Sachindra Kamti (Optometrists); Avinash Chaudhary (Ophthalmic Assistant); Padma Narayan Chaudhary (Hospital Chairman); Suresh Singh, Ravi Pant, Rakesh Singh (Hospital Management); Ram Kumar Jha (Ophthalmic Assistant, Rajbiraj ECC). Nepal Netra Jyoti Sangh: Sailesh Kumar Mishra (Executive Director); Sabita KC (Board Secretary); Ranjan Shah (Programme Associate); Jaganath Dhital (Assistant). Eastern Region Eye Care Programme: Sanjay Kumar Singh (Programme Director). Janakpur Eye Hospital: Hemchandra Jha (Medical Superintendent); Mahesh Yadav (Investigator); Rudal Prasad Sah (Ophthalmic Assistant). London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine: Jeremy Hoffman (Primary Investigator); Matthew Burton (Chief Investigator); Astrid Leck (Microbiologist); David Macleod, Helen Weiss (Statisticians); Victor Hu (Investigator); Sarah O’Regan (Administrator).

References

  1. Ung, L.; Bispo, P.J.M.; Shanbhag, S.S.; Gilmore, M.S.; Chodosh, J. The persistent dilemma of microbial keratitis: Global burden, diagnosis, and antimicrobial resistance. Surv. Ophthalmol. 2019, 64, 255–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ung, L.; Acharya, N.R.; Agarwal, T.; Alfonso, E.C.; Bagga, B.; Bispo, P.J.; Burton, M.J.; Dart, J.K.; Doan, T.; Fleiszig, S.M.; et al. Infectious corneal ulceration: A proposal for neglected tropical disease status. Bull. World Health Organ. 2019, 97, 854–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Brown, L.; Leck, A.K.; Gichangi, M.; Burton, M.J.; Denning, D.W. The global incidence and diagnosis of fungal keratitis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2021, 21, e49–e57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Thomas, P.A.; Leck, A.K.; Myatt, M. Characteristic clinical features as an aid to the diagnosis of suppurative keratitis caused by filamentous fungi. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2005, 89, 1554–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hoffman, J.J.; Burton, M.J.; Leck, A. Mycotic Keratitis—A Global Threat from the Filamentous Fungi. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Burton, M.J.; Pithuwa, J.; Okello, E.; Afwamba, I.; Onyango, J.J.; Oates, F.; Chevallier, C.; Hall, A.B. Microbial Keratitis in East Africa: Why are the Outcomes so Poor? Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2011, 18, 158–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Kaufman, H.E.; Wood, R.M. Mycotic Keratitis. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1965, 59, 993–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Barron, B.A.; Gee, L.; Hauck, W.W.; Kurinij, N.; Dawson, C.R.; Jones, D.B.; Wilhelmus, K.R.; KAUFMAN, H.E.; Sugar, J.; Hyndiuk, R.A. Herpetic Eye Disease Study. A controlled trial of oral acyclovir for herpes simplex stromal keratitis. Ophthalmology 1994, 101, 1871–1882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rosa, R.H., Jr.; Miller, D.; Alfonso, E.C. The changing spectrum of fungal keratitis in south Florida. Ophthalmology 1994, 101, 1005–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Srinivasan, M. Fungal keratitis. Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol. 2004, 15, 321–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Upadhyay, M.P.; Karmacharya, P.C.; Koirala, S.; Shah, D.N.; Shakya, S.; Shrestha, J.K.; Bajracharya, H.; Gurung, C.K.; Whitcher, J.P. The Bhaktapur eye study: Ocular trauma and antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of corneal ulceration in Nepal. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2001, 85, 388–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Hoffman, J.J.; Yadav, R.; Das Sanyam, S.; Chaudhary, P.; Roshan, A.; Singh, S.K.; Arunga, S.; Matayan, E.; Macleod, D.; Weiss, H.A.; et al. Topical chlorhexidine 0.2% versus topical natamycin 5% for fungal keratitis in Nepal: Rationale and design of a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e038066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Prajna, N.V.; Krishnan, T.; Mascarenhas, J.; Rajaraman, R.; Prajna, L.; Srinivasan, M.; Raghavan, A.; Oldenburg, C.E.; Ray, K.J.; Zegans, M.E.; et al. The mycotic ulcer treatment trial: A randomized trial comparing natamycin vs voriconazole. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013, 131, 422–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Chidambaram, J.D.; Prajna, N.V.; Larke, N.; Macleod, D.; Srikanthi, P.; Lanjewar, S.; Shah, M.; Lalitha, P.; Elakkiya, S.; Burton, M.J. In vivo confocal microscopy appearance of Fusarium and Aspergillus species in fungal keratitis. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2017, 101, 1119–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Chidambaram, J.D.; Prajna, N.V.; Larke, N.L.; Palepu, S.; Lanjewar, S.; Shah, M.; Elakkiya, S.; Lalitha, P.; Carnt, N.; Vesaluoma, M.H.; et al. Prospective Study of the Diagnostic Accuracy of the In Vivo Laser Scanning Confocal Microscope for Severe Microbial Keratitis. Ophthalmology 2016, 123, 2285–2293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Getshen, K.; Srinivasan, M.; Upadhyay, M.P.; Priyadarsini, B.; Mahalaksmi, R.; Whitcher, J.P. Corneal ulceration in South East Asia. I: A model for the prevention of bacterial ulcers at the village level in rural Bhutan. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2006, 90, 276–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Arunga, S.; Kintoki, G.M.; Mwesigye, J.; Ayebazibwe, B.; Onyango, J.; Bazira, J.; Newton, R.; Gichuhi, S.; Leck, A.; Macleod, D.; et al. Epidemiology of Microbial Keratitis in Uganda: A Cohort Study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2020, 27, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. World Health Organization. Change the Definition of Blindness; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  19. Department of Hydrology and Meteorology. Climate Files. Available online: http://www.dhm.gov.np/climate/ (accessed on 25 August 2021).
  20. Gonawardena, S.A.; Ranasinghe, K.P.; Arseculeratne, S.N.; Seimon, C.R.; Ajello, L. Survey of mycotic and bacterial keratitis in Sri Lanka. Mycopathologia 1994, 127, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Amatya, R.; Shrestha, S.; Khanal, B.; Gurung, R.; Poudel, N.; Bhattacharya, S.; Badu, P. Etiological agents of corneal ulcer: Five years prospective study in eastern Nepal. Nepal Med. Coll. J. NMCJ 2012, 14, 219–222. [Google Scholar]
  22. Khanal, B.; Kaini, K.R.; Deb, M.; Badhu, B.; Thakur, S.K. Microbial keratitis in eastern Nepal. Trop. Dr. 2001, 31, 168–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Ganguly, S.; Kansakar, I.; Sharma, M.; Bastola, P.; Pradhan, R. Pattern of fungal isolates in cases of corneal ulcer in the western periphery of Nepal. Nepal. J. Ophthalmol. 2011, 3, 118–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Lavaju, P.; Arya, S.; Khanal, B.; Amatya, R.; Patel, S. Demograhic pattern, clinical features and treatment outcome of patients with infective keratitis in the eastern region of Nepal. Nepal. J. Ophthalmol. 2010, 1, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Suwal, S.; Bhandari, D.; Thapa, P.; Shrestha, M.K.; Amatya, J. Microbiological profile of corneal ulcer cases diagnosed in a tertiary care ophthalmological institute in Nepal. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016, 16, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Upadhyay, M.; Rai, N.; Brandt, F.; Shrestha, R. Corneal ulcers in Nepal. Graefe’s Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 1982, 219, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Sitoula, R.P.; Singh, S.; Mahaseth, V.; Sharma, A.; Labh, R. Epidemiology and etiological diagnosis of infective keratitis in eastern region of Nepal. Nepal. J. Ophthalmol. 2015, 7, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Garg, P.; Gopinathan, U.; Choudhary, K.; Rao, G.N. Keratomycosis: Clinical and microbiologic experience with dematiaceous fungi. Ophthalmology 2000, 107, 574–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ghosh, A.K.; Gupta, A.; Rudramurthy, S.M.; Paul, S.; Hallur, V.K.; Chakrabarti, A. Fungal Keratitis in North India: Spectrum of Agents, Risk Factors and Treatment. Mycopathologia 2016, 181, 843–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ghosh, A.; Kaur, H.; Gupta, A.; Singh, S.; Rudramurthy, S.M.; Gupta, S.; Chakrabarti, A. Emerging Dematiaceous and Hyaline Fungi Causing Keratitis in a Tertiary Care Centre From North India. Cornea 2020, 39, 868–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Chowdhary, A.; Singh, K. Spectrum of fungal keratitis in North India. Cornea 2005, 24, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Forster, R.K.; Rebell, G.; Wilson, L.A. Dematiaceous fungal keratitis. Clinical isolates and management. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1975, 59, 372–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Kumar, A.; Khurana, A.; Sharma, M.; Chauhan, L. Causative fungi and treatment outcome of dematiaceous fungal keratitis in North India. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2019, 67, 1048–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Srinivasan, M.; Gonzales, C.A.; George, C.; Cevallos, V.; Mascarenhas, J.M.; Asokan, B.; Wilkins, J.; Smolin, G.; Whitcher, J.P. Epidemiology and aetiological diagnosis of corneal ulceration in Madurai, south India. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1997, 81, 965–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sengupta, S.; Rajan, S.; Reddy, P.R.; Thiruvengadakrishnan, K.; Ravindran, R.D.; Lalitha, P.; Vaitilingam, C.M. Comparative study on the incidence and outcomes of pigmented versus non pigmented keratomycosis. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2011, 59, 291–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bharathi, M.J.; Ramakrishnan, R.; Meenakshi, R.; Padmavathy, S.; Shivakumar, C.; Srinivasan, M. Microbial Keratitis in South India: Influence of Risk Factors, Climate, and Geographical Variation. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2007, 14, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Tangmonkongvoragul, C.; Chokesuwattanaskul, S.; Tananuvat, N.; Pongpom, M.; Upaphong, P.; Saysithidej, S.; Niparugs, M.; Chongkae, S. The Clinical Features and Prognostic Factors for Treatment Outcomes of Dematiaceous Fungal Keratitis over 9 Years at a Tertiary Eye Care in Northern Thailand. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Saha, R.; Das, S. Mycological profile of infectious Keratitis from Delhi. Indian J. Med. Res. 2006, 123, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  39. Deorukhkar, S.; Katiyar, R.; Saini, S. Epidemiological features and laboratory results of bacterial and fungal keratitis: A five-year study at a rural tertiary-care hospital in western Maharashtra, India. Singap. Med. J. 2012, 53, 264–267. [Google Scholar]
  40. Arunga, S. The Epidemiology of Microbial Keratitis in South Western Ugand. Ph.D. Thesis, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  41. Puri, L.R.; Shrestha, G. Microbial keratitis: A five years retrospective clinical study in tertiary eye hospital of eastern region of Nepal. J. Kathmandu Med. Coll. 2017, 4, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Gopinathan, U.; Garg, P.; Fernandes, M.; Sharma, S.; Athmanathan, S.; Rao, G.N. The epidemiological features and laboratory results of fungal keratitis: A 10-year review at a referral eye care center in South India. Cornea 2002, 21, 555–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Dahlgren, M.A.; Lingappan, A.; Wilhelmus, K.R. The Clinical Diagnosis of Microbial Keratitis. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2007, 143, 940–944.e941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Dalmon, C.; Porco, T.C.; Lietman, T.M.; Prajna, N.V.; Prajna, L.; Das, M.R.; Kumar, J.A.; Mascarenhas, J.; Margolis, T.P.; Whitcher, J.P.; et al. The Clinical Differentiation of Bacterial and Fungal Keratitis: A Photographic Survey. Investig. Opthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2012, 53, 1787–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Leck, A.; Burton, M. Distinguishing fungal and bacterial keratitis on clinical signs. Commun. Eye Health 2015, 28, 6–7. [Google Scholar]
  46. Mascarenhas, J.; Lalitha, P.; Prajna, N.V.; Srinivasan, M.; Das, M.; D’Silva, S.S.; Oldenburg, C.E.; Borkar, D.S.; Esterberg, E.J.; Lietman, T.M.; et al. Acanthamoeba, Fungal, and Bacterial Keratitis: A Comparison of Risk Factors and Clinical Features. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2014, 157, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Duke-Elder, S. Superficial keratitis. In System of Ophthalmology; C.V. Mosby: St. Louis, MO, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
  48. Aasuri, M.K.; Reddy, M.K.; Sharma, S.; Rao, G.N. Co-occurrence of pneumococcal keratitis and dacryocystitis. Cornea 1999, 18, 273–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Li, G.; Guo, J.; Liu, R.; Hu, W.; Xu, L.; Wang, J.; Cai, S.; Zhang, H.; Zhu, Y. Lacrimal Duct Occlusion Is Associated with Infectious Keratitis. Int. J. Med. Sci. 2016, 13, 800–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Nayak, A.; Mitra Basu, S.; De, A.; Mallick, A.; Das, S.; Rath, S. Concurrent Microbial Keratitis and Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction: Concordance, Etiopathogenesis, and Outcome. Cornea 2019, 38, 84–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Oldenburg, C.E.; Prajna, V.N.; Prajna, L.; Krishnan, T.; Mascarenhas, J.; Vaitilingam, C.M.; Srinivasan, M.; See, C.W.; Cevallos, V.; Zegans, M.E.; et al. Clinical signs in dematiaceous and hyaline fungal keratitis. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2011, 95, 750–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Hau, S.C.; Dart, J.K.G.; Vesaluoma, M.; Parmar, D.N.; Claerhout, I.; Bibi, K.; Larkin, D.F.P. Diagnostic accuracy of microbial keratitis with in vivo scanning laser confocal microscopy. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2010, 94, 982–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Number of microbial keratitis cases presenting per month and monthly rainfall within Province 2. Area between red dashed line represents when hospital was closed due to COVID-19 restrictions. Fungal and bacterial keratitis cases include mixed fungal–bacterial infections.
Figure 1. Number of microbial keratitis cases presenting per month and monthly rainfall within Province 2. Area between red dashed line represents when hospital was closed due to COVID-19 restrictions. Fungal and bacterial keratitis cases include mixed fungal–bacterial infections.
Jof 08 00201 g001
Figure 2. Operating characteristic curve showing the probability of fungal infection at different scores (95% CI dashed lines).
Figure 2. Operating characteristic curve showing the probability of fungal infection at different scores (95% CI dashed lines).
Jof 08 00201 g002
Table 1. Demographic characteristics and clinical history of study participants.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics and clinical history of study participants.
n/643Percent
Age (median = 45.9, IQR 35.7–57.7)<30 years8012.4%
30–40 years13621.2%
40–50 years13921.6%
50–60 years14422.4%
>60 years14422.4%
GenderMale25139.0%
Female39261.0%
NationalityNepali37458.2%
Indian26941.8%
OccupationNo job26340.9%
Farmer33251.6%
Other487.5%
EducationNone49476.8%
Primary level8012.4%
Secondary level121.9%
Tertiary level578.9%
Literacy levelIlliterate50077.8%
Reads/writes limited Nepali517.9%
Reads/writes Nepali well487.5%
Reads/writes English and Nepali446.8%
Marital statusUnmarried6610.3%
Married57789.7%
Presenting time (median = 8, IQR = 4–13)Prompt 0–3 days9014.0%
Early 4–7 days23035.8%
Intermediate 8–14 days17827.7%
Late 15–30 days10816.8%
Very late > 30 days375.8%
Most important symptom (self-reported)Pain47173.3%
Vision578.9%
Other11517.9%
History of traumaNo history of trauma/unsure32650.7%
Vegetative matter22635.1%
Other8613.4%
Unknown object50.8%
Used treatmentNo9314.5%
Yes55085.5%
Previous steroids10516.3%
Previous antibiotics46372.0%
Previous antifungals13420.8%
Previous other topical medication26040.4%
Previous systemic medication35354.9%
Used traditional eye medicine121.9%
DiabeticNo63098.0%
Yes132.0%
HIV-positiveNo643100.0%
Table 2. Clinical features and diagnosis at presentation.
Table 2. Clinical features and diagnosis at presentation.
MedianIQR (Total Range)
Epithelial defect size (mm) 2.902.0–4.25 (0–12)
Infiltrate size (mm) 2.751.75–4.0 (0.2–11.75)
n/642Percent
Snellen BSCVA (affected eye) ~6/5–6/1829646.0%
6/24–6/6016425.5%
5/60–1/6010316.0%
CF-PL8012.4%
SloughNone436.7%
Flat11417.8%
Raised48575.5%
Infiltrate edgeDefined7511.7%
Serrated55486.3%
Not visible132.0%
Satellite lesions presentNo36957.5%
Yes21433.3%
Unable to see599.2%
Infiltrate colourWhite60794.5%
Cream30.5%
Yellow10.2%
Dark brown101.6%
Black132.0%
Other81.2%
FibrinNo53383.0%
Yes416.4%
Unable to see6810.6%
HypopyonNo45772.3%
Yes17527.7%
Unable to see101.6%
Perforation statusNo63498.8%
Descemetocele60.9%
Perforated20.3%
~ One patient fainted following visual acuity measurement; N = 643 for visual acuity but N = 642 for all other clinical features. BSCVA, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity; CF, counting fingers; PL, perception of light.
Table 3. Aetiology of microbial keratitis with corresponding results of investigations.
Table 3. Aetiology of microbial keratitis with corresponding results of investigations.
Combined Laboratory and IVCM Diagnosis (N = 642)
Fungal
n (%)
Bacterial ~
n (%)
Mixed
n (%)
Unknown
n (%)
Total
n (%)
Microbiological Diagnosis
No growth/NSS/No sample ^41(8.5)0(0)0(0)70(90.9)111(17.3)
Fungal keratitis437(90.7)0(0)0(0)0(0)437(68.1)
Bacterial keratitis0(0)33(100)20(40.0)0(0)53(8.3)
Mixed bacterial / fungal0(0)0(0)30(60)0(0)30(4.7)
Corneal scrapes not performed4(0.8)0(0)0(0)7(9.1)11(1.7)
IVCM Diagnosis
No FK50(10.4)33(100)6(12.0)77(100)166(25.9)
FK432(89.6)0(0)44(88.0)0(0)476(74.1)
Overall composite diagnosis (prevalence) #482(75.1)33(5.1)50(7.8)77(12.0)642(100)
Mixed fungal–bacterial infections included §532(82.9)83(12.9)n/an/a77(12.0)n/an/a
Results of microbiology investigations
Microscopy and culture-negative34(7.1)0(0)0(0)50(64.9)84(13.1)
Microscopy-positive, culture-negative78(16.2)0(0)0(0)16(20.8)94(14.6)
Microscopy-negative, culture-positive5(1.0)4(12.1)0(0)0(0)9(1.4)
Microscopy and culture-positive349(72.4)29(87.9)50(100)0(0)428(66.7)
Microscopy-positive, cultures not performed12(2.5)0(0)0(0)0(0)12(1.9)
Microscopy-negative, cultures not performed0(0)0(0)0(0)4(5.2)4(0.6)
Corneal scrape contraindicated4(0.8)0(0)0(0)7(9.1)11(1.7)
Total482(100)33(100)50(100)77(100)642(100)
^ Microscopy and culture-negative infections seen in 84/111 cases, microscopy was positive for bacteria but not meeting diagnostic criteria as no growth was seen on culture in 17/111 cases, microscopy was positive for bacteria but cultures were not performed in 6/111 cases, or microscopy was negative with no cultures performed in 4/111 cases. A total of 41/111 cases were confirmed as fungal keratitis by IVCM. ~ Bacterial keratitis was only diagnosed by significant growth on culture media, as described in the Methods Section. # Composite diagnosis was based on positive microbiological diagnosis and/or positive IVCM diagnosis. § Mixed bacterial–fungal infections (n = 50) were added to both fungal and bacterial categories. NSS, nothing significant seen; IVCM, in vivo confocal microscopy; FK, fungal keratitis.
Table 4. Identification of fungi isolated from corneal samples of patients with microbial keratitis.
Table 4. Identification of fungi isolated from corneal samples of patients with microbial keratitis.
FunginPercent
Fusarium spp.6315.9
Aspergillus spp.5413.6
Dematiaceous fungi20150.6
  Curvularia spp.(170)(42.8)
  Bipolaris spp.(19)(4.8)
  Exserohilum spp.(7)(1.8)
  Alternaria spp.(5)(1.3)
Scedosporium apiospermum20.5
Sarocladium spp./Acremonium spp.82.0
Pestalotiopsis sp.10.3
Colletotrichum spp.61.5
Purpureocillium lilacinum20.5
Trichoderma spp.30.8
Syncephalastrum racemosum10.3
Fusarium sp. and Bipolaris sp.10.3
Mixed FFI20.5
Yeast20.5
Unidentified fungus5112.8
Total397100.0
FFI: filamentous fungal infection.
Table 5. Clinical features occurring in fungal and non-fungal keratitis (mixed infections included), with univariable analysis for features associated with fungal keratitis.
Table 5. Clinical features occurring in fungal and non-fungal keratitis (mixed infections included), with univariable analysis for features associated with fungal keratitis.
Indices for Detecting Fungal Keratitis
Frequency in Fungal Cases (Including Mixed)(%)Frequency in Non-Fungal Cases(%)Odds Ratio for FKp-Value95% CISens.Spec.PPVNPV
Serrated margins497/52794%57/10256%13.08<0.0017.64–22.3894.3%44.1%89.7%60.0%
Fibrin35/4817.3%6/936.5%1.140.7770.46–2.797.3%93.5%85.4%16.3%
Hypopyon136/52426%39/10836%0.620.0330.40–0.9626.0%63.9%77.7%17.1%
Raised slough439/53283%46/11042%6.57<0.0014.23–10.2082.5%58.2%90.5%40.8%
Satellite lesions192/48340%22/10022%2.340.0011.41–3.8839.8%78.0%89.7%21.1%
Pigmented colour28/5325.3%3/1102.7%1.980.2680.59–6.645.3%97.3%90.3%17.5%
Nasolacrimal duct obstruction15/4863.1%18/9918%0.14<0.0010.07–0.303.1%81.8%45.5%14.7%
Reduced corneal sensation70/53213%20/11018%0.680.1690.40–1.1813.2%81.8%77.8%16.3%
Trauma with vegetative object177/53233%21/11019%2.110.0041.27–3.5133.3%80.9%89.4%20.0%
Previous antibiotics392/53274%70/11064%1.600.0341.04–2.4773.7%36.4%84.8%22.2%
Delayed presentation > 3 days464/53287%88/11080%1.710.0491.00–2.9087.2%20.0%84.1%24.4%
Previous steroids96/53218%9/1108.2%2.470.0131.20–5.0618.0%91.8%91.4%18.8%
FK, fungal keratitis; CI, confidence interval; Sens., sensitivity; Spec., specificity; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.
Table 6. Multivariable analysis of clinical features occurring in fungal and bacterial keratitis (mixed infections included).
Table 6. Multivariable analysis of clinical features occurring in fungal and bacterial keratitis (mixed infections included).
Odds Ratiop-Value95% CI
Fungal keratitis—clinical features
Serrated margins7.50<0.0014.09–13.78
Raised slough4.27<0.0012.51–7.24
Nasolacrimal duct obstruction0.18<0.0010.07–0.42
Trauma with vegetative object2.650.0061.32–5.32
Bacterial keratitis—clinical features
Serrated margins0.360.0010.20–0.66
Nasolacrimal duct obstruction3.080.0061.38–6.87
Previous antibiotics0.33<0.0010.20–0.53
Table 7. Screening test indices for each score.
Table 7. Screening test indices for each score.
N = 574n(%)SensitivitySpecificityPPVNPV
Score > 0572(99.7)100%2.17%84.3%100%
Score > 1536(93.4)97.7%29.3%87.9%71.1%
Score > 2417(72.7)81.3%72.8%94%42.7%
Score > 3134(23.3)26.8%94.6%96.3%19.8%
Only patients who had all features examined were included in calculating the diagnostic accuracy. PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hoffman, J.J.; Yadav, R.; Sanyam, S.D.; Chaudhary, P.; Roshan, A.; Singh, S.K.; Arunga, S.; Hu, V.H.; Macleod, D.; Leck, A.; et al. Microbial Keratitis in Nepal: Predicting the Microbial Aetiology from Clinical Features. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 201. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8020201

AMA Style

Hoffman JJ, Yadav R, Sanyam SD, Chaudhary P, Roshan A, Singh SK, Arunga S, Hu VH, Macleod D, Leck A, et al. Microbial Keratitis in Nepal: Predicting the Microbial Aetiology from Clinical Features. Journal of Fungi. 2022; 8(2):201. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8020201

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hoffman, Jeremy J., Reena Yadav, Sandip Das Sanyam, Pankaj Chaudhary, Abhishek Roshan, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Simon Arunga, Victor H. Hu, David Macleod, Astrid Leck, and et al. 2022. "Microbial Keratitis in Nepal: Predicting the Microbial Aetiology from Clinical Features" Journal of Fungi 8, no. 2: 201. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8020201

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop