1887

Abstract

. Injudicious use of antibiotics often leads to antibiotic resistance which contributes to significant morbidity and mortality. Knowledge of local antibiogram is important in informing appropriate empiric antimicrobial therapy.

. It is the first and largest study that examines bacterial isolates from multiple ocular infections across South India and provides a overview of susceptibility patterns for each individual bacteria in the detailed interactive dashboard.

. To study the landscape of bacterial antibiotic susceptibility patterns of ocular infections in patients undergoing microbiological investigations across a multi-tier ophthalmology network in India.

. This cross-sectional hospital-based study included 15 822 patients in whom microbiology samples were analysed between September 2013 and December 2021. Ocular tissue of patients in whom a microbiology sample was processed in at least one eye were included as cases. The data were collected using an indigenously developed electronic medical record (EMR) system.

. Among the 15 822 patients, bacteria (51.06 %) was the most common aetiology, followed by fungus (38.27 %). The majority of the patients were male (68.10 %) and the majority were adults (90.01 %). The most common age group was during the sixth decade with 2914 (18.42 %) patients. The patients were more commonly from the lower socio-economic status (51.61 %) and rural geography (46.82 %). The majority of the specimens sent for microbiological analysis were corneal scraping (68.61 %). Gram-positive cocci and Gram-positive bacilli were most sensitive towards vancomycin (86.83 and 92.89% respectively) followed by cefazolin (80.88 %) and amikacin, while Gram-negative bacilli were most sensitive towards ofloxacin (65.24%).

. The most common aetiology of infection in ocular disease is bacterial and the majority of the patients presented from the rural geography and from lower socio-economic status. While vancomycin continues to be the drug of choice for Gram-positive organisms, increasing resistance to fluoroquinolones and ceftazidime was observed. Adoption of this model will enable access to antimicrobial susceptibility data, leading to reliable decisions and better clinical outcomes.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Hyderabad Eye Research Foundation (Award 123#)
    • Principle Award Recipient: JosephJoveeta
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001598
2022-11-11
2024-07-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Asbell PA, Sanfilippo CM, Sahm DF, DeCory HH. Trends in antibiotic resistance among ocular microorganisms in the United States From 2009 to 2018. JAMA Ophthalmol 2020; 138:439–450 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Chalita MR, Höfling-Lima AL, Paranhos A, Schor P, Belfort R. Shifting trends in in vitro antibiotic susceptibilities for common ocular isolates during a period of 15 years. Am J Ophthalmol 2004; 137:43–51 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Buznach N, Dagan R, Greenberg D. Clinical and bacterial characteristics of acute bacterial conjunctivitis in children in the antibiotic resistance era. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005; 24:823–828 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Joseph J, Karolia R, Sharma S, Choudhary H, Naik MN. Microbiological profile and antibiotic susceptibility trends in orbital cellulitis in India: an analysis over 15 years. Orbit 2021; 23:1–7 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Joseph J, Sontam B, Guda SJM, Gandhi J, Sharma S et al. Trends in microbiological spectrum of endophthalmitis at a single tertiary care ophthalmic hospital in India: a review of 25 years. Eye 2019; 33:1090–1095 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dellit TH, Owens RC, McGowan JE, Gerding DN, Weinstein RA et al. Infectious diseases society of America and the society for healthcare epidemiology of America guidelines for developing an institutional program to enhance antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44:159–177 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. van Belkum A, Bachmann TT, Lüdke G, Lisby JG, Kahlmeter G et al. Developmental roadmap for antimicrobial susceptibility testing systems. Nat Rev Microbiol 2019; 17:51–62 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Doron S, Davidson LE. Antimicrobial stewardship. Mayo Clin Proc 2011; 86:1113–1123 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Rao GN, Khanna RC, Athota SM, Rajshekar V, Rani PK. Integrated model of primary and secondary eye care for underserved rural areas: the L V Prasad Eye Institute experience. Indian J Ophthalmol 2012; 60:396–400 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Das AV, Kammari P, Vadapalli R, Basu S. Big data and the eyeSmart electronic medical record system - An 8-year experience from a three-tier eye care network in India. Indian J Ophthalmol 2020; 68:427–432 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bharathi MJ, Ramakrishnan R, Shivakumar C, Meenakshi R, Lionalraj D. Etiology and antibacterial susceptibility pattern of community-acquired bacterial ocular infections in a tertiary eye care hospital in south India. Indian J Ophthalmol 2010; 58:497–507 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Das S, Samantaray R, Mallick A, Sahu SK, Sharma S. Types of organisms and in-vitro susceptibility of bacterial isolates from patients with microbial keratitis: A trend analysis of 8 years. Indian J Ophthalmol 2019; 67:49–53 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Biswas P, Batra S, Gurha N, Maksane N. Emerging antimicrobial resistance and need for antimicrobial stewardship for ocular infections in India: A narrative review. Indian J Ophthalmol 2022; 70:1513–1521 [View Article]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Paul M, Andreassen S, Nielsen AD, Tacconelli E, Almanasreh N et al. Prediction of bacteremia using TREAT, a computerized decision-support system. Clin Infect Dis 2006; 42:1274–1282 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Schulz LT, Fox BC, Polk RE. Can the antibiogram be used to assess microbiologic outcomes after antimicrobial stewardship interventions? A critical review of the literature. Pharmacotherapy 2012; 32:668–676 [View Article] [PubMed]
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001598
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.001598
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error