Role of chloramphenicol eye drops for endophthalmitis prophylaxis following cataract surgery: Outcomes of institutional cessation

Effect of a topical antibiotic and povidone-iodine vs povidone-iodine alone on conjunctival flora:systematic review and meta-analysis

TOPIC

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether adding preoperative topical antibiotics to povidone-iodine (PVI) offers any additional benefit over PVI alone in reducing conjunctival bacterial flora, thereby potentially lowering the risk of postoperative endophthalmitis. The participants included 1423 eyes undergoing elective intraocular surgeries (eg, cataract, keratoplasty, and trabeculectomy) or receiving intravitreal injections. The interventions studied were PVI combined with third-generation quinolones (levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, or gatifloxacin) compared with PVI alone. The outcome measure was postintervention rate of positive conjunctival bacterial cultures before ophthalmic procedure.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Postoperative endophthalmitis is a rare but serious complication of intraocular surgery, potentially leading to significant vision loss. Although PVI is widely recognized as an essential prophylactic measure, the role of preoperative topical antibiotics remains debated. Defining the necessity of antibiotic use in routine cataract surgery is important, especially given the concerns about antibiotic resistance and the rising cost of health care. The current standard of care varies globally, with PVI commonly used alone in many regions, such as the United Kingdom.

METHODS

Studies were included based on the comparison of preoperative PVI with or without antibiotics in patients undergoing intraocular surgery. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases, covering literature up to October 2024. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

7 studies were included, comprising 1423 eyes. A meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in the reduction of conjunctival bacterial flora between PVI + antibiotics and PVI alone (odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.42-1.42; P = .41). Subgroup analysis showed that levofloxacin combined with PVI significantly reduced positive culture rates (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29-0.81; P = .006), whereas moxifloxacin and gatifloxacin did not show similar benefits. Moderate heterogeneity was observed across studies ( I2 = 58%; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

This review found no conclusive benefit of using preoperative topical antibiotics alongside PVI in routine ophthalmic procedures. However, in patients at high-risk of endophthalmitis, levofloxacin may offer additional protection.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42024603822.

Topical Chloramphenicol in Ophthalmology: Old is Gold

PURPOSE

Topical chloramphenicol is one of the most ubiquitous antibiotics used in ophthalmology and oculoplastic surgery globally. It shows broad-spectrum activity against a variety of different pathogenic organisms, is well tolerated on the ocular surface and displays excellent topical pharmacokinetics. Chloramphenicol has been available for purchase over the counter in the United Kingdom since 2005. Despite this, the largest health economy in the world, The United States has had a de-facto moratorium on its use for the past 30 years. In this review, we aim to evaluate topical chloramphenicol in ophthalmology and oculoplastic surgery and to determine whether its reputation within the US is warranted and justified.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature review to evaluate the different facets of chloramphenicol, providing a detailed understanding of the drug, its historical context, the benefits and perceived risks, including safety concerns, and clinical perspectives of its use in clinical practice.

RESULTS

The mechanism of chloramphenicol, the context around which the drug's use in the US declined, and the drug's evidence base and safety data, including published case reports of serious adverse events, were analysed. The perceived benefits of the drug, particularly in light of antimicrobial resistance and its economic impact, were reviewed. Finally, perspectives on its use in clinical practice in ophthalmology and associated allied specialities were presented.

CONCLUSION

Chloramphenicol and its topical application have been misunderstood for many decades, particularly in the United States. Its demise across the Atlantic was due to an overzealous response to a dubious association with a weak evidence base. Numerous authors have since validated the safety profile of the and its safety has been borne out. The benefits of chloramphenicol, an effective broad-spectrum agent with a positive cost differential in the era of anti-microbial resistance and fiscal tightening, cannot be understated. Its likely effectiveness as a therapeutic topical agent in ophthalmic surgery makes it a valuable tool in the ophthalmic anti-microbial armoury. We would encourage the reinstatement of this valuable yet misunderstood drug as a first-line agent for simple ophthalmic infections.

Tracing the barriers to decarbonising ophthalmology: A review

As climate change demands increasingly urgent mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, the health sector needs to do its part to decarbonise. Ophthalmologists share concerns about climate change and seek opportunities to reduce their environmental impact. When measuring the footprint of ophthalmology, major contributions are from patient travel to clinics, and from the large amounts of single-use disposable materials that are consumed during surgeries and sterile procedures. Ophthalmic services in India have already demonstrated systems that consume far fewer of these products through efficient throughput of patients and the safe reuse of many items, while maintaining equivalent safety and quality outcomes. Choosing these low-cost low-emission options would seem obvious, but many ophthalmologists experience barriers that prevent them operating as Indian surgeons do. Understanding these barriers to change is a crucial step in the decarbonisation of ophthalmology and the health sector more broadly.

Cost-Effectiveness of Preoperative Topical Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Endophthalmitis Following Cataract Surgery

PURPOSE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of preoperative topical antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of endophthalmitis following cataract surgery.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision-analytic microsimulation model.

METHODS

Preoperative topical antibiotic prophylaxis vs no-prophylaxis costs and effects were projected over a life-time horizon for a simulated cohort of 500 000 adult patients (≥18 years old) requiring cataract surgery in theoretical surgical centers in the United States. Efficacy and cost (2021 US dollars) values were obtained from the literature and discounted at 3% per year.

RESULTS

Based on inputted parameters, the mean incidence of endophthalmitis following cataract surgery for preoperative topical antibiotic prophylaxis vs no-prophylaxis was 0.034% (95% CI 0%-0.2%) and 0.042% (95% CI 0%-0.3%), respectively-an absolute risk reduction of 0.008%. The mean life-time costs for cataract surgery with prophylaxis and no-prophylaxis were $2486.67 (95% CI $2193.61-$2802.44) and $2409.03 (95% CI $2129.94-$2706.69), respectively. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with prophylaxis and no-prophylaxis were 10.33495 (95% CI 7.81629-12.38158) and 10.33498 (95% CI 7.81284-12.38316), respectively. Assuming a cost-effectiveness criterion of ≤$50 000 per QALY gained, the threshold analyses indicated that prophylaxis would be cost-effective if the incidence of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery was greater than 5.5% or if the price of the preoperative topical antibiotic prophylaxis was less than $0.75.

CONCLUSIONS

General use of preoperative topical antibiotic prophylaxis is not cost-effective compared with no-prophylaxis for the prevention of endophthalmitis following cataract surgery. Preoperative topical antibiotic prophylaxis, however, would be cost-effective at a higher incidence of endophthalmitis and/or a substantially lower price for prophylaxis.

Prophylactic antibiotics for postcataract surgery endophthalmitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 6.8 million eyes

To reveal optimal antibiotic prophylactic regimen for postoperative endophthalmitis (POE), we conducted systematic review and network meta-analysis. A total of 51 eligible original articles, including two randomized controlled trials, were identified. In total, 4502 POE cases occurred in 6,809,732 eyes (0.066%). Intracameral injection of vancomycin had the best preventive effect (odds ratio [OR] 0.03, 99.6% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-0.53, corrected P-value = 0.006, P-score = 0.945) followed by intracameral injection of cefazoline (OR 0.09, 99.6% CI 0.02-0.42, corrected P-value < 0.001, P-score = 0.821), cefuroxime (OR 0.18, 99.6% CI 0.09-0.35, corrected P-value < 0.001, P-score = 0.660), and moxifloxacin (OR 0.36, 99.6% CI 0.16-0.79, corrected P-value = 0.003, P-score = 0.455). While one randomized controlled trial supported each of intracameral cefuroxime and moxifloxacin, no randomized controlled trial evaluated vancomycin and cefazoline. Sensitivity analysis focusing on the administration route revealed that only intracameral injection (OR 0.19, 99.4% CI 0.12-0.30, corrected P-value < 0.001, P-score = 0.726) significantly decreased the risk of postoperative endophthalmitis. In conclusion, intracameral injection of either vancomycin, cefazoline, cefuroxime, or moxifloxacin prevented POE.