Evaluation of moxifloxacin 0.5% in treatment of nonperforated bacterial corneal ulcers: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE:

To compare the equivalence of moxifloxacin 0.5% with a combination of fortified cefazolin sodium 5% and tobramycin sulfate 1.3% eye drops in the treatment of moderate bacterial corneal ulcers.

DESIGN:

Randomized, controlled, equivalence clinical trial.

PARTICIPANTS AND CONTROLS:

Microbiologically proven cases of bacterial corneal ulcers were enrolled in the study and were allocated randomly to 1 of the 2 treatment groups.

INTERVENTION:

Group A was given combination therapy (fortified cefazolin sodium 5% and tobramycin sulfate) and group B was given monotherapy (moxifloxacin 0.5%).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

The primary outcome variable for the study was percentage of the ulcers healed at 3 months. The secondary outcome variables were best-corrected visual acuity and resolution of infiltrates.

RESULTS:

Of a total of 224 patients with bacterial keratitis, 114 patients were randomized to group A, whereas 110 patients were randomized to group B. The mean ± standard deviation ulcer size in groups A and B were 4.2 ± 2 and 4.41 ± 1.5 mm, respectively. The prevalence of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (40.9% in group A and 48.2% in group B) was similar in both the study groups. A complete resolution of keratitis and healing of ulcers occurred in 90 patients (81.8%) in group A and 88 patients (81.4%) in group B at 3 months. The observed percentage of healing at 3 months was less than the equivalence margin of 20%. Worsening of ulcer was seen in 18.2% cases in group A and in 18.5% cases in group B. Mean time to epithelialization was similar, and there was no significant difference in the 2 groups (P = 0.065). No serious events attributable to therapy were reported.

CONCLUSIONS:

Corneal healing using 0.5% moxifloxacin monotherapy is equivalent to that of combination therapy using fortified cefazolin and tobramycin in the treatment of moderate bacterial corneal ulcers.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.