![]() |
||||||
|
||||||
Acute infective conjunctivitis: evidence review and
management advice for New Zealand practitioners
Genevieve F Oliver, Graham A Wilson, Richard J Everts
Most eye disease is managed solely by general practitioners
(GPs), accounting for about 1.5% of their workload in the United Kingdom
(UK).1 Although only a small proportion of eye
disease seen in general practice is potentially sight-threatening, one study of
GPs revealed that 68% of 8279 respondents had ‘some uncertainties about
eyes’ and 10% admitted that ‘eyes scare me
stiff’.2
Conjunctivitis is the most frequent cause of a red
eye.2 One in eight schoolchildren has an
episode of acute infective conjunctivitis every
year,3 and on average GPs see a case every
week.1, 2 Despite their familiarity with this
condition, there is a wide variety of approaches by GPs to the management of
acute infective conjunctivitis.
We searched for relevant English-language literature using
MEDLINE and bibliographies and identified a number of studies on acute infective
conjunctivitis published in the last decade. In this review we examine those
data and provide practical management advice for clinicians who manage adults
and children with acute bacterial and viral conjunctivitis in New Zealand.
DiagnosisThe hallmark symptoms and signs of acute infective
conjunctivitis are grittiness, redness and discharge with minimal or no visual
disturbance. The infection is usually bilateral. Allergic conjunctivitis is
typically itchy and often seasonal or reactive and accompanied by other atopic
features. It is important to consider more serious eye diseases if there is
unilateral red eye, severe pain, photophobia, a drop in visual acuity or recent
ocular surgery or trauma.
Few well-designed studies have examined clinical predictors
of bacterial versus viral conjunctivitis, despite the importance of this
distinction for treatment. Rietveld et al studied 184 adults aged 18 years or
older with acute conjunctivitis and found bilateral gluing of the eyelids and
absence of previous conjunctivitis to correlate significantly on multivariate
analysis with bacterial conjunctivitis.4 Patel
et al studied 111 children aged 1 month to 18 years with conjunctivitis and
found gluey or sticky eyelids or eyelashes in the morning and purulent or mucoid
discharge to independently predict bacterial
conjunctivitis.5 The most common bacterial
causes in adults and children are Staphylococcus aureus,
Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and
Moraxella
catarrhalis.3,6,7
Swabbing the conjunctivaeNo study has prospectively evaluated the utility of
conjunctival culture as part of a logical algorithm in the routine management of
infective conjunctivitis. Unpublished New Zealand data reveals a high
correlation between preliminary (24-hour) culture results and final culture
results of conjunctival swabs (> 90% positive and negative predictive
value).8 Culture results available the day
after clinical evaluation could therefore be combined with clinical features to
guide treatment decisions.
Certain clinical situations warrant conjunctival culture.
These include infections not responding to treatment, neonatal conjunctivitis
(test for Neisseria gonorrhoea and Chlamydia trachomatis),
infections in contact-lens wearers, (consider Pseudomonas aeruginosa,
Acanthamoeba spp. and opportunistic fungi), conjunctivitis in the
setting of an outbreak (discuss testing with Public Health or Infection Control
advisors) and conjunctivitis in adults who are sexually active and have other
symptoms of sexually-transmitted infection or profuse purulent discharge (test
for N. gonorrhoea and C. trachomatis).
Untreated, infants with ophthalmia neonatorum may develop
severe ocular sequelae.9 Serology, culture, and
DNA amplification tests for adenovirus are available in New Zealand but their
use is restricted to outbreak or exceptional individual situations.
Benefits of treatmentBefore June 2005, more than 2 million prescriptions for
ocular antibiotics were issued every year in primary care in
England.3 Given that approximately half of all
conjunctivitis infections are viral and that the vast majority of bacterial
conjunctivitis infections resolve spontaneously without sequelae, were these
prescriptions indicated?
A meta-analysis of antibiotics versus placebo for acute
bacterial conjunctivitis was published in a Cochrane review in
2006.10 Five randomised trials including a
total of 1034 participants were analysed. Clinical recovery with antibiotics was
faster, especially in the first 2 to 5 days after presentation (relative risk of
clinical cure 1.24; 6 patients needed treatment in order to achieve one more
clinical cure than with placebo).
Six to ten days after presentation the benefit of
antibiotics was less (relative risk of clinical cure 1.11; number needed to
treat = 13). The benefit of topical antibiotics versus placebo was greater on
microbiological cure than on clinical cure. At 2 to 5 days after presentation
the relative risk of microbiological cure was 1.77; at 6 to 10 days the relative
risk was 1.56.
The trial of highest methodological quality included in the
Cochrane Review was a randomised, double-blind trial involving 326 children (age
6 months to 12 years) in the UK general practice
setting.3 Children were treated with
chloramphenicol drops or placebo. About half a day was gained in time to
resolution in those treated with antibiotic.
An additional randomised, controlled trial in 2006
(published after the Cochrane Review) assessed different management strategies
for acute infective conjunctivitis.11 Thirty
general practices in southern England recruited a total of 307 adults and
children over a 4-year period. Patients were randomised into three treatment
groups: immediate chloramphenicol drops (every 2 hours for 2 days, then 4 times
daily), delayed antibiotics (prescription to be collected at patient’s
discretion after 3 days) or no antibiotics. Each group was also randomised to
receive an information leaflet or not as well as an eye swab or not.
Antibiotics were actually used by 99% of the
immediate-antibiotic group, 53% of the delayed-antibiotic group and 30% of
controls. Severity of symptoms 1 to 3 days after presentation was similar among
the three treatment groups. However, duration of moderate symptoms was shorter
in the immediate and delayed-antibiotic groups compared with controls (3.3 and
3.9 vs. 4.8 days, respectively). By day 8 there was no significant difference
between the groups. Satisfaction with the amount of information on eye
infections was greater in those who received an information leaflet and more
patients also felt that the doctor dealt with their concerns well. Obtaining an
eye swab increased patients’ concerns about conjunctivitis.
These trials
show that antibiotic treatment reduces duration of clinical illness by ½ to
1½ days. One would expect that patients would appreciate a day or so less
discomfort, especially if the conjunctivitis is visually unattractive or leads
to restrictions at work, school or early childhood care. Moreover, the
substantial benefit of antibiotics on microbiological cure may lead to reduced
transmission of pathogenic bacteria. In 2003, however, a qualitative study of
patients’ perceptions of acute conjunctivitis was performed in the
UK,12 which revealed that most patients who
presented for treatment did so because they were unaware of its self-limiting
nature.
When informed that conjunctivitis is self-limiting, most
people chose to wait a few days to see if it improved, even if this resulted in
a longer duration of symptoms. Patients welcomed a delayed prescription strategy
as a way of potentially avoiding antibiotics and repeat visits to the doctor.
Choice of antibioticRandomised controlled trials of bacterial conjunctivitis
reveal little or no significant difference between various antibiotics in terms
of clinical efficacy.13 Chloramphenicol is the
treatment of choice in New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom for
uncomplicated conjunctivitis in adults and
children.14–16 It has broad-spectrum
activity but does not treat chlamydia or Pseudomonas infections.
Resistance to chloramphenicol is rare despite millions of
courses having been used for decades: of 281 bacterial isolates from eye swabs
submitted to Christchurch Medlab South over a 6-month period in 2008 only 3 (1%)
were resistant to chloramphenicol.7
Chloramphenicol has few side-effects.3 A large
international case-controlled study of patients with aplastic anaemia found no
evidence of an association with recent topical chloramphenicol
use.17
Fusidic acid is as effective as
chloramphenicol3 but is about four to seven
times the cost and is only partly subsidised in New
Zealand.18 There are reports of emerging
resistance to fusidic acid:14 in New Zealand,
for example, 14.4% of more than 11,000 Staphylococcus aureus isolates
tested in 2006 were resistant to fusidic
acid.19 Moreover, one study showed that fusidic
acid gel caused a burning feeling on instillation in 14% of
patients.19
It is vital that topical antibiotics that may promote
resistance to important oral agents are not used unnecessarily. Resistance
develops rapidly and easily amongst Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other
gram-negative rods to fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin) so these
should not be used outside of exceptional circumstances, such as proven
pseudomonas infections.
Restriction from child-care, school, or workThe need for patients to be excluded from work, school or
early childhood care is controversial and recommendations vary widely between
countries, authors and institutions.20-22 The
New Zealand Ministry of Education has no guideline for children returning to
school and the New Zealand Ministry of Health refers to local guidelines set by
the Medical Officers of Health.
There are arguments for and against the need to restrict
patients with conjunctivitis. Some reason that conjunctivitis is generally
harmless and that the societal cost of restrictions is high, especially when you
take into account the need for parents of children with conjunctivitis to either
take leave themselves or make arrangements for childcare.
On the other hand, conjunctivitis can be uncomfortable and
unsightly and both bacteria (e.g. Streptococcus
pneumoniae)20 and viruses (especially
adenovirus)21 can cause outbreaks in certain
circumstances. An adenovirus type 8 outbreak in the Dunedin Hospital Eye Clinic
in 2004 cost the District Health Board approximately $25,000 to manage and
affected 15 patients and one staff member.23
There are few data available to guide recommendations on
restriction of patients with conjunctivitis. Bacteria have frequently been
isolated for a week or more after enrolment into conjunctivitis treatment
trials; the isolation rate is less in groups randomised to topical
antibiotics.9 Viral excretion may persist for
weeks after infection24 and even asymptomatic
or minimally symptomatic persons may contribute to transmission of
organisms.25
The quantity of organisms and infectivity of the patient,
however, decrease with time and correlate with symptoms. One mechanism for this
is that as symptoms resolve the patient will less often touch his or her eye;
transmission of most cases of conjunctivitis is by contaminated hand-to-hand
contact. On the other hand, asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic persons may
also contribute to transmission of
organisms.25
We recommend clinicians individualise advice to patients
with conjunctivitis regarding return to work, school or early childhood care
based on the duration of illness, resolution of symptoms, use of topical
antibiotics (only applies to proven bacterial infections), apparent infectivity
of the strain (is it an outbreak?) and the patient’s circumstances. For
example, is the patient able to comply with good hand hygiene? Is the patient in
contact with immunosuppressed persons?
Key management points
ConclusionKey management points are summarised above. Variable
approaches to management of infectious conjunctivitis to date probably reflects
the difficulty in clinically distinguishing bacterial from viral infections,
modest benefits of antibiotic treatment and individual patient preferences
regarding treatment of what is usually a benign short-lived illness. Published
reports in the last decade have provided the first reliable data on clinical
features of bacterial versus viral conjunctivitis, further defined the benefits
of various antibiotic therapies for bacterial infections and examined the issues
of patient choice and the use of delayed treatment algorithms for topical
antibiotics.
Several topics require further investigation, for example,
the cost-effectiveness of antibiotic treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis is
unknown. There are no data available on the effectiveness of treatment with
saline, ocular decongestants, povidone iodine or warm compresses. A prospective
study of the use of preliminary culture results from conjunctival swab samples
to guide use of topical antibiotics is underway in New Zealand.
Competing interests: None known.
Author information: Genevieve F Oliver,
Non-Vocational Registrar, Ophthalmology Department, Dunedin Hospital, Dunedin;
Graham A Wilson, Consultant Ophthalmologist, Ophthalmology Department, Gisborne
Hospital, Gisborne; Richard J Everts, Infectious Diseases Specialist and Medical
Microbiologist, Nelson Hospital, Nelson
Correspondence: Graham A Wilson, Gisborne
Hospital, 421 Ormond Road, Gisborne, New Zealand. Email Graham.Wilson@tdh.org.nz
References:
|
||||||
| Current
issue | Search journal |
Archived issues | Classifieds
| Hotline (free ads) Subscribe | Contribute | Advertise | Contact Us | Copyright | Other Journals |