January 03, 2017
1 min read
Save

Higher frequency of infectious keratitis seen in summer months

The summer months had a higher frequency of infectious keratitis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa positivity, according to researchers in Eye & Contact Lens.

In a retrospective chart review, researchers performed a chi-square analysis to determine the seasonal variation in the presentation of infectious keratitis in 155 diagnosed cases, along with seasonal changes in its etiologies and risk factors.

A total of 53 men and 102 women were included, with a mean age of 40 years. Sixty-nine (44.5%) ulcers presented in the summer, 19 ulcers (12.3%) in the fall, 34 ulcers (21.9%) in the winter and 33 ulcers (21.3%) in the spring.

Diabetes mellitus was reported in 17 patients (11%), and 60 (39%) patients were contact lens wearers.

Twelve (8%) ulcers occurred in the setting of trauma, and 19 (12%) patients underwent previous ocular surgery, according to researchers.

A total of 92 ulcers were cultured: 53.8% were positive in the summer, 42.9% in the fall, 55.0% in the winter and 42.1% in the spring.

Researchers identified P. aeruginosa in up to 47.6% of culture-positive ulcers in the summer, while cultures in the remaining seasons were 0, 9.1% and 12.5% positive for the organism, researchers said.

A total of 45 of the 60 patients with contact lens-related ulcers were cultured. Contact lens wear was present in 23 of 46 positive cultures.

Varying climates have different etiologies of microbial keratitis, according to researchers.

They also found that contact lens use was associated with a higher frequency of presentation in the summer months.

An interesting and unexplained finding was the significant majority of female patients who presented with corneal ulcers, they continued.

“It is unclear whether the increased frequency of presentation of contact lens-related ulcers is causally linked or is due to the overall increase in the corneal ulcers presenting in the summer months,” researchers wrote. – by Abigail Sutton

Disclosure: The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.