Characterization of baseline polybacterial versus monobacterial infections in three randomized controlled bacterial conjunctivitis trials and microbial outcomes with besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 25;15(8):e0237603. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237603. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

Background/purpose: To date, studies examining polymicrobial infections in ocular disease have mostly been limited to keratitis or endophthalmitis. We characterized polybacterial infections compared to monobacterial infections in prior clinical studies evaluating besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension 0.6% for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis and report on associated microbiological outcomes.

Methods: In this post-hoc analysis, microbiological data for subjects with conjunctivitis due to one or more than one bacterial species in three previous studies (two vehicle-, one active-controlled) of besifloxacin were extracted. Bacterial species identified at baseline were deemed causative if their colony count equaled or exceeded species-specific prespecified threshold criteria. In subjects with polybacterial infections, the fold-increase over threshold was used to rank order the contribution of individual species. Baseline pathogens and their minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for common ophthalmic antibiotics were compared by infection type, as were microbial eradication rates following treatment with besifloxacin.

Results: Of 1041 subjects with culture-confirmed conjunctivitis, 17% had polybacterial and 83% had monobacterial conjunctivitis at baseline. In polybacterial compared to monobacterial infections, Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae were identified less frequently as the dominant infecting species (P = 0.042 and P<0.001, respectively), whereas Streptococcus mitis/S. mitis group was identified more frequently as dominant (P<0.001). Viral coinfection was also identified more frequently in polybacterial infections (P<0.001). Staphylococcus aureus was the most common coinfecting species in polybacterial infections and the second most common dominant species in such infections. With few exceptions, MICs for individual species were comparable regardless of infection type. Clinical microbial eradication rates with besifloxacin were high regardless of infection type (P≤0.016 vs vehicle at follow-up visits).

Conclusions: Approximately one in five subjects with bacterial conjunctivitis are infected with more than one bacterial species underscoring the need for a broad-spectrum antibiotic for such infections. Besifloxacin treatment resulted in robust eradication rates of these infections comparable to monobacterial infections.

Trial registration: NCT000622908, NCT00347932, NCT00348348.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00622908 NCT00347932 NCT00348348.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Multicenter Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Anti-Bacterial Agents / therapeutic use*
  • Azepines / therapeutic use*
  • Bacteria / classification*
  • Bacteria / drug effects*
  • Child
  • Child, Preschool
  • Conjunctivitis, Bacterial / drug therapy*
  • Conjunctivitis, Bacterial / microbiology
  • Conjunctivitis, Bacterial / pathology
  • Double-Blind Method
  • Female
  • Fluoroquinolones / therapeutic use*
  • Follow-Up Studies
  • Humans
  • Infant
  • Infant, Newborn
  • Male
  • Microbial Sensitivity Tests
  • Middle Aged
  • Prognosis
  • Prospective Studies
  • Young Adult

Substances

  • Anti-Bacterial Agents
  • Azepines
  • Fluoroquinolones
  • besifloxacin

Associated data

  • ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT00622908
  • ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT00347932
  • ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT00348348

Grants and funding

Original studies included in this pooled analysis were funded by Bausch & Lomb Incorporated. The funder provided support in the form of salaries for HD & CS and consultant fees for HP but did not have any additional role in post-hoc analyses or preparation of the manuscript. All authors had access to the data and were involved in the post-hoc analyses, as well as preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript. Authors, along with the funding company, were involved in the decision to publish.