A super-infection in the cornea caused by Stemphylium, Acremonium, and α-Streptococcus.

BACKGROUND: Polymicrobial keratitis with fungus and bacteria can lead to blindness and is challenging to treat. Here, we introduce a case of fungal keratitis caused by two different strains in addition to definite bacterial super-infection caused by an α-Streptococcus sp., and describe the importance of microscopic examination. CASE PRESENTATION: A 74-year-old woman, who had a past history of infection with leprosy, presented with conjunctival hyperaemia, pain, and corneal opacity in her right eye. Under the presumptive diagnosis of infectious keratitis, corneal scrapings were stained by various reagents and inoculated on several agar plates. Microscopic findings of the scrapings revealed fungi and a small number of Gram-positive cocci. Multiple anti-fungal therapies with levofloxacin ophthalmic solution were administered. Although empiric treatment was initially effective, keratitis recurred 10 days after its initiation. Repeated corneal scraping revealed an abundance of Gram-positive chain cocci and a small amount of fungi, resulting in the switching of an antibiotic medication from levofloxacin to moxifloxacin and cefmenoxime. Keratitis resolved gradually after the conversion. Stemphylium sp., Acremonium sp., and α-Streptococcus sp. were simultaneously isolated from the corneal scrapings. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of fungal keratitis caused by Stemphylium sp., and also the first case of super-infection in the cornea caused by two different fungi and one bacterium. Microscopic examination of the corneal scrapings was beneficial in rapid decision of changing to appropriate drug according to the dominancy of pathogenicity.

[Ocular leprosy: a historical approach]. / Hanseníase ocular: uma abordagem histórica.

A sharp drop in the prevalence of leprosy occurred in the last three decades. However, the incidence has not decreased at the same rate. Three years after the World Health Organization last deadline for leprosy control, patients considered healed still need special care for their incapacities and immunopathological reactions. Medical literature reffers blindness in 4% to 11% of studied patients and more than 20% with severe visual problems due to corneal exposure, bacillary invasion and hipersensibility. These mechanisms result in a population of nearly one million blind leprosy patients even though official prevalence accounts no more than 250,000 patients worldwide. The author calls for better patients management and follow-up and urges ophthalmologists to become more aware and interested in the treatment of the ocular complications of leprosy.

Hanseníase ocular: uma abordagem histórica / Ocular leprosy: a historical approach

Houve uma acentuada queda na prevalência da hanseníase nas últimas três décadas. Contudo, a incidência não diminuiu na mesma proporção. Hoje, três anos após a última data estipulada pela Organização Mundial da Saúde para o controle da hanseníase, pacientes considerados curados ainda necessitam de cuidados especiais por causa de suas incapacidades e reações imunológicas. A literatura médica refere cegueira em 4 por cento a 11 por cento dos pacientes estudados e, mais de 20 por cento com graves problemas visuais devido a exposição da córnea, invasão bacilar e hipersensibilidade; estes mecanismos resultam em uma população de aproximadamente 1 milhão de pacientes cegos, embora a prevalência oficial não passe de 250.000 pacientes em todo o mundo. O autor destaca a necessidade de melhor tratamento e acompanhamento dos pacientes e, conclama os oftalmologistas a tornarem-se mais perceptivos e se interessarem mais pelo tratamento das complicações oculares da hanseníase.

A sharp drop in the prevalence of leprosy occurred in the last three decades. However, the incidence has not decreased at the same rate. Three years after the World Health Organization last deadline for leprosy control, patients considered healed still need special care for their incapacities and immunopathological reactions. Medical literature reffers blindness in 4 percent to 11 percent of studied patients and more than 20 percent with severe visual problems due to corneal exposure, bacillary invasion and hipersensibility. These mechanisms result in a population of nearly one million blind leprosy patients even though official prevalence accounts no more than 250,000 patients worldwide. The author calls for better patients management and follow-up and urges ophthalmologists to become more aware and interested in the treatment of the ocular complications of leprosy.

Keratitis.

Corneal inflammation or keratitis is a significant cause of ocular morbidity around the world. Fortunately, the majority of the cases are successfully managed with medical therapy, but the failure of therapy does occur, leading to devastating consequences of either losing the vision or the eye. This review attempts to provide current information on most, though not all, aspects of keratitis. Corneal inflammation may be ulcerative or nonulcerative and may arise because of infectious or noninfectious causes. The nonulcerative corneal inflammation may be confined to the epithelial layer or to the stroma of the cornea or may affect both. For clarity, this section has been divided into nonulcerative superficial keratitis and nonulcerative stromal keratitis. While the former usually includes hypersensitivity responses to microbial toxins and unknown agents, the latter can be either infectious or noninfectious. In the pathogenesis of ulcerative keratitis, microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi, parasites (Acanthamoeba), or viruses play an important role. Approximately, 12.2% of all corneal transplantations are done for active infectious keratitis. Available world literature pertaining to the incidence of microbial keratitis has been provided special place in this review. On the other hand, noninfectious ulcerative keratitis can be related to a variety of systemic or local causes, predominantly of autoimmune origin.

Ocular involvement in tuberculoid leprosy--a case report.

Leprosy is rarely diagnosed in our part of the world. In our 26-year-old patient, borderline lepromatous leprosy was first diagnosed in 1992 and was treated with Rifoldin, Lemprene and Dapson according to the standard WHO scheme of treatment. Ophthalmic examination showed minor epithelial lesions of the cornea in both eyes, a reduced corneal reflex in the left eye and a scleral leproma nasally and close to the limbus, also in the left eye. In 1995, the patient was examined again and was treated as above for lepromata of the left eyebrow nasally and of both lower legs. Ophthalmic examination revealed conjunctival irritation, anterior uveitis with leprosy pearls on the pupillary margin and secondary glaucoma. The glaucoma was treated with hypotonics, the uveitis was treated with topical cortisone. The intra-ocular pressure normalised and the uveitis improved. Of the two main types of leprosy, lepromatous leprosy and tuberculoid leprosy, our patient had the second, milder form.

Unsuspected ocular leprosy

Ophtalmic findings suggestive of leprosy include loss of eyebrows and eyelashes, beaded corneal nerves, puntacte subepithelial superior limbal corneal opacities, entropion of the upper eyelids, conjunctival hyperemia an the other canthal area, iris pearls and unexplained unilateral or bilateral 7th nerve histories were presented. The average time interval between the initial presenting complaint the establishment of the correct diagnosis was six years. There is no accurate method of determining the real incidence of leprosy in the United States, but it would appear to be higher than suspected. Ophthalmologists should consider leprosy when examining patients with any of the findings just mentioned, particularly if the patient has a sssociated skin or neurologic findings or nasal stuffiness.