Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Ocular bacterial infections at Quiha Ophthalmic Hospital, Northern Ethiopia: an evaluation according to the risk factors and the antimicrobial susceptibility of bacterial isolates

BMC Infectious DiseasesBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:207

DOI: 10.1186/s12879-017-2304-1

Received: 1 August 2016

Accepted: 4 March 2017

Published: 14 March 2017

Abstract

Background

External and intraocular infections can lead to visual impairments, which is a major public health problem. Bacteria are the most frequent pathogens affecting ocular structures; the increasing rate of antimicrobial drug resistance is a worldwide concern. The aim of this study was to determine the occurrence of bacteria in ocular infections, their antimicrobial susceptibility patterns, and risk factors in bacterial ocular infection.

Methods

A hospital based cross-sectional study was conducted from September 2015 to December 2015 at Quiha Ophthalmic Hospital, Tigray, northern Ethiopia. Ocular specimens from blepharitis, blepharoconjunctivitis, conjunctivitis, keratitis, endophthalmitis, periorbital cellulitis and dacrocystitis were collected from 270 individuals with suspected ocular infection. Data on sociodemographic and risk factors were also collected using a structured questionnaire. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 21 and 0.05 with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was considered statistically significant.

Results

Among 270 study subjects, 180 (66.7%) were culture positive for different bacterial isolates. The predominant bacterial isolates were Staphylococcus aureus (40, 22.2%), coagulase negative staphylococci (31, 17.2%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (21, 11.7%). Ocular surface disease, ocular trauma, hospitalization and cosmetic application practices were significantly associated with the occurrence of bacterial infection. Concerning antimicrobial susceptibility, most isolates were susceptible to amikacin (137, 93.2%), gentamicin (131, 89.1%) and ciprofloxacin (141, 89.2%). Overall, 40 (22.5%), 34 (19.1%) and 62 (34.8%) isolates were resistant to one, two, and three or more antimicrobials, respectively.

Conclusion

Bacteria were isolated from the majority of the study subjects. More than half of the bacterial isolates were resistant at least to one drug and a significant rate of multidrug resistance was detected. Therefore, identification of the etiologic agent and antimicrobial susceptibility testing should be practiced to select the appropriate antimicrobial agent to treat eye infections and prevent the emergence of drug resistant bacteria.

Keywords

Bacterial occurrence Ocular infection Risk factor Antimicrobial susceptibility Multidrug resistance

Background

The eye, a functionally and structurally complex organ, experiences a variety of bacterial, viral, fungal and parasitic infections [13]. Bacterial infections (Both Gram-positive and Gram-negative) contribute to 32 to 74% of ocular infections globally [410]. Staphylococci are the leading ocular isolates worldwide among the Gram-positive bacteria, [9, 1113]; while Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli are the major Gram-negative bacteria isolated from ocular infections [3, 14, 15].

Bacteria are the most common agents causing external ocular infections, including blepharitis, keratitis, dacryocystitis, and orbital cellulitis. Bacteria are responsible for 70–80% of conjunctival morbidity which poses a huge socioeconomic burdens to the general public [1619]. Blepharitis, an inflammation of the eyelid, can cause complete loss of the eyelashes if not diagnosed early [20]. Bacterial keratitis is the leading cause of corneal blindness [18, 21, 22].

External ocular infections may remain localized, or progress to adjacent tissues. For instance, external and internal hordeolum can result from the spread of eyelid infection to the respective glands [23]. Dacryocystitis, inflammation of the nasolacrimal duct, is the result of nasolacrimal duct obstruction. The accumulation of fluid and edema in the eye secondary to dacryocystitis, is a potential danger to ocular tissues such as the cornea and conjunctiva [24, 25]. External ocular infections that result from systemic spread, surgery or are secondary to ocular trauma, can lead to sight threatening intraocular infections such as endophthalmitis [1, 22, 26, 27]. Left untreated, bacterial ocular infections, bacterial products and vigorous inflammation following infection, can irreversibly damage ocular structures [28, 29]. Inflammation and scarring, once present, may not be easily resolved and can result in visual impairment or permanent loss of vision [30, 31].

Additionally, bacterial ocular infections have been complicated by multidrug resistance;, a problem that is intensifying over time [32, 33]. This poses a challenge in the clinical management of bacterial ocular infections [3436].

Eye infections are remarkably common in northern Ethiopia; however, no studies have been conducted on this topic in this region. Similarly, the antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of infecting bacteria in this region are not known. Therefore, we sought to determine the ocular bacterial infection, the risk factors and the antimicrobial susceptibility of bacterial isolates in ocular infections at Quiha Ophthalmic Hospital, Tigray, northern Ethiopia.

Methods

Study design, data and specimens collection

A hospital based cross-sectional study was conducted from September-December 2015 in Quiha Ophthalmic Hospital, Quiha, Tigray, Ethiopia. A total of 270 patients who presented with suspected ocular infection were consecutively included in the study. Sociodemographic, clinical and risk-factor related data were collected using a pretested structured questionnaire using interviewer-administered questionnaires. Study subjects were examined using a slit-lamp biomicroscope to screen for the presence of ocular infection. Ocular specimens were collected from periorbital cellulitis (N = 8), dacryocystitis (N = 13), blepharitis (N = 26), blepharoconjunctivitis (N = 16), conjunctivitis (N = 123), keratitis (N = 57) and endophthalmitis (N = 27) diagnoses. An ophthalmic surgeon collected specimens from all patients except those patients who had endophthalmitis who had their specimemens collected by an ophthalmologist [3739].

Specimen transportation

The respective specimens were then transferred into 2 ml of brain-heart infusion broth (Oxoid, Hampshire, UK). Tubes were tightly capped, gently mixed, labeled and placed in cold chain. Finally, samples were transported to the Microbiology Laboratory, Mekelle University, for microbiological analysis [38, 39].

Cultivation and identification of isolates

The broth was gently mixed to homogeneity; 100 μl of inoculum was then dispensed and streaked onto blood agar, chocolate agar, MacConkey agar, Mannitol salt agar and modified Thayer-Martin agar (MTM) (Oxoid, Hampshire, UK). To maintain the presence of CO2, chocolate agar and MTM agar plates were placed in candle jars. All media were incubated overnight at 37 °C. After 24 h of incubation, each plate was inspected for any growth and negative plates were incubated for an additional 24 h. For eyelid and conjunctival swabs, culture positivity was determined based on a threshold criteria. Corneal specimens were considered as positive if there was a confluent growth at the site of inoculation [39]. All bacterial isolates were identified using standard clinical laboratory methods [40, 41].

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using the standard Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method [41]. For fastidious organisms, Muller-Hinton agar with 5% sheep blood was used and incubated in 5% CO2; GC agar and Haemophilus Test Medium were used for Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Haemophilus influenzae, respectively [42]. The following antibiotics were used: trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (SXT; 1.25/23.75 μg), erythromycin (15 μg), clarithromycin (15 μg), chloramphenicol (30 μg), clindamycin (2 μg), tetracycline (30 μg), doxycycline (30 μg), amikacin (30 μg), gentamicin (10 μg), ciprofloxacin (5 μg), ceftriaxone (30 μg) and cefoxitin (30 μg) (HIMEDIA). The zones of inhibition of the antimicrobial agents were measured using calipers; bacteria were described as susceptible or resistant based on CLSI guideline [42]. Multidrug resistance was defined as non-susceptible to ≥1 agent in ≥3 antimicrobial categories according to the definition of Magiorakos and colleagues [43].

Quality assurance

Standard operational procedures were strictly followed from the pre-analytical to the post-analytical phase. The questionnaire was pretested on 16 patients with ocular infection. Data collectors were trained on data collection procedures. Completed questionnaires were proofread immediately after completion by the research team to clarify any labelling errors or illegibility. Standard Operating procedures were followed during Specimen collection, handling, transportation, microbiological analysis and interpretation of results. Reagents, media and antimicrobial disks were checked for the expiry date, damage and storage problems. Media sterility was strictly monitored by random sampling and incubation to test for any growth. In addition, reference strains of Staphylococcus aureus ATCC25923, E. coli ATCC25922 and P. aeruginosa ATCC27853 were used to monitor the quality of this work [42].

Statistical analysis

Data was entered into SPSS version 21, and descriptive statistics, bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. Bivariate logistic regression was employed to look for association between the outcome variable and independent variables. Variables with P-values <0.05 were reanalyzed in multivariate logistic regression to identify risk factors for bacterial occurrence. The corresponding P-value <0.05 and the confidence interval (CI) of 95% were considered statistically significant.

Results

Sociodemographic characteristics

A total of 270 study subjects with clinically diagnosed ocular infections were included in the study, of whom 151 (55.9%) females, 119 (44.1%) were males and 158 (58.5%) were rural dwellers (Table 1). The mean (SD) age of the study subjects was 37.8 (22.9) years.
Table 1

Sociodemographic characteristics of the study subjects (N = 270)

Characteristic

Number N = 270

Percentage (%)

Gender

 Male

119

44.1

 Female

151

55.9

Age (years) (mean (SD) = 37.8 22.9)

 Less than 16

  

 16–30

58

21.5

 31–45

49

18.1

 46–60

64

23.7

 Greater than 60

51

18.9

 

48

17.8

Residence

 Rural

158

58.5

 Urban

112

41.5

Occupation

 Preschool

30

11.1

 Student

40

14.8

 Housewife

43

15.9

 Farmer

91

33.7

 Governmental employee

34

12.6

 Self-employed

32

11.9

 Total

270

100

Educational level

 Preschool

30

11.1

 1–8 grades

66

24.1

 9–12 grades

34

12.6

 College and above

18

6.7

 No formal education

122

45.2

 Total

270

100

Bacterial profile and clinical features

Conjunctivitis (123 cases of 270, 45.6%) was the leading clinical presentation, followed by keratitis (57, 21.1%), endophthalmitis (27, 10.0%), blepharitis (26, 9.6%), blepharoconjunctivitis (16, 5.9%), dacryocystitis (13, 4.8%), and periorbital cellulitis (8, 3.0%) (Table 2). Of the total 270 patients, 180 (66.7%) were culture positive for bacterial isolates. Single and mixed bacterial infection patients were seen in 174 (96.7%) and 6 (3.3%) cases, respectively (Table 2). The mixed isolates were detected from three patients with conjunctivitis, one patient with periorbital cellulitis, one with keratitis and one with endophthalmitis diagnosis.
Table 2

The distribution of culture positive samples in ocular infection

Clinical diagnosis

Bacterial Culture positive

Total, N (%)

No (%)

Yes (%)

Periorbital cellulitis

1 (12.5)

7 (87.5)

8 (100)

Dacryocystitis

1 (7.7)

12 (92.3)

13 (100)

Blepharitis

12 (46.2)

14 (53.8)

26 (100)

Blepharoconjunctivitis

10 (62.5)

6 (37.5)

16 (100)

Conjunctivitis

48 (39)

75 (61)

123 (100)

Keratitis

11 (19.3)

46 (80.7)

57 (100)

Endophthalmitis

7 (25.9)

20 (74.1)

27 (100)

Bacterial infection was significantly higher in patients with dacryocystitis 92.3% (COR = 20, 95% CI: 2.0–195, P = 0.01), periorbital cellulitis 87.5% (COR = 11.7, 95% CI: 1.1–183.8, P = 0.03), keratitis 80.7% (COR = 6.9, 95% CI: 2.0–23.3, P < 0.01) and endophthalmitis 74.1% (COR = 4.7, 95% CI: 1.2–17.9, P = 0.02) than for the other diagnoses (Table 2).

Identification of bacterial isolates

In this study, 113 (60.7%) bacterial isolates were Gram-positive, and 87 (39.3%) were Gram-negative. Overall, the dominant bacterial isolates were S. aureus (40, 21.5%) followed by coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS; 31, 16.7%), P. aeruginosa (21, 11.3%) and E. coli (15 8%) (Table 3).
Table 3

The distribution of bacteria according to clinical diagnosis

Type of bacterial isolate, N (%)

Clinical diagnosis

Total N (%)

P’orbital cellulitisa

Dacryocystitis

Blepharitis

Blepharoconjunctivitis

Conjunctivitisb

Keratitisc

Endophthalmitisd

S. aureus

4 (50)

3 (25)

5 (38.5)

2 (33.3)

17 (21.5)

7 (14.9)

2 (9.5)

40 (21.5)

CoNSe

0

0

3 (23.1)

1 (16.7)

13 (16.5)

8 (17)

6 (28.6)

31 (16.7)

S. pyogenes

1 (12.5)

3 (25)

0

0

1 (1.3)

0

0

5 (2.7)

S. pneumoniae

2 (25)

2 (16.7)

0

1 (16.7)

3 (3.8)

0

0

8 (4.3)

Viridans streptococci

0

0

0

0

6 (7.6)

1 (2.1)

0

7 (3.8)

Enterococcus spp.

0

0

0

0

6 (7.6)

2 (4.3)

0

8 (4.3)

Moraxella spp.

1 (12.5)

0

0

0

0

1 (2.1)

0

2 (1.1)

N. gonorrhoeae

0

0

0

0

1 (1.3)

0

0

1 (0.5)

H. influenzae

0

0

0

0

2 (2.5)

0

0

2 (1.1)

P. aeruginosa

0

0

1 (7.7)

0

2 (2.5)

11 (23.4)

7 (33.3)

21 (11.3)

K. pneumoniae

0

1 (8.3)

1 (7.7)

0

2 (2.5)

1 (2.1)

2 (9.5)

7 (3.8)

Klebsiella spp.

0

1 (8.3)

0

0

2 (2.5)

2 (4.3)

0

5 (2.7)

E. coli

0

1 (8.3)

1 (7.7)

1 (16.7)

7 (8.9)

4 (8.5)

1 (4.8)

15 (8.1)

Enterobacter spp.

0

1 (8.3)

1 (7.7)

0

5 (6.3)

3 (6.4)

0

10 (5.4)

Citrobacter freundii

0

0

0

0

2 (2.5)

2 (4.3)

0

4 (2.2)

S. marcescens

0

0

0

1 (16.7)

3 (3.8)

1 (2.1)

0

5 (2.7)

Aeromonas spp.

0

0

0

0

1 (1.3)

1 (2.1)

0

2 (1.1)

P. shigelloides

0

0

0

0

1 (1.3)

0

0

1 (0.5)

Proteus spp.

0

0

0

0

2 (2.5)

1 (2.1)

0

3 (1.6)

Acinetobacter spp.

0

0

1 (7.7)

0

1 (1.3)

2 (4.3)

1 (4.8)

5 (2.7)

GPBf

0

0

0

0

2 (2.5)

0

2 (9.5)

4 (2.2)

Total

8 (100)

12 (100)

13 (100)

6 (100)

79 (100)

47 (100)

21 (100)

186 (100)

Notes: amixed isolate in one case: S. pneumoniae + H. influenzae; bmixed isolates in three cases: E. coli + P. aeruginosa; E. coli + S. aureus & S. marcescens + S. aureus ; cmixed isolate in one case: P. aeruginosa + S. aureus ; dmixed isolate in one case: E. coli + CoNS; e CoNS Coagulase negative staphylococci; f GPB Gram-positive bacilli, P’orbital cellulitis = Periorbital cellulitis

Risk factors for bacterial occurrence in ocular infections

In this study, 11 independent variables were considered during the bivariate analysis of risk factors for bacterial infection. In multivariate analysis, ocular surface disease (AOR = 13.6, 95% CI: 3.8 49.3, P < 0.01), ocular trauma (AOR = 4.2, 95% CI: 1.4–13, P = 0.012), hospitalization (AOR = 3.3, 95% CI: 1.03–12.5, P = 0.04), and cosmetic application practices (AOR = 4.7, 95% CI: 1.6–13.9 P < 0.01) were significantly associated with bacterial occurrence (Table 4). Though not statistically significant, bacterial occurrence was higher in housewives 32 (74.4%) (COR = 2.3, 95% CI: 0.6–9.0, P = 0.06) and in those subjects with no formal education 90 (73.8%) (COR = 1.8, 95% CI: 0.6–5.0, P = 0.2) (Table 5).
Table 4

Multivariate logistic regression analysis of factors associated with ocular bacterial infections

Variable

Bacterial occurrence, N (%)

Total, N (%)

CORa (95% CIb), P-value

AORc (95% CI), P-value

No

Yes

History of ocular surface disease

 Yes

10 (11.0)

81 (89.0)

91 (100)

6.5 (3.2–13.4), <0.01

13.6 (3.8–49), <0.01

 No

80 (44.7)

99 (53.3)

179 (100)

1

1

History of ocular trauma

 Yes

14 (16.7)

70 (83.3)

84 (100)

3.4 (1.8–6.5), <0.01

4.2 (1.4–13), 0.012

 No

76 (40.9)

110 (59.1)

186 (100)

1

1

History of hospitalization

 Yes

9 (13.4)

58 (86.6)

67 (100)

4.3 (2–9), <0.01

3.3 (1.03–12.5), 0.04

 No

81 (39.9)

122 (60.1)

203 (100)

1

1

Cosmetic application practices

 Yes

7 (12.1)

51 (87.9)

58 (100)

5.3 (2.2–12.8), <0.01

4.7 (1.6–13.9), <0.01

 No

39 (41.9)

54 (58.1)

93 (100)

1

1

Notes: a COR Crude odds ratio; b CI Confidence interval; c AOR Adjusted odds ratio

Table 5

Bivariate logistic regression analysis of factors associated with ocular bacterial infections

Variable

Bacterial occurrence N (%)

Total N (%)

CORa

95% CIb

P-value

No

Yes

Gender

 Male

41 (34.5)

78 (65.5)

119 (100)

0.9

0.5–1.5

0.7

 Female

49 (32.5)

102 (67.5)

151 (100)

1

  

Age

 15

28 (48.3)

30 (51.7)

58 (100)

1

  

 16–30

15 (30.6)

34 (69.4)

49 (100)

2.1

0.9–4.6

0.06

 31–45

17 (26.6)

47 (73.4)

64 (100)

2.6

1.2–5.5

0.01

 46–60

14 (27.5)

37 (72.5)

51 (100)

2.5

1.1–5.5

0.02

 61

16 (33.3)

32 (66.7)

48 (100)

1.8

0.8–4.1

0.1

Residence

 Rural

48 (30.4)

110 (69.6)

158 (100)

0.7

0.4–1.2

0.22

 Urban

42 (37.5)

70 (39.1)

112 (100)

1

  

Occupation

 Preschool

13 (43.3)

17 (56.7)

30 (100)

1.0

0.4–2.7

0.8

 Student

18 (45.0)

22 (55.0)

40 (100)

1

  

 Housewife

11 (25.6)

32 (74.4)

43 (100)

2.3

0.9–6.0

0.06

 Farmer

25 (27.5)

66 (72.5)

91 (100)

2.1

0.9–4.6

0.051

 Government employee

13 (38.2)

21 (61.8)

34 (100)

1.3

0.5–3.3

0.2

 Self-employed

10 (31.3)

22 (68.8)

32 (100)

1.8

0.6–4.7

0.2

Educational level

 Preschool

13 (43.3)

17 (56.7)

30 (100)

0.8

0.25–2.7

0.7

 1–8

28 (42.4)

38 (57.6)

66 (100)

0.9

0.3–2.5

0.8

 9–12

10 (29.4)

24 (70.6)

34 (100)

1.5

0.7–4.2

0.2

 College and above

7 (38.9)

11 (61.1)

18 (100)

1

  

 No formal education

32 (26.2)

90 (73.8)

122 (100)

1.8

0.6–5.0

0.2

History of ocular surface disease

 Yes

10 (11.0)

81 (89.0)

91 (100)

6.5

3.2–13.4

<0.01

 No

80 (44.7)

99 (53.3)

179 (100)

1

 

History of Ocular surgery

 Yes

14 (24.6)

43 (75.4)

57 (100)

1.7

0.8–3.3

0.11

 No

76 (35.7)

137 (64.3)

213 (100)

1

 

History of Ocular trauma

 Yes

14 (16.7)

70 (83.3)

84 (100)

3.4

1.8–6.5

<0.01

 No

76 (40.9)

110 (59.1)

186 (100)

1

 

History of Hospitalization

 Yes

9 (13.4)

58 (86.6)

67 (100)

4.3

2–9

<0.01

 No

81 (39.9)

122 (60.1)

203 (100)

1

 

Contact lens use

 Yes

4 (30.8)

9 (69.2)

13 (100)

1.1

0.3–3.7

0.8

 No

86 (33.5)

171 (66.5)

257 (100)

1

 

Cosmetic application practices

 Yes

7 (12.1)

51 (87.9)

58 (100)

5.3

2.2–12.8

<0.01

 No

39 (41.9)

54 (58.1)

93 (100)

1

 

Notes: a COR Crude odds ratio; b CI Confidence interval; P-values in bold are statistically significant

Antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of bacterial isolates

In this study, the majority of bacterial isolate were susceptible to ciprofloxacin (141, 89.2%), amikacin (137, 93.2%), gentamicin (131, 89.1%), chloramphenicol (106, 70.2%), and doxycycline (100, 71.9%). However, bacterial isolates were less susceptible to tetracycline (79, 51.3%) and SXT (66, 48.7%). Among the Gram-negative bacteria, 47 bacterial isolates (83%) were susceptible to ceftriaxone. In addition, 79 (70.7%) of the Gram-positive isolates were susceptible to erythromycin. All isolates of S. pyogenes, S. pneumoniae, viridans streptococci and H. influenzae were susceptible to clarithromycin. Methicillin-resistance was observed in 7 (17.5%) S. aureus and 14 (45.2%) CoNS isolates (Table 6).
Table 6

Antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria isolated from ocular infections

Bacterial isolate (N)

S/R

N (%)

Antibiotics tested

CN

AK

C

CIP

TC

DOX

SXT

CRO

DA

E

CH

MET

S. aureus (40)

R

S

5 (12.5)

35 (87.5)

1 (2.5)

39 (97.5)

11 (27.5)

29 (72.5)

5 (12.5)

35 (87.5)

18 (45)

22 (55)

11 (27.5)

29 (72.5)

17 (42.5)

23 (57.5)

NT

9 (22.5)

31 (77.5)

8 (20)

32 (80)

NT

7 (17.5)

33 (82.5)

CoNSa (31)

R

S

2 (6.5)

29 (93.5)

1 (3.2)

30 (96.8)

9 (29)

22 (71)

3 (9.7)

28 (90.3)

18 (58.1)

13 (41.9)

7 (22.6)

24 (77.4)

21 (67.7)

10 (32.3)

NT

12 (38.7)

19 (61.3)

9 (29)

22 (71)

NT

14 (45.2)

17 (54.8)

S. pyogenes (5)

R

S

NT

NT

2 (40)

3 (60)

NT

1 (20)

4 (80)

NT

NT

NT

0

5 (100)

0

5 (100)

0

5 (100)

NT

S. pneumoniae (8)

R

S

NT

NT

2 (25)

6 (75)

NT

4 (50)

4 (50)

2 (25)

6 (75)

3 (37.5)

5 (62.5)

NT

1 (12.5)

7 (87.5)

1 (12.5)

7 (87.5)

0

8 (100)

NT

Viridans streptococci (7)

R

S

NT

NT

3 (42.9)

4 (57.1)

NT

2 (28.6)

5 (71.4)

NT

NT

0

7 (100)

NT

1 (14.3)

6 (85.7)

0

7 (100)

NT

Enterococcus spp. (8)

R

S

NT

NT

4 (50)

4 (50)

1 (12.5)

7 (87.5)

4 (50)

4 (50)

2 (25)

6 (75)

NT

NT

NT

1 (12.5)

7 (87.5)

NT

NT

N. gonorrhoeae (1)

R

S

NT

NT

NT

0

1 (100)

0

1 (100)

NT

NT

0

1 (100)

NT

NT

NT

NT

H. influenzae (2)

R

S

NT

NT

0

2 (100)

0

2 (100)

0

2 (100)

NT

1 (50)

1 (50)

NT

NT

NT

0

2 (100)

NT

P. aeruginosa (21)

R

S

1 (4.8)

20 (95.2)

1 (4.8)

20 (95.2)

NT

4 (19)

17 (81)

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

NT

K. pneumoniae (7)

R

S

2 (28.6)

5 (71.4)

1 (14.3)

6 (85.7)

3 (42.9)

4 (57.1)

1 (14.3)

6 (85.7)

5 (71.4)

2 (28.6)

2 (28.6)

5 (71.4)

4 (57.1)

3 (42.9)

3 (42.9)

4 (57.1)

NT

NT

NT

NT

Other Klebsiella spp. (5)

R

S

0

5 (100)

1 (20)

4 (80)

2 (40)

3 (60)

1 (20)

4 (80)

2 (40)

3 (60)

1 (20)

4 (80)

4 (80)

1 (20)

0

5 (100)

NT

NT

NT

NT

E. coli (15)

R

S

3 (20)

12 (80)

2 (13.3)

13 (86.7)

4 (26.7)

11 (73.3)

1 (6.7)

14 (93.3)

8 (53.3)

7 (46.7)

3 (20)

12 (80)

8 (53.3)

7 (46.7)

3 (20)

12 (80)

NT

NT

NT

NT

Enterobacter spp. (10)

R

S

1 (10)

9 (90)

1 (10)

9 (90)

1 (10)

9 (90)

0

10 (100)

6 (60)

4 (40)

5 (50)

5 (50)

4 (40)

6 (60)

2 (20)

8 (80)

NT

NT

NT

NT

Citrobacter freundii (4)

R

S

0

4 (100)

0

4 (100)

2 (50)

2 (50)

1 (25)

3 (75)

3 (75)

1 (25)

2 (50)

2 (50)

1 (25)

3 (75)

0

4 (100)

NT

NT

NT

NT

Acinetobacter spp. (5)

R

S

1 (20)

4 (80)

1 (20)

4 (80)

NT

0

5 (100)

3 (60)

2 (40)

3 (60)

2 (40)

4 (80)

1 (20)

0

5 (100)

NT

NT

NT

NT

S. marcescens (5)

R

S

1 (20)

4 (80)

1 (20)

4 (80)

2 (40)

3 (60)

0

5 (100)

1 (20)

4 (80)

1 (20)

4 (80)

2 (40)

3 (60)

1 (20)

4 (80)

NT

NT

NT

NT

Proteus spp. (3)

R

S

0

3 (100)

0

3 (100)

0

3 (100)

0

3 (100)

NT

NT

1 (33.3)

2 (66.7)

0

3 (100)

NT

NT

NT

NT

P. shigelloides (1)

R

S

0

1 (100)

0

1 (100)

0

1 (100)

0

1 (100)

0

1 (100)

0

1 (100)

0

1 (100)

0

1 (100)

NT

NT

NT

NT

Total, N (%)

R

S

16 (10.9)

131 (89.1)

10 (6.8)

137 (93.2)

45 (29.8)

106 (70.2)

17 (10.8)

141 (89.2)

75 (48.7)

79 (51.3)

39 (28.1)

100 (71.9)

70 (51.3)

66 (48.7)

9 (14.3)

54 (85.7)

22 (26.2)

62 (73.8)

20 (20.2)

79 (79.8)

0

22 (100)

21 (29.6)

50 (70.4)

Notes: S Susceptible, R Resistant, CN Gentamicin, AK Amikacin, C Chloramphenicol, CIP Ciprofloxacin, TC Tetracycline, DOX Doxycycline, SXT Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, CRO Ceftriaxone, DA Clindamycin, E Erythromycin, CH Clarithromycin, MET Methicillin, NT Not tested; a CoNS Coagulase negative staphylococci

Overall, 40 (22.5%) bacterial isolates were resistant to at one antimicrobial agent; 96 (53.9%) were resistant to ≥2 antimicrobials (Table 7). A standard definition of MDR was applied for isolates of S. aureus, members of the Enterobacteriaceae and Acinetobacter spp. [43], by which 18 (45%) S. aureus, 17 (31.5%) isolates of Enterobacteriaceae, and one Acinetobacter isolate were found to be MDR. Among Enterobacteriaceae, Klebsiella spp. (6, 50%) and E. coli (7, 46.7%) were the commonest MDR isolates (Table 8).
Table 7

Level of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria isolated from ocular infections

Type of bacterial isolate

Level of resistance N (%)

Total

R0

R1

R2

R3

R4

Gram-positive

S. aureus

7 (17.5)

8 (20)

6 (15)

7 (17.5)

12 (30)

40 (100)

CoNSa

4 (12.9)

6 (19.4)

5 (16.1)

0

16 (51.6)

31 (100)

S. pyogenes

3 (60)

2 (40)

0

0

0

5 (100)

S. pneumoniae

1 (12.5)

2 (25)

4 (50)

0

1 (12.5)

8 (100)

Viridans streptococci

2 (28.6)

2 (28.6)

2 (28.6)

1 (14.3)

0

7 (100)

Enterococcus spp.

2 (25)

1 (12.5)

4 (50)

1 (12.5)

0

8 (100)

Total

19 (19.2)

21 (21.2)

21 (21.2)

9 (9)

29 (29.3)

99 (100)

Gram-negative

N. gonorrhoeae

1 (100)

0

0

0

0

1 (100)

H. influenzae

1 (50)

1 (50)

0

0

0

2 (100)

P. aeruginosa

10 (47.6)

9 (42.9)

2 (9.5)

0

0

21 (100)

K. pneumoniae

0

0

1 (14.3)

5 (71.4)

1 (14.3)

7 (100)

Other Klebsiella spp.

0

2 (40)

1 (20)

1 (20)

1 (20)

5 (100)

E. coli

5 (33.3)

2 (13.3)

1 (6.7)

1 (6.7)

6 (40)

15 (100)

Enterobacter spp.

2 (20)

2 (20)

3 (30)

1 (10)

2 (20)

10 (100)

Citrobacter freundii

1 (25)

0

1 (25)

1 (25)

1 (25)

4 (100)

S. marcescens

2 (40)

1 (20)

0

1 (20)

1 (20)

5 (100)

P. shigelloides

1 (100)

0

0

0

0

1 (100)

Proteus spp.

0

0

2 (66.7)

1 (33.3)

0

3 (100)

Acinetobacter spp.

0

2 (40)

1 (20)

1 (20)

1 (20)

5 (100)

Total

23 (29.1)

19 (24)

13 (16.5)

11 (13.9)

13 (16.5)

79 (100)

Grand Total

42 (23.6)

40 (22.5)

34 (19.1)

20 (11)

42 (23.5)

178 (100)

Notes: R0 Susceptible to all tested antimicrobials, R1 Resistant to one antimicrobial, R2 Resistant to two antimicrobials, R3 Resistant to three antimicrobials, R4 Resistant to four or more antimicrobials; a CoNS Coagulase negative staphylococci

Table 8

Multidrug resistance patterns of bacterial isolates from ocular infections

Type of bacterial isolate

Total number of isolates

MDRa isolates, N (%)

S. aureus

40

18 (45)

K. pneumoniae

7

4 (57.1)

Other Klebsiella spp.

5

2 (40)

E. coli

15

7 (46.7)

Enterobacter spp.

10

2 (20)

Citrobacter freundii

4

1 (25)

Serratia marcescens

5

1 (20)

P. shigelloides

1

0

Proteus spp.

3

0

Acinetobacter spp.

5

1 (20)

Total

95

36 (37.9)

Notes: a MDR Multi-drug resistant: non-susceptible to 1 agent in 3 antimicrobial categories [43]. Based on this definition, the following antimicrobial categories were considered to determine whether the given isolate is MDR: S. aureus: aminoglycosides, methicillin, SXT, clindamycin, chloramphenicol, macrolides (erythromycin), tetracyclines and fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin). Enterobacteriaceae: aminoglycosides, ceftriaxone, fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin), SXT, chloramphenicol and tetracyclines. Acinetobacter spp.: aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin), ceftriaxone, SXT and tetracyclines

Discussion

Our assessment revealed that a high proportion of ocular infections (66.7%) were due to bacterial infections elsewhere in Ethiopia, lower proportions have been observed (48.8–60.8%) [10, 11, 44]; however, higher proportions (74.7%) have been observed in Jimma, Ethiopia [6]. This variation could be attributed to the inclusion of only exra-ocular infection in other studies. Our observations were also higher than that seen in India (34.5%) [3], Japan (32.2%) [4], and Iran (37.5%) [45]; sociodemographic, geographical or climatic differences for the patient populations could partially explain this [38]. Similar to findings from India [46], Iran [9], and other studies in Ethiopia [6, 10, 11, 44], Gram-positive bacteria contributed to majority (60.7%) of the total bacterial isolates in our study. Overall, the predominant bacterial isolate was S. aureus (21.5%), as has been reported in Jimma (28.4%) [6], Gondar (21%) [10], Nigeria (23.7%) [23], and India (26.6%) [47]. Staphylococcal isolates were predominant among patients with conjunctivitis, blepharitis and blepharoconjunctivitis diagnoses, similar to that in patients from Jimma [6], Nigeria [23], and Columbia [48]. Conversely,, CoNS isolates were more frequent in keratitis (17%) and endophthalmitis (28.6%) diagnoses, as has been reported in Uganda [49], Mexico [50], Australia [8], Pakistan [51] and India [52].

As compared to published literature from other areas in Ethiopia, Nigeria, UK, Australia and India, most streptococcal isolates were from conjunctivitis diagnoses, with some isolates from blepharoconjunctivitis and keratitis. In the literature, Staphylococci and streptococci are known to be the main agents of post-traumatic periorbital cellulitis [54]; in our study, S. aureus (50%), S. pneumoniae (12.5%) and S. pyogenes (12.5%) were the main Gram-positive isolates from periorbital cellulitis. As has been seen in Gondar [19], Borumeda [44], and India [47], S. pneumoniae and S. pyogenes were the predominant species among patients with dacryocystitis.

The most common isolates among the Gram-negative bacteria were P. aeruginosa (11.3%), E. coli (8.1%) and Klebsiella spp. (6.4%) as has been seen in Hawassa; however, the proportions of P. aeruginosa (4.9%) and E. coli (4.9%) observed in Hawassa were lower than in our study [23]. This may be due to the additional isolates from endophthalmitis diagnoses we identified.

P. aeruginosa was the predominant isolate in keratitis (23.4% of diagnoses) similar to findings reported in Nigeria (23.8%) [23], the UK (24.3%) [7], Australia (21%) [8], and Iran (24.7%) [15]. Pseudomonal keratitis is a progressive infection with large infiltrate and scarring [22, 53]; this therefore means majority of patients in our population are at risk of blindness.

Our assessment illustrated that the presence of ocular surface disease, ocular trauma, hospitalization and cosmetic application practices were significantly associated with the occurrence of bacterial infection. Risk factors for bacterial ocular infections that have been described include a history of hospital stay in Columbia and Portugal [48, 55], ocular trauma in Australia, Florida, Iran, China and Mexicao [1, 8, 15, 22, 50] and ocular disease in Florida and Colombia [22, 48] Cosmetic application practices were considered only for female participants. Limited information exists on the relationship between cosmetic application practices and bacterial ocular infections.

Almost one quarter of the bacterial isolates in were susceptible to all of the tested antimicrobials. Resistance to two or more antimicrobials was seen in 53.9% of the isolates, which is lower than that reported in other regions in Ethiopia (69.9–87.1%) [10, 11]. S. pneumoniae (87.5%), CoNS (87%) and S. aureus (82.5%) were the most resistant among Gram-positive isolates. Acinetobacter spp. (100%), Klebsiella spp. (100%) and Enterobacter spp. (80.0%) were the most resistant among Gram-negative isolates. which is lower than that reported in other studies [56, 57].

Here, relatively, amikacin (93.2%), gentamicin (89.1%) and ciprofloxacin (89.2%) were revealed high efficacy towards Gram-positive and Gram-negative isolates. Studies in Gondar have reported lower susceptibility to gentamicin (54.8%) and ciprofloxacin (74.2%) [10, 19]; differences in the variety of isolates tested may partly explain this. Outside Ethiopia, comparable susceptibility patterns to amikacin, ciprofloxacin and chloramphenicol were reported in Iran [15] and India [47]. However, the gentamicin susceptibility in this study is much higher than that in the study conducted in India (58.6%) [47]; regional variations in antibiotic prescription practices could explain this [38]. The resistance we observed to tetracycline and erythromycin was high, and this paralleled a study from India [3]. High resistance is usually due to the over use and empirical treatment of patients that ultimately leads to the emergence of drug resistant strains [58, 59].

Methicillin resistance was seen in 17.5% of the isolated S. aureus, which is in line with a study conducted in India (14%) [60], but lower than the rates in Taiwan (52.8%) [57] and Uganda (31.9%) [49]. In addition, 45.2% of CoNS were methicillin resistant, which was higher than detected in Uganda (27.6%) [49]. To date, other than a study conducted in Gondar, most studies in Ethiopia did not determine methicillin resistance rates for ocular staphylococcal isolates [19]. Our study was not without limitation; we did not isolate anaerobic bacteria or Chlamydia trachomatis due to unavailability of the prerequisite facilities. We also did not determine the antimicrobial susceptibility of Moraxella species or Aeromonas species due to a lack of antimicrobials for agar dilution.

Conclusions

In conclusion, a high prevalence of bacteria was found in patients with ocular infection. “Ocular surface disease, ocular trauma, hospitalisation and cosmetic application practices were significantly associated with the occurrence of bacterial infection. Overall, S. aureus, CoNS, and P. aeruginosa were the predominant isolates. The majority of the bacterial isolates were multidrug resistant. Methicillin resistance was higher in CoNS than in S. aureus. S. pneumoniae, CoNS of which S. aureus was the most resistant species among Gram-positive isolates; Klebsiella species and E. coli were most resistant among Gram-negative isolates. Identification of the specific etiologic agent and antimicrobial susceptibility testing should be practiced during the management of ocular infections to reduce the further emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria”.

Abbreviations

AOR: 

Adjusted Odds Ratio

ATCC: 

American Type Culture Collection

CAMP: 

Christie, Atkins and Munch-Peterson

CEO: 

Chief Executive Officer

CI: 

Confidence interval

CLSI: 

Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute

CoNS: 

Coagulase Negative Staphylococci

COR: 

Adjusted Odds Ratio

ID: 

Identification number

MDR: 

Multi-drug Resistance

MRSA: 

Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus

MRSE: 

Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis

MTM: 

Modified Thayer-Martin

PCR: 

Polymerase Chain Reaction

SPSS: 

Statistical Package for Social Sciences

Declarations

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge the Mekelle University and Tigray Health Research and Regional Laboratory for financial support and providing laboratory space and facilities to conduct their experiments. Quiha Ophthalmic Hospital and all study participants are acknowledged for their cooperation during sample collection.

Funding

This work was supported by Mekelle University, College of Health sciences, Post graduate Students Research fund.

Availability of data and materials

Data supporting the conclusions of this article are available by request to M. Teweldemedhin. The relevant raw data will be made available to researchers wishing to use them for non-commercial purposes.

Authors’ contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: MT, MS, DG. Performed the experiments: MT, MS, DG. Analyzed the data: MT, MS, DG, AG. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: ARH, THRL. Wrote the manuscript: MT, DG, MS, AG. All authors provided critical review of the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical clearance was obtained from Mekelle University, College of Health sciences, Research Ethics Review Committee (ERC0670/2015). Permission was also obtained from Tigray Regional Health Bureau and Quiha Hospital. Written informed consent and assent was obtained from the study subjects before data collection.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Mekelle University
(2)
Unit of Biomedical Science, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Aksum University

References

  1. Long C, Liu B, Xu C, Jing Y, Yuan Z, Lin X. Causative organisms of post-traumatic Endophthalmitis: a 20-year retrospective study. BMC Ophthalmol. 2014;14:34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Azari A, Barney P. Conjunctivitis: A Systematic Review of Diagnosis and Treatment. JAMA. 2013;310(16):1721–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Hemavathi, Sarmah P, Shenoy P. Profile of Microbial Isolates in Ophthalmic Infections and Antibiotic Susceptibility of the Bacterial Isolates: A Study in an Eye Care Hospital, Bangalore. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(1):23–5.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Shimizu Y, Toshida H, Honda R, Ohta T, Asada Y, Murakami A. Prevalence of drug resistance and culture-positive rate among microorganisms isolated from patients with ocular infections over a 4-year period. Clin Ophthalmol. 2013;7:695–702.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Samuel SO, Enock ME, Ekozien MI, Ehimen M, Nmorsi OPG, Omoti AE. Pattern of bacterial Conjunctivitis in Irrua Specialist Teaching Hospital. Nigeria J Microbiol Biotech Res. 2012;2(4):516–20.Google Scholar
  6. Tesfaye T, Beyene G, Gelaw Y, Bekele S, Saravanan M. Bacterial Profile and Antimicrobial Susceptibility Pattern of External Ocular Infections in Jimma University Specialized Hospital. Southwest Ethiopia AJIDM. 2013;1(1):13–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Orlans HO, Hornby SJ, Bowler ICJW. In vitro antibiotic susceptibility patterns of bacterial Keratitis isolates in Oxford, UK: a 10-year review. Eye. 2011;25:489–93.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Ly NC, Pham N, Badenoch R, Bell M, Hawkins G, Rafferty L. Bacteria commonly isolated from Keratitis specimens retain antibiotic susceptibility to fluoroquinolones and gentamicin plus cephalothin. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006;34:44–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Khosravi AD, Mehdinejad M, Heidari M. Bacteriological findings in patients with ocular infection and antibiotic susceptibility patterns of isolated pathogens. Singapore Med J. 2007;48(8):741–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Muluye D, Wondimeneh Y, Moges F, Nega T, Ferede G. Types and drug susceptibility patterns of bacterial isolates from eye discharge samples at Gondar University Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. BMC Res notes. 2014;7:292.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Amsalu A, Abebe T, Mihre A, Delelegn D, Tadess E. Potential bacterial pathogens of external ocular infections and their antibiotic susceptibility pattern at Hawassa University teaching and referral Hospital, Southern Ethiopia. Afr J Microbiol Res. 2015;9(14):1012–119.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Summaiya M, Neeta K, Sangita R. Ocular infections: rational approach to antibiotic therapy. Natl J Med Res. 2012;2(1):22–4.Google Scholar
  13. Kaliamurthy J, Kalavathy MC, Parmar P, Jesudasan N, Philip A, Thomas. Spectrum of Bacterial Keratitis at a Tertiary Eye Care Centre in India. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:1–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Idu FK, Odjimogho SE. Susceptibility of conjunctival bacterial pathogens to fluoroquinolones.A comparative study of ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin and ofloxacin. Online J Health Allied Scs. 2003;2(3):1–5.Google Scholar
  15. Rahimi F, Hashemian MN, Khosravi A, Moradi G, Bamdad S. Bacterial Keratitis in a Tertiary Eye Centre in Iran: A Retrospective Study. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2015;22(2):238–44.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Epling J. Bacterial conjunctivitis. Clin Evid. 2012;2:704.Google Scholar
  17. Buznach N, Dagan R, Greenberg D. Clinical and bacterial characteristics of acute bacterial conjunctivitis in children in the antibiotic resistance era. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015;24:823–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Cao J, Yang Y, Yang W, Wu R, Xiao X, Yuan J, Xing Y, Tan X. Prevalence of infectious keratitis in central China. BMC Ophthalmol. 2014;14:43.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Assefa Y, Moges F, Endris M, Zereay B, Amare B, Bekele D. Bacteriological profile and drug susceptibility patterns in Dacryocystitis patients attending Gondar University Teaching Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia. BMC Ophthalmol. 2015;15:34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Kowalski RP, Dhaliwal DK. Ocular bacterial infections: current and future treatment options. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2005;3(1):131–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Willcox MD. Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and inflammation during contact lens wear. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84(4):273–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Henry CR, Flynn W, Miller D, Forster RK, Alfonso EC. Infectious Keratitis Progressing to Endophthalmitis: A 15-Year-Study of Microbiology, Associated Factors, and Clinical Outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2012;119(12):2443–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Ubani, Ahanna U. Common bacterial isolates from infected eye. JNOA. 2009;15:40–7.Google Scholar
  24. Maheshwari R, Maheshwari S, Shah T. Acute dacryocystitis causing orbital cellulitis and abscess. Orbit. 2009;28:196–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Amin RM, Hussein FA, Idris HF, Hanafy F, Abdallah DM. Pathological, immunohistochemical and microbiological analysis of lacrimal sac biopsies in patients with chronic dacrocystitis. Int J Ophthalmol. 2013;6(6):817–26.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Wong JS, Chan TK, Lee HM, Chee SP. Endogenous bacterial Endophthalmitis: an East Asian experience and a reappraisal of a severe ocular affliction. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(8):1483–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Wallin O, Abdullah M, Lundstrom M, Montan P. Endophthalmitis and severe blebitis following trabeculectomy. Epidemiology and risk factors; a single-center retrospective study. Acta Ophthalmol. 2014;92(5):426–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Pandey KR, Yu F, Kumar A. Targeting Toll-like receptor signaling as a novel approach to prevent ocular infectious disease. Indian J Med Res. 2013;138(5):609–19.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Zaidi T, Yoong P, Pier GB. Staphylococcus aureus Corneal Infections: Effect of the Panton-Valentine Leukocidin (PVL) and Antibody to PVL on Virulence and Pathology. IOVS. 2013;54(7):4430–8.Google Scholar
  30. Forrester JV, Xu H. Goodnews badnews: the Yin and Yang of immune privilege in the eye. Front Immunol. 2012;3(338):1–18.Google Scholar
  31. Wiskur BJ, Hunt JJ, Callegan MC. Hypermucoviscosity as a Virulence Factor in Experimental Klebsiella pneumoniae Endophthalmitis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49(11):4931–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee K, Lee H, Kim M. Two Cases of Corneal Ulcer due to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in High Risk Groups. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2010;24:240–4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Bertino JS. Impact of antibiotic resistance in the management of ocular infections: the role of current and future antibiotics. Clin Ophthalmol. 2009;3:507–21.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Sharma S. Antibiotic resistance in ocular bacterial pathogens. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2011;29:218–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rodriguez-Gonzalez F, Marrero-Saavedra D, Rutllan-Civit J, Cabrera-Vargas E, Martinez-Quintana E. Ocular necrotizing fasciitis due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a non-neutropenic patient. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2013;27:281–2.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Brown L. Resistance to ocular antibiotics: an overview. Clin Exp Optom. 2007;90:258–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Baron J, Miller JM, Weinstein P, Richter S, Gilligan P, Thomson B, et al. A Guide to Utilization of the Microbiology Laboratory for Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases: 2013 Recommendations by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the American Society for Microbiology (ASM). Clin Infect Dis. 2013;57(4):22–121.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Sharma S. Diagnosis of Infectious disease of the eye. Eye. 2012;26:177–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Therese KL, Madhavan HN. Microbiological Procedures for Diagnosis of Ocular Infections. www.ijmm.org/documents/ocular/pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2015.
  40. Parija SC. Text Book of Practical Microbiology. 1st ed. Banglore: Ahuja publishers; 2006.Google Scholar
  41. Cheesbrough M. District laboratory practice in tropical countries. Part 2. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Clinical and Laboratory standards Institute (CLSI). Performance standards for antimicrobial disk susceptibility tests, vol. 34. Wayne: Twenty-Fourth Informational Supplement; 2014. p. 1.Google Scholar
  43. Magiorakos A-P, Srinivasan A, Carey RB, Carmeli Y, Falagas ME, Giske CG, et al. Multidrug-resistant, extensively drug-resistant and pan drug-resistant bacteria: an international expert proposal for interim standard definitions for acquired resistance. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18:268–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Shiferaw B, Gelaw B, Assefa A, Assefa Y, Addis Z. Bacterial isolates and their antimicrobial susceptibility pattern among patients with external ocular infections at Borumeda Hospital, Northeast Ethiopia. BMC Ophthalmol. 2015;15:103.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Aghadoost D, Khorshidi A. Antibiotic Resistance Patterns of Ocular Surface Bacterial Flora. J Infect Dis Antimicrob Agents. 2005;22(2):53–7.Google Scholar
  46. Namitha BN, Mahalakshmi, Rao A. Aerobic Bacteriological Profile in Cases of Ocular Infections in a Tertiary Care Hospital (Navodaya Medical College and Research Centre, Raichur). IOSR-JDMS. 2014;13(11):14–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Bharathi JM, Ramakrishan R, Shivakumar C, Meenakshi R, Lionalraj D. Etiology and antibacterial susceptibility pattern of community-acquired bacterial ocular infections in a tertiary eye care Hospital in south India. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2010;58(6):497–507.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Blanco C, Nunez MX. Antibiotic susceptibility of Staphylococci isolates from patients with chronic conjunctivitis: including risk factors and clinical evaluation. J Ocul Pharmacol TH. 2013;29(9):803–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Mshangila B, Paddy M, Kajumbula H, Ateenyi-Agaba C, Kahwa B, Seni J. External ocular surface bacterial isolates and their antimicrobial susceptibility patterns among pre-operative cataract patients at Mulago National Hospital in Kampala, Uganda. BMC Ophthalmol. 2013;13:71.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Chirinos-Saldana P, Lucio B, Hernandez-Camarena JC, Navas A, Ramirez-Miranda A, Vizuet-Garcia L. Clinical and microbiological profile of infectious Keratitis in children. BMC Ophthalmol. 2013;13(54):1471–2415.Google Scholar
  51. Abdullah FE, Khan MI, Waheed S. Current pattern of antibiotic resistance of clinical isolates among conjunctival swabs. Pak J Med Sci. 2013;29(1):81–4.Google Scholar
  52. Jayasudha R, Narendran V, Manikandan P, Prabagarana SR. Identification of Polybacterial Communities in Patients with Postoperative, Posttraumatic, and 39 Endogenous Endophthalmitis through 16S rRNA Gene Libraries. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52(5):1459–66.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Karsten E, Watson L, Foster R. Diversity of Microbial Species Implicated in Keratitis: A Review. Open Ophthalmol J. 2012;6:110–24.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Givner LB. Periorbital versus Orbital cellulitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2002;21:1157–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Dias C, Gonçalves M, Joao A. Epidemiological Study of Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Conjunctivitis in a Level III Neonatal Unit. Sci World J. 2013;2013:1–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Das S, Constantinou M, Daniell M, Taylor HR. Moraxella keratitis: predisposing factors and Clinical review of 95 cases. Br J Opthalmol. 2006;90:1236–12368.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Chuang C-C, Hsiao C-H, Tan H-Y, Ma DH-K, Lin K-K, et al. Staphylococcus aureus Ocular Infection: Methicillin-Resistance, Clinical Features, and Antibiotic Susceptibilities. PLoS One. 2012;8(8):e42437.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Gaynor BD, Chidambaram JD, Cevallos V, Miao Y, Miller K, Jha HC, et al. Topical ocular antibiotics induce bacterial resistance at extraocular sites. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:1097–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Lieberman JM. Appropriate antibiotic use and why it is important: the challenges of bacterial resistance. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2003;22:1143–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Biradar S, Chandrashekhar DK, Gangane R, Chandrakanth C, Biradar KG, VinodKumar CS. Spectrum of microbial keratitis and antimicrobial susceptibility at tertiary care teaching Hospital in north Karnataka. Int J Pharm Biomed Res. 2012;3(2):117–20.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017