We thank Prajna et al for their comments on our article titled, “Comparative evaluation
of topical versus intrastromal voriconazole as an adjunct to natamycin in recalcitrant
fungal keratitis.”
1
At the time of our publication, 1 study had been published from their group, which
was referenced,
2
The other study was published later than our article and hence were not referenced.
3
References
- Comparative evaluation of topical versus intrastromal voriconazole as an adjunct to natamycin in recalcitrant fungal keratitis.Ophthalmology. 2013; 120: 677-681
- Comparison of natamycin and voriconazole for the treatment of fungal keratitis.Arch Ophthalmol. 2010; 128: 672-678
- The Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial: a randomized trial comparing natamycin vs voriconazole.Arch Ophthalmol. 2013; 131: 422-429
- Antifungal interactions within the triple combination of amphotericin B, caspofungin and voriconazole against Aspergillus species.J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006; 58: 1168-1176
Article Info
Identification
Copyright
© 2013 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirectLinked Article
- Voriconazole for Fungal KeratitisOphthalmologyVol. 120Issue 9
- In BriefIn their recently published trial, Sharma et al1 found topical voriconazole to be more effective than intrastromal voriconazole when added to topical natamycin in patients with recalcitrant fungal keratitis. This trial shares a similar protocol with several of our recent trials: a therapeutic exploratory trial2 (referenced by Sharma et al as “MUTT”), a therapeutic confirmatory trial3 (the first Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial or MUTT I), and a third trial for which results are not yet available (MUTT II).
- Full-Text
- In Brief
