4.6 Article

Evaluation of In Vitro Efficacy of Combined Riboflavin and Ultraviolet A for Acanthamoeba Isolates

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 153, Issue 3, Pages 399-404

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.07.025

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. SPANISH MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE [FISPI09-1585]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To evaluate in vitro the amoebicidal effects of riboflavin and ultraviolet A (UVA) collagen cross-linking. DESIGN: Experimental study, laboratory investigation. METHODS: Two different strains of Acanthamoeba species were tested identically. Four treatment groups were considered: group 1 consisted of 0.1% riboflavin and 30-minute UVA irradiation; group 2 consisted of 0.1% riboflavin and 60-minute UVA irradiation; group 3 consisted of no riboflavin and no UVA exposure; group 4 consisted of 0.1% riboflavin and no UVA exposure. The application of UVA was performed under the parameters used for in vivo corneal collagen cross-linking. RESULTS: In all cases, cysts and trophozoites were detected 24 hours after treatment at a radial distance from the center of the seeding point more than 5 mm, indicating that the amoebae were viable. All treated and untreated groups of amoebae from the 2 strains exhibited growth (radii of 14 to 15 mm in groups 1, 3, and 4; radius of 12 mm in group 2). The final morphologic features of the 2 strains of trophozoites that received treatment were similar to those of the initial seeding group and the untreated control group. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained in our study show that a single dose (30 or 60 minutes) of cross-linking cannot achieve eradication in the 2 different Acanthamoeba strains examined. However, in vitro results do not always indicate in vivo efficacy, so future studies should test the validity of this treatment for Acanthamoeba keratitis. (Am J Ophthalmol 2012;153:399-404. (C) 2012 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available