Summary
We performed a prospective, randomised, investigator-masked and parallel-group study to compare topical lomefloxacin 0.3% instilled twice daily with topical chloramphenicol instilled five times daily in the treatment of acute bacterial conjunctivitis. 191 patients (lomefloxacin 96, chloramphenicol 95) were enrolled in this study with clinically diagnosed acute bacterial conjunctivitis. The two treatment groups were similar at baseline. The treatments were equally effective and significantly (p < 0.001) reduced the Cumulative Sum Score of the clinical signs and symptoms of bacterial conjunctivitis. At the end of the trial, there was no difference between the two treatments in the Cumulative Sum Score of signs and symptoms (p = 0.63), and the investigator (p = 0.28) and patients’ (p = 0.50) assessments of the success of therapy. The two drugs were equally well tolerated locally, with no serious systemic or local adverse drug reactions reported in any study patient. Bacteriological confirmation of acute conjunctivitis was possible in 96 patients (lomefloxacin 47, chloramphenicol 49) out of the 191 enrolled. Both treatments significantly (p < 0.001) reduced the conjunctival bacterial colony count score with no difference (p = 0.12) between the two treatment groups. In conclusion, lomefloxacin 0.3% eye drops instilled twice daily were as effective and well tolerated as chloramphenicol 0.5% eye drops instilled 5 times daily in the treatment of acute bacterial conjunctivitis.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Uchida Y. Clinical efficacy of topical lomefloxacin (NY-198) in bacterial infections of the external eye — a multicentre double blind phase III study. Folia Ophthalmol Jpn 1991; 42: 52–70
Wadworth AN, Goa KL. Lomefloxacin — a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic use. Drugs 1991; 42: 1018–60
Hirose T, Okezaki E, Kato H, et al. In. vitro and in. vivo activity of NY-198, a new difluorinated quinolone. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987; 31: 854–9
Hatano H, Inoue K, Shia S, et al. Application of topical lomefloxacin against experimental Pseudomonas endophthalmitis in rabbits. Acta Ophthalmol 1993; 71: 666–70
Colin J, Malet F, Jauch A, et al. Bacterial keratitis therapy in guinea pigs with lomefloxacin with initially high — followed by low — dosage regimen. Ophthalmic Res 1995; 27: 322–9
Malminiemi K, Kari O, Latvala ML, et al. Topical lomefloxacin twice daily compared with fusidic acid in acute bacterial conjunctivitis. Acta Ophthalmol 1996; 74: 280–4
Elena PP, Jauch A. Ocular distribution of lomefloxacin 0.3% after a single instillation in the infected eye of pigmented rabbits. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 1997. In press
Fukuda M, Jing Sheng Chou, Sasaki K. Intraocular dynamics of a new antibacterial derivative of pyridone carboxylic acid (NY-198). Folia Ophthalmol Jpn 1989; 40: 72–6
Kodama T. Penetration of lomefloxacin ophthalmic solution (NY-198) into the human aqueous humor. J Jpn Rev Ophthalmol 1991; 85: 493–5
Ooishi M, Oomomo A, Sakaue F, et al. Studies on intraocular penetration of NY-198 (lomefloxacin) eye drops. Acta Soc Ophthalmol Jpn 1988; 92: 1825–32
Doona M, Walsh JB. Use of chloramphenicol as a topical eye medication: time to cry halt? BMJ 1995; 310: 1217–8
Bron AJ, Leber G, Rizk SNM, et al. Ofloxacin compared with chloramphenicol in the management of external ocular infection. Br J Ophthalmol 1991; 75: 675–9
Miller IM, Wittreich JM, Cook T, et al. The safety and efficacy of topical norfloxacin compared with chloramphenicol for the treatment of external ocular bacterial infections. Eye 1992; 6: 111–4
Power WJ, Collum LMT, Easty DL, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of ciprofloxacin ophthalmic solution versus chloramphenicol. Eur J Ophthalmol 1993; 3: 77–82
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Agius-Fernandez, A., Patterson, A., Fsadni, M. et al. Topical Lomefloxacin versus Topical Chloramphenicol in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Conjunctivitis. Clin. Drug Investig. 15, 263–269 (1998). https://doi.org/10.2165/00044011-199815040-00001
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00044011-199815040-00001