-
Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research 2020Conjunctivitis is a commonly encountered condition in ophthalmology clinics throughout the world. In the management of suspected cases of conjunctivitis, alarming signs... (Review)
Review
Conjunctivitis is a commonly encountered condition in ophthalmology clinics throughout the world. In the management of suspected cases of conjunctivitis, alarming signs for more serious intraocular conditions, such as severe pain, decreased vision, and painful pupillary reaction, must be considered. Additionally, a thorough medical and ophthalmic history should be obtained and a thorough physical examination should be done in patients with atypical findings and chronic course. Concurrent physical exam findings with relevant history may reveal the presence of a systemic condition with involvement of the conjunctiva. Viral conjunctivitis remains to be the most common overall cause of conjunctivitis. Bacterial conjunctivitis is encountered less frequently and it is the second most common cause of infectious conjunctivitis. Allergic conjunctivitis is encountered in nearly half of the population and the findings include itching, mucoid discharge, chemosis, and eyelid edema. Long-term usage of eye drops with preservatives in a patient with conjunctival irritation and discharge points to the toxic conjunctivitis as the underlying etiology. Effective management of conjunctivitis includes timely diagnosis, appropriate differentiation of the various etiologies, and appropriate treatment.
PubMed: 32864068
DOI: 10.18502/jovr.v15i3.7456 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Acute bacterial conjunctivitis is an infection of the conjunctiva and is one of the most common ocular disorders in primary care. Antibiotics are generally prescribed on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute bacterial conjunctivitis is an infection of the conjunctiva and is one of the most common ocular disorders in primary care. Antibiotics are generally prescribed on the basis that they may speed recovery, reduce persistence, and prevent keratitis. However, many cases of acute bacterial conjunctivitis are self-limited, resolving without antibiotic therapy. This Cochrane Review was first published in The Cochrane Library in 1999, then updated in 2006, 2012, and 2022.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and side effects of antibiotic therapy in the management of acute bacterial conjunctivitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2022, Issue 5), MEDLINE (January 1950 to May 2022), Embase (January 1980 to May 2022), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.
CLINICALTRIALS
gov), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases in May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which any form of antibiotic treatment, with or without steroid, had been compared with placebo/vehicle in the management of acute bacterial conjunctivitis. This included topical and systemic antibiotic treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of identified studies. We assessed the full text of all potentially relevant studies and determined the included RCTs, which were further assessed for risk of bias using Cochrane methodology. We performed data extraction in a standardized manner and conducted random-effects meta-analyses using RevMan Web.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 eligible RCTs, 10 of which were newly identified in this update. A total of 8805 participants were randomized. All treatments were topical in the form of drops or ointment. The trials were heterogeneous in terms of their eligibility criteria, the nature of the intervention (antibiotic drug class, which included fluoroquinolones [FQs] and non-FQs; dosage frequency; duration of treatment), the outcomes assessed and the time points of assessment. We judged one trial to be of high risk of bias, four as low risk of bias, and the others as raising some concerns. Based on intention-to-treat (ITT) population, antibiotics likely improved clinical cure (resolution of clinical symptoms or signs) by 26% (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.46; 5 trials, 1474 participants; moderate certainty) as compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis showed no differences by antibiotic class (P = 0.67) or treatment duration (P = 0.60). In the placebo group, 55.5% (408/735) of participants had spontaneous clinical resolution by days 4 to 9 versus 68.2% (504/739) of participants treated with an antibiotic. Based on modified ITT population, in which participants were analyzed after randomization on the basis of positive microbiological culture, antibiotics likely increased microbiological cure (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.74; 10 trials, 2827 participants) compared with placebo at the end of therapy; there were no subgroup differences by drug class (P = 0.60). No study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of antibiotic treatment. Patients receiving antibiotics had a lower risk of treatment incompletion than those in the placebo group (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.78; 13 trials, 5573 participants; moderate certainty) and were 27% less likely to have persistent clinical infection (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.81; 19 trials, 5280 participants; moderate certainty). There was no evidence of serious systemic side effects reported in either the antibiotic or placebo group (very low certainty). When compared with placebo, FQs (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.90) but not non-FQs (RR 4.05, 95% CI 1.36 to 12.00) may result in fewer participants with ocular side effects. However, the estimated effects were of very low certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this update suggest that the use of topical antibiotics is associated with a modestly improved chance of resolution in comparison to the use of placebo. Since no evidence of serious side effects was reported, use of antibiotics may therefore be considered to achieve better clinical and microbiologic efficacy than placebo. Increasing the proportion of participants with clinical cure or increasing the speed of recovery or both are important for individual return to work or school, allowing people to regain quality of life. Future studies may examine antiseptic treatments with topical antibiotics for reasons of cost and growing antibiotic resistance.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Conjunctivitis, Bacterial; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36912752
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001211.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Trachoma is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. In 1996, WHO launched the Alliance for the Global Elimination of Trachoma by the year 2020, based on the...
BACKGROUND
Trachoma is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. In 1996, WHO launched the Alliance for the Global Elimination of Trachoma by the year 2020, based on the 'SAFE' strategy (surgery, antibiotics, facial cleanliness, and environmental improvement).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence supporting the antibiotic arm of the SAFE strategy by assessing the effects of antibiotics on both active trachoma (primary objective), Chlamydia trachomatis infection of the conjunctiva, antibiotic resistance, and adverse effects (secondary objectives).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched relevant electronic databases and trials registers. The date of the last search was 4 January 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that satisfied either of two criteria: (a) trials in which topical or oral administration of an antibiotic was compared to placebo or no treatment in people or communities with trachoma, (b) trials in which a topical antibiotic was compared with an oral antibiotic in people or communities with trachoma. We also included studies addressing different dosing strategies in the population. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 studies where individuals with trachoma were randomised and 12 cluster-randomised studies. Any antibiotic versus control (individuals)Nine studies (1961 participants) randomised individuals with trachoma to antibiotic or control (no treatment or placebo). All of these studies enrolled children and young people with active trachoma. The antibiotics used in these studies included topical (oxy)tetracycline (5 studies), doxycycline (2 studies), and sulfonamides (4 studies). Four studies had more than two study arms. In general these studies were poorly reported, and it was difficult to judge risk of bias.These studies provided low-certainty evidence that people with active trachoma treated with antibiotics experienced a reduction in active trachoma at three months (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.89; 1961 people; 9 RCTs; I = 73%) and 12 months (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.00; 1035 people; 4 RCTs; I = 90%). Low-certainty evidence was available for ocular infection at three months (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04; 297 people; 4 RCTs; I = 0%) and 12 months (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78; 129 people; 1 RCT). None of these studies assessed antimicrobial resistance. In those studies that reported harms, no serious adverse effects were reported (low-certainty evidence).Oral versus topical antibiotics (individuals)Eight studies (1583 participants) compared oral and topical antibiotics. Only one study included people older than 21 years of age. Oral antibiotics included azithromycin (5 studies), sulfonamides (2 studies), and doxycycline (1 study). Topical antibiotics included (oxy)tetracycline (6 studies), azithromycin (1 study), and sulfonamide (1 study). These studies were poorly reported, and it was difficult to judge risk of bias.There was low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in effect between oral and topical antibiotics on active trachoma at three months (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; 953 people; 6 RCTs; I = 63%) and 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15; 886 people; 5 RCTs; I = 56%). There was very low-certainty evidence for ocular infection at three or 12 months. Antimicrobial resistance was not assessed. In those studies that reported adverse effects, no serious adverse effects were reported; one study reported abdominal pain with azithromycin; one study reported a couple of cases of nausea with azithromycin; and one study reported three cases of reaction to sulfonamides (low-certainty evidence).Oral azithromycin versus control (communities)Four cluster-randomised studies compared antibiotic with no or delayed treatment. Data were available on active trachoma at 12 months from two studies but could not be pooled because of reporting differences. One study at low risk of bias found a reduced prevalence of active trachoma 12 months after a single dose of azithromycin in communities with a high prevalence of infection (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.65; 1247 people). The other, lower quality, study in low-prevalence communities reported similar median prevalences of infection at 12 months: 9.3% in communities treated with azithromycin and 8.2% in untreated communities. We judged this moderate-certainty evidence for a reduction in active trachoma with treatment, downgrading one level for inconsistency between the two studies. Two studies reported ocular infection at 12 months and data could be pooled. There was a reduction in ocular infection (RR 0.36, 0.31 to 0.43; 2139 people) 12 months after mass treatment with a single dose compared with no treatment (moderate-certainty evidence). There was high-certainty evidence of an increased risk of resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli to azithromycin, tetracycline, and clindamycin in communities treated with azithromycin, with approximately 5-fold risk ratios at 12 months. The evidence did not support increased resistance to penicillin or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. None of the studies measured resistance to C trachomatis. No serious adverse events were reported. The main adverse effect noted for azithromycin (˜10%) was abdominal pain, vomiting, and nausea.Oral azithromycin versus topical tetracycline (communities)Three cluster-randomised studies compared oral azithromycin with topical tetracycline. The evidence was inconsistent for active trachoma and ocular infection at three and 12 months (low-certainty evidence) and was not pooled due to considerable heterogeneity. Antimicrobial resistance and adverse effects were not reported.Different dosing strategiesSix studies compared different strategies for dosing. There were: mass treatment at different dosing intervals; applying cessation or stopping rules to mass treatment; strategies to increase mass treatment coverage. There was no strong evidence to support any variation in the recommended annual mass treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotic treatment may reduce the risk of active trachoma and ocular infection in people infected with C trachomatis, compared to no treatment/placebo, but the size of the treatment effect in individuals is uncertain. Mass antibiotic treatment with single dose oral azithromycin reduces the prevalence of active trachoma and ocular infection in communities. There is no strong evidence to support any variation in the recommended periodicity of annual mass treatment. There is evidence of an increased risk of antibiotic resistance at 12 months in communities treated with antibiotics.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chlamydia trachomatis; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trachoma; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31554017
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001860.pub4 -
Complementary Therapies in Clinical... May 2022Conjunctivitis is the inflammation of the conjunctiva. Although data on clinical efficacy and safety of various ayurvedic treatments in conjunctivitis is published,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Conjunctivitis is the inflammation of the conjunctiva. Although data on clinical efficacy and safety of various ayurvedic treatments in conjunctivitis is published, systematic review is not done. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ayurvedic treatments in conjunctivitis.
METHODS
A literature search of the Cochrane Library (Cochrane central register of controlled trials: issue 6 of 12, June 2018), Pub Med, AYUSH research portal (Govt. of India), DHARA portal, Google scholar and online clinical trials registers was done. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized controlled trials (QRCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and multiple arms clinical trials were identified in which Ayurveda treatments with any dose, type, schedule, drug, dosage form, and advised Pathayapathya (lifestyle changes) were selected.
RESULTS
We identified 13 eligible RCTs, five CCTs and two multiple arms clinical trials which includes a total of 816 participants. Meta analysis of data from five trials showed that ayurvedic treatments benefitted more compared with non-ayurveda interventions in symptoms like itching (SMD = -0.98, 95% CI (-1.30,-0.65) p < 0.00001, I = 38%), pain (SMD = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.87, -0.29, P = 0.0001, I = 0%), ropy discharge (SMD = -1.02, 95% CI(-1.45, -0.59), P < 0.00001, I = 0%), conjunctival congestion (SMD = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.91, -0.43), p < 0.00001, I = 0%), foreign body sensation (SMD = -0.68, 95% CI(-1.06, -0.29), p = 0.0006, I = 46%, Fig. 8) and lid heaviness (SMD = -0.66, 95% CI(- 0.98, -0.33), p < 0.0001, I = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
Although some findings confirm the benefit of ayurveda as opposed to non ayurveda for the treatment of conjunctivitis, since the studies have high risk of bias and are of lower quality, the findings could not be generalized. There is a need for high quality studies in ayurveda in this regard.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42019129436.
Topics: Conjunctivitis; Humans; India; Medicine, Ayurvedic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35259570
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2022.101568 -
Taiwan Journal of Ophthalmology 2020The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) pandemic has presented major challenges to ophthalmologists. Reports have shown that ocular manifestations can be the first... (Review)
Review
Ocular manifestation, comorbidities, and detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 from conjunctiva in coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) pandemic has presented major challenges to ophthalmologists. Reports have shown that ocular manifestations can be the first presenting symptoms of COVID 19 infection and conjunctiva may be a portal of entry for the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) associated coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV 2). The purpose of this article is to provide general guidance for ophthalmologists to understand the prevalence of ocular presentation in COVID 19 patients and to reduce the risk of transmission during practice. Relevant studies published in the period of November 1, 2019, and July 15, 2020, regarding ocular manifestations of COVID 19 and detection of SARS CoV 2 in the eye were included in this systematic review and meta analysis. The pooled prevalence of the ocular manifestations has been estimated at 7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.10) among COVID 19 patients. The pooled detection rate of SARS CoV 2 from conjunctiva was low (1%, 95% CI: 0.00-0.03). Conjunctival symptoms were the most common ocular manifestations in COVID 19, but the positive detection rate of the SARS CoV 2 virus by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction of conjunctival tears or secretions remained low. No study has shown a definite transmission of COVID 19 through ocular mucosa or secretions. In summary, ocular manifestations in COVID 19 patients commonly comprise ocular surface symptoms. Although a low prevalence of ocular symptoms was encountered among patients infected by SARS CoV 2, it is imperative for all ophthalmologists to understand the full spectrum of COVID 19 symptoms or signs including those of the eyes as well as to adopt appropriate protective measures during clinical practice.
PubMed: 33110745
DOI: 10.4103/tjo.tjo_53_20 -
Eye (London, England) Jul 2020Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) has been described to potentially be complicated by ocular involvement. However, scant information is available regarding severe acute...
Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) has been described to potentially be complicated by ocular involvement. However, scant information is available regarding severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and ocular structures tropism. We conducted a systematic review of articles referenced in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Chinese Clinical Trial Register (ChiCTR) from December 20, 2019 to April 6, 2020, providing information on the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in cornea, conjunctiva, lacrimal sac, and tears. We excluded ongoing clinical studies as for unobtainable conclusive results. Of 2422 articles, 11 met the inclusion criteria for analysis and were included in the study. None of the studies were multinational. Among the 11 selected papers there were three original articles, one review, four letters, two editorials, and one correspondence letter. Globally, 252 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients were included in our review. The prevalence of ocular conjunctivitis complicating the course of COVID-19 was demonstrated to be as high as 32% in one study only. Globally, three patients had conjunctivitis with a positive tear-PCR, 8 patients had positive tear-PCR in the absence of conjunctivitis, and 14 had conjunctivitis with negative tear-PCR. The majority of the available data regarding SARS-CoV-2 colonization of ocular and periocular tissues and secretions have to be considered controversial. However, it cannot be excluded that SARS-CoV-2 could both infect the eye and the surrounding structures. SARS-CoV-2 may use ocular structure as an additional transmission route, as demonstrated by the COVID-19 patients' conjunctival secretion and tears positivity to reverse transcriptase-PCR SARS-CoV-2-RNA assay.
Topics: Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Conjunctiva; Conjunctivitis, Viral; Coronavirus Infections; Eye Diseases; Humans; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 32424327
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-020-0926-9 -
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual... Aug 2020This systematic review aimed to determine currently reported clinical and prodromal ocular symptoms in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
This systematic review aimed to determine currently reported clinical and prodromal ocular symptoms in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
An online article search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE. Altogether 15 studies (retrospective, prospective, or case studies) involving 1533 patients with COVID-19, reporting on ocular symptoms, and with outcome data available were identified. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines were followed. Study-specific estimates (incidence rates of ocular symptoms in patients with COVID-19) of cases were combined using one-group meta-analysis in a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Of all included studies, 11.2% (95% confidence interval, 5.5-16.9; 78/1526 cases) reported ocular symptoms. The most common ocular finding was conjunctivitis. Prodromal ocular symptoms occurred in 12.5% (13/104 cases) of patients with COVID-19. Positive real-time polymerase chain reaction results were obtained for 16.7% (10/60 cases) of conjunctival samples and 0% (0/17 cases) of tear samples. Twelve ocular conjunctival swab samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Ten cases were from subjects showing ocular symptoms (16.7%, 10/60 cases), and the remaining two cases were from subjects without ocular manifestation (1.8%, 2/113 cases). Limitations included the short study period, small sample size, findings were limited to the Asian population, only seven articles included ophthalmologic examination details, and there is currently no consensus on COVID-19 management.
CONCLUSIONS
Ocular symptoms may occur in the presymptomatic phase as a prodromal symptom (12.5%, 13/104 cases), suggesting the possibility of viral transmission from the conjunctiva.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Clinical Laboratory Techniques; Conjunctivitis, Viral; Coronavirus Infections; DNA, Viral; Disease Progression; Female; Humans; Incidence; Male; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Prodromal Symptoms; Prognosis; Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction; Risk Assessment; Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
PubMed: 32797198
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.61.10.29 -
Current Ophthalmology Reports 2020Studies have reported ocular involvement in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with SARS-CoV-2 having been detected in ocular swab samples. This has implicated the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Studies have reported ocular involvement in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with SARS-CoV-2 having been detected in ocular swab samples. This has implicated the eye as a portal of transmission. The aim of this systemic review is to summarise and discuss the current literature regarding ocular involvement of SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19.
RECENT FINDINGS
In this systematic review, the prevalence of ocular symptoms and signs was low (from 0 to 31.58%) and conjunctivitis was a relatively rare occurrence. The rate of detection of SARS-CoV-2 in the ocular swab samples was low as well and this ranged from 0 to 11.11%. The development of ocular symptoms and signs was not always accompanied by the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in the ocular swab samples. The opposite was described as well. This may reflect issues related to the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and of the study design. Nonetheless, the nature of research in a pandemic is that conclusions can change as more information is obtained.
SUMMARY
Whilst the eye is unlikely to be a main transmission route, we need to consider the possibilities of conjunctivitis as a presenting complaint and of the eye playing a role in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, we need to take the appropriate precautions in our practice. Further studies are needed to evaluate the viral tropism of SARS-CoV-2 and its role in the eyes.
PubMed: 33014631
DOI: 10.1007/s40135-020-00257-7 -
Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology...The purpose of this study was to pool the prevalence rate of monkeypox-associated eye manifestations and/or complications during the current and previous outbreaks. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to pool the prevalence rate of monkeypox-associated eye manifestations and/or complications during the current and previous outbreaks.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
On August 7, 2022, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles. We included all studies that reported the involvement of the eye (either as a manifestation or a complication) among patients with monkeypox. The primary outcome included pooling the effect size (ES) of reported manifestations and complications, and the secondary outcome included the conduct of a subgroup analysis based on the timing of the monkeypox outbreak (before vs. during 2022).
RESULTS
Eleven studies reporting 3179 monkeypox-confirmed cases were included. Eye manifestations included conjunctivitis, corneal, conjunctival, and eyelid lesions, photophobia, and eye pain. Compared with previous monkeypox outbreaks, the current outbreak revealed much lower rates of ocular involvement in terms of conjunctivitis (ES=1%; 95% CI: 0%-1% vs. ES=17%; 95% CI: 11%-22%), corneal and conjunctival lesions (ES=1%; 95% CI: 0%-2% vs. ES=13%; 95% CI: 4%-22%), and eyelid lesions (ES=1%; 95% CI: 0%-4% vs. ES=13%; 95% CI: 5%-28%). Monkeypox-associated eye complications were reported only in the previous outbreaks which included keratitis (ES=4%; 95% CI: 3%-6%), corneal ulceration (ES=4%; 95% CI: 2%-5%), unilateral (ES=3%; 95% CI: 1%-4%) and bilateral blindness (ES=0%; 95% CI: 0%-2%), and impaired vision (ES=4%; 95% CI: 1%-8%).
CONCLUSIONS
Ophthalmic manifestations and complications are common among monkeypox-confirmed cases. Although these data are mainly related to previous outbreaks, health care workers should familiarize themselves with these signs to provide better care for monkeypox patients.
Topics: Humans; Mpox (monkeypox); Conjunctiva; Disease Outbreaks; Conjunctivitis; Keratitis
PubMed: 37249903
DOI: 10.1097/APO.0000000000000608 -
Parasite Epidemiology and Control May 2023Besnoitiosis is a parasitic disease of economic importance caused by cyst-forming protozoa from the genus . The disease affects the skin, subcutis, blood vessels, and... (Review)
Review
Besnoitiosis is a parasitic disease of economic importance caused by cyst-forming protozoa from the genus . The disease affects the skin, subcutis, blood vessels, and mucous membranes of the animals. It is traditionally endemic in the tropical and sub-tropical regions of the world, and causes enormous economic loss associated with impaired productivity and reproduction, as well as skin lesions. Therefore, knowledge of the epidemiology of the disease, including the current species occurring in sub-Saharan Africa, the wide range of mammalian species hosts they use as intermediate hosts, and the clinical signs manifested by infected animals is crucial in developing effective prevention and control measures. This review collected information from peer-reviewed publications involving the epidemiology and clinical signs of besnoitiosis in sub-Saharan Africa using four electronic databases. Results showed that , and unidentified spp. were found naturally infecting livestock and wildlife across nine reviewed sub-Saharan African countries. was the most common species, occurring in all nine reviewed countries, and utilised a wide range of mammalian species as intermediate hosts. Prevalence of ranged from 2.0 to 80.3%, and 5.45-46.53%. Infection rate was high with serology compared to other techniques. Some of the typical signs of besnoitiosis included sand-like cysts on the sclera conjunctiva, nodules in the skin, thickening and wrinkling of the skin and alopecia. Inflammation, thickening and wrinkling of the scrotum were observed in bulls, and lesions on the scrotum deteriorated progressively and became generalized in some cases in spite of treatment. There is still a need for surveys focusing on detecting and identifying spp. using molecular techniques in combination with serological, histology and visual observation, and scoping their natural intermediate and definitive hosts, as well as assessing the burden of the disease animals reared on different husbandry systems in sub-Saharan Africa.
PubMed: 36793766
DOI: 10.1016/j.parepi.2023.e00284