Medical Management versus PACK-CXL in Dogs with Infectious Keratitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
- Compliance problems as a result of treatment frequency.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Registration
2.2. Hypothesis
2.3. Study Objectives
- To assess treatment success proportions of PACK-CXL versus standard medical therapy in dogs with presumed infectious keratitis;
- To assess healing time, defined as the time elapsed between treatment start and complete epithelization of the ulcer;
- To assess costs (veterinary service and medication costs) of both types of treatment.
2.4. Trial Design
2.5. Participants
2.5.1. Eligibility Criteria
- Have a clinical diagnosis of a unilateral, presumed bacterial, infectious keratitis (loss of outer epithelium in combination with stromal loss and/or stromal neutrophil infil-trates; neutrophilic inflammation or bacteria confirmed on cytology);
- Have a maximal ulcer depth of 50% or less and a maximal ulcer diameter of 10 mm or less;
- Have an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I–III.
- Additionally, the owner needs to be able to comply with an intensive topical treatment schedule and give study consent (Appendix A).
- Suffer from a potentially immunosuppressive systemic disease (e.g., diabetes mellitus, Cushing);
- Take systemic or topical corticosteroid treatment;
- Suffer from concurrent ocular conditions that likely impair the healing potential of the cornea (e.g., dry eye, glaucoma).
2.5.2. Study Setting
2.5.3. Recruitment
2.5.4. Standardized Diagnostic Evaluation
- Bacterial culture and antibiotic sensitivity testing through application of a topical anesthetic to the affected eye (routinely used at the clinic), waiting for 30 s, and using a commercially available swab with transport medium to obtain a sample by gently rotating the tip of the swab on the edge of the ulcer;
- Cytology from the corneal ulcer area after obtaining a bacteriology sample, through gentle rotation of a cytobrush on the edge of the ulcer, performing a smear, and in-house staining with a diff quick stain. The presence and number of cells, cellular morphology, and presence and type of bacteria will be evaluated.
2.5.5. Baseline Characteristics and Stratification
- Routine admission: direct enrolment and randomization.
- Out-of-hours admission: next day enrolment and randomization.
2.6. Interventions
2.6.1. Study Intervention and Standard Therapy
2.6.2. PACK-CXL (Intervention Arm) Procedure
2.6.3. Criteria to Modify Allocated Treatment
- Increased ulcer surface area;
- Thinning of the residual stroma;
- Increased neutrophil infiltrate size and/or density;
- Liquefaction or corneal necrosis if not already present at initial examination.
2.7. Measured Outcomes
- Primary outcome: the number of cases successfully treated with the allocated treatment protocol.
- Secondary outcome is the time elapsed between treatment start and complete epithelization of the ulcer. We chose this outcome as re-epithelization is related to stromal stability and ulcer healing.
- Tertiary outcome: costs for veterinary services and medications.
- Fourth outcome: adverse reaction types and frequency in each treatment arm.
Participant Timeline
2.8. Sample Size
2.9. Randomization
2.9.1. Sequence Generation
2.9.2. Allocation
2.10. Masking
2.11. Data Collection, Management and Analysis
2.11.1. Data Collection and Safety
2.11.2. Data Analysis Plan
2.11.3. Incomplete Data Sets
2.12. Trial Monitoring
2.12.1. Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB)
2.12.2. Trial Stopping
3. Discussion
- Requiring proof of adherence to study design and reporting guidelines;
- Pre-registration of study protocols. Both are mandatory in clinical trials reported in human medical journals, but not yet in preclinical research, including clinical studies involving animal patients. These innovations pave the way to transparent research, preventing a reporting and publication bias, and thus addressing the reproducibility crisis [42,43].
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- Chan, A.-W.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Altman, D.G.; Mann, H.; Berlin, J.A.; Dickersin, K.; Hróbjartsson, A.; Schulz, K.F.; Parulekar, W.R.; et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: Guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ 2013, 346, e7586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Yam, J.C.; Chan, C.W.; Cheng, A.C. Corneal Collagen Cross-linking Demarcation Line Depth Assessed by Visante OCT after CXL for Keratoconus and Corneal Ectasia. J. Refract. Surg. 2012, 28, 475–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maggs, D.J. Cornea and Sclera. In Slatter’s Fundamentals of Veterinary Ophthalmology, 5th ed.; Maggs, D.J., Miller, P.E., Ofri, R., Eds.; Elsevier: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2013; pp. 184–219. [Google Scholar]
- Ledbetter, E.C. and Gilger, B.C. Diseases and Surgery of the Canine Cornea and Sclera. In Veterinary Ophthalmology, 5th ed.; Gelatt, K.N., Gilger, B.C., Kern, T.J., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Ames, IA, USA, 2013; pp. 976–1049. [Google Scholar]
- O’Neill, D.G.; Lee, M.M.; Brodbelt, D.C.; Church, D.B.; Sanchez, R.F. Corneal ulcerative disease in dogs under primary veterinary care in England: Epidemiology and clinical management. Canine Genet. Epidemiol. 2017, 4, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stiles, J. Ocular Infections. In Infectious Diseases of the Dog and Cat; Greene, C.E., Ed.; Elsevier/Saunders: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2012; pp. 1058–1077. [Google Scholar]
- Ollivier, F.J. Bacterial corneal diseases in dogs and cats. Clin. Tech. Small Anim. Pr. 2003, 18, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gould, D.; McLellan, G.J. BSAVA Manual of Canine and Feline Ophthalmology, 3rd ed.; British Small Animal Veterinary Association: Quedgeley, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Packer, R.M.A.; Hendricks, A.; Burn, C. Impact of Facial Conformation on Canine Health: Corneal Ulceration. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0123827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Green, M.; Apel, A.; Stapleton, F. Risk Factors and Causative Organisms in Microbial Keratitis. Cornea 2008, 27, 22–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ting, D.S.J.; Ho, C.S.; Cairns, J.; Elsahn, A.; Al-Aqaba, M.; Boswell, T.; Said, D.G.; Dua, H.S. 12-year analysis of incidence, microbiological profiles and in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility of infectious keratitis: The Nottingham Infectious Keratitis Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2020, 105, 328–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suter, A.; Voelter, K.; Hartnack, S.; Spiess, B.M.; Pot, S.A. Septic keratitis in dogs, cats, and horses in Switzerland: Associated bacteria and antibiotic susceptibility. Vet. Ophthalmol. 2017, 21, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alexandrakis, G.; Alfonso, E.C.; Miller, D. Shifting trends in bacterial keratitis in south Florida and emerging resistance to fluoroquinolones. Ophthalmology 2000, 107, 1497–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chalita, M.R.; Höfling-Lima, A.L.; Paranhos, A., Jr.; Schor, P.; Belfort, R., Jr. Shifting trends in in vitro antibiotic susceptibilities for common ocular isolates during a period of 15 years. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2004, 137, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kunimoto, D.Y.; Sharma, S.; Garg, P.; Rao, G.N. In vitro susceptibility of bacterial keratitis pathogens to ciprofloxacin: Emerging resistance. Ophthalmology 1999, 106, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mamalis, N. The increasing problem of antibiotic resistance. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2007, 33, 1831–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sharma, V.; Sharma, S.; Garg, P.; Rao, G.N. Clinical resistance of Staphylococcus keratitis to ciprofloxacin monotherapy. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2004, 52, 287–292. [Google Scholar]
- WHO. Antimicrobial Resistance: Global Report on Surveillance; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.; Conrad, A.H.; Conrad, G.W. Effects of Ultraviolet-A and Riboflavin on the Interaction of Collagen and Proteoglycans during Corneal Cross-linking. J. Biol. Chem. 2011, 286, 13011–13022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Spoerl, E.; Wollensak, G.; Seiler, T. Increased resistance of crosslinked cornea against enzymatic digestion. Curr. Eye Res. 2004, 29, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spoerl, E.; Huhle, M.; Seiler, T. Induction of Cross-links in Corneal Tissue. Exp. Eye Res. 1998, 66, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Naseem, I.; Ahmad, M.; Hadi, S.M. Effect of alkylated and intercalated DNA on the generation of superoxide anion by riboflavin. Biosci. Rep. 1988, 8, 485–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Makdoumi, K.; Goodrich, R.; Backman, A. Photochemical eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by blue light activation of riboflavin. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017, 95, 498–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Makdoumi, K.; Bäckman, A. Photodynamic UVA-riboflavin bacterial elimination in antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2016, 44, 582–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bäckman, A.; Makdoumi, K.; Mortensen, J.; Crafoord, S. The efficiency of cross-linking methods in eradication of bacteria is influenced by the riboflavin concentration and the irradiation time of ultraviolet light. Acta Ophthalmol. 2013, 92, 656–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denis, T.G.S.; Dai, T.; Izikson, L.; Astrakas, C.; Anderson, R.R.; Hamblin, M.R.; Tegos, G.P. All you need is light: Antimicrobial photoinactivation as an evolving and emerging discovery strategy against infectious disease. Virulence 2011, 2, 509–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tavares, A.; Carvalho, C.M.B.; Faustino, M.A.; Neves, M.G.P.M.S.; Tomé, J.P.C.; Tomé, A.C.; Cavaleiro, J.A.S.; Cunha, Â.; Gomes, N.C.M.; Alves, E. Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy: Study of Bacterial Recovery Viability and Potential Development of Resistance after Treatment. Mar. Drugs 2010, 8, 91–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kashef, N.; Hamblin, M.R. Can microbial cells develop resistance to oxidative stress in antimicrobial photodynamic inactivation? Drug Resist. Updat. 2017, 31, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pot, S.A.; Gallhöfer, N.S.; Matheis, F.L.; Voelter-Ratson, K.; Hafezi, F.; Spiess, B.M. Corneal collagen cross-linking as treatment for infectious and noninfectious corneal melting in cats and dogs: Results of a prospective, nonrandomized, controlled trial. Vet. Ophthalmol. 2014, 17, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Famose, F. Evaluation of accelerated collagen cross-linking for the treatment of melting keratitis in ten cats. Vet. Ophthalmol. 2013, 18, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Famose, F. Evaluation of accelerated collagen cross-linking for the treatment of melting keratitis in eight dogs. Vet. Ophthalmol. 2013, 17, 358–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Papaioannou, L.; Miligkos, M.; Papathanassiou, M. Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking for Infectious Keratitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cornea 2016, 35, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ting, D.S.J.; Henein, C.; Said, D.G.; Dua, H.S. Photoactivated chromophore for infectious keratitis—Corneal cross-linking (PACK-CXL): A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ocul. Surf. 2019, 17, 624–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, S.A.; Bovelle, R.; Han, G.; Kwagyan, J. Corneal collagen cross-linking for bacterial infectious keratitis. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020, 2020, CD013001. [Google Scholar]
- Hafezi, F.; Hosny, M.; Shetty, R.; Knyazer, B.; Chen, S.; Wang, Q.; Hashemi, H.; Torres-Netto, E.A.; Zhang, H.; Bora’I, A.; et al. PACK-CXL vs. antimicrobial therapy for bacterial, fungal, and mixed infectious keratitis: A prospective randomized phase 3 trial. Eye Vis. 2022, 9, 1–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pot, S.A. PACK-CXL: Clinical results II. In Proceedings of the 1st International CXL Experts’ Meeting, Zurich, Switzerland, 2–3 December 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Fleming, T.R.; Harrington, D.P.; O’Brien, P.C. Designs for group sequential tests. Control. Clin. Trials 1984, 5, 348–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Team, R.C. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 20 October 2022).
- Anderson, K. gsDesign: Group Sequential Design, R package version 3.2.2; CRAN; Merck Research Laboratories: Kenilworth, NJ, USA, 2022; Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gsDesign/index.html (accessed on 20 October 2022).
- Snow, G. blockrand: Randomization for Block Random Clinical Trials, R package version 1.5; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2020; Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/blockrand/index.html (accessed on 20 October 2022).
- Harris, P.A.; Taylor, R.; Thielke, R.; Payne, J.; Gonzalez, N.; Conde, J.G. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J. Biomed. Inform. 2009, 42, 377–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wieschowski, S.; Biernot, S.; Deutsch, S.; Glage, S.; Bleich, A.; Tolba, R.; Strech, D. Publication rates in animal research. Extent and characteristics of published and non-published animal studies followed up at two German university medical centres. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0223758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Riet, G.t.; Korevaar, D.A.; Leenaars, M.; Sterk, P.J.; van Noorden, C.J.F.; Bouter, L.M.; Lutter, R.; Elferink, R.P.O. Lotty Hooft Publication Bias in Laboratory Animal Research: A Survey on Magnitude, Drivers, Consequences and Potential Solutions. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e43404. [Google Scholar]
- Vamvakas, E.C. Rationale, objectives, and interpretation of randomized controlled trials. J. Clin. Apher. 1997, 12, 130–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bessonnat, A.; Vanore, M. Effect of topical cyclopentolate alone or combined with phenylephrine in healthy horses. Vet. Ophthalmol. 2021, 24, 582–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scherrer, N.M.; Hopster, K. Neuromuscular blockade with atracurium for ophthalmic surgery in horses—Effects on surgical and anesthetic characteristics and recovery quality. Vet. Ophthalmol. 2021, 24, 442–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arad, D.; Deckel, R.; Pe’Er, O.; Ross, M.; Sebbag, L.; Ofri, R. Is it necessary to wait several minutes between applications of different topical ophthalmic solutions? A preliminary study with tropicamide eye drops in healthy dogs. Vet. Ophthalmol. 2021, 24, 374–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cantero, F.; Ortillés, Á.; Peña, M.T.; Gogova, S.; Molina, R.; Ríos, J.; Leiva, M. Safety and efficacy of unilateral topical application of rocuronium bromide in healthy scops owls (Otus scops). Vet. Ophthalmol. 2021, 24, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oyama, M.; Ellenberg, S.; Shaw, P. Clinical Trials in Veterinary Medicine: A New Era Brings New Challenges. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2017, 31, 970–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boswood, A.; Haggstrom, J.; Gordon, S.G.; Wess, G.; Stepien, R.L.; Oyama, M.A.; Keene, B.W.; Bonagura, J.; MacDonald, K.A.; Patteson, M.; et al. Effect of Pimobendan in Dogs with Preclinical Myxomatous Mitral Valve Disease and Cardiomegaly: The EPIC Study—A Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2016, 30, 1765–1779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cheng, A.; Kessler, D.; Mackinnon, R.; Chang, T.P.; Nadkarni, V.M.; Hunt, E.A.; Duval-Arnould, J.; Lin, Y.; Pusic, M.; Auerbach, M. Conducting multicenter research in healthcare simulation: Lessons learned from the INSPIRE network. Adv. Simul. 2017, 2, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Whitehead, J. The Design and Analysis of Sequential Clinical Trials, 2nd ed; Statistics in practice; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Sebille, V.; Bellissant, E. Sequential methods and group sequential designs for comparative clinical trials. Fundam. Clin. Pharmacol. 2003, 17, 505–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Component | Active Ingredient | Intervention Arm (PACK-CXL) | Control Arm (Medical Management) |
---|---|---|---|
Topical antibiotics 1 | Antibiotic treatment will be chosen based on geographic location, so that local bacterial sensitivities, drug availability and regulations can be met. | 4 times daily | Every 2 h for 48 h (q 4 h at night), then reduce to 6 times daily |
Anticollagenases 2 | Serum/Plasma, EDTA, Acetylcysteine2 | - | Every 2 h for 48 h (q 4 h at night), then reduce to 6 times daily |
Systemic therapy
| Doxycycline for 10 days | - | 10 mg/kg SID per os |
NSAIDs/ analgesia 3 | Meloxicam 0.2 mg/kg on day 1 and 0.1 mg/kg afterwards | Once daily initially | |
Carprofen 2.2 mg/kg | Twice daily initially | ||
Tramadol 2 mg/kg | Per os, up to 3 times daily, | ||
Buprenorphine 0.02 mg/kg | Every 6–8 h as needed (hospitalized patients only) | ||
Methadone 0.2 mg/kg | Every 4–6 h as needed (hospitalized patients only) | ||
Paracetamol 10 mg/kg | Every 6–8 h as needed | ||
Cycloplegic 3 | Atropine 1% Eye drops | As needed | |
Tranquilizers 3 | Will be chosen based on the clinician preferences and only if needed. |
Allocated Treatment | Modification | Patient Classification | Consecutive Actions |
---|---|---|---|
Control arm (Medical management) | Increased antibiotic frequency | Failure | Data continue to be collected until ulcer re-epithelialization or to day 28 |
Increased anticollagenase frequency | Failure | ||
PACK-CXL | Failure | ||
Change in antibiotic type based on laboratory results | Medical management | ||
Ocular surgery | Failure | Study end for the individual | |
Intervention arm (PACK-CXL) | Increased antibiotic frequency | Failure | Data continue to be collected until ulcer re-epithelialization or to day 28 |
Addition of anticollagenase treatment | Failure | ||
Change in antibiotic type based on laboratory results | PACK-CXL | ||
Ocular Surgery | Failure | Study end for the individual |
Study Period | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Enrolment | Post-allocation | Closeout | |||||||
T0 | T0 | T1 * | T2 * | T3 * | T7 | T14 | T28 | ||
Enrolment | Eligibility screen 1 | x | |||||||
Ulcer cytology | x | ||||||||
Informed consent | x | ||||||||
Randomization | x | ||||||||
Treatment allocation | x | ||||||||
Photo-documentation 2 | x | ||||||||
Intervention | PACK-CXL procedure/ initiation medical management | x | |||||||
Reduction in dosing frequency medical management | x | ||||||||
Assessment | Bacteriology culture and sensitivity | x | |||||||
Ophthalmic re-examination: ulcer size (mm2) ulcer depth (%) status of corneal stroma Photo-documentation 2 | x | x | x | x | x | x |
Stops | Number of Recruited Patients | p Value |
---|---|---|
I | 90 | 0.0015 |
II | 180 | 0.0181 |
III | 270 | 0.0437 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kowalska, M.E.; Hafezi, F.; Pot, S.A.; Hartnack, S. Medical Management versus PACK-CXL in Dogs with Infectious Keratitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol. Animals 2022, 12, 2862. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12202862
Kowalska ME, Hafezi F, Pot SA, Hartnack S. Medical Management versus PACK-CXL in Dogs with Infectious Keratitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol. Animals. 2022; 12(20):2862. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12202862
Chicago/Turabian StyleKowalska, Malwina E., Farhad Hafezi, Simon A. Pot, and Sonja Hartnack. 2022. "Medical Management versus PACK-CXL in Dogs with Infectious Keratitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol" Animals 12, no. 20: 2862. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12202862
APA StyleKowalska, M. E., Hafezi, F., Pot, S. A., & Hartnack, S. (2022). Medical Management versus PACK-CXL in Dogs with Infectious Keratitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol. Animals, 12(20), 2862. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12202862