May 2008
Volume 49, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2008
Comparison of Oral Antiviral Therapy With Valacyclovir or Acyclovir After Penetrating Keratoplasty for Herpetic Keratitis
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • D. Goldblum
    Department of Ophthalmology, University Basel, Universitaetsspital, Basel, Switzerland
    Department of Ophthalmology, University Bern, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland
  • C. Bachmann
    Department of Ophthalmology, University Bern, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland
  • C. Tappeiner
    Department of Ophthalmology, University Bern, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland
  • J. Garweg
    Department of Ophthalmology, Swiss Eye Institute am Lindenhofspital, University Bern, Switzerland
  • B. E. Frueh
    Department of Ophthalmology, University Bern, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  D. Goldblum, None; C. Bachmann, None; C. Tappeiner, None; J. Garweg, None; B.E. Frueh, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2008, Vol.49, 2347. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      D. Goldblum, C. Bachmann, C. Tappeiner, J. Garweg, B. E. Frueh; Comparison of Oral Antiviral Therapy With Valacyclovir or Acyclovir After Penetrating Keratoplasty for Herpetic Keratitis. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2008;49(13):2347. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : To determine and compare the outcomes of prophylactic oral valacyclovir (VAL) against the common oral acyclovir treatment (ACV) in patients having undergone penetrating keratoplasty for herpetic keratitis.

Methods: : We retrospectively evaluated the records from all patients having received a penetrating keratoplasty for herpes keratitis and being treated postoperatively with either oral VAL or oral ACV. Medical records were analyzed for history of recurrent herpetic keratitis, neovascularization, rejection, endothelial cell loss, central corneal thickness, visual acuity with a follow-up of up to 5 years after surgery.

Results: : 20 patients received VAL and were compared with 19 patients being treated with ACV. Two Patients developed clinical signs of recurrent herpetic disease in the VAL group compared to three patients in the ACV group. Five patients in the ACV and two in the VAL group developed rejection episodes and two patients from both groups suffered an irreversible graft failure. Best corrected visual acuity improved in both treatment groups from baseline -1.97 VAL; -1.47 ACV (log MAR) to -0.85; -0.72 respectively at 1 year follow-up whereas at 5 year follow-up the visual acuity slightly deteriorated again in the ACV group (-0.71 VAL vs. -1.14 ACV).

Conclusions: : Prophylactic oral VAL treatment is at least as effective as the established ACV regimen in decreasing the recurrence of herpetic keratitis and graft failure in patients who underwent corneal transplantation for herpes keratitis. Tolerability of the two drugs are similar, but the dosing schedule of VAL might be easier for the patients.

Keywords: herpes simplex virus • cornea: clinical science • transplantation 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×