Impact of implementation of polymerase chain reaction on diagnosis, treatment, and clinical course of Acanthamoeba keratitis

PURPOSE: Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK) is a painful and possibly sight-threatening ocular infection. While the correct diagnosis and specific treatment in the early stages significantly improve the prognosis, the disease is often misdiagnosed and in clinical examination confused with other forms of keratitis. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the detection of AK was first introduced in our institution in December 2013 to improve the timely diagnosis of AK. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of implementation of Acanthamoeba PCR on the diagnosis and treatment of the disease in a German tertiary referral center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients treated for Acanthamoeba keratitis between 1st of January 1993 and 31st of December 2021 in the Department of Ophthalmology of the University Hospital Duesseldorf were identified retrospectively via in-house registries. Evaluated parameters include age, sex, initial diagnosis, method of correct diagnosis, duration of symptoms until correct diagnosis, contact lens use, visual acuity, and clinical findings as well as medical and surgical therapy by keratoplasty (pKP). In order to assess the impact of implementation of Acanthamoeba PCR, the cases were divided into two groups (before (pre-PCR group) and after PCR implementation (PCR group). RESULTS: Seventy-five patients with Acanthamoeba keratitis were included (69.3% female, median age 37 years). Eighty-four percent (63/75) of all patients were contact lens wearers. Until PCR was available, 58 patients with Acanthamoeba keratitis were diagnosed either clinically (n = 28), by histology (n = 21), culture (n = 6), or confocal microscopy (n = 2) with a median duration until diagnosis of 68 (18; 109) days. After PCR implementation, in 17 patients, the diagnosis was established with PCR in 94% (n = 16) and median duration until diagnosis was significantly shorter with 15 (10; 30.5) days. A longer duration until correct diagnosis correlated with a worse initial visual acuity (p = 0.0019, r = 0.363). The number of pKP performed was significantly lower in the PCR group (5/17; 29.4%) than in the pre-PCR group (35/58; 60.3%) (p = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: The choice of diagnostic method and especially the application of PCR have a significant impact on the time to diagnosis and on the clinical findings at the time of confirmation of diagnosis and the need for penetrating keratoplasty. In contact lens–associated keratitis, the first crucial step is to take AK into consideration and perform a PCR test as timely confirmation of diagnosis of AK is imperative to prevent long-term ocular morbidity.