Evaluation of in vitro activity of ciclopirox olamine, butenafine HCl and econazole nitrate against dermatophytes, yeasts and bacteria
Evaluation of in vitro activity of ciclopirox olamine, butenafine HCl and econazole nitrate against dermatophytes, yeasts and bacteria
复制标题
DOI：
10.1046/j.1365-4362.42.s1.4.x
复制
发表时间：
2003-09-01
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Ghannoum, M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kokjohn, K;Bradley, M;Ghannoum, M
背景 在许多情况下，皮肤真菌感染可能同时存在细菌感染。在这项研究中，我们比较了三种抗真菌药物对皮肤真菌、酵母菌和细菌的体外活性，这些皮肤癣菌和细菌最常见于皮肤真菌病和细菌感染。方法使用国家临床实验室标准委员会 (NCCLS) 改编的微量稀释方法，我们确定了环吡酮乙醇胺、硝酸益康唑和盐酸布替萘芬对一组皮肤真菌和酵母的最低抑菌浓度 (MIC) (n = 39) 和细菌分离株 (n = 45)。 结果 所有三种抗真菌药物都表现出对测试的皮肤癣菌的类似活性，环吡酮的 MIC 范围为 0.03-0.25 μg/ml，益康唑 < 0.001-0.25 μg/ml，布替萘芬 0.03-0.25 μg/ml。对于酵母，环吡酮对所有分离株均表现出活性，MIC 范围为 0.001-0.25 μg/ml，而益康唑的范围更广泛，为 0.125-> 0.5 μg/ml。布替萘芬对白色念珠菌的活性有限，对糠秕马拉色菌没有活性。对于抗菌活性研究，环吡酮对所有测试的分离菌均表现出活性，浓度范围为 0.06-2 mug/ml，而益康唑仅对革兰氏阳性菌表现出活性，MIC 范围为 0.004-0.25 mug/ml。盐酸布替萘芬对测试的细菌分离株的活性有限，仅对 A 组 β 溶血性链球菌和棒状杆菌具有活性。硝酸益康唑和盐酸布替萘芬均未表现出对本研究中评估的任何革兰氏阴性菌株的活性。 结论 数据表明，与益康唑和盐酸布替萘芬相比，环吡酮乙醇胺具有最广泛的体外抗细菌、酵母和细菌活性。这些发现可能对使用这些抗真菌药治疗除皮肤癣菌外还存在细菌或酵母菌的混合皮肤感染有影响。
Background In many instances, a cutaneous fungal infection may exist concomitantly with bacterial involvement. In this study we compared the in vitro activity of three antifungal agents against the dermatophytes, yeasts and bacteria recovered most commonly from cutaneous mycoses and bacterial infections.Methods Using a microdilution method adapted from the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS), we determined the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of ciclopirox olamine, econazole nitrate and butenafine HCI against a panel of dermatophyte fungi and yeasts (n = 39) and bacterial isolates (n = 45).Results All three antifungals demonstrated comparable activity against the dermatophytes tested, with a MIC range of 0.03-0.25 mug/ml for ciclopirox, < 0.001-0.25 μg/ml for econazole and 0.03-0.25 μg/ml for butenafine. For yeasts, ciclopirox showed activity against all isolates, with an MIC range of 0.001-0.25 μg/ml, whereas econazole had a broader range of 0.125-> 0.5 mug/ml. Butenafine displayed limited activity against the yeast Candida albicans and no activity against Malassezia furfur. For the antibacterial activity studies, ciclopirox demonstrated activity against all isolates tested with a range of 0.06-2 mug/ml, while econazole showed activity against Gram-positive bacteria only, with a MIC range of 0.004-0.25 mug/ml. Butenafine HCI had a limited activity against bacterial isolates tested, showing activity against beta-hemolytic Streptococcus Group A and Corynebacterium only. Neither econazole nitrate nor butenafine HCI demonstrated activity against any of the Gram-negative strains evaluated in this study.Conclusions The data suggest that ciclopirox olamine has the broadest in vitro activity, in comparison to econazole and butenafine HCI, against bacteria, yeasts and bacteria. These findings may have implications in the use of these antimycotics in the treatment of mixed cutaneous infections where bacteria or yeasts are present in addition to dermatophytes.