In vitro activity of inexpensive topical alternatives against Candida spp. isolated from the oral cavity of HIV-infected patients
In vitro activity of inexpensive topical alternatives against Candida spp. isolated from the oral cavity of HIV-infected patients
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2007.11.008
复制
发表时间：
2008-03-01
影响因子：
10.8
通讯作者：
Ghannoum, Mahmoud A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Traboulsi, Rana S.;Mukherjee, Pranab K.;Ghannoum, Mahmoud A.
使用廉价的局部替代品，e。G.白千层油（茶树油（TTO））、氯己定（CHX）、聚维酮碘（PI）和龙胆紫（GV），用于治疗感染人类免疫缺陷病毒（HIV）患者的口腔念珠菌病。然而，临床前研究比较这些药物的抗真菌活性是缺乏的。本研究采用临床和实验室标准研究所（CLSI）方法，比较了TTO、GV、PI、CHX和氟康唑（FLZ）对91株临床念珠菌的最小抑菌浓度（MIC）。从获得性免疫缺陷综合征（AIDS）患者的口腔中获得分离株。在检查的局部药剂中，GV显示出对所有测试的念珠菌分离株最有效的活性（MIC范围，50%的生物体的MIC（MIC 50）和90%的生物体的MIC（MIC 90）分别为0.03-0.25 μ g/mL、0.06 μ g/mL和0.12 μ g/mL）。CHX的活性比GV低64倍（MIC范围，MIC 50和MIC 90分别为0.5-16 μ g/mL、4 μ g/mL和8 μ g/mL）。PI的抗真菌活性最低（MIC 90 = 0.25%）。此外，GV，不像其他测试的局部药剂，是杀真菌的（最小杀真菌浓度= 1 μ g/mL）对白色念珠菌分离株（n = 83）。此外，GV对FLZ抗性的C.白色念珠菌3例。GV和FLZ的组合不具有拮抗作用，并且两种化合物之间没有相互作用。GV对FLZ敏感和耐药念珠菌株具有强效抗真菌活性，与FLZ联合使用时无拮抗作用。需要进行体内评价。(C)2007年Elsevier B. V.和国际化疗学会。All rights reserved.
The use of inexpensive topical alternatives, e. g. oil of melaleuca (tea tree oil (TTO)), chlorhexidine (CHX), povidone iodine (PI) and gentian violet (GV), to treat oral candidiasis in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients has been proposed in resource-poor countries. However, pre-clinical studies comparing the antifungal activity of these agents are lacking. This study compared the minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of TTO, GV, PI, CHX and fluconazole (FLZ) against 91 clinical Candida strains using Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI) methodology. Isolates were obtained from the oral cavity of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) patients. Among the topical agents examined, GV showed the most potent activity against all Candida isolates tested (MIC range, MIC for 50% of the organisms (MIC50) and MIC for 90% of the organisms (MIC90) of 0.03-0.25 mu g/mL, 0.06 mu g/mL and 0.12 mu g/mL, respectively). CHX was 64 times less active than GV (MIC range, MIC50 and MIC90 of 0.5-16 mu g/mL, 4 mu g/mL and 8 mu g/mL, respectively). The lowest antifungal activity was seen for PI (MIC90 = 0.25%). Moreover, GV, unlike the other topical agents tested, was fungicidal (minimum fungicidal concentration = 1 mu g/mL) against Candida albicans isolates (n = 83). In addition, GV showed activity against FLZ-resistant C. albicans (n = 3). The combination of GV and FLZ was not antagonistic and there was no interaction between the two compounds. GV possesses potent antifungal activity against FLZ-susceptible and -resistant Candida strains and is not antagonistic when used in combination with FLZ. In vivo evaluation is warranted. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. and the International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.