Current eye research · 2024
Assessing the Efficacy of Chlorhexidine in Combating Most Important Causative Agents of Fungal Keratitis: An in Vitro Comparative Study With Seven Antifungal Agents.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Izadi Alireza, Dos Santos Claudy Oliveira, Mohamadi Afsaneh, Tehupeiory-Kooreman Marlou C, Soleimani Mohammad, Aala Farzad, Joudaki Anita, Abedinifar Zohre, Verweij Paul E, Khodavaisy Sadegh
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Fungal keratitis (FK) is a difficult condition to treat, particularly in underdeveloped nations. The study aimed to compare the in vitro activity of chlorhexidine (CHX) and seven antifungal agents against a collection of fungi recovered from FK patients.
METHODS: Seventy-three fungi were collected from patients with FK included in study. The antifungal agents tested were fluconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole, miconazole, natamycin, amphotericin B, and caspofungin. The concentration range for CHX was 1-1024 μg/mL. Assessments of antifungal susceptibility were conducted using the EUCAST broth microdilution reference method.
RESULTS: The findings demonstrated the beneficial in vitro inhibition of filamentous and yeast fungi by CHX. CHX demonstrated efficacy against Fusarium spp., Aspergillus spp., Candida spp., S. apiospermum and dematiceous fungi at concentrations of 4-64, 32-64, 4-32, 8, and 4-16 µg/mL respectively. The median MICs and MIC distributions of CHX showed no significant differences among the evaluated spp. (p > 0.05). The most effective antifungal drug was posaconazole, which was followed by voriconazole, caspofungin, and amphotericin B.
CONCLUSION: In situations where access to a range of antifungal medications and microbiological facilities is limited, CHX should be further investigated as a potential treatment for FK. It might be able to treat the condition as an inexpensive topical treatment.
METHODS: Seventy-three fungi were collected from patients with FK included in study. The antifungal agents tested were fluconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole, miconazole, natamycin, amphotericin B, and caspofungin. The concentration range for CHX was 1-1024 μg/mL. Assessments of antifungal susceptibility were conducted using the EUCAST broth microdilution reference method.
RESULTS: The findings demonstrated the beneficial in vitro inhibition of filamentous and yeast fungi by CHX. CHX demonstrated efficacy against Fusarium spp., Aspergillus spp., Candida spp., S. apiospermum and dematiceous fungi at concentrations of 4-64, 32-64, 4-32, 8, and 4-16 µg/mL respectively. The median MICs and MIC distributions of CHX showed no significant differences among the evaluated spp. (p > 0.05). The most effective antifungal drug was posaconazole, which was followed by voriconazole, caspofungin, and amphotericin B.
CONCLUSION: In situations where access to a range of antifungal medications and microbiological facilities is limited, CHX should be further investigated as a potential treatment for FK. It might be able to treat the condition as an inexpensive topical treatment.