环吡酮胺、盐酸布替萘芬和硝酸益康唑对皮肤癣菌、酵母菌和细菌的体外活性评估。

Evaluation of in vitro activity of ciclopirox olamine, butenafine HCl and econazole nitrate against dermatophytes, yeasts and bacteria.

作者信息

Kokjohn Katrina, Bradley Mary, Griffiths Brian, Ghannoum Mahmoud

机构信息

Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, Scottsdale, AZ 85258, USA.

出版信息

Int J Dermatol. 2003 Sep;42 Suppl 1:11-7. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-4362.42.s1.4.x.

DOI:10.1046/j.1365-4362.42.s1.4.x

PMID:12895182

Abstract

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 HCl 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 micro g/ml for ciclopirox, < 0.001-0.25 micro g/ml for econazole and 0.03-0.25 micro g/ml for butenafine. For yeasts, ciclopirox showed activity against all isolates, with an MIC range of 0.001-0.25 micro g/ml, whereas econazole had a broader range of 0.125-> 0.5 micro g/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 micro g/ml, while econazole showed activity against Gram-positive bacteria only, with a MIC range of 0.004-0.25 micro g/ml. Butenafine HCl had a limited activity against bacterial isolates tested, showing activity against beta-hemolytic Streptococcus Group A and Corynebacterium only. Neither econazole nitrate nor butenafine HCl 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 HCl, 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.

摘要

背景

在许多情况下，皮肤真菌感染可能与细菌感染同时存在。在本研究中，我们比较了三种抗真菌药物对最常从皮肤真菌病和细菌感染中分离出的皮肤癣菌、酵母菌和细菌的体外活性。

方法

采用美国国家临床实验室标准委员会（NCCLS）改良的微量稀释法，我们测定了环吡酮胺、硝酸益康唑和盐酸布替萘芬对一组皮肤癣菌和酵母菌（n = 39）以及细菌分离株（n = 45）的最低抑菌浓度（MIC）。

结果

所有三种抗真菌药物对所测试的皮肤癣菌均表现出相当的活性，环吡酮的MIC范围为(0.03 - 0.25)μg/ml，硝酸益康唑为(< 0.001 - 0.25)μg/ml，盐酸布替萘芬为(0.03 - 0.25)μg/ml。对于酵母菌，环吡酮对所有分离株均有活性，MIC范围为(0.001 - 0.25)μg/ml，而硝酸益康唑的范围更广，为(0.125 -> 0.5)μg/ml。盐酸布替萘芬对白色念珠菌显示出有限的活性，对糠秕马拉色菌无活性。对于抗菌活性研究，环吡酮对所有测试分离株均有活性，范围为(0.06 - 2)μg/ml，而硝酸益康唑仅对革兰氏阳性菌有活性，MIC范围为(0.004 - 0.25)μg/ml。盐酸布替萘芬对测试的细菌分离株活性有限，仅对A组β溶血性链球菌和棒状杆菌有活性。硝酸益康唑和盐酸布替萘芬对本研究中评估的任何革兰氏阴性菌株均无活性。