Anti-Candida activity and in vitro toxicity screening of antifungals complexed with β-cyclodextrin
- PMID: 38198744
- DOI: 10.1002/jat.4575
Anti-Candida activity and in vitro toxicity screening of antifungals complexed with β-cyclodextrin
Abstract
The emergence of resistant fungal species and the toxicity of currently available antifungal drugs are relevant issues that require special consideration. Cyclodextrins inclusion complexes could optimize the antimicrobial activity of such drugs and create a controlled release system with few side effects. This study aimed to assess the in vitro toxicity and antifungal effectiveness of nystatin (Nys) and chlorhexidine (Chx) complexed or not with β-cyclodextrin (βCD). First, a drug toxicity screening was performed through the Artemia salina bioassay. Then, the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) against Candida albicans were determined with the broth microdilution test. After MICs determination, the cytotoxicity of the drugs was evaluated through the methyl-thiazolyl-tetrazolium (MTT) and neutral red (NR) assays and through cell morphology analysis. The PROBIT analysis was used to determine the median lethal concentration (LC50), and the cell viability values were submitted to one-way analysis of variance(ANOVA)/Tukey (α = 0.05). Overall, the βCD-complexed antifungals were less toxic against A. salina than their raw forms, suggesting that inclusion complexes can reduce the toxicity of drugs. The MICs obtained were as follows: Nys 0.5 mg/L; Nys:βCD 4 mg/L; Chx 4 mg/L; and Chx:βCD 8 mg/L. Chx showed significant cytotoxicity (MTT: 12.9 ± 9.6%; NR: 10.6 ± 12.5%) and promoted important morphological changes. Cells exposed to the other drugs showed viability above 70% with no cellular damage. These results suggest that antifungals complexed with βCD might be a biocompatible option for the treatment of Candida-related infections.
Keywords: beta‐cyclodextrins; chlorhexidine; microbial sensitivity tests; nystatin; toxicity tests.
© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Abdallah, C. (2015). Perioperative chlorhexidine allergy: Is it serious. Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology, 31, 152–154. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9185.155140
-
- Ather, A., Parolia, A., & Ruparel, N. B. (2021). Efficacy of mouth rinses against SARS‐CoV‐2: A scoping review. Frontiers in Dental Medicine, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdmed.2021.648547
-
- Balit, C. R., Lynch, A. M., Gilmore, S. P., Murray, L., & Isbister, G. K. (2006). Lignocaine and chlorhexidine toxicity in children resulting from mouth paint ingestion: A bottling problem. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 42, 350–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1754.2006.00871.x
-
- Berkow, E. L., Lockhart, S. R., & Ostrosky‐Zeichner, L. (2020). Antifungal susceptibility testing: Current approaches. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 33. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00069-19
-
- Bongomin, F., Gago, S., Oladele, R. O., & Denning, D. W. (2017). Global and multi‐national prevalence of fungal diseases‐estimate precision. Journal of Fungi (Basel), 3, 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof3040057
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
