OBJECTIVE: To investigate the in vitro activity of LY303366 (LY) against Candida isolates comprising nine different species and comparison with fluconazole (FLU), flucytosine (5FC) and amphotericin B (AMB). METHODS: The method used was a microtitre modification of the NCCLS M27-A accepted standard using either RPMI-1640 with 2% glucose (5FC and FLU) or antibiotic medium 3 with 2% glucose (LY and AMB). The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was the lowest drug concentration that reduced growth by 80% compared with the drug-free control. Minimum fungicidal concentrations (MFCs; 99% kill) were also determined for all isolates for LY and AMB. RESULTS: Overall, 58 of 105 (55.2%) isolates were resistant to FLU (MIC < or = 16 mg/L). There was no relationship between FLU and LY MICs for C. albicans or non-albicans species. For all isolates, geometric mean (GM) MIC values and ranges (in mg/L) were: LY 0.011 and < or = 0.001-16, FLU 8.72 and < or = 0.125- > 128, 5FC 0.393 and < or = 0.03- > 32, AMB 0.046 and 0.008-0.125. Differences in susceptibility to LY were seen: C. parapsilosis (n = 12, GM 0.4 and range 0.125-16) and C. guilliermondii (n = 8, GM 0.46 and range 0.25-1) were both found to be significantly less susceptible to LY than all other species (P < or = 0.05). For all isolates, geometric mean MFC values and ranges (in mg/L) were: LY 0.032 and 0.002-16, AMB 0.143 and 0.03-2. The MFC value was the same as or only one drug dilution higher than the MIC value for 69.5% and 48.6% of isolates tested for LY and AMB, respectively. Tolerance was described in 13.3% and 5.7% of isolates for LY and AMB, respectively. A reproducibility study performed on 20% of the isolates showed that 90.5%, 100%, 95.2% and 100% of isolates retested were the same or within one well of the original MIC value for LY, FLU, 5FC and AMB, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: LY303366 shows promising antifungal activity in vitro and warrants further in vivo investigation.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the in vitro activity of LY303366 (LY) against Candida isolates comprising nine different species and comparison with fluconazole (FLU), flucytosine (5FC) and amphotericin B (AMB). METHODS: The method used was a microtitre modification of the NCCLS M27-A accepted standard using either RPMI-1640 with 2% glucose (5FC and FLU) or antibiotic medium 3 with 2% glucose (LY and AMB). The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was the lowest drug concentration that reduced growth by 80% compared with the drug-free control. Minimum fungicidal concentrations (MFCs; 99% kill) were also determined for all isolates for LY and AMB. RESULTS: Overall, 58 of 105 (55.2%) isolates were resistant to FLU (MIC < or = 16 mg/L). There was no relationship between FLU and LY MICs for C. albicans or non-albicans species. For all isolates, geometric mean (GM) MIC values and ranges (in mg/L) were: LY 0.011 and < or = 0.001-16, FLU 8.72 and < or = 0.125- > 128, 5FC 0.393 and < or = 0.03- > 32, AMB 0.046 and 0.008-0.125. Differences in susceptibility to LY were seen: C. parapsilosis (n = 12, GM 0.4 and range 0.125-16) and C. guilliermondii (n = 8, GM 0.46 and range 0.25-1) were both found to be significantly less susceptible to LY than all other species (P < or = 0.05). For all isolates, geometric mean MFC values and ranges (in mg/L) were: LY 0.032 and 0.002-16, AMB 0.143 and 0.03-2. The MFC value was the same as or only one drug dilution higher than the MIC value for 69.5% and 48.6% of isolates tested for LY and AMB, respectively. Tolerance was described in 13.3% and 5.7% of isolates for LY and AMB, respectively. A reproducibility study performed on 20% of the isolates showed that 90.5%, 100%, 95.2% and 100% of isolates retested were the same or within one well of the original MIC value for LY, FLU, 5FC and AMB, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:LY303366 shows promising antifungal activity in vitro and warrants further in vivo investigation.
Authors: Daniel K Benjamin; Timothy Driscoll; Nita L Seibel; Corina E Gonzalez; Maureen M Roden; Rahki Kilaru; Kay Clark; James A Dowell; Jennifer Schranz; Thomas J Walsh Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: M A Pfaller; D J Diekema; L Boyken; S A Messer; S Tendolkar; R J Hollis; B P Goldstein Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Christopher F Hoehamer; Edwin D Cummings; George M Hilliard; P David Rogers Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2010-02-09 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Arnaldo L Colombo; Angela L Ngai; Michael Bourque; Susan K Bradshaw; Kim M Strohmaier; Arlene F Taylor; Robert J Lupinacci; Nicholas A Kartsonis Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Annette C Reboli; Andrew F Shorr; Coleman Rotstein; Peter G Pappas; Daniel H Kett; Haran T Schlamm; Arlene L Reisman; Pinaki Biswas; Thomas J Walsh Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2011-09-30 Impact factor: 3.090