Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Jan;42(1):149-55.

[Short communication: In vitro activity of amphotericin B with fluconazole or voriconazole combinations against Candida albicans isolates]

[Article in Turkish]
Affiliations
  • PMID: 18444574

[Short communication: In vitro activity of amphotericin B with fluconazole or voriconazole combinations against Candida albicans isolates]

[Article in Turkish]
Yasemin Oz et al. Mikrobiyol Bul. 2008 Jan.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the in vitro interaction of amphotericin B in combination with fluconazole or voriconazole against Candida albicans clinical isolates by using a broth microdilution checkerboard assay and E-test. A total of 30 C. albicans strains isolated from blood, urine, sputum and pus samples were included to the study and the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of amphotericin B (AMB), fluconazole (FLU) and voriconazole (VOR) were determined by broth microdilution method and E-test. All strains tested for susceptibility were interpreted as susceptible by both methods (FLU MICs < 8 microg/ml, VOR and AMB MICs < 1 microg/ml). The rates of MIC agreement between two methods were as follows: AMB, 83%; FLU, 97%; VOR, 97%. AMB+ FLU and AMB+VOR combinations were tested by checkerboard broth microdilution and E-test methods. The combination test results were determined by using the fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) index as synergistic, indifferent or antagonistic. AMB+FLU combination tested by checkerboard broth microdilution revealed synergy in one strain (3.3%) and antagonism in none, while the same combination tested by E-test revealed synergy in two (6.6%) and antagonism in four (13.3%) strains. The strains which exhibited synergy were different from eachother in two assays. This combination led to indifferent results in 23 (76.6%) of the strains. On the other hand AMB+VOR combination yielded synergistic results in two (6.6%) strains by both of the methods, however, these two strains were again different from eachother. No antagonism was detected by AMB+VOR combination while the combination was indifferent in 26 (86.6%) of the strains. Agreement between the checkerboard and E-test results was 87%. Although significant synergy was not detected in AMB+azole combinations, it was yet hopeful to obtain no antagonism. However, multi-center, large-scale, well standardized in-vitro and clinical studies about AMB and azole interaction which is a matter of debate, are necessary.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by