|
 
 |
| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2023 | Volume
: 20
| Issue : 1 | Page : 79 |
|
Evaluation and comparison of antifungal effect of voriconazole with nystatin on candida species derived from neoplastic patients undergoing maxillofacial radiotherapy
Faezeh Khozeimeh1, Zahra Golestan Nezhad1, Parvin Dehghan2, Adel Tabesh1, Mahnaz Kheirkhah3, Mina Jamshidi4, Ahmad Amiri Chermahini5, Leila Sadeghalbanaei6, Zahra Golestannejad1
1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Medicine, Dental Research Center, School of Dentistry, Dental Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Science, Isfahan, Iran
2 Department of Mycology and Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Science, Isfahan, Iran
3 Department of Mycology and Parasitology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Science, Isfahan, Iran
4 Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Science, Isfahan, Iran
5 Department of Endodontics, Student Research Committee, Qazvin University of Medical Science, Qazvin, Iran
6 Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Science, Isfahan, Iran
| Date of Submission | 07-Apr-2022 |
| Date of Acceptance | 06-Nov-2022 |
| Date of Web Publication | 25-Jul-2023 |
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ahmad Amiri Chermahini
Department of Endodontics, Student Research Committee, Qazvin University of Medical Science, Qazvin
Iran
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.382132
Background: Radiotherapy is a common treatment for head-and-neck malignancies and causes complications such as oral candidiasis and the change of oral Candida species from albicans to nonalbicans. Voriconazole has acceptable antifungal effect. The aim of this study was to determine and compare the antifungal effect of nystatin with voriconazole on these species.
Materials and Methods: The samples used in this in vitro study were identified by polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism from patients before and 2 weeks after head-and-neck radiotherapy in Seyed Al-Shohada Hospital. The antifungal effect of nystatin and voriconazole was determined by microdilution method and measurement of the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and the minimum fungicidal concentration, and the results were analyzed by Mann–Whitney analysis.
Results: The results showed that all species before and after radiotherapy showed 100% sensitivity to nystatin. Prior to radiotherapy, 57.1% of albicans species isolated were in the sensitive range (MIC ≤1) and 42.9% were in the dose-dependent range (MIC = 2) to voriconazole. After radiotherapy, 58.3% of albicans species were in the sensitive range and 41.7% of these species were in the dose-dependent range to voriconazole.
Conclusion: The results of the present study showed that before radiotherapy, all species were sensitive to nystatin, while a percentage of albicans and nonalbicans were resistant to voriconazole. In the 2nd week of radiotherapy similar to prior to radiotherapy, all species isolated from patients were sensitive to nystatin, while a percentage of albicans and nonalbicans were resistant to voriconazole.
Keywords: Neoplastic patients, nystatin, oral candidiasis, radiotherapy, voriconazole
How to cite this article:
Khozeimeh F, Nezhad ZG, Dehghan P, Tabesh A, Kheirkhah M, Jamshidi M, Chermahini AA, Sadeghalbanaei L, Golestannejad Z. Evaluation and comparison of antifungal effect of voriconazole with nystatin on candida species derived from neoplastic patients undergoing maxillofacial radiotherapy. Dent Res J 2023;20:79 |
How to cite this URL:
Khozeimeh F, Nezhad ZG, Dehghan P, Tabesh A, Kheirkhah M, Jamshidi M, Chermahini AA, Sadeghalbanaei L, Golestannejad Z. Evaluation and comparison of antifungal effect of voriconazole with nystatin on candida species derived from neoplastic patients undergoing maxillofacial radiotherapy. Dent Res J [serial online] 2023 [cited 2023 Oct 1];20:79. Available from: https://www.drjjournal.net/text.asp?2023/20/1/79/382132 |
| Introduction | |  |
Radiation therapy may change the quantity and quality of saliva, cause mucositis, and increase candidiasis incidence through damaging the salivary glands.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5] Various studies on patients receiving head-and-neck radiation therapy since 1990 have shown that both albicans and nonalbicans Candida species are involved in oral colonization and candidiasis in radiation-treated patients.[1],[4],[6] The main causative species of oral candidiasis is Candida albicans. However, nonalbicans species also occur as important pathogens in these infections, and concomitant infection with albicans and nonalbicans Candida species is more severe and more resistant to treatment.[3],[4],[7]
Nystatin belongs to the group of polyenes that are antifungal medicines used topically to control oral candidiasis. Polyenes impose antifungal effects by forming pores in the membrane through direct binding to fungal membrane ergosterol, leading to intracellular ionic imbalance, membrane changes, and cell death.[8] Ergosterol is a membrane bio-regulator involved in the integrity of the membrane of fungal cells. Triazole medications, including fluconazole and ketoconazole, dissociate ergosterol by inhibiting 14α-demethylase and cause the sterol precursors to accumulate, resulting in the formation of a membrane with altered structure and function. The antifungal activity of new triazole derivatives, such as voriconazole, is attributed to cytochrome P450 and 14α-sterol demethylase inhibition. The epidemiology of fungal infections is shifting to species naturally resistant to most of the used antifungal therapies.[9] Although some studies have recently reported the resistance of Candida species to nystatin, this resistance is generally rare.[10],[11],[12]
Resistance to polyenes occurs through three mechanisms, including reducing the total ergosterol content of cells, rearranging or masking existing ergosterol, and exchanging all or part of the sterols bound to polyenes.[13],[14] Mechanisms of Candida resistance to azoles, such as voriconazole, include changes in the quality or quantity of the target enzyme, restricted access to the target, or a combination of these two routes.[15] Studies have demonstrated that treatment with voriconazole or voriconazole plus fluconazole is effective against recurrent candidiasis infections.[16]
Some alterations might occur in oral Candida species following head-and-neck radiation therapy, and species resistant to common antifungal medicines, including nystatin, may emerge. On the other hand, voriconazole has an inhibitory effect on resistant Candida species. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the antifungal impacts of nystatin and voriconazole on Candida species isolated from patients before and during head-and-neck radiation therapy.
| Materials and Methods | | |
Type of study: In vitro study
Ethical code: IR.MUI.RESEARCH.REC.1398.151.
Candida spp. in the present study were isolated from 33 patients in sayed Al-Shohada Hospital in Isfahan, Iran, before and during head-and-neck radiotherapy. The isolated strains were identified by polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP). Candida species studied in the current study were previously collected and stored at the Department of Medical Parasitology and Mycology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (under publish). To prepare the fungal suspension, the Candida strains were first cultured on Sabouraud dextrose agar (SDA) and incubated at 35°C for 24 h.
A suspension adjusted to match the turbidity standard of 0.5 McFarland was prepared for each isolated strain, and the light absorption of the prepared suspensions was then adjusted to 530 nm using a spectrophotometer WPA Biowave II wavelength (Biochrom, UK).
According to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) for making the initial stock of the Nystatin and Voriconazole studied, respectively: 12.5 mg nystatin powder (Sigma-Aldrich, Germany) in 1 ml methanoland 3.2 mg voriconazole powder (Merck, Germany)was dissolved in 1 ml of dimethyl sulfoxide (Merck,Germany) and placed at laboratory temperature for 30 min to homogenize the resulting stock.[17]
The MIC (minimum inhibitory concentration) of both drugs were determined by serial dilution method (broth microdilution method). In this method, in 96-micron plates of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from 12 wells, ten wells were prepared for concentrations of 0.58–128 μg/ml of nystatin and 0.03–16 μg/ml of voriconazole and two positive and negative control wells. 100 μl of fungal suspension of one species was then added to each well. Of the two remaining wells, one is considered positive control and the other is negative control. In the positive control well, 100 μl of the organism suspension with a density of 1 × 103 cells per ml and 100 μl Roswell Park Memorial Institute (RPMI), and in the negative control well, 100 μl RPMI and 100 μl of RPMI were added with the drug according to the CLSI-M27 protocol.[17] After incubation at 35°C for 24 and 48 h, the turbidity in the wells was evaluated, and the first wells without turbidity after 24 and 48 h were considered the MIC24 and MIC48, respectively.
To determine minimum fungicidal concentration (MFC), 20 μL of the suspension in the MIC well and the following wells were added to SDA plates, and after swab culturing, the plates were incubated for 24–48 h at 35°C. Plates with <5 grown colonies were used to determine MFC.
Data analysis
Data were analyzed by SPSS version 22 (IBM Corp. Released 2013. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). To investigate the antifungal effects of fluconazole and voriconazole, their MIC24, MIC48, and MFC were separately measured, and the median, range, and mode were also determined. To compare the antifungal effect of nystatin and voriconazole, the resistance and susceptibility of the isolates to them were determined. To compare susceptible and resistant species, statistical analysis was performed using Chi-squared and two-sided fissure exact tests.
| Results | | |
This candida samples were from the collection of the Mycology Department of Isfahan University of Medical Science which was identified by PCR-RFLP method(the article is under published) candida samples before radiotherapy are as follows: 14 C. albicans, 5 Candida tropicalis, 2 Candida glabrata and after radiotherapy changed as follows: 12 C. albicans, 4 C. tropicalis, 2 C. glabrata, 1 Candida parapsilosis, 1 Candida krusei.
To measure the antifungal effect of two drugs, voriconazole and nystatin, three indicators (MIC24, MIC48, and MFC) for each drug and separately for isolated species before and after radiotherapy was used. three isolated species before radiotherapy including: C. albicans, C. glabrata, and C. tropicalis and five isolated species after radiotherapy including:
C. albicans, C. glabrata and C. tropicalis, C. krusei, and C. parapsilosis after radiotherapy. and the middle and range are shown in [Table 1] and [Table 2]. | Table 1: Median and range of minimum inhibitory concentration 24, minimum inhibitory concentration 48, and minimum fungicidal concentration of nystatin on species isolated from radiotherapy patients before and during radiotherapy
Click here to view |
 | Table 2: Median and range of minimum inhibitory concentration 24, minimum inhibitory concentration 48, and minimum fungicidal concentration of voriconazole on species isolated from patients undergoing radiotherapy before and during radiotherapy treatment
Click here to view |
Antifungal indices of two species of c krusei and c parapsilosis were isolated only in one sample after radiotherapy an the indices of this two are as follow:
Antifungal indices of nystatin on C. parapsilosis species: MIC24 = 0.5 μg/ml, MIC48 = 0.5 μg/ml and MFC = 1 μg/ml. Nystatin antifungal indices on C. krusei species: MIC24 = 1 μg/ml, MIC48 = 1 μg/ml and MFC = 1 μg/ml. Antifungal markers of voriconazole on C. krusei species: MIC24 = 0.03 μg/ml, MIC48 = 0.03 μg/ml and MFC = 1 μg/ml. Indicators of the antifungal drug voriconazole on C. parapsilosis were reported: MIC24 = 0.03 μg/ml, MIC48 = 0.03 μg/ml and MFC = 0.03 μg/ml.
In this study, to compare the antifungal effect of nystatin and voriconazole, drug sensitivity and resistance for each of the two drugs were determined. The break point of voriconazole was defined as MIC ≤1 μg/ml values as sensitive, MIC = 2 μg/ml values as dose-dependent, and MIC ≥4 μg/ml values as resistant. Nystatin clearance point was also considered MIC ≤2 μg/ml as sensitive and MIC >2 μg/ml as resistant.
The percentage of resistant, dose-dependent, and susceptible species is given in [Table 3] and [Table 4], respectively. | Table 3: Percentage of sensitive, resistant, and dose-dependent Candida strains to voriconazole and nystatin by strain type before radiotherapy
Click here to view |
 | Table 4: Percentage of sensitive, resistant, and dose-dependent Candida strains to voriconazole and nystatin by strain type in the 2nd week of radiotherapy
Click here to view |
The results showed that before radiotherapy, 57.1% of albicans species isolated were in the sensitive range (MIC ≤1 μg/ml) and 42.9% were in the dose-dependent range (MIC = 2 μg/ml) to voriconazole. Prior to radiotherapy, 100% of glabrata species were in the sensitive range (MIC ≤1 μg/ml) to voriconazole, but 80% of the tropicalis species were in the susceptible range and 20% of these species were in the resistant range (MIC ≥4 μg/ml). While 100% of all species, including albicans, tropicalis, and glabrata, were in the sensitive range (MIC ≤2 μg/ml) to nystatin before radiotherapy.
After radiotherapy, 58.3% of albicans species were in the sensitive range and 41.7% of these species were in the dose-dependent range of voriconazole. After radiotherapy, 50% of glabrata species were in the sensitive range and 50% were in the dose-dependent range of voriconazole. One hundred percent of tropicalis species were in the voriconazole-resistant range after radiotherapy, while 100% of all species after radiotherapy, including albicans and tropicalis, and glabrata, were in the nystatin-sensitive range. Therefore, nystatin was more effective than voriconazole before and after radiotherapy.
MIC24, MIC48, and MFC nystatin on parapsilosis were 0.5 μg/ml, 0.5 μg/ml, and 1 μg/ml, respectively, and on the krusei species were 1 μg/ml, 1 μg/ml, and 1 μg/ml, respectively. The three mentioned indices of voriconazole reported on parapsilosis were 0.03 μg/ml, 0.03 μg/ml, and 1 μg/ml, respectively, and on the krusei species 0.03 μg/ml, 0.03 μg/ml, and 0.03 μg/ml, respectively.
| Discussion | | |
The results of the present study showed that before radiotherapy, all species isolated from patients, including C. albicans, C. tropicalis, and C. glabrata, were sensitive to nystatin, while a percentage of albicans and tropicalis were resistant to voriconazole. In the 2nd week of radiotherapy similar to prior to radiotherapy, all species isolated from patients were sensitive to nystatin, while a percentage of albicans and glabrata and all species of tropicalis were resistant to voriconazole.
In general, the present study showed that before and after radiotherapy, the antifungal effect of nystatin was greater than voriconazole.
However, topical formulations of nystatin in radiation therapy patients with mucositis, pain, nausea, and swallowing difficulty are less acceptable than the systemic formulations of some agents, such as voriconazole.[18] Voriconazole exerts more fungistatic effects than fungicide influences. Moreover, it may cause various side effects, such as reversible visual impairment, skin lesions, photosensitivity reactions, elevated liver enzymes, headache, nausea, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and visual hallucinations.[19]
In this study, the antifungal effect of voriconazole on C. albicans isolated from patients before radiotherapy and in the 2nd week of radiation therapy revealed that the susceptibility of this strain did not change significantly following radiotherapy. It was observed that 57.1% of patients had an allergic reaction to voriconazole before radiotherapy, and 58.3% had reactions in the 2nd week of radiotherapy. This difference might result from the ecological adaptation of C. albicans species.
Studies have shown that environmental changes lead to rapid changes in the gene expression and adaptation of C. albicans to environmental conditions.[20] Most infection-related changes in C. albicans gene expression reflect the environmental adaptation of this species.[21] Paula and Zida demonstrated that Candida is resistant to nystatin in 3% of HIV-positive patients with no clinical evidence of candidiasis and 4.8% of inhospital patients.[11],[12] Contrary to the mentioned theory, we observed that all species isolated from radiation therapy patients were susceptible to nystatin both before and after radiotherapy (2 μg/ml < MIC), which was similar to the findings of Bulacio et al.[18] and Kurnatowski et al.[22]
The meta-analysis by Clarkson et al. in 2007 showed a significant benefit in using the absorbed drugs (fluconazole) in gastrointestinal (GI) tract rather than those not absorbed (nystatin) to prevent oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving treatment. There were no significant differences between patients receiving either absorbed or drugs not absorbed from the GI tract for the following outcomes: systemic fungal infection, death, empirical antifungal treatment, toxicity, and compliance.[23]
Regarding the isolated nonalbicans strains, the results showed that 100% of the C. tropicalis strains were susceptible to nystatin on the 2nd week of radiation therapy, while 100% were resistant to voriconazole. The mechanism of resistance to voriconazole is changing the permeability of the fungal cell membrane following the overexpression of the ERG11 gene and the altered function of the ergosterol produced by this gene.[24] da Silva et al. in 2017 showed that the virulence of tropicalis strain elevated after radiotherapy because its adhesion to surfaces, biofilm formation, and phagocytosis index augmented.[25]
Contrary to the study of Schelenz et al. (2010)[5] and Bulacio et al.[18] all tropicalis strains isolated from the surveyed patients were shown to be 100% susceptible to both nystatin and voriconazole. These variable results could be attributed to the difference in the studied patients. In the current study, Candida samples were taken from the saliva of patients receiving head-and-neck radiotherapy. On the other hand, Karimi F and Gamaletsou MN. sampled the patients with malignancies and radiotherapy in the head and neck, as well as cases with other malignancies, hematological malignancies, and patients undergoing different treatments for malignancies, including chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery. Chemotherapy and hematological malignancies that predispose patients to neutropenia may be associated with the development of Candida species resistant to antifungal agents.[26],[27]
In this study, 100% of C. glabrata strains were susceptible to nystatin and voriconazole before radiotherapy. In comparison, 100% of the strains were susceptible to nystatin postradiation, 50% were susceptible to voriconazole, and 50% were dose-dependent. One reason for this is the increased resistance of C. glabrata to antifungal medicines, such as voriconazole, after radiation therapy. Dahiya et al. in 2003 introduced C. glabrata as the causative agent for oral Candida in patients with head-and-neck cancer who received radiation therapy. They found that the postradiotherapy required dose of azoles, including fluconazole, to treat candidiasis due to C. glabrata was twice the preradiotherapy dose. It shows the increased resistance of C. glabrata to antifungal therapy after radiation therapy.[28]
The only C. parapsilosis species in the current study was isolated from a patient after radiation therapy, while it was not isolated from this patient before radiotherapy. C. parapsilosis is stable in the hospital environment and spreads through contaminated hands.[29] The isolate found in this study was susceptible to nystatin and voriconazole with no difference in resistance to the two agents (MIC nystatin: 0.5 μg/ml and MIC voriconazole: 0.03 μg/ml). In 2015, Chakrabalti demonstrated that C. parapsilosis was the second most common cause of candidemia in patients admitted to the intensive care unit.[29] The systemic control of the latter species is essential because of its potential for candidemia after malignancy treatment and the importance of C. parapsilosis species. Therefore, despite the low MIC for this species, nystatin may not be a suitable medication for treating or preventing C. parapsilosis in people receiving radiation therapy due to the lack of GI absorption.
Only two studies by Bulacio et al.[18] and Schelenz et al.[5] performed an in vitro investigation on the antifungal effects of voriconazole and nystatin in patients with head-and-neck malignancy who received radiation therapy. The results of Bulacio et al. were in line with the present study that showed 100% of all Candida strains were susceptible to nystatin after radiation therapy. In contrast to the current study, all C. albicans strains were 100% susceptible to voriconazole after radiotherapy. In the present study, 58.3% and 41.7% of C. albicans strains were susceptible to voriconazole after radiotherapy and in the dose-dependent range for voriconazole after radiotherapy, respectively. Bulacio et al. noted that 100% of C. tropicalis strains were susceptible to voriconazole after radiotherapy, which is not consistent with our findings indicating that 100% of these strains were resistant to voriconazole.
In the present study, in contrast to previous studies, preradiation therapy samples were also isolated, and their resistance and susceptibility to both medications were investigated. The results showed that 57.1% of the albicans strains were susceptible to voriconazole, 42.9% were dose dependently susceptible to voriconazole, and 100% were susceptible to nystatin before radiation therapy. Therefore, the possible reason for the difference between the results of this study and the mentioned studies is the initial resistance of the albicans strain to these two medicines (before radiation therapy). Note that the first sampling of this study (before radiation therapy) was from patients with head-and-neck malignancies. The malignancies themselves contribute to antifungal drug resistance.[30] Consequently, the resistance of albicans strain to voriconazole may be due to the potential malignancies of the patients examined in this study. In the research by Schelenz et al.[5] on patients with head-and-neck malignancies, in line with the results of the present study, almost 100% of all the strains of C. albicans, C. glabrata, C. tropicalis, C. krusei, and C. parapsilosis were 100% susceptible to nystatin and voriconazole with very low resistance.
Belazi et al.[31] investigated the antifungal effect of voriconazole in patients who received radiation therapy. Consistent with the results of this study, 100% of C. albicans strains were susceptible or within the dose-dependent range. Furthermore, all C. albicans strains had a very low MIC for voriconazole and were susceptible to the medicine. These authors reported all strains of C. tropicalis to be susceptible to voriconazole, whereas, in this study, 100% of these strains were resistant to voriconazole. In the study by Bansal R, which is in line with the findings of the present study, all the strains of C. glabrata, C. parapsilosis, and C. krusei were susceptible to voriconazole. In contrast to previous studies, preradiation samples were isolated, and their resistance and susceptibility to voriconazole were investigated. As a result, the initial resistance of albicans strain to nystatin and voriconazole can be due to underlying malignancy in patients studied in the present study.[30] The other contributing factor might be the difference in the method of assessing the antifungal effect of this medication.
Owotade et al. investigated that 100% of C. albicans species derived from patients with cancer were susceptible to voriconazole. The possible reason for the difference between the results of this study and the mentioned studies is that patients do not receive radiotherapy that may change the susceptibility of fungal species.[32]
In the study of Vazquez in 2010 about management of oropharyngeal and esophageal candidiasis in patients living with HIV infection, it was shown that in patients with fluconazole-refractory mucosal candidiasis, treatment options now include itraconazole solution, voriconazole, posaconazole, and the newer echinocandins.[33]
In general, the results of this study showed that before radiation therapy, all species isolated from patients, including C. albicans, C. tropicalis, and C. glabrata, were susceptible to nystatin. On the other hand, a percentage of C. albicans and C. tropicalis were resistant to voriconazole. In the 2nd week of radiation therapy, all isolates were susceptible to nystatin, similar to before radiotherapy. However, some C. albicans and C. glabrata, as well as all C. tropicalis strains, were resistant to voriconazole.
| Conclusion | | |
According to the results of the present investigation, all oral Candida isolated from patients before and during radiotherapy were susceptible to nystatin, while some strains showed resistance to voriconazole both before and during radiotherapy. Therefore, nystatin therapy is recommended to prevent and treat fungal infections in people receiving head-and-neck radiation therapy. On the other hand, treatment with voriconazole is not recommended for resistant strains.
Acknowledgment
The authors reported no conflict of interest related to this study. Thanks to the Mycology Department of the Faculty of Medicine and sayed al-Shohda Hospital of Isfahan for the extensive and sincere cooperation.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare that they have no conflicts of interest, real or perceived, financial or nonfinancial in this article.
| References | | |
| 1. | Jham BC, França EC, Oliveira RR, Santos VR, Kowalski LP, da Silva Freire AR. Candida oral colonization and infection in Brazilian patients undergoing head and neck radiotherapy: A pilot study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;103:355-8.  |
| 2. | Leung WK, Dassanayake RS, Yau JY, Jin LJ, Yam WC, Samaranayake LP. Oral colonization, phenotypic, and genotypic profiles of Candida species in irradiated, dentate, xerostomic nasopharyngeal carcinoma survivors. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38:2219-26. |
| 3. | Mañas A, Cerezo L, de la Torre A, García M, Alburquerque H, Ludeña B, et al. Epidemiology and prevalence of oropharyngeal candidiasis in Spanish patients with head and neck tumors undergoing radiotherapy treatment alone or in combination with chemotherapy. Clin Transl Oncol 2012;14:740-6. |
| 4. | Ramla S, Sharma V, Patel M. Influence of cancer treatment on the Candida albicans isolated from the oral cavities of cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 2016;24:2429-36. |
| 5. | Schelenz S, Abdallah S, Gray G, Stubbings H, Gow I, Baker P, et al. Epidemiology of oral yeast colonization and infection in patients with hematological malignancies, head neck and solid tumors. J Oral Pathol Med 2011;40:83-9. |
| 6. | Paula CR, Sampaio MC, Birman EG, Siqueira AM. Oral yeasts in patients with cancer of the mouth, before and during radiotherapy. Mycopathologia 1990;112:119-24. |
| 7. | Redding SW. The role of yeasts other than Candida albicans in oropharyngeal candidiasis. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2001;14:673-7. |
| 8. | Prasad R, Shah AH, Rawal MK. Antifungals: Mechanism of action and drug resistance. Adv Exp Med Biol 2016;892:327-49. |
| 9. | Bhattacharjee P. Epidemiology and antifungal susceptibility of Candida species in a tertiary care hospital, Kolkata, India. Curr Med Mycol 2016;2:20-7. |
| 10. | Ungureanu A, Gaman AE, Turculeanu A, Mitroi M, Drocas AI, Dobritoiu M, et al. Incidence and antifungal susceptibility of candida albicans infections. Curr Health Sci J 2016;42:164-8. |
| 11. | Zida A, Yacouba A, Bamba S, Sangare I, Sawadogo M, Guiguemde T, et al. In vitro susceptibility of Candida albicans clinical isolates to eight antifungal agents in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso). J Mycol Med 2017;27:469-75. |
| 12. | Paula SB, Morey AT, Santos JP, Santos PM, Gameiro DG, Kerbauy G, et al. Oral Candida colonization in HIV-infected patients in Londrina-PR, Brazil: Antifungal susceptibility and virulence factors. J Infect Dev Ctries 2015;9:1350-9. |
| 13. | Masiá Canuto M, Gutiérrez Rodero F. Antifungal drug resistance to azoles and polyenes. Lancet Infect Dis 2002;2:550-63. |
| 14. | Pemán J, Cantón E, Espinel-Ingroff A. Antifungal drug resistance mechanisms. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2009;7:453-60. |
| 15. | Ghannoum MA, Rice LB. Antifungal agents: Mode of action, mechanisms of resistance, and correlation of these mechanisms with bacterial resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev 1999;12:501-17. |
| 16. | Perfect JR, Marr KA, Walsh TJ, Greenberg RN, DuPont B, de la Torre-Cisneros J, et al. Voriconazole treatment for less-common, emerging, or refractory fungal infections. Clin Infect Dis 2003;36:1122-31. |
| 17. | Wayne P. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts, CLSI document M27-A3. Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute. 3 rd ed. 940 West Valley Road, Suite 1400, Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-1898 USA, 2008. |
| 18. | Bulacio L, Paz M, Ramadán S, Ramos L, Pairoba C, Sortino M, et al. Oral infections caused by yeasts in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy. Identification of the yeasts and evaluation of their antifungal susceptibility. J Mycol Med 2012;22:348-53. |
| 19. | Johnson LB, Kauffman CA. Voriconazole: A new triazole antifungal agent. Clin Infect Dis 2003;36:630-7. |
| 20. | Wilson D, Thewes S, Zakikhany K, Fradin C, Albrecht A, Almeida R, et al. Identifying infection-associated genes of Candida albicans in the postgenomic era. FEMS Yeast Res 2009;9:688-700. |
| 21. | Brown AJ, Odds FC, Gow NA. Infection-related gene expression in Candida albicans. Curr Opin Microbiol 2007;10:307-13. |
| 22. | Kurnatowski P, Moqbil S, Kaczmarczyk D. Signs, symptoms and the prevalence of fungi detected from the oral cavity and pharynx of radiotherapy subjects with head and neck tumors, and their susceptibility to chemotherapeutics. Ann Parasitol 2014;60:207-13. |
| 23. | Clarkson JE, Worthington HV, Eden OB. Interventions for preventing oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007 Jan 24;2007 (1):CD003807. |
| 24. | Hii IM, Liu CE, Lee YL, Liu WL, Wu PF, Hsieh MH, et al. Resistance rates of non- albicans Candida infections in Taiwan after the revision of 2012 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute breakpoints. Infect Drug Resist 2019;12:235-40. |
| 25. | da Silva EM, Mansano ES, Miazima ES, Rodrigues FA, Hernandes L, Svidzinski TI. Radiation used for head and neck cancer increases virulence in Candida tropicalis isolated from a cancer patient. BMC Infect Dis 2017;17:783. |
| 26. | Karimi F, Ashrafi F, Moghaddas A, Derakhshandeh A. Management of febrile neutropenia: A description of clinical and microbiological findings by focusing on risk factors and pitfalls. J Res Pharm Pract 2018;7:147-56. [ PUBMED] [Full text] |
| 27. | Gamaletsou MN, Daikos GL, Walsh TJ, Perlin DS, Ortigosa CJ, Psaroulaki A, et al. Breakthrough candidemia caused by phenotypically susceptible Candida spp. In patients with haematological malignancies does not correlate with established interpretive breakpoints. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2014;44:248-55. |
| 28. | Dahiya MC, Redding SW, Dahiya RS, Eng TY, Kirkpatrick WR, Coco BJ, et al. Oropharyngeal candidiasis caused by non-albicans yeast in patients receiving external beam radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57:79-83. |
| 29. | Sakagami T, Kawano T, Yamashita K, Yamada E, Fujino N, Kaeriyama M, et al. Antifungal susceptibility trend and analysis of resistance mechanism for Candida species isolated from bloodstream at a Japanese university hospital. J Infect Chemother 2019;25:34-40. |
| 30. | Bansal R, Pallagatti S, Sheikh S, Aggarwal A, Gupta D, Singh R. Candidal species identification in malignant and potentially malignant oral lesions with antifungal resistance patterns. Contemp Clin Dent 2018;9:S309-13. |
| 31. | Belazi M, Velegraki A, Koussidou-Eremondi T, Andreadis D, Hini S, Arsenis G, et al. Oral Candida isolates in patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: Prevalence, azole susceptibility profiles and response to antifungal treatment. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2004;19:347-51. |
| 32. | Owotade FJ, Gulube Z, Ramla S, Patel M. Antifungal susceptibility of Candida albicans isolated from the oral cavities of patients with HIV infection and cancer. Res South African Dent J 2016;71:8-11. |
| 33. | Vazquez JA. Optimal management of oropharyngeal and esophageal candidiasis in patients living with HIV infection. HIV AIDS (Auckl) 2010;2:89-101. |
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]
|
Search Pubmed for