Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Susceptibility

Natamycin and Azithromycin Are Synergistic In Vitro against Ocular Pathogenic Aspergillus flavus Species Complex and Fusarium solani Species Complex Isolates

Haoyi Guo, Lutan Zhou, Yi He, Chuanwen Gao, Lei Han, Yan Xu
Haoyi Guo
aHenan Eye Hospital & Henan Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lutan Zhou
bDepartment of Optometry, Zhengzhou Railway Vocational & Technical College, Zhengzhou, Henan, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yi He
aHenan Eye Hospital & Henan Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chuanwen Gao
cDepartment of Ophthalmology, Zhengzhou Second Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lei Han
aHenan Eye Hospital & Henan Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yan Xu
aHenan Eye Hospital & Henan Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00077-18
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

The interaction of natamycin-azithromycin combination against 60 ocular fungal isolates was tested in vitro. The combination produced 100% synergistic interactions when natamycin was added to azithromycin 20, 40, and 50 μg/ml against Aspergillus flavus species complex (AFSC) isolates and to azithromycin 50 μg/ml against Fusarium solani species complex isolates. Addition of 50 μg/ml azithromycin enhanced natamycin's effect against AFSC isolates by reducing natamycin MIC90 from 64 to 0.031 μg/ml. No antagonism was observed.

TEXT

Keratomycosis is a major cause of blindness worldwide. Fusarium solani and Aspergillus flavus are two principal ocular isolates and are thought to have a particularly poor prognosis (1–8). Keratomycosis is proverbially difficult to treat. Natamycin is the only topical ocular antifungal agent approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is the mainstay of treatment for keratomycosis in many countries (9, 10). However, some researchers have demonstrated that Aspergillus spp., especially A. flavus, are resistant to natamycin, and clinical responses in patients with A. flavus keratitis are poor (2, 5, 6, 8, 11–15). Otherwise, a study has shown that despite Fusarium spp. being sensitive to natamycin, with low mean MICs, 50% of patients need keratoplasty (8). Therefore, therapeutic methods to enhance the efficacy of natamycin are necessary. One possible approach is to combine natamycin with other antimicrobial agents. Through systematic screening of two-component combinations, we evaluated in vitro activities of natamycin associated with the antibiotics azithromycin, levofloxacin, gatifloxacin, chloramphenicol, tobramycin, clindamycin, and rifampin against Aspergillus flavus species complex (AFSC) isolates. Our results showed that only natamycin plus azithromycin obtained synergistic activity against natamycin-nonsusceptible AFSC isolates. We therefore investigated in vitro interactions between natamycin and azithromycin with clinically correlative concentrations for AFSC and Fusarium solani species complex (FSSC) strains.

A total of 30 AFSC and 30 FSSC strains isolated from cases with fungal keratitis seen at the Henan Eye Hospital in China were tested. These strains were identified by standard microbiological techniques (16). Candida krusei ATCC 6258 was tested as the quality control strain.

Antifungal susceptibility was assayed and drug interactions were tested as previously described (17). Simply, antifungal susceptibility was determined according to the microdilution method outlined in CLSI M38-A2 (18). The 30 AFSC and 30 FSSC strains were evaluated for susceptibility to natamycin (99% potency; Serva, New York) and azithromycin (99% potency; Ruibang Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Zhejiang, China) alone and in combinations. The AFSC strains were evaluated for susceptibility to levofloxacin and gatifloxacin (99% potency; Beide Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Zhejiang, China), chloramphenicol (99% potency; Baijiingyu Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Nanning, China), tobramycin (99% potency; Xinbeijiang Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Lizhu Bloc, China), clindamycin (99% potency; Pukang Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Nanning, China), and rifampin (99% potency; Alfa Aesar) alone and in combinations. The following concentrations were used to test each drug alone: natamycin, 0.125 to 64 μg/ml; gatifloxacin, 0.5 to 256 μg/ml; levofloxacin, 1 to 512 μg/ml; and azithromycin, chloramphenicol, tobramycin, clindamycin, and rifampin, 4 to 2,048 μg/ml. The interactions of the drugs were evaluated by the limited checkerboard method (19, 20), where natamycin at concentrations of 0.125 to 64 μg/ml was combined with azithromycin at 10, 20, 40, and 50 μg/ml; levofloxacin at 5, 20, 60, and 200 μg/ml; gatifloxacin at 5, 10, and 15 μg/ml; chloramphenicol at 10 and 50 μg/ml; tobramycin at 20, 30, 40, 50, and 100 μg/ml; clindamycin at 40 and 60 μg/ml; and rifampin at 4, 8, and 16 μg/ml. MIC was defined as the lowest concentration that showed 100% inhibition of growth. Interaction was decided by computing the fractional inhibitory concentration index (FICI). Synergy was defined as FICI ≤0.5, indifference as FICI >0.5 and ≤4, and antagonism as FICI >4 (19, 20).

The MIC ranges, MIC50s, and MIC90s for natamycin and azithromycin alone and in combination against all of the strains were estimated using SPSS software. For calculation off scale, MIC was changed to the next higher dilution.

In vitro susceptibilities of AFSC strains to natamycin, levofloxacin, gatifloxacin, chloramphenicol, tobramycin, clindamycin, and rifampin alone and in combination are outlined in Table 1, and in vitro susceptibilities of AFSC and FSSC strains to natamycin and azithromycin alone and in combination are outlined in Table 2. Our results showed that only natamycin plus azithromycin obtained significant activity against AFSC and FSSC isolates. The MIC90s of natamycin against FSSC and AFSC were 8 and 64 μg/ml, respectively. The activity of natamycin against FSSC was 8 times greater than that against AFSC. This result was consistent with our earlier study (2). A noteworthy finding was that natamycin-azithromycin combinations exhibited greater activity against AFSC than against FSSC. In combination with 10, 20, 40, and 50 μg/ml azithromycin, the concentrations of natamycin against AFSC were 4-, 8-, 16-, and 2,065-fold lower, respectively, than with natamycin alone; but the concentrations of natamycin against FSSC were 0-, 0-, 2-, and 258-fold lower, respectively, than with natamycin alone. More strikingly, the combination of azithromycin 50 μg/ml and natamycin increased the antifungal activity of natamycin against AFSC by decreasing natamycin MIC90 from 64 μg/ml (nonsusceptible level) to 0.031 μg/ml, a level easily achieved in cornea. For the FSSC strain, the MIC of natamycin decreased from 32 to 0.031 μg/ml when combined with 50 μg/ml azithromycin. Interactions of natamycin-azithromycin combinations determined by FICI are shown in Table 3. The combination produced 100% synergistic interactions when natamycin was combined with azithromycin 20, 40, and 50 μg/ml against AFSC and when natamycin was combined with azithromycin at 50 μg/ml against FSSC. Importantly, no antagonism was observed.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

In vitro susceptibilities of ocular Aspergillus flavus species complex isolates to natamycin, azithromycin, levofloxacin, gatifloxacin, chloramphenicol, tobramycin, clindamycin, and rifampin alone and in combination

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

In vitro susceptibilities of ocular Aspergillus flavus species complex and Fusarium solani species complex isolates to natamycin and azithromycin alone and in combination

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

Interactions of natamycin-azithromycin combinations against ocular Aspergillus flavus species complex and Fusarium solani species complex isolates

Some studies have shown that higher MICs are significantly related to poor performances (6), and lower MICs are particularly related to successful clinical results in keratomycosis (21). Susceptibility breakpoints of natamycin have not yet been delineated in the CLSI guidelines, but ≤16 μg/ml of the MIC suggests susceptibility of a fungal strain (8, 15). According to this criterion, most of the FSSC isolates were susceptible and 96.7% of the AFSC isolates were nonsusceptible to natamycin in our study. Our data sustain the clinical evidence that A. flavus is often resistant to natamycin. In this study, 3.3% of FSSC and 96.7% of AFSC strains exhibited natamycin MICs of ≥32 μg/ml, which are not achievable levels in cornea with the present natamycin formulation. The pharmacokinetic results of natamycin show that the corneal peak concentrations of natamycin are 0.276 ± 0.158 μg/g in the intact rabbit cornea and 1.22 ± 0.356 μg/g in the debrided rabbit cornea after one 50-μl drop of 5% natamycin ophthalmic suspension is topically applied (22). Natamycin barely penetrates an intact corneal epithelium. However, although debridement increases corneal penetration of natamycin, debridement cannot result in an optimal drug concentration after one drop of natamycin is topically applied. The current natamycin dosage regimen is topical natamycin (5%) applied to the affected eye every half hour for the first day, followed by every hour for 1 week, and then every 2 h for 3 to 6 weeks (5, 8, 23). The frequent dosing schedule may enhance drug absorption substantially and achieve therapeutic concentrations more efficiently for susceptible fungal isolates, but the concentrations of natamycin in corneas for nonsusceptible organisms are significantly lower than the MICs of natamycin, inducing failure of therapy and occurrence of drug-resistant keratomycosis. In our study, the combination with 50 μg/ml azithromycin can significantly reduce natamycin MIC90s against AFSC from 64 to 0.031 μg/ml; therefore, the corneal peak concentrations of natamycin (1.22 ± 0.356 μg/g) are at least 39 times higher than the MIC values of natamycin, which improve its fungicidal effect.

Azithromycin 50 μg/ml is an achievable level in cornea. The results from pharmacokinetic analyses of azithromycin show that significant antibacterial azithromycin concentration in the cornea (252.00 ± 86.56 μg/g) is seen as early as 1 h after instillation and sustained for 6 days postdosing following the FDA-approved dosing regimen (1 drop twice daily for 2 days, then single instillation for 5 days) for treating bacterial conjunctivitis (24). Azithromycin, a broad-spectrum macrolide antibiotic, is valid for Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and atypical bacteria. Azithromycin acts by combining with the 50S subunit of the bacterial ribosome to restrain RNA-dependent protein synthesis (25). Azithromycin ophthalmic solution 1% is available for the treatment of bacterial conjunctivitis. The mechanism of synergy between natamycin and azithromycin against AFSC and FSSC isolates is unclear. We postulated that azithromycin has no antifungal effect on its own because of a defect in intracellular penetration. Natamycin binds to sterols in the fungal cell membrane and enhances permeability, allowing azithromycin to enter the fungal cell and inhibit protein synthesis. Their different modes of antimicrobial effect may indicate the potential for the synergy.

No studies emphasizing natamycin-azithromycin combination against A. flavus and F. solani isolates have been reported so far. We believe that our results are clinically significant. The susceptibility of A. flavus to natamycin is particularly poor, and patients with this infection may require natamycin-azithromycin combination as salvage therapy. Considering the synergism results, the lack of antagonism between natamycin and azithromycin in this study, and that azithromycin is known to be a safe drug, we believe the natamycin-azithromycin combination regimen may prove to be an important therapy against keratitis with A. flavus and F. solani in humans. However, because current data are derived only from in vitro conditions, the in vivo effect needs to be studied in detail.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding for this research was provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant 81241033 (Y.X., Y.H., L.H.), the Fund of the Bureau of Science and Technology of Henan Province under grant 142300410079 (Y.H., Y.X., L.Z., C.G., L.H.) and grant 132102310425 (H.G.), and the Fund of the Bureau of Health of Henan Province under grant 201002012 (Y.X., C.G., L.Z.).

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

FOOTNOTES

    • Received 12 January 2018.
    • Returned for modification 22 March 2018.
    • Accepted 1 May 2018.
    • Accepted manuscript posted online 7 May 2018.
  • Copyright © 2018 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Xu Y,
    2. Gao C,
    3. Li X,
    4. He Y,
    5. Zhou L,
    6. Pang G,
    7. Sun S
    . 2013. In vitro antifungal activity of silver nanoparticles against ocular pathogenic filamentous fungi. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 29:270–274. doi:10.1089/jop.2012.0155.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    1. Xu Y,
    2. Pang G,
    3. Zhao D,
    4. Gao C,
    5. Zhou L,
    6. Sun S,
    7. Wang B
    . 2010. In vitro activity of thimerosal against ocular pathogenic fungi. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 54:536–539. doi:10.1128/AAC.00714-09.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Xie L,
    2. Zhai H,
    3. Zhao J,
    4. Sun S,
    5. Shi W,
    6. Dong X
    . 2008. Antifungal susceptibility for common pathogens of fungal keratitis in Shandong Province, China. Am J Ophthalmol 146:260–265. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2008.04.019.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Oechsler RA,
    2. Feilmeier MR,
    3. Miller D,
    4. Shi W,
    5. Hofling-Lima AL,
    6. Alfonso EC
    . 2013. Fusarium keratitis: genotyping, in vitro susceptibility and clinical outcomes. Cornea 32:667–673. doi:10.1097/ICO.0b013e318277ac74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Lalitha P,
    2. Sun CQ,
    3. Prajna NV,
    4. Karpagam R,
    5. Manoharan G,
    6. O'Brien KS,
    7. Cevallos V,
    8. McLeod SD,
    9. Acharya NR,
    10. Lietman TM
    . 2014. In vitro susceptibility of filamentous fungal isolates from a corneal ulcer clinical trial. Am J Ophthalmol 157:318–326. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2013.10.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    1. Lalitha P,
    2. Prajna NV,
    3. Oldenburg CE,
    4. Srinivasan M,
    5. Krishnan T,
    6. Mascarenhas J,
    7. Vaitilingam CM,
    8. McLeod SD,
    9. Zegans ME,
    10. Porco TC,
    11. Acharya NR,
    12. Lietman TM
    . 2012. Organism, minimum inhibitory concentration, and outcome in a fungal corneal ulcer clinical trial. Cornea 31:662–667. doi:10.1097/ICO.0b013e31823f8ae0.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    1. Nayak N,
    2. Satpathy G,
    3. Prasad S,
    4. Titiyal JS,
    5. Pandey RM,
    6. Vajpayee RB
    . 2011. Molecular characterization of drug-resistant and drug-sensitive Aspergillus isolates causing infectious keratitis. Indian J Ophthalmol 59:373–377. doi:10.4103/0301-4738.83614.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Pradhan L,
    2. Sharma S,
    3. Nalamada S,
    4. Sahu SK,
    5. Das S,
    6. Garg P
    . 2011. Natamycin in the treatment of keratomycosis: correlation of treatment outcome and in vitro susceptibility of fungal isolates. Indian J Ophthalmol 59:512–514. doi:10.4103/0301-4738.86328.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Thomas PA
    . 2003. Current perspectives on ophthalmic mycoses. Clin Microbiol Rev 16:730–797. doi:10.1128/CMR.16.4.730-797.2003.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Loh AR,
    2. Hong K,
    3. Lee S,
    4. Mannis M,
    5. Acharya NR
    . 2009. Practice patterns in the management of fungal corneal ulcers. Cornea 28:856–859. doi:10.1097/ICO.0b013e318199fa77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    1. Xu Y,
    2. Pang G,
    3. Gao C,
    4. Zhao D,
    5. Zhou L,
    6. Sun S.,
    7. Wang B
    . 2009. In vitro comparison of the efficacies of natamycin and silver nitrate against ocular fungi. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53:1636–1638. doi:10.1128/AAC.00697-08.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Lalitha P,
    2. Shapiro BL,
    3. Srinivasan M,
    4. Prajna NV,
    5. Acharya NR,
    6. Fothergill AW,
    7. Ruiz J,
    8. Chidambaram JD,
    9. Maxey KJ,
    10. Hong KC,
    11. McLeod SD,
    12. Lietman TM
    . 2007. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Fusarium, Aspergillus, and other filamentous fungi isolated from keratitis. Arch Ophthalmol 125:789–793. doi:10.1001/archopht.125.6.789.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    1. Manikandan P,
    2. Varga J,
    3. Kocsubé S,
    4. Anita R,
    5. Revathi R,
    6. Németh TM,
    7. Narendran V,
    8. Vágvölgyi C,
    9. Panneer Selvam K,
    10. Shobana CS,
    11. Babu Singh YR,
    12. Kredics L
    . 2013. Epidemiology of Aspergillus keratitis at a tertiary care eye hospital in South India and antifungal susceptibilities of the causative agents. Mycoses 56:26–33. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0507.2012.02194.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    1. Lalitha P,
    2. Prajna NV,
    3. Kabra A,
    4. Mahadevan K,
    5. Srinivasan M
    . 2006. Risk factors for treatment outcome in fungal keratitis. Ophthalmology 113:526–530. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.10.063.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    1. Lalitha P,
    2. Vijaykumar R,
    3. Prajna NV,
    4. Fothergill AW
    . 2008. In vitro natamycin susceptibility of ocular isolates of Fusarium and Aspergillus species: comparison of commercially formulated natamycin eye drops to pharmaceutical-grade powder. J Clin Microbiol 46:3477–3478. doi:10.1128/JCM.00610-08.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Wang DL
    (ed). 2005. Medical mycology—guide to laboratory examination, p 4–37, 264–374, 421–446. People's Medical Publishing House, Beijing, China.
  17. 17.↵
    1. He Y,
    2. Zhou L,
    3. Gao C,
    4. Han L,
    5. Xu Y
    . 2017. Rifampin enhances the activity of amphotericin B against Fusarium solani species complex and Aspergillus flavus species complex isolates from keratitis patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 61:e02069-16. doi:10.1128/AAC.02069-16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. 2008. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi; approved standard—2nd ed. CLSI document M38-A2. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA.
  19. 19.↵
    1. Cuenca-Estrella M
    . 2004. Combinations of antifungal agents in therapy-what value are they? J Antimicrob Chemother 54:854–869. doi:10.1093/jac/dkh434.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. 20.↵
    1. Mukherjee PK,
    2. Sheehan DJ,
    3. Hitchcock CA,
    4. Ghannoum MA
    . 2005. Combination treatment of invasive fungal infections. Clin Microbiol Rev 18:163–194. doi:10.1128/CMR.18.1.163-194.2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Shapiro BL,
    2. Lalitha P,
    3. Loh AR,
    4. Fothergill AW,
    5. Prajna NV,
    6. Srinivasan M,
    7. Kabra A,
    8. Chidambaram J,
    9. Acharya NR,
    10. Lietman TM
    . 2010. Susceptibility testing and clinical outcome in fungal keratitis. Br J Ophthalmol 94:384–385. doi:10.1136/bjo.2009.158675.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Tianyang Z,
    2. Ling Z,
    3. Huiyun X,
    4. Jijun H,
    5. Junjie Z
    . 2014. Determination of natamycin in rabbit cornea by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry with protective soaking extraction technology. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 969:53–59. doi:10.1016/j.jchromb.2014.08.005.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    1. Chen Q,
    2. Wu SC,
    3. Xie HP,
    4. Jia H,
    5. Zhou QZ,
    6. Ren Y,
    7. Yao T,
    8. Zhang LJ,
    9. Jiang H,
    10. Wang CX,
    11. Zhou HY,
    12. Yang YN,
    13. Pan XF,
    14. Yuan J,
    15. Hao JL,
    16. Ma HF,
    17. Chen JH,
    18. Zeng QY
    . 2014. A multi-center control study of natamycin eyedrops for fungal keratitis. Rec Adv Ophthalmol 34:371–374.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    1. Akpek EK,
    2. Vittitow J,
    3. Verhoeven RS,
    4. Brubaker K,
    5. Amar T,
    6. Powell KD,
    7. Boyer JL,
    8. Crean C
    . 2009. Ocular surface distribution and pharmacokinetics of a novel ophthalmic 1% azithromycin formulation. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 25:433–439. doi:10.1089/jop.2009.0026.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    1. Kuehne JJ,
    2. Yu AL,
    3. Holland GN,
    4. Ramaswamy A,
    5. Taban R,
    6. Mondino BJ,
    7. Yu F,
    8. Rayner SA,
    9. Giese MJ
    . 2004. Corneal pharmacokinetics of topically applied azithromycin and clarithromycin. Am J Ophthalmol 138:547–553. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2004.04.071.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Natamycin and Azithromycin Are Synergistic In Vitro against Ocular Pathogenic Aspergillus flavus Species Complex and Fusarium solani Species Complex Isolates
Haoyi Guo, Lutan Zhou, Yi He, Chuanwen Gao, Lei Han, Yan Xu
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jun 2018, 62 (7) e00077-18; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00077-18

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Natamycin and Azithromycin Are Synergistic In Vitro against Ocular Pathogenic Aspergillus flavus Species Complex and Fusarium solani Species Complex Isolates
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Natamycin and Azithromycin Are Synergistic In Vitro against Ocular Pathogenic Aspergillus flavus Species Complex and Fusarium solani Species Complex Isolates
Haoyi Guo, Lutan Zhou, Yi He, Chuanwen Gao, Lei Han, Yan Xu
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jun 2018, 62 (7) e00077-18; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00077-18
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • TEXT
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Aspergillus flavus
Fusarium solani
azithromycin
fungal keratitis
natamycin
synergistic activity

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AAC
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • AAC Podcast
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AACJournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0066-4804; Online ISSN: 1098-6596