|Year : 1978 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 15-17
Commonly available anti fungal ophthalmic drops
KS Mehra1, PC Sen2
1 Department of Ophthalmology , Institute of Medical Sciences Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India
2 Department of Microbiology, Institute of Medical Sciences Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India
K S Mehra
4 Medical Enclave, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi
|How to cite this article:|
Mehra K S, Sen P C. Commonly available anti fungal ophthalmic drops. Indian J Ophthalmol 1978;26:15-7
With too much use of corticosteroid and antibiotic preparations the incidence of mycotic infections in the eye have increased many fold. Huddle, Polack have reported good results with amphotericin drops in mycotic corneal infections while with nystatin ointment good results have been shown in the hand of Montana and Polack. Recently pimaricin 5% solution either alone, Polack, Jones, Newmark, Quadripur or in combination with nystatin, or in combination with potassium iodide solution 1% Newmark, Polack have reported to have very good antifungal activity for mycotic corneal ulcer and fungal endophthalmitis. Ahuja has reported that hamycin has also good antifungal activity. Besides these it has also been claimed that potassium iodide solution 1% (Newmark and Polack) has also good local antifungal activity.
These drugs like amphotericin B, nystatin, hamycin and pimaricin are the drugs of choice for mycotic infections in the eye. But in most of the under developed or developing countries like Asia and Africa, these drugs are not so freely available and specially in far flung rural areas. The ophthalmologist is put in dilemma as what to do when there is mycotic corneal ulcer clinically but the specific antifungal drug is not available. Application of Thiomersal Gingrich and Hariu, Sodium proportionate drop 10% (Puttana,) copper sulphate drop 0.125% (Puttana) and iodine cautery (Reddy) to corneal ulcer have shown good results in mycotic corneal ulcer.
No comparative evaluation of antifungal activity of the commonly available ophthalmic drugs has been carried out in vitro so far. We tried therefore to determine the antifungal activity of the drugs like mercurochrome, argyrol, silver nitrate, copper sulphate and amphotericin B in various concentrations.
| Material & Methods|| |
The various compounds in different concentrations were used-[Table - 1].
The various fungi used in the study were:
(a) Aspergillus fumigates (b) Penicillium sp. (c) Mucor Sp. (d) Rhizopus sp. (e) Candida Sp.
Sabouraud's dextrose agar (SDA) was poured in screw capped Mac Carteri bottles and compounds under test were added in different amounts to give final concentration mentioned above. Compounds were added to the medium when the temperature came down to around 45° C.
SDA containing different compounds were inoculated with the spore suspension in normal saline prepared from 1 week old cultures of different fungi. SDA bottles were incubated at 27° C and the state of growth was observed for 7 days. SDA without any compound was put as control for each fungus under test.
| Observations|| |
Our observations are tabulated in [Table - 2].
It is observed from this study that 0.1°0 of copper sulphate 4 drops are quite effective against all the tested fungi. Second most effective drug is 5% argyrol drops and then is 2% mercurochrome drops. The antifungal activity of these drops was in no way less effective than amphotericin B drugs.
| Conclusion|| |
It can be safely concluded from this study that local ophthalmic drops like mercurochrome, argyrol, silver nitrate and copper sulphate, which were used in the past to treat local eye infections, have got a marked antifungal activity. These drops also are easily tolerated by the patients and are readily available and hence can be very safely used by ophthalmologist for treating mycotic corneal ulcer. when recently discovered drugs like amphotericin, hamycin and other drugs are not available to them. The study for assaying the antifungal activity of these drops in mycotic corneal ulcer in rabbits is under study.
| References|| |
|1.||Ahuja, O.P., Bal A,, Nema H.V., 1967, Journal All India Society, 15, 19. |
|2.||Gingrich W.D., 1962, Keratomycosis, J.A. M.A. 179, 662. |
|3.||Hariu A, 1971, Jap. Clin. Ophthal. 25, 389. |
|4.||Huddle A.B. and Sharp D.A. 1963, Sabouraudia, 2,193. |
|5.||Jones D.B., 1973, Invest. Ophthal. 12, 551. |
|6.||Montana J.A., Sery T.W., 1958, Arch. Ophthal., 60, 1. |
|7.||Newmark E., Ellison A.C., Kaufman H.E., 1970, Amer. J. Ophthal., 69, 458. |
|8.||Polack F.M., Kaufman H.E., Newmark E., 1971, Arch. of Ophthal., 85, 410. |
|9.||Puttana S.T., 1967, Journal All India Ophthal. Society, 15, 11. |
|10.||Quadripur S.A., Kraus P,F., 1972, Gottingen- Mykozen, 15, 483. |
|11.||Reddy P.S., Satyenderan, O.M., 1972, Journal All India Ophthal., 20, 101. |
[Table - 1], [Table - 2]