4.3 Article

Evaluation of Mucoadhesive Gels with Propolis (EPP-AF) in Preclinical Treatment of Candidiasis Vulvovaginal Infection

Journal

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2013/641480

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq), Brazil
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP), Brazil
  3. Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP), Brazil
  4. Apis Flora Indl. Coml. Ltda., Brazil

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Vulvovaginal candidiasis is the second cause of vaginal infection in the USA. Clinical treatment of C. albicans infections is routinely performed with polyenes and azole derivatives. However, these drugs are responsible for undesirable side effects and toxicity. In addition, C. albicans azole and echinocandin resistance has been described. Propolis is a bee product traditionally used due to its antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and other properties. Therefore, the present work aimed to evaluate different propolis presentations in order to evaluate their in vitro and in vivo efficacy. The methodologies involved antifungal evaluation, chemical analysis, and the effects of the rheological and mucoadhesive properties of propolis based gels. The obtained results demonstrated the fungicide action of propolis extracts against all three morphotypes (yeast, pseudohyphae, and hyphae) studied. The highest level of fungal cytotoxicity was reached at 6-8 hours of propolis cell incubation. Among the based gel formulations developed, the rheological and mucoadhesive results suggest that propolis based carbopol (CP1%) and chitosan gels were the most pseudoplastic ones. CP1% was the most mucoadhesive preparation, and all of them presented low thixotropy. Results of in vivo efficacy demonstrated that propolis based gels present antifungal action similar to clotrimazole cream, suggesting that future clinical studies should be performed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available