RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The synthesized benzimidazole compounds were evaluated for their antimicrobial activity using the tube dilution method and were found to exhibit good antimicrobial potential against selected Gram negative and positive bacterial and fungal species. The compounds were also assessed for their anticancer activity exhibited using the SRB assay and were found to elicit antiproliferative activity against MCF7 breast cancer cell line, which was comparable to the standard drug.
CONCLUSION: Antimicrobial screening results indicated that compounds 1, 2 and 19 to be promising antimicrobial agents against selected microbial species and comparable to standard drugs which included norfloxacin and fluconazole. The anticancer screening results revealed that compounds, 12, 21, 22 and 29 to show the highest activity against MCF7 and their IC50 values were more potent than 5-fluorouracil.
METHODOLOGY: All synthesized compounds were characterized by IR, NMR, Mass and elemental analysis followed by in vitro antimicrobial studies against Gram-positive (Staphylococcus aureus), Gram-negative (Salmonella typhi and Klebsiella pneumoniae) bacterial and fungal (Candida albicans and Aspergillus niger) strains by the tube dilution method. The in vitro anticancer evaluation was carried out against the human colorectal carcinoma cell line (HCT116), using the Sulforhodamine B assay.
RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Compound W6 (MICsa, st, kp = 5.19 µM) emerged as a significant antibacterial agent against all tested bacterial strains i.e. Gram-positive (S. aureus), Gram-negative (S. typhi, K. pneumoniae) while compound W1 (MICca, an = 5.08 µM) was most potent against fungal strains (A. niger and C. albicans) and comparable to fluconazole (MIC = 8.16 µM). The anticancer screening demonstrated that compound W17 (IC50 = 4.12 µM) was most potent amongst the synthesized compounds and also more potent than the standard drug 5-FU (IC50 = 7.69 µM).
METHODS: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis based on randomised controlled trials that compared antifungal agents to placebo or other antifungal agents used in patients undergoing cancer treatment. Relative ranking of antifungal agents was evaluated with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probability score. A total of 20 randomised controlled trials (3,215 participants) comparing 11 interventions were included.
RESULTS: Compared with placebo, clotrimazole was ranked the best agent for preventing the incidence of oral candidiasis (risk ratio (RR), 0.21 [95% CI 0.08 to 0.55]; SUCRA = 0.89). Fluconazole was ranked the safest among other antifungal agents (SUCRA = 0.80), whereas clotrimazole (SUCRA = 0.36) and amphotericin B (SUCRA = 0.18) were ranked low for safety. Amphotericin B was associated with highest risk of adverse events (RR, 3.52 [95% CI 1.27 to 9.75]).
CONCLUSION: Clotrimazole is the most effective in preventing oral candidiasis, whereas fluconazole has the most favourable risk-benefit profile in patients undergoing cancer treatment. However, we are unable to recommend clotrimazole as the best choice to prevent oral candidiasis due to unavailability of studies comparing clotrimazole with other antifungal agents.