Topical gentian violet compared with nystatin oral suspension for the treatment of oropharyngeal candidiasis in HIV-1-infected participants
Pranab K Mukherjee, Huichao Chen, Lauren L Patton, Scott Evans, Anthony Lee, Johnstone Kumwenda, James Hakim, Gaerolwe Masheto, Frederick Sawe, Mai T Pho, Kenneth A Freedberg, Caroline H Shiboski, Mahmoud A Ghannoum, Robert A Salata, Oral HIVAIDS Research Alliance (OHARA)AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) 5265 Team, Pranab K Mukherjee, Huichao Chen, Lauren L Patton, Scott Evans, Anthony Lee, Johnstone Kumwenda, James Hakim, Gaerolwe Masheto, Frederick Sawe, Mai T Pho, Kenneth A Freedberg, Caroline H Shiboski, Mahmoud A Ghannoum, Robert A Salata, Oral HIVAIDS Research Alliance (OHARA)AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) 5265 Team
Abstract
Objective: Compare the safety and efficacy of topical gentian violet with that of nystatin oral suspension (NYS) for the treatment of oropharyngeal candidiasis in HIV-1-infected adults in resource-limited settings.
Design: Multicenter, open-label, evaluator-blinded, randomized clinical trial at eight international sites, within the AIDS Clinical Trials Group.
Study participants and intervention: Adult HIV-infected participants with oropharyngeal candidiasis, stratified by CD4 cell counts and antiretroviral therapy status at study entry, were randomized to receive either gentian violet (0.00165%, BID) or NYS (500 000 units, QID) for 14 days.
Main outcome measure(s): Cure or improvement after 14 days of treatment. Signs and symptoms of oropharyngeal candidiasis were evaluated in an evaluator-blinded manner.
Results: The study was closed early per Data Safety Monitoring Board after enrolling 221 participants (target = 494). Among the 182 participants eligible for efficacy analysis, 63 (68.5%) in the gentian violet arm had cure or improvement of oropharyngeal candidiasis versus 61 (67.8%) in the NYS arm, resulting in a nonsizable difference of 0.007 (95% confidence interval: -0.129, 0.143). There was no sizable difference in cure rates between the two arms (-0.0007; 95% confidence interval: -0.146, 0.131). No gentian violet-related adverse events were noted. No sizable differences were identified in tolerance, adherence, quality of life, or acceptability of study drugs. In gentian violet arm, 61 and 39% of participants reported 'no' and 'mild-to-moderate' staining, respectively. Cost for medication procurement was significantly lower for gentian violet versus NYS (median $2.51 and 19.42, respectively, P = 0.01).
Conclusion: Efficacy of gentian violet was not statistically different than NYS, was well tolerated, and its procurement cost was substantially less than NYS.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01427738.
Figures
Source: PubMed