In vitro antibacterial activity of some systemic and topical antihistaminic preparations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In vitro antibacterial activity of topical and systemic antihistaminic preparations containing different active substrates against the standard strains of two bacteria was evaluated. METHODS: Four topical and 3 systemic preparations containing pheniramine maleate, chlorophenoxamine hydrochloride, and diphenhydramine hydrochloride were studied. The antibacterial activities of these preparations against strains of S. aureus (American Type Culture Collection, ATCC 29213) and S. epidermidis (ATCC 25212) were tested using the disc diffusion method. In addition, the Minimal Innhibitory Concentration (MIC) and Minimal Bactericidal Concentration (MBC) of parenteral preparations for these two bacteria were determined. RESULTS: Pheniramine maleate-topical and pheniramine maleate-systemic had no activity against bacteria, but the others showed various rates of activity. Chlorophenoxamine hydrochloride-topical and chlorophenoxamine hydrochloride-systemic were the most effective (P < 0.05). Despite the same active substrate content, diphenhydramine hydrochloride-topical-1 and diphenhydramine hydrochloride-topical-2 yielded different results when they were compared with each other or with the other preparations. Diphenhydramine hydrochloride-topical-2 had a relatively higher rate of activity than diphenhydramine hydrochloride-topical-1. Inhibition zone diameters were 16.9+/-1.5 mm 12.3+/-0.5 mm for S .aureus, 17.4+/-1.0 mm 0 mm for S .epidermidis respectively (P < 0.05). MIC values of parenteral preparations were equal to or above 125 ?g/ml. CONCLUSION: MIC values of parenteral preparations were higher than their blood levels in clinical use. Thus, effects of parenteral preparations may not have been reflected in routine clinical practice. However, topical forms have antibacterial activity due to additive substrates and the use of high concentration levels at the site of application. Therefore, in selection of topical forms for appropriate cases, these effects should also be taken into consideration. The antibacterial activity of topical antihistaminic preparations may be useful in certain dermatological pathology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".