We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Topical gentian violet compared with nystatin oral suspension for the treatment of oropharyngeal candidiasis in HIV-1-infected participants.
AIDS 2017 January 3
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.
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.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app