Search

Oxidative stress (OS) is a major disruption in the physiology of the lacrimal functional unit (LFU). Antioxidant enzymes have dual protective activities: antioxidant and antimicrobial activities. Peroxidases have been indistinctly used as markers of the secretory activity of the LFU and implicated in the pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of dry eye disease (DED), even though they comprise a large family of enzymes that includes lactoperoxidase (LPO) and glutathione peroxidase (GPO), among others. Assays to measure and correlate OS with other local LFU phenomena have methodological limitations. Studies implicate molecules and reactions involved in OS as markers of homeostasis, and other studies identify them as part of the physiopathology of diseases. Despite these conflicting concepts and observations, it is clear that OS is influential in the development of DED. Moreover, many antioxidant strategies have been proposed for its treatment, including calorie restriction to nutritional supplementation. This review offers a critical analysis of the biological mechanisms, diagnostic outcomes, drug use, dietary supplements, and life habits that implicate the influence of OS on DED.

IntroductionThe recalcitrant nature of patients with acute exacerbation of chronic rhinosinusitis (AECRS) potentially involves persisting colonization of the sinonasal mucosa by bacterial biofilms. Biofilms are known to be highly resistant to antibiotics, which may trigger or maintain chronic inflammation in the sinonasal mucosa. However, little is known about the relationship between the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and antibiofilm concentrations of bacteria obtained from AECRS patients.Material and MethodsThirty bacterial strains from 25 patients with AECRS were identified and underwent MIC determination (VITEK® 2). The planktonic isolates were submitted to an in vitro formation of biofilms (Modified Calgary Biofilm Device) and determination of minimum biofilm inhibitory concentration (MBIC) and minimum biofilm eradication concentration (MBEC) for amoxicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, clarithromycin, and levofloxacin. MIC of the planktonic forms was compared with MBIC and MBEC levels, according to the breakpoints established by the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines.ResultsThe main bacteria retrieved was S. aureus (60%), followed by other Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria in lower frequencies. 76.7% of strains formed biofilm in vitro (n=23/30). The planktonic isolates presented high rates of resistance for amoxicillin (82.6%) and clarithromycin (39.1%), and lower rates for amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (17.4%). The biofilm-forming bacteria counterparts presented higher levels of MBIC and MBEC compared to the MIC levels for amoxicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, and clarithromycin. Levofloxacin was highly effective against both planktonic and biofilm forms. Planktonic resistant forms were associated with levels of antibiofilm concentrations (MBIC and MBEC).ConclusionsBiofilm-forming bacteria from AECRS patients are prevalent, and biofilm forms are highly resistant to antibiotics compared to their planktonic counterparts. Antibiotic resistance observed in planktonic forms is a good indicator of biofilm resistance, although near 20% of susceptible planktonic bacteria can produce antibiotic tolerant biofilms.