Assessing in vitro combinations of antifungal drugs against yeasts and filamentous fungi: comparison of different drug interaction models.

Non-parametric and parametric approaches of two competing zero-interaction theories--the Loewe additivity and the Bliss independence - were evaluated for analyzing the in vitro interactions of various antifungal drugs. Fifty-one data sets, derived from three drug combinations, tested in triplicate against 17 clinical yeast and mold isolates with a two-dimensional checkerboard microdilution technique, were selected to span from strong synergy to strong antagonism. These were analyzed with the standard FIC index model and modern concentration-effect response surface models: the fully parametric model developed by Greco et al. and the 3-D analysis developed by Prichard et al. The FIC index model is subjective, sensitive to experimental errors and resulted in approximated results and variable conclusions depending on the MIC endpoints determined and interpretation endpoints used. By using the MIC-2 endpoint (lowest drug concentration showing 50% of growth) for calculating the FIC indices, problems due to trailing phenomena were reduced and weak interactions could be detected; higher levels of reproducibility and agreement with the other models were achieved using the MIC-0 and MIC-1 (lowest drug concentration showing 10 and 25% of growth, respectively). High reproducibility was achieved in interpreting the FIC indices when the cutoffs of 0.25 and 4 (for single experiments) and the cutoff of 1 (for replicates) were used for defining the limits of additivity/indifference. Although the fully parametric Greco model did not describe precisely the entire response surface of all antifungal drug interactions, it was able to differentiate synergistic from non-synergistic interactions with a non-unit, reproducible, concentration-independent interaction parameter, including its uncertainty, without requiring replication. The Bliss independence based models resulted in mosaics of synergistic and antagonistic combinations, raising questions about the concentration-dependent nature of antifungal drug interaction. The sum of all statistically significant interactions were used as a summary interaction parameter for the entire response surface, concluding synergy or antagonism when it was positive or negative, respectively. The cutoffs of 100% and 200% were used to distinguish weak and moderate interactions, respectively in 12-16 x 8-12 checkerboard formats. Semi-parametric approaches need particular care as experimental errors are not eliminated from the entire response surface.

[1]  Paul E. Verweij,et al.  In Vitro Drug Interaction Modeling of Combinations of Azoles with Terbinafine against Clinical Scedosporium prolificans Isolates , 2003, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[2]  J. Meis,et al.  In Vitro Synergistic Interaction between Amphotericin B and Pentamidine against Scedosporium prolificans , 2002, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[3]  M. Bergervoet,et al.  In Vitro Interaction of Flucytosine Combined with Amphotericin B or Fluconazole against Thirty-Five Yeast Isolates Determined by both the Fractional Inhibitory Concentration Index and the Response Surface Approach , 2002, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[4]  J. Meis,et al.  Methodological issues related to antifungal drug interaction modelling for filamentous fungi , 2002 .

[5]  J. Meis,et al.  Comparison of Fractional Inhibitory Concentration Index with Response Surface Modeling for Characterization of In Vitro Interaction of Antifungals against Itraconazole-Susceptible and -Resistant Aspergillus fumigatus Isolates , 2002, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[6]  M. Ghannoum,et al.  Antifungal Susceptibility Testing: Practical Aspects and Current Challenges , 2001, Clinical Microbiology Reviews.

[7]  D. Kontoyiannis,et al.  Itraconazole-Amphotericin B Antagonism inAspergillus fumigatus: an E-Test-Based Strategy , 2000, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[8]  J. Bilello,et al.  Use of Drug Effect Interaction Modeling with Monte Carlo Simulation To Examine the Impact of Dosing Interval on the Projected Antiviral Activity of the Combination of Abacavir and Amprenavir , 2000, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[9]  J. Bilello,et al.  The Triple Combination Indinavir-Zidovudine-Lamivudine Is Highly Synergistic , 2000, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[10]  S. Katiyar,et al.  Antagonism of Azole Activity against Candida albicans following Induction of Multidrug Resistance Genes by Selected Antimicrobial Agents , 1999, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[11]  A. Polak The past, present and future of antimycotic combination therapy , 1999, Mycoses.

[12]  J. Bilello,et al.  Nucleoside Analog 1592U89 and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Protease Inhibitor 141W94 Are Synergistic In Vitro , 1998, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[13]  A. Patick,et al.  Activities of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) protease inhibitor nelfinavir mesylate in combination with reverse transcriptase and protease inhibitors against acute HIV-1 infection in vitro , 1997, Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy.

[14]  F. Barchiesi,et al.  In vitro activities of terbinafine in combination with fluconazole and itraconazole against isolates of Candida albicans with reduced susceptibility to azoles , 1997, Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy.

[15]  D S Burgess,et al.  Comparison of three different in vitro methods of detecting synergy: time-kill, checkerboard, and E test , 1996, Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy.

[16]  V. Yu,et al.  In vitro evaluation of combination of fluconazole and flucytosine against Cryptococcus neoformans var. neoformans , 1995, Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy.

[17]  J. Peter,et al.  Activities of amphotericin B and antifungal azoles alone and in combination against Pseudallescheria boydii , 1995, Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy.

[18]  W. Greco,et al.  The search for synergy: a critical review from a response surface perspective. , 1995, Pharmacological reviews.

[19]  K. Hara,et al.  Effects of antifungal agent combinations administered simultaneously and sequentially against Aspergillus fumigatus , 1994, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[20]  J. Galgiani,et al.  Antifungal susceptibility testing. , 2006, Infectious disease clinics of North America.

[21]  M. Prichard,et al.  Strategic design and three-dimensional analysis of antiviral drug combinations , 1993, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[22]  J Sühnel,et al.  Zero interaction response surfaces, interaction functions and difference response surfaces for combinations of biologically active agents. , 1992, Arzneimittel-Forschung.

[23]  J. Sühnel Re: W. R. Greco et al., Application of a new approach for the quantitation of drug synergism to the combination of cis-diamminedichloroplatinum and 1-beta-D-arabinofuranosylcytosine. Cancer Res., 50: 5318-5327, 1990. , 1992, Cancer research.

[24]  M. Nassiri,et al.  Three-dimensional analysis of the synergistic cytotoxicity of ganciclovir and zidovudine , 1991, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[25]  M. Prichard,et al.  A three-dimensional model to analyze drug-drug interactions. , 1990, Antiviral research.

[26]  W R Greco,et al.  Application of a new approach for the quantitation of drug synergism to the combination of cis-diamminedichloroplatinum and 1-beta-D-arabinofuranosylcytosine. , 1990, Cancer research.

[27]  D Z D'Argenio,et al.  Incorporating prior parameter uncertainty in the design of sampling schedules for pharmacokinetic parameter estimation experiments. , 1990, Mathematical biosciences.

[28]  Berenbaum Mc What is synergy? , 1989, Pharmacological reviews.

[29]  W. H. Carter,et al.  The evaluation of biological interactions using response surface methodology , 1987, Cell Biology and Toxicology.

[30]  M. Berenbaum,et al.  Minor synergy and antagonism may be clinically important. , 1987, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[31]  A. Galloway Antibiotics in catheterized patients. , 1987, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[32]  J. Hamilton-miller Rationalization of terminology and methodology in the study of antibiotic interaction. , 1985, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[33]  F. Odds Interactions among amphotericin B, 5-fluorocytosine, ketoconazole, and miconazole against pathogenic fungi in vitro , 1982, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[34]  S. W. Holmes,et al.  Antibacterial properties of alafosfalin combined with cephalexin , 1981, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[35]  Larson He Antimicrobial Agent-Induced Colitis , 1980 .

[36]  M. Berenbaum,et al.  Correlations between methods for measurement of synergy. , 1980, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[37]  C. Norden,et al.  Comparison of techniques for measurement of in vitro antibiotic synergism. , 1979, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[38]  M C Berenbaum,et al.  Synergy, additivism and antagonism in immunosuppression. A critical review. , 1977, Clinical and experimental immunology.

[39]  B. Drewinko,et al.  Combination chemotherapy in vitro with cis-dichlorodiammineplatinum(II). , 1976, Cancer treatment reports.

[40]  V. Lorian Antibiotics in laboratory medicine , 2005 .

[41]  Chase Pa The search for synergy. , 1997 .

[42]  W. Greco,et al.  Combined action of paclitaxel and cisplatin against wildtype and resistant human ovarian carcinoma cells , 1997, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.

[43]  Wampler Gl,et al.  Review of the application of response surface methodology in the combination therapy of cancer , 1986 .