Investigation of In Vitro Activity of Five Antifungal Drugs against Dermatophytes Species Isolated from Clinical Samples Using the E-Test Method.

OBJECTIVE Dermatomycosis is an infection with fungi related to the skin: glabrous skin, hair and/or nails. Oral treatment of fungal infections in dermatology has become a preferred modality for the management of these very common conditions. Although there are increasing numbers of antifungals available for treatment of dermatophytes, some cases and relapses have been unresponsive to treatment. The determination of fungus in-vitro antifungal susceptibility has been reported to be important for the ability to eradicate dermatophytes. It is necessary to perform antifungal susceptibility testing of dermatophytes. E-test (AB Biodisk, Sweden) is a rapid, easy-to-perform in-vitro antifungal susceptibility test. The aim of this study was to investigate the susceptibility of the different species of dermatophyte strains isolated clinical specimens to five antifungal agents using the E-test method. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 66 specimens were collected from the nails, feet, inguinal region, trunk and hands. These strains tested MIC endpoints of E-test for amphotericin B, fluconazole, itraconazole, caspofungin, and ketoconazole were read after 72, and 96 hours incubation for each strain on RPMI 1640 agar. RESULTS The dermatophytes tested included Trichophyton rubrum 43 (65.1%), Trichophyton mentagrophytes 7 (10.7%), Microsporum canis 5 (7.6%), Trichophyton tonsurans 5 (7.6%), Epidermophyton floccosum 4 (6.0%) and Trichophyton violaceum 2 (3.0%). The most active agent against all dermatophytes species was caspofungin with a minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) range (μg/mL(-1)) (0.02-3, 0.032-4, 0.125-0.50, 0.032-2, 0.25-0.50, 0.125-0.50) and it raconazole with an MIC range (μg/mL(-1)) (0.038-1.5, 0.094-1.5, 1-32, 0.016-0.50, 0.25-0.50, 0.125-0.50). The least active agent was fluconazole with an MIC range (μg/mL(-1)) (0, 19-48, 2-256, 2-8, 256, 256, 8-24). CONCLUSION E-test seems to be an alternative method to MIC-determination of antifungal drugs for dermatophytes species, since it is a less-laborious methodology and results could be obtained faster.

[1]  M. Kemal,et al.  onikomikoz Ön t anisiyla gönderilen Örneklerden İzole Edilen Dermatofitlerin Değerlendirilmesi , 2011 .

[2]  A. C. Mesa,et al.  In vitro activity of fluconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole and terbinafine against fungi causing onychomycosis , 2009, Clinical and experimental dermatology.

[3]  서무규,et al.  Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Dermatophytes Using Etest , 2010 .

[4]  K. Zomorodian,et al.  In vitro activity of six antifungal drugs against clinically important dermatophytes , 2009 .

[5]  Maria R R Silva,et al.  In vitro susceptibility testing of dermatophytes isolated in Goiania, Brazil, against five antifungal agents by broth microdilution method. , 2009, Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo.

[6]  M. Lavrador,et al.  Dermatophyte susceptibilities to antifungal azole agents tested in vitro by broth macro and microdilution methods. , 2008, Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo.

[7]  Ş. Gürcan,et al.  [Investigation of the agents and risk factors of dermatophytosis: a hospital-based study]. , 2008, Mikrobiyoloji bulteni.

[8]  F. Can,et al.  In vitro antifungal susceptibility patterns of dermatophyte strains causing tinea unguium , 2007, Clinical and experimental dermatology.

[9]  J. Guarro,et al.  In vitro activity of voriconazole against dermatophytes, Scopulariopsis brevicaulis and other opportunistic fungi as agents of onychomycosis. , 2007, International journal of antimicrobial agents.

[10]  A. Aal,et al.  Antifungal Susceptibility testing: New trends , 2007 .

[11]  D. A. Santos,et al.  Antifungal susceptibility testing of Trichophyton rubrum by E-test , 2007, Archives of Dermatological Research.

[12]  J. Guarro,et al.  Effect of Culture Medium on the Disk Diffusion Method for Determining Antifungal Susceptibilities of Dermatophytes , 2006, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[13]  N. Kiraz,et al.  Antifungal susceptibilities of dermatophytic agents isolated from clinical specimens. , 2005, European journal of dermatology : EJD.

[14]  G. Quindós,et al.  Actividad antifúngica in vitro de voriconazol contra dermatofitos y aislamientos superficiales de Scopulariopsis brevicaulis , 2005 .

[15]  G. Quindós,et al.  [In vitro antifungal activity of voriconazole against dermatophytes and superficial isolates of Scopulariopsis brevicaulis]. , 2005, Revista iberoamericana de micologia.

[16]  A. Koç,et al.  In vitro susceptibility testing of dermatophytes: comparison of disk diffusion and reference broth dilution methods. , 2004, Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease.

[17]  N. Ryder,et al.  Comparison of In Vitro Activities of 17 Antifungal Drugs against a Panel of 20 Dermatophytes by Using a Microdilution Assay , 2003, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[18]  Aditya K. Gupta,et al.  In vitro susceptibility testing of ciclopirox, terbinafine, ketoconazole and itraconazole against dermatophytes and nondermatophytes, and in vitro evaluation of combination antifungal activity , 2003, The British journal of dermatology.

[19]  J. Guarro,et al.  Interlaboratory evaluation of the Etest for antifungal susceptibility testing of dermatophytes. , 2003, Medical mycology.

[20]  J. Guarro,et al.  In Vitro Activities of 10 Antifungal Drugs against 508 Dermatophyte Strains , 2001, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[21]  W. Gambale,et al.  Susceptibility testing of Trichophyton rubrum and Microsporum canis to three azoles by E-test , 2001 .

[22]  A. Bolmström,et al.  In Vitro Susceptibility Testing of Filamentous Fungi: Comparison of Etest and Reference Microdilution Methods for Determining Itraconazole MICs , 2000, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[23]  A. Favel,et al.  In-vitro susceptibility pattern of Candida lusitaniae and evaluation of the Etest method. , 1997, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.