Search

ME1111 is a novel small molecule antifungal agent under development for the topical treatment of onychomycosis. Standardization of the susceptibility testing method for this candidate antifungal is needed. Toward this end, 8 independent laboratories determined the interlaboratory reproducibility of ME1111 susceptibility testing. In addition, we subsequently identified 2 strains as quality control (QC) isolates for the method. In the reproducibility study, 5 blinded clinical strains each of Trichophyton rubrum, Trichophyton mentagrophytes, and Epidermophyton floccosum were tested, while the QC study tested 6 blinded T. rubrum or T. mentagrophytes ATCC strains. Testing was performed in frozen microtiter panels according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) M38-A2 methodology. In the reproducibility study, 9 of 15 clinical strains showed interlaboratory agreement of >90% at the 80% inhibition endpoint, with a range of agreement of 76.2% to 100%. In the QC study, 4 of the 6 ATCC strains showed interlaboratory agreement of >90%. ME1111 demonstrated excellent interlaboratory agreement when tested against dermatophytes. Based on this data, the CLSI Subcommittee on Antifungal Susceptibility Tests approved the susceptibility testing of ME1111 against dermatophytes according to M38-A2 methodology, which stipulates RPMI 1640 as the test medium, an inoculum size of 1 to 3 × 10(3) CFU/ml, and an incubation time and temperature of 96 h at 35°C. The MIC endpoint should be 80% inhibition compared with the growth control. T. rubrum ATCC MYA-4438 and T. mentagrophytes ATCC 28185 were selected as QC isolates, with an acceptable range of 0.12 to 1 μg/ml for the two strains., (Copyright © 2016, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.)

Azole antifungal agents (eg, fluconazole and itraconazole) have been widely used to treat superficial fungal infections caused by dermatophytes and, unlike the allylamines (such as terbinafine and naftifine), have been associated with resistance development. Although many published manuscripts describe resistance to azoles among yeast and molds, reports describing resistance of dermatophytes are starting to appear. In this review, I discuss the mode of action of azole antifungals and mechanisms underlying their resistance compared with the allylamine class of compounds. Data from published and original studies were compared and summarized, and their clinical implications are discussed. In contrast to the cidal allylamines, static drugs such as azoles permit the occurrence of mutations in enzymes involved in ergosterol biosynthesis, and the ergosterol precursors accumulating as a consequence of azole action are not toxic. Azole antifungals, unlike allylamines, potentiate resistance development in dermatophytes.

The treatment of onychomycosis has improved considerably over the past several decades following the introduction of the oral antifungals terbinafine and itraconazole. However, these oral agents suffer from certain disadvantages, including drug interactions and potential liver toxicity. Thus, there is a need for new topical agents that are effective against onychomycosis. ME1111 is a novel selective inhibitor of succinate dehydrogenase (complex II) of dermatophyte species, whose small molecular weight enhances its ability to penetrate the nail plate. In this study, we determined the antifungal activity of ME1111 against dermatophyte strains, most of which are known to cause nail infections, as measured by the MIC (n = 400) and the minimum fungicidal concentration (MFC) (n = 300). Additionally, we examined the potential for resistance development in dermatophytes (n = 4) following repeated exposure to ME1111. Our data show that the MIC90 of ME1111 against dermatophyte strains was 0.25 μg/ml, which was equivalent to that of the comparators amorolfine and ciclopirox (0.25 and 0.5 μg/ml, respectively). ME1111 was fungicidal at clinically achievable concentrations against dermatophytes, and its MFC90s against Trichophyton rubrum and Trichophyton mentagrophytes were 8 μg/ml, comparable to those of ciclopirox. Furthermore, ME1111, as well as ciclopirox, did not induce resistance in 4 dermatophytes tested. Our studies show that ME1111 possesses potent antifungal activity and suggest that it has low potential for the development of resistance in dermatophytes., (Copyright © 2015, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.)

Currently, no agar-based susceptibility testing method has been standardized for testing dermatophytes. We describe a newly developed agar-based method employing disk diffusion assay to test the susceptibility of 47 isolates of dermatophytes against 8 antifungals. Our results show that the method is reproducible, is simple, and could be used to determine the antifungal susceptibility of dermatophytes.

Background: Our group, in collaboration with seven other laboratories, has recently developed a method to determine the susceptibility of dermatophytes., Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the terbinafine susceptibility profile of dermatophyte isolates obtained from patients with tinea capitis enrolled in two large worldwide clinical trials and to investigate whether these susceptibilities differ by geographical location. Methods Susceptibilities were determined according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute M38-A2 standard., Results: From a total of 978 baseline dermatophyte isolates, we selected 301 isolates at random. These included: Trichophyton tonsurans (n = 125), Microsporum canis (n = 94), T. violaceum (n = 63) and M. audouinii (n = 19). The terbinafine minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) range was 0.001-0.25 microg mL(-1), while MIC(50) and MIC(90) ranged between 0.002 and 0.125 microg mL(-1) and 0.03 and 0.25 microg mL(-1), respectively, for all species tested. MIC(50) and MIC(90) varied by individual species; however, there was no difference in terbinafine MIC among the different species isolated from U.S. and non-U.S. sites., Conclusion: Terbinafine demonstrates potent antifungal activity against dermatophyte isolates obtained from patients with tinea capitis worldwide.

The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI; formerly National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, or NCCLS) M38-A standard for the susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi does not specifically address the testing of dermatophytes. In 2003, a multicenter study investigated the reproducibility of the microdilution method developed at the Center for Medical Mycology, Cleveland, Ohio, for testing the susceptibility of dermatophytes. Data from that study supported the introduction of this method for testing dermatophytes in the future version of the CLSI M38-A standard. In order for the method to be accepted by CLSI, appropriate quality control isolates needed to be identified. To that end, an interlaboratory study, involving the original six laboratories plus two additional sites, was conducted to evaluate potential candidates for quality control isolates. These candidate strains included five Trichophyton rubrum strains known to have elevated MICs to terbinafine and five Trichophyton mentagrophytes strains. Antifungal agents tested included ciclopirox, fluconazole, griseofulvin, itraconazole, posaconazole, terbinafine, and voriconazole. Based on the data generated, two quality control isolates, one T. rubrum isolate and one T. mentagrophytes isolate, were identified and submitted to the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) for inclusion as reference strains. Ranges encompassing 95.2 to 97.9% of all data points for all seven drugs were established.

In this study, the voriconazole susceptibilities of dermatophyte isolates obtained from a worldwide tinea capitis trial were compared to their susceptibilities to fluconazole and griseofulvin. The MIC ranges of voriconazole, fluconazole, and griseofulvin, were 0.002 to 0.06 microg/ml, 0.25 to 32 microg/ml, and 0.125 to 2.0 microg/ml, respectively.

The National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) M38-A standard for the susceptibility testing of conidium-forming filamentous fungi does not explicitly address the testing of dermatophytes. This multicenter study, involving six laboratories, investigated the MIC reproducibility of seven antifungal agents tested against 25 dermatophyte isolates (5 blinded pairs of five dermatophyte species per site for a total of 300 tests), using the method of dermatophyte testing developed at the Center for Medical Mycology, Cleveland, Ohio. The dermatophytes tested included Trichophyton rubrum, Trichophyton mentagrophytes, Trichophyton tonsurans, Epidermophyton floccosum, and Microsporum canis. Seven antifungals with activity against dermatophytes were tested, including ciclopirox, fluconazole, griseofulvin, itraconazole, posaconazole, terbinafine, and voriconazole. Interlaboratory MICs for all isolates were in 92 to 100% agreement at a visual endpoint reading of 50% inhibition as compared to the growth control and 88 to 99% agreement at a visual endpoint reading of 80% inhibition as compared to the growth control. Intralaboratory MICs between blinded pairs were in 97% agreement at a visual endpoint reading of 50% inhibition as compared to the growth control and 96% agreement at a visual endpoint reading of 80% inhibition as compared to the growth control. Data from this study support consideration of this method as an amendment to the NCCLS M38-A standard for the testing of dermatophytes.

Background: In many instances, a cutaneous fungal infection may exist concomitantly with bacterial involvement. In this study we compared the in vitro activity of three antifungal agents against the dermatophytes, yeasts and bacteria recovered most commonly from cutaneous mycoses and bacterial infections., Methods: Using a microdilution method adapted from the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS), we determined the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of ciclopirox olamine, econazole nitrate and butenafine HCl against a panel of dermatophyte fungi and yeasts (n = 39) and bacterial isolates (n = 45)., Results: All three antifungals demonstrated comparable activity against the dermatophytes tested, with a MIC range of 0.03-0.25 micro g/ml for ciclopirox, < 0.001-0.25 micro g/ml for econazole and 0.03-0.25 micro g/ml for butenafine. For yeasts, ciclopirox showed activity against all isolates, with an MIC range of 0.001-0.25 micro g/ml, whereas econazole had a broader range of 0.125-> 0.5 micro g/ml. Butenafine displayed limited activity against the yeast Candida albicans and no activity against Malassezia furfur. For the antibacterial activity studies, ciclopirox demonstrated activity against all isolates tested with a range of 0.06-2 micro g/ml, while econazole showed activity against Gram-positive bacteria only, with a MIC range of 0.004-0.25 micro g/ml. Butenafine HCl had a limited activity against bacterial isolates tested, showing activity against beta-hemolytic Streptococcus Group A and Corynebacterium only. Neither econazole nitrate nor butenafine HCl demonstrated activity against any of the Gram-negative strains evaluated in this study., Conclusions: The data suggest that ciclopirox olamine has the broadest in vitro activity, in comparison to econazole and butenafine HCl, against bacteria, yeasts and bacteria. These findings may have implications in the use of these antimycotics in the treatment of mixed cutaneous infections where bacteria or yeasts are present in addition to dermatophytes.

A standardized reference method for dermatophyte in vitro susceptibility testing is lacking. In a previous study, Norris et al. (H. A. Norris, B. E. Elewski, and M. A. Ghannoum, J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 40(6, part 2):S9-S13) established the optimal medium and other growth variables. However, the earlier study did not address two issues: (i) selection of an optimal medium for conidial formation by dermatophytes and (ii) validation of the method with a large number of dermatophytes. The present study addresses these two points. To select which agar medium best supported conidial growth, representative isolates of dermatophytes were grown on different agars. Preliminary experiments showed that only oatmeal cereal agar supported the production of conidia by Trichophyton rubrum. We tested the abilities of 251 T. rubrum isolates to form conidia using three different cereal agars and potato dextrose agar. Overall, oatmeal cereal and rice agar media were comparable in their abilities to support T. rubrum conidial growth. Next, we used the oatmeal cereal agar for conidial formation along with the optimal conditions for dermatophyte susceptibility testing proposed by Norris et al. and determined the antifungal susceptibilities of 217 dermatophytes to fluconazole, griseofulvin, itraconazole, and terbinafine. Relative to the other agents tested, terbinafine possessed the highest antifungal activity against all of the dermatophytes. The mean +/- standard error of the mean MICs of fluconazole, itraconazole, terbinafine, and griseofulvin were 2.07 +/- 0.29, 0.13 +/- 0.01, 0.002 +/- 0.0003, and 0.71 +/- 0.05 microgram/ml, respectively. This study is the first step in the identification of optimal conditions that could be used for the standardization of the antifungal susceptibility testing method for dermatophytes. Inter- and intralaboratory agreement as well as clinical correlations need to be established.