Comparison of In Vitro Activities of 17 Antifungal Drugs against a Panel of 20 Dermatophytes by Using a Microdilution Assay (2024)

  • Journal List
  • J Clin Microbiol
  • v.41(10); 2003 Oct
  • PMC254304

As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsem*nt of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice

Comparison of In Vitro Activities of 17 Antifungal Drugs against a Panel of 20 Dermatophytes by Using a Microdilution Assay (1)

Link to Publisher's site

J Clin Microbiol. 2003 Oct; 41(10): 4817–4819.

PMCID: PMC254304

PMID: 14532230

Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer

Abstract

The in vitro activities of 17 antifungal drugs against a panel of 20 dermatophytes comprising 6 different species were determined using a microdilution assay according to the NCCLS M38-P method with some modifications. Terbinafine was the most potent systemic drug while tolnaftate and amorolfine were the most active topical agents.

Most superficial infections caused by dermatophytes can be rapidly eradicated with topical antifungals. However, two common dermatophytoses, tinea capitis and tinea unguium, do not respond well to such treatment and require the use of systemic antimycotics to be cured (2, 8, 23). Numerous topical agents and several systemic ones are available, but comparison of their in vitro activity against dermatophytes has been hampered by the lack of a well accepted MIC assay for these fungi (1, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18-20, 25). Recently, several groups have adapted the proposed reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of conidium-forming filamentous fungi (17) for developing a more specific assay for dermatophytes (6). Since the preparation of conidia inoculum is sometimes a challenge with dermatophytes, a microdilution assay appears to be the ideal format (5, 6, 13, 20). However, assay parameters, such as the temperature, duration, or growth inhibition endpoint, are still the subject of debate (11, 12, 21).

The NCCLS guidelines are primarily aimed toward susceptibility testing of clinical isolates. The aim of the present study was to establish an NCCLS-compatible assay, which was optimized for our primary purpose of evaluating investigative antifungal agents.

Twenty strains of dermatophytes, Trichophyton rubrum (n = 5), Trichophyton tonsurans (n = 5), Trichophyton mentagrophytes (n = 4), Microsporum canis (n = 4), Microsporum gypseum (n = 1), and Epidermophyton floccosum (n = 1), were employed. Five strains were obtained from either the fungal biodiversity center (Centralbureau voor Schimmelcultures, Utrecht, The Netherlands), T. mentagrophytes strain 560.66 (Novartis Fungal Index [NFI] 5606), T. tonsurans strains 171.65 (NFI 5177) and 729.88 (NFI 5178), or American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, Va.), T. rubrum strain 18759 (NFI 5182) and T. tonsurans strain 10217 (NFI 5176). The others were clinical isolates.

RPMI 1640 medium (Invitrogen) with l-glutamine and without bicarbonate was buffered at pH 7.0 with 0.165 M morpholinepropanesulfonic acid (Sigma). Terbinafine, naftifine, butenafine, voriconazole, and itraconazole were synthesized at Novartis. Fluconazole was extracted and purified from Diflucan tablets (Pfizer). Miconazole, amorolfine, and tolciclate were obtained from Janssen, Roche, and Montedison, respectively. Clotrimazole, econazole, ketoconazole, ciclopiroxolamine, tolnaftate, griseofulvine, and undecylenic acid were purchased from Sigma, while tioconazole was bought from U.S. Pharmacopeia. All drugs were dissolved and twofold serially diluted in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO).

All standard media were purchased from Merck. T. mentagrophytes, T. tonsurans, and E. floccosum were grown on Kimmig agar, T. rubrum was grown on potato dextrose agar, and M. canis and M. gypseum were grown on malt extract agar at 26°C for 2 to 3 weeks. Mycelium and spores were scraped from the plates and dispersed in a small volume of Sabouraud 2% dextrose broth (usually 20 ml for 25 plates) using a sterile glass hom*ogenizer. After addition of 5% DMSO as a cryoprotectant, the fungal suspension was stored at −80°C (7). The viable count was determined by serially diluting the stock in 0.86% NaCl and spreading 50 μl/plate on the same agar medium as the one used for the inoculum preparation.

Microdilution plates with flat-bottom well (Greiner) were set up in accordance with the NCCLS M38-P reference method (17). The final concentration of DMSO was 1%, and the inoculum size was 5 × 103 CFU/ml. Plates were incubated for 4 to 5 days, depending on the growth in control wells without drug, at 30°C for E. floccosum and M. canis and 35°C for the other dermatophytes. Growth inhibition was scored visually with the aid of an inverted magnifying mirror from 4 to 0 according to the NCCLS M38-P reference method, and MIC of all tested drugs corresponded to the lowest concentration giving a score of 1 (equivalent to about 75% inhibition). After MIC determination, the total volume of each well, starting from the last well in which growth was observed up to the highest drug concentration tested, was transferred into glass tubes containing 5 ml of Sabouraud 2% dextrose broth (pH 6.5). Tubes were incubated for 1 week at 30°C, and growth was inspected visually after shaking. The minimal fungicidal concentration (MFC) corresponded to the lowest drug concentration (in the assay plate) at which no viable fungus remained. All experiments were repeated at least twice (topical agents) or more (systemic drugs). MICs usually did not differ by more than one dilution step.

For our purpose of evaluating drugs against a defined set of dermatophytes, large-scale preparation of inoculum with well-defined CFU is advantageous. Therefore, we initially compared MICs obtained with four drugs, terbinafine, itraconazole, fluconazole, and griseofulvine, against a few dermatophytes using either fresh inocula prepared according to the method of Jessup et al. (13) or frozen inocula. The results indicated that both freezing and the presence of mycelium in the inoculum did not significantly affect MICs of antifungals, in agreement with results obtained by Manavathu et al. (15).

The ideal incubation temperature, 28 to 35°C, and time for antifungal susceptibility testing of dermatophytes are still a matter of debate. In our hands, M. canis and E. floccosum grew very poorly at 35°C, so we decreased the temperature to 30°C for these two species. Concerning the incubation time, 4 to 5 days was found to be sufficient to observe prominent growth in control wells without drug with our restricted panel of dermatophytes, which were selected from a larger panel on the basis of their abundant conidium production and robust growth properties.

There is no consensus concerning the optimal growth inhibition endpoint for MICs (5, 6, 21). We uniformly adopted a score of 1 as the MIC for all the tested drugs, as recommended by Norris et al. (20). The obtained MIC results are presented in Table ​Table1.1. Among the six systemic antifungals tested, fluconazole, griseofulvine, itraconazole, ketoconazole, terbinafine, and voriconazole, the allylamine terbinafine was the most potent agent. In our assay, voriconazole was significantly more active than itraconazole, in agreement with the findings of Fernandez-Torres et al. (6) but in contrast to the results of Perea et al. (21). The reason for these differences is unknown.

TABLE 1.

MIC of 17 antifungals against a panel of 20 dermatophytesa

DrugMIC for speciesbMIC50MIC90Geom. mean MICMFC50MFC90Geom. mean MFC
E. floc- cosumM. canisM. gyp- seumT. mentagrophytesT. rubrumT. tonsurans
01670150515451675168516401585137516556065132513951405143518201055175517651775178
TER0.0080.0080.0160.0160.0160.0160.0040.0040.0040.0080.0020.0040.0040.0040.0020.0020.0020.0080.0080.0080.0040.0160.0060.0630.1250.07
ITR0.2500.5000.2500.2500.2500.5001.0000.2500.1250.0630.2500.5000.2500.2500.5000.1250.0160.5000.1250.1250.250.50.23>4>4NC
KET0.131.001.001.001.001.001.000.500.130.130.060.130.130.060.030.250.130.250.060.060.1310.22>8>8NC
VOR0.0310.0310.0630.0630.0630.1250.0630.0630.0160.0310.0160.0160.0630.0160.0160.0310.0160.0630.0080.0310.0310.0630.033>2>2NC
FLU4161632326464162412411848244326.3>128>128NC
GRI0.500.0250.250.0500.250.251.000.250.500.500.500.500.500.500.500.130.130.500.500.250.50.50.378>32NC
BUT0.0310.0310.0310.0630.0310.0310.0080.0160.0080.0080.0160.0080.0310.0080.0040.0080.0080.0080.0160.0080.0080.0310.0140.1250.250.14
NFT0.0310.0630.0630.0630.0630.0630.0160.0310.0310.0310.0310.0160.0160.0160.0160.0160.0310.0160.0310.0310.0310.0630.029120.44
TCI0.0630.0630.0630.0630.0630.0630.0160.0630.0310.0630.0160.0160.0310.0310.0080.0080.0160.0040.0310.0160.0310.0630.0280.25>20.55
TLN0.0080.0630.0040.0080.0080.0040.0020.0040.0040.0040.0020.0010.0020.0020.0010.0010.0020.0010.0040.0040.0040.0080.003>0.25>0.25NC
CLT0.2500.0630.0160.0310.0630.0630.5000.0310.0630.2500.1250.1250.2500.1250.0630.0160.0160.2500.1250.1250.0630.250.083>4>4NC
ECO0.0160.0630.0630.0630.0310.1251.0000.0310.0080.0630.0160.0160.0310.0160.0160.0160.0160.0630.0160.0080.0160.0630.032>1>1NC
MCO0.250.500.500.500.501.00>2.000.250.130.500.250.130.060.130.060.130.130.500.500.250.250.50.2516>16NC
TIO0.0080.2500.2500.2500.2500.5001.0000.0630.0160.0630.0310.0310.1250.0080.0160.0310.0310.1250.0310.0630.0630.250.067>4>4NC
AMO0.0080.0040.0020.0020.0040.0010.0080.0040.0020.0080.0040.0040.0040.0040.0020.0020.0020.0080.0040.0040.0040.0080.0030.1250.25NC
CPX1.01.01.01.00.51.01.00.50.51.00.50.50.50.51.00.50.50.50.50.50.510.7>32>32NC
UDA64646464646464646464646464646412864323232646460>128>128NC

Open in a separate window

aAbbreviations: TER, terbinafine; ITR, itraconazole; KET, ketoconazole; VOR, voriconazole; FLU, fluconazole; GRI, griseofulvin; BUT, butenafine; NFT, naftifine; TCI, tolciclate; TLN, tolnaftate; CLT, clotrimazole; ECO, econazole; MCO, miconazole; TIO, tioconazole; AMO, amorolfine; CPX, ciclopiroxolamine; UDA, undecylenic acid; Geom., geometric; NC, not calculable. MICs are expressed in micrograms per milliliter. MIC50 and MIC90, MIC at which 50 and 90% of organisms are inhibited, respectively.

bSpecies and NFI identification number are given.

We also measured MFCs with a simple but rigorous method requiring complete elimination of viable particles in the culture well during the MIC incubation time, while MFC is often defined as a ≥99% reduction of CFU (3, 4, 16, 22, 24). Amorolfine and the squalene epoxidase inhibitors, butenafine, naftifine, and terbinafine, were systematically fungicidal toward our panel of dermatophytes within the range of tested concentrations, ≥32× the MIC at which 50% of the organisms were inhibited (Table ​(Table11).

In summary, the proposed microdilution assay for dermatophytes is convenient and reproducible. While parameters such as scoring range and MIC endpoint could be harmonized, it appears that the incubation temperature cannot be uniformly set at 35°C. The test strains were selected for adequate growth and normal susceptibility to standard drugs; we suggest that a comparable set of strains could be picked from any dermatophyte collection and used to obtain similar results. Among the systemic antifungals tested, terbinafine was the most potent, while tolnaftate and amorolfine were the most active topical agents.

Acknowledgments

We thank Ingrid Leitner for the preparation of dermatophyte inocula.

REFERENCES

1. Barchiesi, F., D. Arzeni, V. Camiletti, O. Simonetti, A. Cellini, A. M. Offidani, and G. Scalise. 2001. In vitro activity of posaconazole against clinical isolates of dermatophytes. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39:4208-4209. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Del Rosso, J. Q. 2000. Current management of onychomycosis and dermatomycoses. Curr. Infect. Dis. Rep. 2:438-445. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Espinel-Ingroff, A. 2001. In vitro fungicidal activities of voriconazole, itraconazole, and amphotericin B against opportunistic moniliaceous and dematiaceous fungi. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39:954-958. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Espinel-Ingroff, A., A. Fothergill, J. Peter, M. G. Rinaldi, and T. J. Walsh. 2002. Testing conditions for determination of minimum fungicidal concentrations of new and established antifungal agents for Aspergillus spp.: NCCLS collaborative study. J. Clin. Microbiol. 40:3204-3208. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Fernandez-Torres, B., A. J. Carrillo, E. Martin, A. Del Palacio, M. K. Moore, A. Valverde, M. Serrano, and J. Guarro. 2001. In vitro activities of 10 antifungal drugs against 508 dermatophyte strains. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 45:2524-2528. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Fernandez-Torres, B., H. Vazquez-Veiga, X. Llovo, M. Pereiro, Jr., and J. Guarro. 2000. In vitro susceptibility to itraconazole, clotrimazole, ketoconazole and terbinafine of 100 isolates of Trichophyton rubrum. Chemotherapy 46:390-394. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Georgopoulos, A. 1978. Deep-freeze preservation of fungi in liquid nitrogen as a basis for standardized inocula. Mykosen 21:19-23. (In German.) [PubMed]

8. Gupta, A. K., P. Adam, N. Dlova, C. W. Lynde, S. Hofstader, N. Morar, J. Aboobaker, and R. C. Summerbell. 2001. Therapeutic options for the treatment of tinea capitis caused by Trichophyton species: griseofulvin versus the new oral antifungal agents, terbinafine, itraconazole, and fluconazole. Pediatr. Dermatol. 18:433-438. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Hazen, K. C. 1998. Fungicidal versus fungistatic activity of terbinafine and itraconazole: an in vitro comparison. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 38:S37-S41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Hazen, K. C. 2000. Evaluation of in vitro susceptibility of dermatophytes to oral antifungal agents. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 43:125-129. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Hofbauer, B., I. Leitner, and N. S. Ryder. 2002. In vitro susceptibility of Microsporum canis and other dermatophyte isolates from veterinary infections during therapy with terbinafine or griseofulvin. Med. Mycol. 40:1-5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Jessup, C. J., N. S. Ryder, and M. A. Ghannoum. 2000. An evaluation of the in vitro activity of terbinafine. Med. Mycol. 38:155-159. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Jessup, C. J., J. Warner, N. Isham, I. Hasan, and M. A. Ghannoum. 2000. Antifungal susceptibility testing of dermatophytes: establishing a medium for inducing conidial growth and evaluation of susceptibility of clinical isolates. J. Clin. Microbiol. 38:341-344. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Korting, H. C., M. Ollert, and D. Abeck. 1995. Results of German multicenter study of antimicrobial susceptibilities of Trichophyton rubrum and Trichophyton mentagrophytes strains causing tinea unguium. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 39:1206-1208. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Manavathu, E. K., J. Cutright, and P. H. Chandrasekar. 1999. Comparative study of susceptibilities of germinated and ungerminated conidia of Aspergillus fumigatus to various antifungal agents. J. Clin. Microbiol. 37:858-861. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Moore, C. B., D. Law, and D. W. Denning. 1993. In-vitro activity of the new triazole D0870 compared with amphotericin B and itraconazole against Aspergillus spp. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 32:831-836. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 2000. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of conidium-forming filamentous fungi. Approved standard M38-A. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa.

18. Niewerth, M., V. Splanemann, H. C. Korting, J. Ring, and D. Abeck. 1998. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of dermatophytes—comparison of the agar macrodilution and broth microdilution tests. Chemotherapy 44:31-35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Nimura, K., Y. Niwano, S. Ishiduka, and R. f*ckumoto. 2001. Comparison of in vitro antifungal activities of topical antimycotics launched in 1990s in Japan. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 18:173-178. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Norris, H. A., B. E. Elewski, and M. A. Ghannoum. 1999. Optimal growth conditions for the determination of the antifungal susceptibility of three species of dermatophytes with the use of a microdilution method. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 40:S9-S13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Perea, S., A. W. Fothergill, D. A. Sutton, and M. G. Rinaldi. 2001. Comparison of in vitro activities of voriconazole and five established antifungal agents against different species of dermatophytes using a broth macrodilution method. J. Clin. Microbiol. 39:385-388. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Pujol, I., C. Aguilar, J. Fernandez-Ballart, and J. Guarro. 2000. Comparison of the minimum fungicidal concentration of amphotericin B determined in filamentous fungi by macrodilution and microdilution methods. Med. Mycol. 38:23-26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Roberts, D. T. 1999. Onychomycosis: current treatment and future challenges. Br. J. Dermatol. 141(Suppl. 56):1-4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Tawara, S., F. Ikeda, K. Maki, Y. Morish*ta, K. Otomo, N. Teratani, T. Goto, M. Tomishima, H. Ohki, A. Yamada, K. Kawabata, H. Takasugi, K. Sakane, H. Tanaka, F. Matsumoto, and S. Kuwahara. 2000. In vitro activities of a new lipopeptide antifungal agent, FK463, against a variety of clinically important fungi. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 44:57-62. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Wildfeuer, A., H. P. Seidl, I. Paule, and A. Haberreiter. 1998. In vitro evaluation of voriconazole against clinical isolates of yeasts, moulds and dermatophytes in comparison with itraconazole, ketoconazole, amphotericin B and griseofulvin. Mycoses 41:309-319. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Clinical Microbiology are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

Comparison of In Vitro Activities of 17 Antifungal Drugs against a Panel of 20 Dermatophytes by Using a Microdilution Assay (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Fredrick Kertzmann

Last Updated:

Views: 6025

Rating: 4.6 / 5 (66 voted)

Reviews: 89% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Fredrick Kertzmann

Birthday: 2000-04-29

Address: Apt. 203 613 Huels Gateway, Ralphtown, LA 40204

Phone: +2135150832870

Job: Regional Design Producer

Hobby: Nordic skating, Lacemaking, Mountain biking, Rowing, Gardening, Water sports, role-playing games

Introduction: My name is Fredrick Kertzmann, I am a gleaming, encouraging, inexpensive, thankful, tender, quaint, precious person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.