Display options
Cite
Aktas AE, Yigit N, Aktas A, et al. Investigation of In Vitro Activity of Five Antifungal Drugs against Dermatophytes Species Isolated from Clinical Samples Using the E-Test Method. Eurasian J Med. 2014;46(1):26-31doi: 10.5152/eajm.2014.05.
Aktas, A. E., Yigit, N., Aktas, A., & Gozubuyuk, S. G. (2014). Investigation of In Vitro Activity of Five Antifungal Drugs against Dermatophytes Species Isolated from Clinical Samples Using the E-Test Method. The Eurasian journal of medicine, 46(1), 26-31. https://doi.org/10.5152/eajm.2014.05
Aktas, Ayse Esin, et al. "Investigation of In Vitro Activity of Five Antifungal Drugs against Dermatophytes Species Isolated from Clinical Samples Using the E-Test Method." The Eurasian journal of medicine vol. 46,1 (2014): 26-31. doi: https://doi.org/10.5152/eajm.2014.05
Aktas AE, Yigit N, Aktas A, Gozubuyuk SG. Investigation of In Vitro Activity of Five Antifungal Drugs against Dermatophytes Species Isolated from Clinical Samples Using the E-Test Method. Eurasian J Med. 2014 Feb;46(1):26-31. doi: 10.5152/eajm.2014.05. PMID: 25610290; PMCID: PMC4261438.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Eurasian J Med. 2014 Feb;46(1):26-31. doi: 10.5152/eajm.2014.05.

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

The Eurasian journal of medicine

Ayse Esin Aktas, Nimet Yigit, Akin Aktas, Sultan Gamze Gozubuyuk

Affiliations

  1. Department of Microbiology and Clinical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
  2. Department of Medical Laboratory, Ataturk University Health Services Vocational School, Erzurum, Turkey.
  3. Department of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey.

PMID: 25610290 PMCID: PMC4261438 DOI: 10.5152/eajm.2014.05

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Dermatophytes; E-test; antifungal

References

  1. Eur J Dermatol. 2005 Jul-Aug;15(4):258-61 - PubMed
  2. J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Sep;38(9):3359-61 - PubMed
  3. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2009 Jan-Feb;51(1):9-12 - PubMed
  4. Rev Iberoam Micol. 2005 Jun;22(2):110-3 - PubMed
  5. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2007 Nov;32(6):675-9 - PubMed
  6. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2006 Jun;50(6):2222-4 - PubMed
  7. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2007 Aug;30(2):157-61 - PubMed
  8. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2004 Apr;48(4):259-64 - PubMed
  9. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2001 Sep;45(9):2524-8 - PubMed
  10. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1997 May;39(5):591-6 - PubMed
  11. J Clin Microbiol. 2003 Oct;41(10):4817-9 - PubMed
  12. Mikrobiyol Bul. 2008 Jan;42(1):95-102 - PubMed
  13. Med Mycol. 2003 Apr;41(2):125-30 - PubMed
  14. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2010 Aug;35(6):658-63 - PubMed
  15. Arch Dermatol Res. 2007 May;299(2):107-9 - PubMed
  16. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo. 2008 Jan-Feb;50(1):1-5 - PubMed
  17. Br J Dermatol. 2003 Aug;149(2):296-305 - PubMed

Publication Types