In vitro susceptibility testing of ciclopirox, terbinafine, ketoconazole and itraconazole against dermatophytes and nondermatophytes, and in vitro evaluation of combination antifungal activity
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: With the development of newer antifungal agents with activity against both yeasts and filamentous fungi, there is an increased need to develop and standardize in vitro assays that will evaluate the activity of antimycotics against filamentous fungi. In vitro analysis of antifungal activity of these agents would also allow for the comparison between different antimycotics, which in turn may clarify the reasons for lack of clinical response or serve as an effective therapy for patients with chronic infection. OBJECTIVES: To determine the in vitro susceptibility of fungal organisms to ciclopirox, terbinafine, ketoconazole and itraconazole and to evaluate the in vitro activity and mode of interaction of ciclopirox in combination with either terbinafine or itraconazole. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) study 133 strains were evaluated, including dermatophytes (110 strains; 98 from Trichophyton spp.), Candida spp. (14 strains) and nondermatophyte moulds (nine strains). In vitro susceptibility testing was conducted in microbroth dilutions based on the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) M27-A proposed standard. The testing MIC ranges were 0.003-2 microg mL-1 for ciclopirox and terbinafine, and 0.06-32 microg mL-1 for itraconazole and ketoconazole. For inoculum preparation, dermatophytes were grown on Heinz oatmeal cereal agar slants. Inoculum suspensions of dermatophytes were diluted in RPMI 1640 (Sigma-Aldrich) with the desired final concentration being 2-5 x 103 c.f.u. mL-1. Once inoculated, the microdilution plates were set up according to the NCCLS M27-A method, incubated at 35 degrees C, and read visually following 7 days of incubation. For azole agents, the MIC was the lowest concentration showing 80% growth inhibition; for terbinafine and ciclopirox, the MIC was the lowest concentration showing 100% growth inhibition. In the synergy studies, 29 strains from nondermatophyte species were evaluated using a checkerboard microdilution method. The concentrations tested were: 0 and 0.06-32 microg mL-1 for itraconazole, and 0 and 0.003-4 microg mL-1 for both terbinafine and ciclopirox. Modes of interaction between drugs were classified as synergism, additivism, antagonism or indifference based on fractional inhibitory concentration index values (FIC index). Synergism was defined as an FIC index of < or = 0.50, additivity as an FIC index of < or = 1.0, and antagonism as an FIC index of > or = 2.0. The drug combination was interpreted as indifferent if neither of the drugs had any visible effect on the presence of the other drug. RESULTS: In the MIC study, the dermatophyte MIC values (microg mL-1) (mean +/- SEM) were: ciclopirox (0.04 +/- 0.02), terbinafine (0.04 +/- 0.23), itraconazole (2.28 +/- 7.42) and ketoconazole (0.83 +/- 1.99). The yeast MIC values (microg mL-1) (mean +/- SEM) were: ciclopirox (0.05 +/- 0.02), terbinafine (1.77 +/- 0.58), itraconazole (0.18 +/- 0.27) and ketoconazole (0.56 +/- 0.60). The non-dermatophyte fungi MIC values (microg mL-1) (mean +/- SEM) were: ciclopirox (1.04 +/- 2.62), terbinafine (1.04 +/- 0.95), itraconazole (17.87 +/- 16.75) and ketoconazole (10.69 +/- 13.09). In the synergy study, with ciclopirox in combination with terbinafine, mainly a synergistic or additive reaction was observed; there were no cases of antagonism. For ciclopirox in combination with itraconazole, there were some instances of additivism or synergism, with indifference in the majority of instances; there were no cases of antagonism. CONCLUSIONS: In vitro susceptibility testing indicates that ciclopirox may have a broad antimicrobial profile including dermatophytes, yeasts and other nondermatophytes. Terbinafine is extremely potent against dermatophytes. In vitro evaluation of activity of ciclopirox and terbinafine suggests many instances of synergy or additivism; for ciclopirox and itraconazole there may be indifference, synergy or additivism.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».