In vitro susceptibility testing of ciclopirox, terbinafine, ketoconazole and itraconazole against dermatophytes and nondermatophytes, and in vitro evaluation of combination antifungal activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".