<i>In vitro</i>activities of posaconazole, ravuconazole, terbinafine, itraconazole and fluconazole against dermatophyte, yeast and non-dermatophyte species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The in vitro activities of two new triazole antifungal agents with broad-spectrum antifungal activity, posaconazole and ravuconazole, were compared with those of three well-established antifungal agents, terbinafine, itraconazole and fluconazole, against 184 clinical isolates. These included 129 dermatophyte isolates (twelve species), 25 yeast isolates (five species) and 28 non-dermatophyte isolates (nine species). In vitro testing was conducted using microdilution plates with RPMI 1640 and National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) guidelines (M27-38P) were followed, except for the preparation of the dermatophyte inoculum. Both posaconazole and ravuconazole showed similar broad-spectrum activity against dermatophyte, yeast and non-dermatophyte species. Mean inhibitory concentrations (MIC) at which 90% [MIC90] of the isolates were inhibited by posaconazole and ravuconazole were 0.25 and 0.5 microg/ml for dermatophytes, 0.5 and 0.25 microg/ml for yeasts, and >4 and 8 microg/ml for non-dermatophytes. The MIC ranges against Trichophyton (six species), Microsporum (five species) and Epidermophyton flocossum were: posaconazole (0.007-1.0/0.007-0.25/0.007-1.0 microg/ml), ravuconazole (0.015-8.0/0.015-1.0/0.015-1.0 microg/ml), itraconazole (0.015- >8.0/0.015-0.5/ 0.015-8.0 microg/ml), fluconazole (0.125- >64.0/4.0 >64.0/0.5-64.0 microg/ml) and terbinafine (0.003 >2.0/0.007-2.0/0.007 >2.0 microg/ml). Overall ranking of the antifungal activity of the five antifungal agents was: terbinafine > posaconazole > ravuconazole > itraconazole > fluconazole, for dermatophytes; ravuconazole > posaconazole > itraconazole > fluconazole > terbinafine, against yeasts; and posaconazole > ravuconazole > terbinafine > itraconazole > fluconazole, for non-dermatophytes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".