| Literature DB >> 32760372 |
Anthi-Marina Markantonatou1, Konstantinos Samaras1, Evaggelia Zachrou1, Timoleon-Achilleas Vyzantiadis1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Infections caused by dermatophytes affect a high percentage of the population. Antifungal susceptibility testing (AST) can offer useful information about the susceptibility profiles of the pathogens as well as the concomitant documentation of the appropriate treatment. However, the slow growth rate of these fungi and their poor sporulation are factors that can delay and affect the performance of the AST. The proposed methods by the CLSI or the EUCAST are both laborious for the everyday routine. There are alternative applications which propose the use of an inoculum, consisting of a conidia-mycelium mixture or even plain mycelia, as well as the use of resazurin in order to facilitate the reading. The aim of this study was to compare these approaches to the EUCAST method and evaluate their performance.Entities:
Keywords: EUCAST; dermatophytes; fragmented mycelia; resazurin; susceptibility
Year: 2020 PMID: 32760372 PMCID: PMC7371995 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01593
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
MICs obtained by the EUCAST and the fragmented mycelia methods (mg/L).
| EUCAST method | Fragmented mycelia method | |||||||
| griseo | itra | fluco | terbi | griseo | itra | fluco | terbi | |
| 1 | 2 | 0.25 | 4 | <0.031 | 1 | 0.125 | 2 | <0.031 |
| 2 | 4 | 1 | 8 | <0.031 | 2 | 0.5 | 4 | <0.031 |
| 3 | 4 | 2 | 32 | <0.031 | 2 | 0.5 | 8 | <0.031 |
| 4 | 4 | 1 | 16 | <0.031 | 0.5 | 0.125 | 4 | <0.031 |
| 5 | 4 | 2 | 64 | 0.063 | 0.5 | 0.125 | 4 | <0.031 |
| 6 | 1 | 0.25 | 32 | <0.031 | 2 | 0.5 | 64 | <0.031 |
| 7 | 2 | 0.5 | 32 | <0.031 | 2 | 0.5 | 16 | <0.031 |
| 8 | 1 | 0.25 | 8 | <0.031 | 1 | 0.125 | 4 | <0.031 |
| 1 | 1 | 0.25 | 4 | <0.031 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 4 | <0.031 |
| 2 | 1 | 0.125 | 32 | <0.031 | 1 | 0.125 | 32 | <0.031 |
| 3 | 1 | 0.25 | 8 | <0.031 | 1 | 0.125 | 2 | <0.031 |
| 4 | 4 | 0.25 | 64 | <0.031 | 1 | 0.25 | 64 | <0.031 |
| 5 | 2 | 0.5 | 8 | <0.031 | 2 | 0.25 | 32 | <0.031 |
| 6 | 1 | 0.5 | 128 | <0.031 | 0.031 | 0.063 | 8 | <0.031 |
| 7 | 1 | 0.063 | 8 | <0.031 | 0.5 | 0.125 | 16 | <0.031 |
| 8 | 2 | 1 | 16 | <0.031 | 2 | 0.25 | 4 | <0.031 |
| 1 | 0.25 | 0.125 | 8 | <0.031 | 0.5 | 0.125 | 8 | <0.031 |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 0.063 | 0.5 | 0.25 | 8 | <0.031 |
| 3 | 0.5 | 0.125 | 16 | <0.031 | 0.25 | 0.031 | 4 | <0.031 |
| 4 | 1 | 0.5 | 16 | <0.031 | 1 | 0.25 | 8 | <0.031 |
| 5 | 0.25 | 0.125 | 16 | <0.031 | * | * | * | * |
| 6 | 0.5 | 0.125 | 8 | <0.031 | * | * | * | * |
Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) distribution of griseofulvin, itraconazole, fluconazole, and terbinafine against the isolates tested by the EUCAST broth microdilution method (mg/L).
| MICs | <0.031 | 0.063 | 0.125 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 |
| Griseofulvin | 5 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Itraconazole | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||
| Fluconazole | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Terbinafine | 8 | ||||||||||||
| Griseofulvin | 2 | 2 | 4 | ||||||||||
| Itraconazole | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||
| Fluconazole | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | ||||||||
| Terbinafine | 7 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Griseofulvin | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
| Itraconazole | 4 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Fluconazole | 2 | 4 | |||||||||||
| Terbinafine | 5 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Griseofulvin | 2 | 2 | 9 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||
| Itraconazole | 1 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 2 | |||||||
| Fluconazole | 2 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |||||||
| Terbinafine | 20 | 2 |
Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) ranges and MIC50 of griseofulvin, itraconazole, fluconazole and terbinafine against the isolates tested by EUCAST broth microdilution method (mg/L).
| MIC range | MIC50 | |
| Griseofulvin | 1–4 | 1 |
| Itraconazole | 0.063–1 | 0.25 |
| Fluconazole | 4–128 | 8 |
| Terbinafine | <0.031–<0.031 | <0.031 |
| Griseofulvin | 1–4 | 2 |
| Itraconazole | 0.25–2 | 0.5 |
| Fluconazole | 4–64 | 16 |
| Terbinafine | <0.031–0.063 | <0.031 |
| Griseofulvin | 0.25–1 | 0.5 |
| Itraconazole | 0.125–1 | 0.125 |
| Fluconazole | 8–16 | 16 |
| Terbinafine | <0.031–0.063 | <0.031 |
| Griseofulvin | 0.25–4 | 1 |
| Itraconazole | 0.063–2 | 0.25 |
| Fluconazole | 4–128 | 16 |
| Terbinafine | <0.031–0.063 | <0.031 |
FIGURE 1Comparison of the essential agreement between EUCAST and fragmented mycelia method with the agreement between EUCAST and EUCAST with the addition of resazurin.
Essential agreement between the methods under evaluation.
| EUCAST/fragmented mycelia | EUCAST/EUCAST-resazurin | Fragmented mycelia/fragmented mycelia-resazurin | |
| Griseofulvin | 7/8 (87.5%) | 8/8 (100%) | 7/8 (87.5%) |
| Itraconazole | 7/8 (87.5%) | 8/8 (100%) | 8/8 (100%) |
| Fluconazole | 7/8 (87.5%) | 7/8 (87.5%) | 8/8 (100%) |
| Terbinafine | 8/8 (100%) | 8/8 (100%) | 8/8 (100%) |
| Griseofulvin | 6/8 (75%) | 8/8 (100%) | 8/8 (100%) |
| Itraconazole | 6/8 (75%) | 8/8 (100%) | 8/8 (100%) |
| Fluconazole | 7/8 (87.5%) | 8/8 (100%) | 8/8 (100%) |
| Terbinafine | 8/8 (100%) | 8/8 (100%) | 8/8 (100%) |
| Griseofulvin | 4/4 (100%) | 6/6 (100%) | 4/4 (100%) |
| Itraconazole | 4/4 (100%) | 6/6 (100%) | 4/4 (100%) |
| Fluconazole | 4/4 (100%) | 6/6 (100%) | 3/4 (75%) |
| Terbinafine | 4/4 (100%) | 6/6 (100%) | 4/4 (100%) |
| Griseofulvin | 17/20 (85%) | 22/22 (100%) | 19/20 (95%) |
| Itraconazole | 17/20 (85%) | 22/22 (100%) | 20/20 (100%) |
| Fluconazole | 18/20 (90%) | 21/22 (95.5%) | 19/20 (95%) |
| Terbinafine | 20/20 (100%) | 22/22 (100%) | 20/20 (100%) |
| 72/80 (90%) | 87/88 (98.9%) | 78/80 (97.5%) | |
FIGURE 2View of a plate at day 5. In every row, columns 1–10, contain serial dilutions of the antifungals. Column 11 includes growth controls and column 12 negative controls. Rows E, F, G and H contain resazurin sodium salt solution. Antifungal agents: rows A,E: griseofulvin, B,F: itraconazole, C,G: fluconazole, D,H: terbinafine.
FIGURE 3View of a plate after 10 days of incubation. The over-reduction of resazurin has yielded the uncolored product hydroresorufin.