Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, January 2001, p. 385-388, Vol. 39, No. 1
Department of Pathology, University of Texas
Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas
78284-7881,1 and Audie Murphy Division,
South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, Texas
78284-77502
Received 13 July 2000/Returned for modification 25 August
2000/Accepted 6 November 2000
The in vitro activities of voriconazole against 19 different
species of dermatophytes were compared with those of terbinafine, itraconazole, ketoconazole, griseofulvin, and fluconazole. MICs were
determined according to a National Committee for Clinical Laboratory
Standards broth macrodilution method. Voriconazole appeared more active
than ketoconazole, griseofulvin, and fluconazole and less active than
itraconazole and terbinafine. Based on these results, voriconazole
merits further investigation as a potentially useful agent for the
treatment of dermatophytosis.
The dermatophytes are a group of
closely related fungal species that have the capacity to invade
keratinized tissue of humans and other animals and produce
dermatophytosis. The organisms belong to three genera,
Trichophyton, Epidermophyton, and
Microsporum (7, 17). The treatment of these
cutaneous infections is based on the use of topical and systemic
antifungal agents. While topical application of an antifungal is
usually sufficient to eradicate the organism and to cure the majority
of these afflictions, the most severe and chronic dermathophytosis,
which includes tinea capitis and tinea unguium, often requires the
administration of systemic treatments. Antifungal drugs, such as the
allylamines (terbinafine) and the orally active triazoles
(itraconazole), have been reported to have substantial activity in
these diseases and are currently used in the treatment of
dermatophytosis (6, 15, 16).
Voriconazole (UK-109,496) is a novel broad-spectrum triazole antifungal
agent similar in structure and spectrum of action to fluconazole and
itraconazole, respectively (1). This agent has
demonstrated substantial preclinical activity, in both in vitro
and in vivo models against a variety of fungi, such as dimorphic fungi,
yeasts, and opportunistic filamentous fungi (including dermatophytes)
(2, 3, 9, 14, 18; A. Espinel-Ingroff, A. del Palacio, and
M. Moore, Abstr. 38th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.,
abstr. J-7, p. 452, 1998).
The present study compares the in vitro activities of voriconazole and
several of the established agents used for the treatment of
dermatophytosis, including griseofulvin, itraconazole, terbinafine, ketoconazole, and fluconazole against isolates of 19 species of dermatophytes using a broth macrodilution method.
A total of 100 strains of dermatophytes were evaluated, consisting of
Trichophyton rubrum (n = 27), Trichophyton
mentagrophytes (n = 23), Epidermophyton floccosum
(n = 10), Trichophyton tonsurans (n = 7),
Microsporum canis and Trichophyton gypseum (6 each), Trichophyton verrucosum (n = 4),
Trichophyton equinum (n = 3), Microsporum
nanum, Microsporum audouinnii, and
Trichophyton soudanense (2 each), and Trichophyton
terrestre, Trichophyton megninii,
Trichophyton raubitschekii, Microsporum
cookel, Microsporum persicolor, Microsporum ferrugineum, Trichophyton erinacei, and
Microsporum distortum (1 each). The identification of
the different organisms was based on the macroscopic and
microscopic characteristics of the strains when they were grown
in culture (7, 17). Further classification was based on
additional tests, including the production of red pigment when grown on
potato-glucose agar, urease activity, growth in different vitamin and
amino acid test agars (Trichophyton agars), and a hair
perforation test. The isolates, maintained frozen in the Fungus
Testing Laboratory, University of Texas Health Science Center (UTHSC)
collection, were revived and subcultured onto potato flake agar tubes.
Voriconazole (Pfizer Pharmaceutical Group, New York, N.Y.),
itraconazole (Janssen Pharmaceutica, Beerse, Belgium),
terbinafine (Novartis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Basel, Switzerland),
ketoconazole (Janssen Pharmaceutica), and griseofulvin (Novartis
Pharmaceuticals Inc.) were provided as standard powders by the
manufacturers. Fluconazole was provided as a liquid formulation
(Diflucan; Pfizer Pharmaceutical Group). Voriconazole (2,000 µg/ml),
itraconazole (5,000 µg/ml), and terbinafine (1,000 µg/ml) stock
solutions were prepared in 100% polyethylene glycol (PEG). Fluconazole
(2,000 µg/ml) and ketoconazole (1,600 µg/ml) stock solutions were
prepared in sterile distilled water while griseofulvin (3,200 µg/ml)
was prepared in ethyl alcohol. Final drug concentrations were 0.015 to
8 µg/ml for itraconazole, 0.03 to 16 µg/ml for ketoconazole, 0.125 to 64 µg/ml for fluconazole and voriconazole, 0.03 to 8 µg/ml for
griseofulvin, and 0.004 to 2 µg/ml for terbinafine. Tenfold drug
concentrations prepared in twofold serial dilutions (0.1-ml drug
volume) were maintained at Stock inocula of the molds were prepared from 7- to 14-day cultures
grown on potato flake agar at 30 to 35°C. Mature colonies were
covered with approximately 2 ml of sterile water, and suspensions were
made by gently probing the colony with the tip of a sterile Pasteur
pipette. The resulting suspended mixture was withdrawn and transferred
to a sterile tube. Heavy particles of the suspension (when they were
present) were allowed to settle for 3 to 5 min, and the upper
homogeneous suspension was used for further testing. The suspensions
were mixed for 15 s with a vortex mixer, and their densities were
read at 530 nm and adjusted to 95% transmittance (T). The suspensions
containing conidia and hyphal fragments were diluted 1:10 with RPMI
1640 medium (pH 7.0, with 0.165 M morpholinepropanesulfonic acid
[MOPS]) to obtain the final desired inoculum size of approximately 0.5 × 104 to 5 × 104 CFU/ml.
MICs were determined according to a National Committee for Clinical
Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) broth macrodilution method for yeasts,
which was modified for mold testing (NCCLS M-27A) (4, 10).
On the day of the test, the 10× drug dilutions were thawed, and then
each tube was inoculated by adding 0.9 ml of the corresponding
well-mixed, diluted conidial suspension (final volume of each tube was
10 ml). Growth and sterility control tubes were included for each
isolate tested. The growth control contained a 0.9-ml volume of
inoculum suspension and a 0.1-ml volume of drug-free medium. A
sterility control was run in parallel by including a 1-ml volume of
uninoculated, drug-free medium. A quality control isolate
of T. rubrum (UTHSC 91-661) was tested each
time a set of isolates was evaluated. Tubes were incubated at 35°C
(H. A. Plavan, B. E. Elewski, and M. A. Ghannoum,
Abstr. 37th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., abstr.
D-143, p. 108, 1997). Growth control tubes were observed for the
presence or absence of visible growth. When growth was visible, each
tube was vortexed for 10 s immediately prior to being scored,
which allowed the detection of a small amount of growth. The growth in
each tube was compared with that of the growth control tube. Each tube
was given a numerical score as follows: 0, optically clear or the absence of growth; 1, dramatic reduction in turbidity compared to that
of the drug-free control tube; 2, clear reduction in turbidity as
compared to that of the drug-free control tube (>80% reduction); 3, slight reduction in turbidity as compared to that of the drug-free control tube; and 4, no reduction in turbidity as compared to that of
the drug-free control tube. The MICs of azoles and terbinafine were
determined to have a score of 2, and the MIC of griseofulvin was
given a score of 0. MIC ranges were obtained for each species-drug combination tested. Geometric mean MICs were determined to facilitate comparisons of the activities of the drugs, as well as readings of the
MIC at which 50% of the isolates are inhibited (MIC50) and
MIC90.
All isolates of dermatophytes tested produced detectable growth
at time points ranging from 6 to 10 days (M. canis,
M. gypseum, M. cookei, T. mentagrophytes, T. megninii, T. terrestre, E. floccosum) and up to 12 to 21 days
(T. rubrum, T. tonsurans,
M. ferrugineum, T. soudanense, Trichophyton
schoenleini, T. verrucosum, Trichophyton violaceum, M. persicolor, T. equinum, T. erinacei, M. audouinii). The range of the inoculum size obtained at 95% T
(530-nm wavelength) was 0.5 × 104 to 5 × 104 CFU/ml. The ranges of MICs for the macrodilution test
of the six drugs are summarized in Tables
1 and
2. The
MIC readings were taken 48 h after sufficient growth in the
no-drug control tubes had occurred. The growths of the dermatophytes in
those cases that PEG was used to dissolve the drug were slower compared to those in which distilled water was used, necessitating longer periods of incubation (48 to 72 h versus 10 to 14 days), with all
genera being equally affected. This phenomenon made it critical that
MIC tubes containing PEG were read against PEG growth control tubes.
While PEG clearly affected the times of the readings, it did not affect
drug activities, read as MICs in this test system.
0095-1137/01/$04.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.1.385-388.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Comparison of In Vitro Activities of Voriconazole and Five
Established Antifungal Agents against Different Species of
Dermatophytes Using a Broth Macrodilution Method
![]()
ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
![]()
TEXT
Top
Abstract
Text
References
70°C until needed.
TABLE 1.
MICS of the six drugs against the three genera
of dermatophytes
TABLE 2.
MICs of the six drugs against the 19 different
species of dermatophytes
The observed MICs of all the drugs tested showed a broad range of variability against the different species of Microsporum and Trichophyton. The calculated MICs of the controls were within an acceptable range for the six drugs tested. The genus Epidermophyton was the most susceptible to voriconazole, with Microsporum spp. and Trichophyton spp. being less susceptible. Differences in the susceptibilities of the various species of Microsporum and Trichophyton are depicted in the tables. M. nanum and M. gypseum were the most susceptible and M. audouinii was the least susceptible. In the case of Trichophyton spp., the most susceptible species were T. erinacei and T. raubistchekii, with T. verrucosum, T. terrestre, and T. megninii being the least susceptible. The comparison of the in vitro susceptibilities to voriconazole and the other agents showed that voriconazole was more active than ketoconazole, griseofulvin, and fluconazole against all species and was less active than itraconazole and terbinafine.
These results support and extend findings of previous reports which evaluated the activity of voriconazole against dermatophytes using various in vitro susceptibility test methods (broth macrodilution technique not following NCCLS methodology and broth microdilution technique using NCCLS reference method). In agreement with previous reports, we found that the in vitro activity of voriconazole was superior to those of ketoconazole, griseofulvin, and fluconazole. There were, however, some discrepancies in the cases of terbinafine and itraconazole. In one of the previous reports, voriconazole appeared to be less active than itraconazole, which was in agreement with our findings, whereas in another study voriconazole showed activity greater than those of itraconazole and terbinafine (18; Espinel-Ingroff et al., 38th ICAAC). This could be attributed, at least partially, to the different methodology employed and the lack of standardized protocols. To date, there is only a proposed reference method for determining broth dilution antifungal susceptibility of filamentous fungi (11). As has been demonstrated in previous studies, variations in critical technical factors, such as inoculum size (variability in the proportion of different fungal structures, such as hyphae, macroconidia, and microconidia), type of medium, incubation temperature, and time of reading, are potential factors that may explain the different results in antifungal susceptibility testing obtained by various investigators and laboratories (5, 8, 12, 13; A. Espinol-Ingroff, Abstr. 37th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., abstr. J-7, p. 452, 1997; J. Martin, A. W. Fothergill, and M. G. Rinaldi, Abstr. 31st Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., abstr. 479, p. 179, 1991). Nevertheless, and despite technical difficulties and constraints, these results demonstrate that voriconazole displays substantial activity against the majority of the dermatophytes, compares favorably with other widely used antifungal agents, and supports the clinical evaluation of voriconazole in this setting.
(This work was presented in part at the 99th General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, Chicago, Ill., 1999.)
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Dr., Mail code 7881, San Antonio, TX 78229-3900. Phone: (210) 567-1981. Fax: (210) 567-3303. E-mail: PEREA{at}UTHSCSA.EDU.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | Bailey, E. M., D. J. Krakovsky, and M. J. Rybak. 1990. The triazole antifungal agents: a review of itraconazole and fluconazole. Pharmacotherapy 10:146-153[Medline]. |
| 2. | Barry, A. L., and S. D. Brown. 1996. In vitro studies of two triazole antifungal agents (voriconazole UK-109,496 and fluconazole) against Candida species. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 40:1948-1949[Abstract]. |
| 3. |
Espinel-Ingroff, A.
1998.
In vitro activity of the new triazole voriconazole (UK-109,496) against opportunistic filamentous and dimorphic fungi and common and emerging yeast pathogens.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
36:198-202 |
| 4. |
Espinel-Ingroff, A.,
K. Dawson,
M. Pfaller,
E. Anaissie,
B. Breslin,
D. Dixon,
A. W. Fothergill,
V. Paetnick,
J. Peter, and M. Rinaldi.
1995.
Comparative and collaborative evaluation of standardization of antifungal susceptibility testing for filamentous fungi.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
39:314-319 |
| 5. | Guarro, J., C. Llop, C. Aguilar, and I. Pujol. 1997. Comparison of in vitro antifungal susceptibilities of conidia and hyphae of filamentous fungi. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 41:2760-2762[Abstract]. |
| 6. | Gupta, A. K., T. R. Einarson, R. C. Summerbell, and N. H. Shear. 1988. An overview of topical antifungal therapy in dermatomycoses. A North American perspective. Drugs 55:645-674. |
| 7. | Larone, D. H. 1996. Culture and identification of dermatophytes. Clin. Microbiol. Newsl. 18:33-38. |
| 8. |
Manavathu, E. K.,
J. Cutright, and P. H. Chandrasekar.
1999.
Comparative study of susceptibilities of germinated and ungerminated conidia of Aspergillus fumigatus to various antifungal agents.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
37:858-861 |
| 9. | McGinnis, M. R., L. Pasarell, D. A. Sutton, A. W. Fothergill, C. R. Cooper, and M. G. Rinaldi. 1997. In vitro evaluation of voriconazole against some clinically important fungi. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 41:1832-1834[Abstract]. |
| 10. | National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 1997. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeasts. Approved standard M27-A. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa. |
| 11. | National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. 1998. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility of conidium-forming filamentous fungi. Proposed standard M28-P. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards, Wayne, Pa. |
| 12. | Pujol, I., J. Guarro, J. Sala, and M. D. Riba. 1997. Effects of incubation temperature, inoculum size, and time of reading of broth microdilution susceptibility test results for amphotericin B against Fusarium. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 41:808-811[Abstract]. |
| 13. | Pujol, I., J. Guarro, C. Llop, L. Soler, and J. Fernandez-Ballart. 1996. Comparison study of broth macrodilution and microdilution antifungal susceptibility tests for the filamentous fungi. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 40:2106-2110[Abstract]. |
| 14. | Radford, S. A., E. M. Johnson, and D. W. Warnock. 1997. In vitro studies of activity of voriconazole (UK-109,496), a new triazole antifungal agent, against emerging and less-common mold pathogen. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 41:841-843[Abstract]. |
| 15. | Roberts, D. T. 1997. Oral terbinafine (Lamisil) in the treatment of fungal infections of the skin and nails. Dermatology 194:37-39. |
| 16. | Saul, A., A. Bonifaz, and I. Arias. 1987. Itraconazole in the treatment of superficial mycoses: an open trial of 40 cases. Rev. Infect. Dis. 9:S100-S103. |
| 17. | Weitzman, I., and R. C. Summerbell. 1995. The dermatophytes. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 8:240-259[Abstract]. |
| 18. | Wildfeuer, A., H. P. Seidl, I. Paule, and A. Haberreiter. 1998. In vitro evaluation of voriconazole against clinical isolates of yeasts, moulds and dermatophytes in comparison with itraconazole, ketoconazole, amphotericin B and griseofulvin. Mycoses 41:309-319[Medline]. |
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»