Cargando…
Comparison of Four Methods for the in vitro Susceptibility Testing of Dermatophytes
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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7371995/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32760372 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.01593 |
_version_ | 1783561222283591680 |
---|---|
author | Markantonatou, Anthi-Marina Samaras, Konstantinos Zachrou, Evaggelia Vyzantiadis, Timoleon-Achilleas |
author_facet | Markantonatou, Anthi-Marina Samaras, Konstantinos Zachrou, Evaggelia Vyzantiadis, Timoleon-Achilleas |
author_sort | Markantonatou, Anthi-Marina |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. METHODS: Three alternative methods were compared to the EUCAST proposed methodology for conidia forming molds. The last was defined as the reference method. The methods under evaluation were (a) a fragmented mycelia method, (b) the EUCAST method with the addition of resazurin sodium salt solution and (c) the fragmented mycelia method with the addition of resazurin sodium salt solution. Twenty-two isolates (8 Trichophyton interdigitale, 8 T. rubrum, and 6 Microsporum canis) were tested against the antifungal agents of griseofulvin, terbinafine, fluconazole, and itraconazole. RESULTS: The essential agreement between the methods was calculated in percentages and a statistical analysis of the results was performed. Data evaluation revealed sufficient overall agreement of the methods with the addition of resazurin to the initial “uncolored” methods (98.9 and 97.5% for the EUCAST and the fragmented mycelia methods, respectively). The fragmented mycelia method exhibited a relatively sufficient overall agreement in comparison to the EUCAST method (90%) and not a satisfactory correlation, probably as a result of various issues of standardization. CONCLUSION: The EUCAST method was found to be the more reliable one, whereas the addition of resazurin sodium salt solution facilitates the reading and provides a reliable and objective evaluation. The fragmented mycelia method could serve as an alternative that should be applied only in cases of poor or no sporulating dermatophytes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7371995 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73719952020-08-04 Comparison of Four Methods for the in vitro Susceptibility Testing of Dermatophytes Markantonatou, Anthi-Marina Samaras, Konstantinos Zachrou, Evaggelia Vyzantiadis, Timoleon-Achilleas Front Microbiol Microbiology 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. METHODS: Three alternative methods were compared to the EUCAST proposed methodology for conidia forming molds. The last was defined as the reference method. The methods under evaluation were (a) a fragmented mycelia method, (b) the EUCAST method with the addition of resazurin sodium salt solution and (c) the fragmented mycelia method with the addition of resazurin sodium salt solution. Twenty-two isolates (8 Trichophyton interdigitale, 8 T. rubrum, and 6 Microsporum canis) were tested against the antifungal agents of griseofulvin, terbinafine, fluconazole, and itraconazole. RESULTS: The essential agreement between the methods was calculated in percentages and a statistical analysis of the results was performed. Data evaluation revealed sufficient overall agreement of the methods with the addition of resazurin to the initial “uncolored” methods (98.9 and 97.5% for the EUCAST and the fragmented mycelia methods, respectively). The fragmented mycelia method exhibited a relatively sufficient overall agreement in comparison to the EUCAST method (90%) and not a satisfactory correlation, probably as a result of various issues of standardization. CONCLUSION: The EUCAST method was found to be the more reliable one, whereas the addition of resazurin sodium salt solution facilitates the reading and provides a reliable and objective evaluation. The fragmented mycelia method could serve as an alternative that should be applied only in cases of poor or no sporulating dermatophytes. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-07-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7371995/ /pubmed/32760372 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.01593 Text en Copyright © 2020 Markantonatou, Samaras, Zachrou and Vyzantiadis. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Microbiology Markantonatou, Anthi-Marina Samaras, Konstantinos Zachrou, Evaggelia Vyzantiadis, Timoleon-Achilleas Comparison of Four Methods for the in vitro Susceptibility Testing of Dermatophytes |
title | Comparison of Four Methods for the in vitro Susceptibility Testing of Dermatophytes |
title_full | Comparison of Four Methods for the in vitro Susceptibility Testing of Dermatophytes |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Four Methods for the in vitro Susceptibility Testing of Dermatophytes |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Four Methods for the in vitro Susceptibility Testing of Dermatophytes |
title_short | Comparison of Four Methods for the in vitro Susceptibility Testing of Dermatophytes |
title_sort | comparison of four methods for the in vitro susceptibility testing of dermatophytes |
topic | Microbiology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7371995/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32760372 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.01593 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT markantonatouanthimarina comparisonoffourmethodsfortheinvitrosusceptibilitytestingofdermatophytes AT samaraskonstantinos comparisonoffourmethodsfortheinvitrosusceptibilitytestingofdermatophytes AT zachrouevaggelia comparisonoffourmethodsfortheinvitrosusceptibilitytestingofdermatophytes AT vyzantiadistimoleonachilleas comparisonoffourmethodsfortheinvitrosusceptibilitytestingofdermatophytes |