IADVL
Indexed with PubMed and Science Citation Index (E) 
 
Users online: 5302 
     Home | Feedback | Login 
About Current Issue Archive Ahead of print Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe What's New Contact  
  NAVIGATE Here 
    Next article
    Previous article
    Table of Contents

 RESOURCE Links
    Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
  Related articles
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed421    
    Printed31    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded53    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 85  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 388--392

In vitro susceptibility of dermatophytes to oral antifungal drugs and amphotericin B in Uttar Pradesh, India


1 Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Department of Microbiology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
3 Division of Biostatics, Department of Community Medicine, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Satyendra Kumar Singh
Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijdvl.IJDVL_319_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: Dermatophytosis is a major public health problem in our country. Although resistance to conventional oral and topical antifungal agents is being increasingly encountered, the sensitivity pattern of dermatophytes has not been systematically analysed. Aims: We aimed to determine the sensitivity pattern of dermatophyte isolates to amphotericin B and six oral antifungal drugs. Materials and Methods: Patients with dermatophytosis attending the outpatient department of dermatology were enrolled in the study. Samples were collected for mycological examination and in vitro antifungal sensitivity testing was done by broth microdilution as per the Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute M38-A standards. Results: A total of 804 patients were enrolled. Specimens from 185 patients (23%) were both KOH and culture positive, and 44 of these isolates (41 Trichophyton mentagrophytes and 3 Trichophyton rubrum) were subjected to sensitivity testing. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of itraconazole, ketoconazole, voriconazole and amphotericin B were comparable. The median MIC to fluconazole was higher than the other tested drugs. Dermatophytes were most susceptible to ketoconazole and voriconazole, followed by itraconazole, amphotericin B, fluconazole and griseofulvin. A high incidence of resistance was found to terbinafine and the difference was statistically significant in comparison to fluconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, ketoconazole (P = 0.001) and griseofulvin (P = 0.003). The strains were more sensitive to amphotericin B as compared to griseofulvin (P = 0.02) and terbinafine (P < 0.001). Limitations: This was a hospital-based study and may not reflect the true pattern in the community. Only a few of the isolates were selected for study. The clinical response of patients, whose isolates were studied for in vitro sensitivity of the antifungals, was not studied. Conclusions: The sensitivity pattern of dermatophytes to various antifungals including amphotericin B, ketoconazole, voriconazole and itraconazole were determined. The studied isolates were least susceptible to terbinafine.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article

Online since 15th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow