Clinicomycological Profile and Antifungal Sensitivity Pattern of Commonly Used Azoles in Dermatophytosis

Authors

  • Mahesh Mathur Department of Dermatology,College of Medical Sciences- Teaching Hospital, Bharatpur, Nepal.
  • Shrujana Shrestha Department of Dermatology,College of Medical Sciences- Teaching Hospital, Bharatpur, Nepal.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31729/jnma.2771

Keywords:

antifungal resistance; dermatophyte; epidemiology.

Abstract

Introduction: Dermatophytosis is a common superficial fungal infection of the skin, hair and nails caused by Trichophyton, Microsporum and Epidermophyton dermatophytic species. Identification of causative dermatophytic species tend to vary with time and place and antifungal sensitivity is of epidemiological concern as well as significant for the treatment with precision at the current scenario of increasing antifungal resistance. To study clinicomycological profile and antifungal sensitivity pattern of commonly used azoles in dermatophytosis.

Methods: The prospective analysis of 145 clinically suspected cases of dermatophytosis was conducted from January 2014 to January 2015 at Department of Dermatology of COMS, Bharatpur, Chitwan, Nepal. Cases were evaluated and data recorded as per proforma. Samples were collected for microscopy and culture from skin, hair and nail. Antifungal sensitivity pattern was evaluated by standard disk diffusion technique.

Results: Maximum numbers of cases with dermatophytosis were observed between June to September with male to female ratio of 1.4:1. The youngest patient was 3 years and the oldest was 76 years. Tinea corporis (25.5%) was the dominant clnical type observed. Overall direct microscopy (KOH) positivity and culture positivity was 64.8% and 57.2% respectively. Predominant species of dermatophyte isolated was T. mentagrophyte (23.4%). Out of five antifungals used in our study, fluconazole and ketoconazole were found 100% resistant.

Conclusions: This study highlighted the increasing resistance of the antifungals, which is responsible for the treatment failure in dermatophye infections. 

Keywords: antifungal resistance; dermatophyte; epidemiology.

References

Weitzman I, Summerbell RC. The dermatophytes. Clin
Microbiol Rev 1995; 8(2); 240-59
2. Ajello L. Present day concepts in the dermatophytes.
Mycopathol Mycol Appl 1962; 17: 315–24.
3. Esteban A, Abarca ML, Cabanes FJ. Comparison of disk
diffusion method and broth microdillution method for
antifungal susceptibility testing of dermatophytes. Med
Mycol 2005; 43: 61-6
4. Fernandez-Torres B, Carrillo AJ, Martín E, Palacio A, Moore
MK, Valverde A, et al. In vitro activity of ten antifungal
drugs against 508 dermatophyte strains.Antimicrob Agents
Chemother 2001; 45(9): 2524-8.
5. Pakshir K, Bahaedinie L, Rezaei Z, Sodaifi M, Zomorodian
K. In vitro activity of six antifungal drugs against clinically
important dermatophytes. Jundishapur J Microbiol 2009; 2(4):
158-63
6. Bindu V. Clinico - Mycological study of dermatophytosis in
Calicut. Indian J Dermatol venereol Leorol 2003; 69: 281-3.
7. Bhatia VK, Sharma PC. Epidemiological studies on
Dermatophytosis in human patients in Himachal Pradesh,
India. Springer Plus 2014; 3:134-40.
8. Agrawalla A, Jacob M, Sethi M, Parija SC, Singh NP. A
Clinico- Mycological Study of Dermatophytoses in Nepal. J
Dermatol 2001; 28(1): 16-21.
9. Singh S, Beena PM. Profile of dermatophyte infections in
Baroda. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leorol 2003; 69: 281-3.
10. Mathur M, Kedia SK, Ghimire RBK. Epizoonosis of
Dermatophytosis: A clinico- mycological study of
dermatophytic infections in Central Nepal. Kathmandu Univ
Med J 2012; 37(1): 30-3.

Omar AA. Importance of mycological confirmation of
clinically suspected cases of tinea corporis, tinea pedis and
tinea cruris. J Egypt Public Health Assoc 2004; 79(1-2): 43-58.
12. Maslen MM. Human cases of cattle ringworm due to
Trichophyton verrcosum in Victoria, Australia. Australasian
Journal of Dermatology 2001; 41(2): 90-4.
13. Bassiri-Jahromi S, Khaksari AA. Epidemiological survey of
dermatophytosis in Tehran, Iran, from 2000 to 2005. Indian J
Dermatol Venereol Leorol 2009; 75: 142-7.
14. Fernandez-Torres B, Carrillo AJ, Martín E, Palacio A, Moore
MK, Valverde A, et al. In vitro activity of ten antifungal
drugs against 508 dermatophyte strains.Antimicrob Agents
Chemother 2001; 45(9): 2524-8.
15. Sarifakioglu E, Seckin M, Demirbilek, Can F. In vitro
antifungal susceptibility patterns of dermatophyte strains
causing tinea unguium. Clin Exp Dermatol 2007; 32(6): 675-9.
16. Balakumar S, Rajan S, Thirunalasundari T, Jeeva S.
Epidemiology of dermatophytosis in and around
tiruchirapalli. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Disease 2012;
2(4): 286-9.

Downloads

Published

2015-06-30

How to Cite

Mathur, M., & Shrestha, S. (2015). Clinicomycological Profile and Antifungal Sensitivity Pattern of Commonly Used Azoles in Dermatophytosis. Journal of Nepal Medical Association, 53(198), 108–112. https://doi.org/10.31729/jnma.2771

Issue

Section

Original Article