Increasing Terbinafine Resistance in Danish Trichophyton Isolates 2019–2020

Terbinafine resistance in Trichophyton species has emerged and appears to be increasing. A new EUCAST susceptibility testing method and tentative ECOFFs were recently proposed for Trichophyton. Terbinafine resistance and target gene mutations were detected in 16 Danish isolates in 2013–2018. In this study, samples/isolates submitted for dermatophyte susceptibility testing 2019–2020 were examined. Species identification (ITS sequencing for T. mentagrophytes/T. interdigitale species complex (SC) isolates), EUCAST MICs and squalene epoxidase (SQLE) profiles were obtained. Sixty-three isolates from 59 patients were included. T. rubrum accounted for 81% and T. mentagrophytes/T. interdigitale SC for 19%. Approximately 60% of T. rubrum and T. mentagrophytes/interdigitale SC isolates were terbinafine non-wildtype and/or had known/novel SQLE mutations with possible implications for terbinafine MICs. All infections with terbinafine-resistant T. mentagrophytes/interdigitale SC isolates were caused by Trichophyton indotineae. Compared to 2013–2018, the number of patients with terbinafine-resistant Trichophyton isolates increased. For T. rubrum, this is partly explained by an increase in number of requests for susceptibility testing. Terbinafine-resistant T. indotineae was first detected in 2018, but accounted for 19% of resistance (4 of 21 patients) in 2020. In conclusion, terbinafine resistance is an emerging problem in Denmark. Population based studies are warranted and susceptibility testing is highly relevant in non-responding cases

A Hundred Years of Diagnosing Superficial Fungal Infections:Where Do We Come From, Where Are We Now and Where Would We Like To Go?

Superficial fungal infections have been known for hundreds of years. During the 20(th) century new diagnostic methods were developed and the taxonomy changed several times, which, unfortunately, resulted in many fungi having several names (synonyms). The taxonomy is important, as species-specific identification guides clinicians when choosing the most appropriate antifungal agent, and provides an indication of the source of infection (anthropophilic, zoophilic or geophilic). Traditional diagnostic tests (direct microscopy, culture and histopathology) are still widely used, but molecular-based methods, such as PCR, have many advantages, and increasingly supplement or replace conventional methods. Molecular-based methods provide detection of different genus/species spectra. This paper describes recent changes in dermatophyte taxonomy, and reviews the currently available diagnostics tools, focusing mainly on commercially available PCR test systems

A Review of Antifungal Susceptibility Testing for Dermatophyte Fungi and It’s Correlation with Previous Exposure and Clinical Responses

Background: An increase in the number of recurrent and recalcitrant dermatophytoses calls for a tool to guide the clinician to correlate in vitro minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) data, antifungal treatment with clinical outcomes. This systematic review aims to explore a possible correlation between one aspect of this, previous antifungal exposure, and clinical outcomes. Methods: A systematic literature search for articles on previous antifungal treatment, treatment outcome, susceptibility methods used, organism (genus/species), and MIC values was conducted. Results: A total of 720 records were identified of which 19 articles met the inclusion criteria. Forty percent of the cases had contact with or travel to India, 28% originated from or had traveled to other countries where treatment unresponsive tinea infections had been reported. Tinea corporis was the most common clinical presentation and the species involved were Trichophyton (T.) indotineae and T. rubrum, followed by T. mentagrophyte/interdigitale complex and T. tonsurans. Nearly all patients had previously been exposed to one or more antifungals. The studies were too heterogeneous to perform a statistical analysis to test if previous antifungal exposure was related to resistance. Conclusions: Only a few studies were identified, which had both sufficient and robust data on in vitro susceptibility testing and clinical treatment failure. Further research on the value of susceptibility testing to improve clinical practice in the management of dermatophyte infections is needed