Weitzman I, Summerbell RC: The dermatophytes. Clin Microbiol Rev 8: 240, 1995.
Metin A, Dilek N, Demirseven DD: Fungal infections of the folds (intertriginous areas). Clin Dermatol 33: 437, 2015.
Khurana A, Sardana K, Chowdhary A: Antifungal resistance in dermatophytes: recent trends and therapeutic implications. Fungal Genet Biol 132: 103255, 2019.
Aly R: “Microbial Infections of Skin and Nails,” in Medical Microbiology, 4th Ed, ed by S Baron, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, 1996.
Gupta AK, Summerbell RC, Venkataraman M, et al: Nondermatophyte mould onychomycosis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 35: 1628, 2021.
Kuhbacher A, Burger-Kentischer A, Rupp S: Interaction of Candida species with the skin. Microorganisms 5: 32, 2017.
Hawkins DM, Smidt AC: Superficial fungal infections in children. Pediatr Clin North Am 61: 443, 2014.
Hay R: Therapy of skin, hair and nail fungal infections. J Fungi (Basel) 4: 99, 2018.
Kovitwanichkanont T, Chong AH: Superficial fungal infections. Aust J Gen Pract 48: 706, 2019.
Kyle AA, Dahl MV: Topical therapy for fungal infections. Am J Clin Dermatol 5: 443, 2004.
Dimopoulos G, Antonopoulou A, Armaganidis A, et al: How to select an antifungal agent in critically ill patients. J Crit Care 28: 717, 2013.
Perfect JR: Antifungal resistance: the clinical front. Oncology (Williston Park) 18: 15, 2004.
Kontoyiannis DP: Antifungal resistance: an emerging reality and a global challenge. J Infect Dis 216: S431, 2017.
Vandeputte P, Ferrari S, Coste AT: Antifungal resistance and new strategies to control fungal infections. Int J Microbiol 2012: 713687, 2012.
Wiederhold NP: Antifungal resistance: current trends and future strategies to combat. Infect Drug Resist 10: 249, 2017.
Hendrickson JA, Hu C, Aitken SL, et al: Antifungal resistance: a concerning trend for the present and future. Curr Infect Dis Rep 21: 47, 2019.
Freire-Moran L, Aronsson B, Manz C, et al; ECDC-EMA Working Group: Critical shortage of new antibiotics in development against multidrug-resistant bacteria: time to react is now. Drug Resist Updat 14: 118, 2011.
Ademe M, Girma F: Candida auris: from multidrug resistance to pan-resistant strains. Infect Drug Resist 13: 1287, 2020.
Ostrowsky B, Greenko J, Adams E, et al: Candida auris isolates resistant to three classes of antifungal medications: New York, 2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 69: 6, 2020.
Noguchi H, Matsumoto T, Hiruma M, et al: Tinea unguium caused by terbinafine-resistant Trichophyton rubrum successfully treated with fosravuconazole. J Dermatol 46: e446, 2019.
Kitauchi Y, Kumagai Y, Inoue-Masuda Y, et al: Tinea corporis caused by terbinafine-resistant Trichophyton rubrum successfully treated with fosravuconazole. J Dermatol 48: e329, 2021.
Hiruma J, Noguchi H, Hase M, et al: Epidemiological study of terbinafine-resistant dermatophytes isolated from Japanese patients. J Dermatol 48: 564, 2021.
Kakurai M, Harada K, Maeda T, et al: Case of tinea corporis due to terbinafine-resistant Trichophyton interdigitale. J Dermatol 47: e104, 2020.
Hiruma J, Kitagawa H, Noguchi H, et al: Terbinafine-resistant strain of Trichophyton interdigitale strain isolated from a tinea pedis patient. J Dermatol 46: 351, 2019.
Thakur R, Kalsi AS: Outbreaks and epidemics of superficial dermatophytosis due to Trichophyton mentagrophytes complex and Microsporum canis: global and Indian scenario. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol 12: 887, 2019.
Sharquie KE, Jabbar RI: Major outbreak of dermatophyte infections leading into imitation of different skin diseases: Trichophyton mentagrophytes is the main criminal fungus. J Turk Acad Dermatol 15: 91, 2021.
Shenoy M, Jayaraman J: Epidemic of difficult-to-treat tinea in India: current scenario, culprits, and curbing strategies. Arch Med Health Sci 7: 112, 2019.
Verma S, Madhu R: The great Indian epidemic of superficial dermatophytosis: an appraisal. Indian J Dermatol 62: 227, 2017.
Nenoff P, Verma SB, Vasani R, et al: The current Indian epidemic of superficial dermatophytosis due to Trichophyton mentagrophytes: a molecular study. Mycoses 62: 336, 2019.
Gu D, Hatch M, Ghannoum M, et al: Treatment-resistant dermatophytosis: a representative case highlighting an emerging public health threat. JAAD Case Rep 6: 1153, 2020.
Tatsumi Y, Nagashima M, Shibanushi T, et al: Mechanism of action of efinaconazole, a novel triazole antifungal agent. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57: 2405, 2013.
Food and Drug Administration: Drug trials snapshot: Jublia (efinaconazole). Available at: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases/drug-trials-snapshot-jublia-efinaconazole.
Sanati H, Belanger P, Fratti R, et al: A new triazole, voriconazole (UK-109,496), blocks sterol biosynthesis in Candida albicans and Candida krusei. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 41: 2492, 1997.
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Reference Method for Broth Dilution Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Yeasts; Approved Standard—Third Edition, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA, 2008. CLSI document M27-A3 and Supplement S.
Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Reference Method for Broth Dilution Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Filamentous Fungi; Approved Standard—Second Edition, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, PA, 2008. CLSI document M38-A2.
Isham NC, Ghannoum MA: Voriconazole and caspofungin cidality against non-albicans Candida species. Infect Dis Clin Pract 15: 250, 2007.
Mukherjee PK, Leidich SD, Isham N, et al: Clinical Trichophyton rubrum strain exhibiting primary resistance to terbinafine. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 47: 82, 2003.
Sacheli R, Hayette MP: Antifungal resistance in dermatophytes: genetic considerations, clinical presentations and alternative therapies. J Fungi (Basel) 7: 983, 2021.
Singh A, Masih A, Khurana A, et al: High terbinafine resistance in Trichophyton interdigitale isolates in Delhi, India harbouring mutations in the squalene epoxidase gene. Mycoses 61: 477, 2018.
Rudramurthy SM, Shankarnarayan SA, Dogra S, et al: Mutation in the squalene epoxidase gene of Trichophyton interdigitale and Trichophyton rubrum associated with allylamine resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 62: e02522, 2018.
Khurana A, Masih A, Chowdhary A, et al: Correlation of in vitro susceptibility based on MICs and squalene epoxidase mutations with clinical response to terbinafine in patients with tinea corporis/cruris. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 62: e01038, 2018.
Burmester A, Hipler UC, Hensche R, et al: Point mutations in the squalene epoxidase gene of Indian ITS genotype VIII T. mentagrophytes identified after DNA isolation from infected scales. Med Mycol Case Rep 26: 23, 2019.
Hur MS, Park M, Jung WH, et al: Evaluation of drug susceptibility test for efinaconazole compared with conventional antifungal agents. Mycoses 62: 291, 2019.
Rezaei-Matehkolaei A, Khodavaisy S, Alshahni MM, et al: In vitro antifungal activity of novel triazole efinaconazole and five comparators against dermatophyte isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 62: e02423, 2018.
Jo Siu WJ, Tatsumi Y, Senda H, et al: Comparison of in vitro antifungal activities of efinaconazole and currently available antifungal agents against a variety of pathogenic fungi associated with onychomycosis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 57: 1610, 2013.
Pfaller MA, Espinel-Ingroff A, Canton E, et al: Wild-type MIC distributions and epidemiological cutoff values for amphotericin B, flucytosine, and itraconazole and Candida spp. as determined by CLSI broth microdilution. J Clin Microbiol 50: 2040, 2012.
Shi Y, Zhu Y, Fan S, et al: Molecular identification and antifungal susceptibility profile of yeast from vulvovaginal candidiasis. BMC Infect Dis 20: 287, 2020.
Teo JQ-M, Lee SJ-Y, Tan A-L, et al: Molecular mechanisms of azole resistance in Candida bloodstream isolates. BMC Infect Dis 19: 63, 2019.
Cowen LE, Sanglard D, Howard SJ, et al: Mechanisms of antifungal drug resistance. Cold Spring Harbor Perspect Med 5: a019752, 2014.
Orozco AS, Higginbotham LM, Hitchcock CA, et al: Mechanism of fluconazole resistance in Candida krusei. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 42: 2645, 1998.
Piatti G, Sartini M, Cusato C, et al: Colonization by Candida auris in critically ill patients: role of cutaneous and rectal localization during an outbreak. J Hosp Infect 120: 85, 2022.
Proctor DM, Dangana T, Sexton DJ, et al: Integrated genomic, epidemiologic investigation of Candida auris skin colonization in a skilled nursing facility. Nat Med 27: 1401, 2021.
Rossow J, Ostrowsky B, Adams E, et al: Factors associated with Candida auris colonization and transmission in skilled nursing facilities with ventilator units, New York, 2016-2018. Clin Infect Dis 72: e753, 2021.
Uppuluri P: Candida auris biofilm colonization on skin niche conditions. mSphere 5: e00972, 2020.
Tupaki-Sreepurna A, Jishnu BT, Thanneru V, et al: An assessment of in vitro antifungal activities of efinaconazole and itraconazole against common non-dermatophyte fungi causing onychomycosis. J Fungi (Basel) 3: 20, 2017.
Background: Recently, an increasing number of resistant-to-terbinafine dermatophytosis cases have been reported. Thus, identifying an alternative antifungal agent that possesses broad-spectrum activity, including against resistant strains, is needed.
Methods: We compared the antifungal activity of efinaconazole with that of fluconazole, itraconazole, and terbinafine against clinical isolates of dermatophytes, Candida, and molds using in vitro assays. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum fungicidal concentration (MFC) of each antifungal agent were quantified and compared. Susceptible and resistant clinical isolates of Trichophyton mentagrophytes (n = 16), Trichophyton rubrum (n = 43), Trichophyton tonsurans (n = 18), Trichophyton violaceum (n = 4), Candida albicans (n = 55), Candida auris (n = 30), Fusarium spp, Scedosporium spp, and Scopulariopsis spp (n = 15 for each) were tested.
Results: Efinaconazole was the most active antifungal agent tested against dermatophytes, with MIC50 and MIC90 (concentrations that inhibited 50% and 90% of strains tested, respectively) values of 0.002 and 0.03 µg/mL, respectively. Fluconazole, itraconazole, and terbinafine showed MIC50 and MIC90 values of 1 and 8 µg/mL, 0.03 and 0.25 µg/mL, and 0.03 and 16 µg/mL, respectively. Against Candida isolates, efinaconazole MIC50 and MIC90 values were 0.016 and 0.25 µg/mL, respectively, whereas fluconazole, itraconazole, and terbinafine had MIC50 and MIC90 values of 1 and 16 µg/mL, 0.25 and 0.5 µg/mL, and 2 and 8 µg/mL, respectively. Against various mold species, efinaconazole MIC values ranged from 0.016 to 2 µg/mL versus 0.5 to greater than 64 µg/mL for the comparators.
Conclusions: Efinaconazole showed superior potent activity against a broad panel of susceptible and resistant dermatophyte, Candida, and mold isolates.