Next Article in Journal
Effects of Mixed Adding Crude Extracts of β-Glucosidases from Three Different Non-Saccharomyces Yeast Strains on the Quality of Cabernet Sauvignon Wines
Previous Article in Journal
Malassezia: Zoonotic Implications, Parallels and Differences in Colonization and Disease in Humans and Animals
Previous Article in Special Issue
CYP51 Mutations in the Fusarium solani Species Complex: First Clue to Understand the Low Susceptibility to Azoles of the Genus Fusarium
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility Profile of Miltefosine against a Collection of Azole and Echinocandins Resistant Fusarium Strains

by
Mohsen Nosratabadi
1,2,
Javad Akhtari
3,
Leila Faeli
1,2,
Iman Haghani
1,2,
Seyed Reza Aghili
1,2,
Tahereh Shokohi
1,2,
Mohammad Taghi Hedayati
1,2,
Hossein Zarrinfar
4,
Rasoul Mohammadi
5,
Mohammad Javad Najafzadeh
6,
Sadegh Khodavaisy
7,
Ahmed Al-Harrasi
8,
Mohammad Javan-Nikkhah
9,
Reza Kachuei
10,
Maryam Salimi
1,2,
Mahsa Fattahi
11,
Hamid Badali
12,
Abdullah M. S. Al Hatmi
8,13,* and
Mahdi Abastabar
1,2,*
1
Department of Medical Mycology, School of Medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari 4816983663, Iran
2
Invasive Fungi Research Center, Communicable Diseases Institute, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari 4816983663, Iran
3
Department of Medical Nanotechnology, School of Advanced Technologies in Medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari 4816983663, Iran
4
Allergy Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad 9176699199, Iran
5
Department of Medical Parasitology and Mycology, Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine Research Center, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan 8174673461, Iran
6
Department of Parasitology and Mycology, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad 9176699199, Iran
7
Department of Medical Parasitology and Mycology, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1717613151, Iran
8
Natural & Medical Sciences Research Center, University of Nizwa, Nizwa 616, Oman
9
Department of Plant Protection, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj 3158777871, Iran
10
Molecular Biology Research Center, Systems Biology and Poisonings Institute, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1435916471, Iran
11
Centre for Research and Training in Skin Diseases and Leprosy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1416613675, Iran
12
South Texas Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases, Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78249, USA
13
Center of Expertise in Mycology, Radboud University Medical Center/Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, 6532 SZ Nijmegen, The Netherlands
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2022, 8(7), 709; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8070709
Submission received: 16 April 2022 / Revised: 2 June 2022 / Accepted: 7 June 2022 / Published: 4 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinically Relevant Fusarium Species)

Abstract

:
Fusarium species are filamentous fungi that cause a variety of infections in humans. Because they are commonly resistant to many antifungal drugs currently available in clinical settings, research into alternative targets in fungal cells and therapeutic approaches is required. The antifungal activity of miltefosine and four comparators, amphotericin B, voriconazole, itraconazole, and caspofungin, were tested in vitro against a collection of susceptible and resistant clinical (n = 68) and environmental (n = 42) Fusarium isolates. Amphotericin B (0.8 μg/mL) had the lowest geometric mean (GM) MICs/MECs values followed by miltefosine (1.44 μg/mL), voriconazole (2.15 μg/mL), caspofungin (7.23 μg/mL), and itraconazole (14.19 μg/mL). Miltefosine was the most effective agent against Fusarium isolates after amphotericin B indicating that miltefosine has the potential to be studied as a novel treatment for Fusarium infections.

1. Introduction

Fusarium species are saprobic molds that are found all over the world in the environment and various organic substrates [1,2,3]. Fusarium contains more than 300 species grouped in 22 species complexes with exceptional genetic diversity [1,4]. Most species of Fusarium are the primary causes of plant pathogens and are responsible for significant economic losses on crops [5,6]. They also play a key role in food spoilage and mycotoxicosis in humans and animals due to their ability to produce various mycotoxins [7,8]. In addition, Fusarium species are opportunistic human pathogens causing a broad range of infections including superficial, locally invasive, and disseminated in both healthy and immunocompromised individuals [9,10,11]. According to recent studies, the F. solani species complex (FSSC) causes the majority of Fusarium infections, followed by the F. oxysporum (FOSC) and the F. fujikuroi species complex (FFSC) [12]. It should be noted that the Fusarium genus is considered the second leading cause of filamentous fungal infections worldwide after Aspergillus [13,14,15,16]. The clinical manifestation of fusariosis in humans is heavily influenced by the organism’s point of entry and the host’s immune status [17]. In immunocompetent individuals, the Fusarium genus results in localized infections that frequently manifest as keratitis, onychomycosis, endophthalmitis, and other skin infections that are frequently associated with previous trauma. Whereas in immunocompromised hosts, such as those with prolonged neutropenia, burn patients, T-cell immune deficiency, therapy with corticosteroids or cytotoxic chemotherapy, and particularly hematological malignancies, when infections become locally invasive or disseminated the mortality rate exceeds 70% [1,9,16,18]. Fusarium species are among the most resistant fungi with clinically relevant members demonstrating unusually high levels of intrinsic resistance to a wide spectrum of commonly used antifungal agents. Fusarium species have high minimum inhibitory/effective concentrations (MIC/MECs) to new and old azoles, echinocandins, and variable resistance to amphotericin B susceptibility testing [1,9,10,17]. This presents a significant challenge in the best treatment for patients with severe fusariosis infections. Furthermore, resistance mechanisms in Fusarium species have not been thoroughly studied and no clinical breakpoints for Fusarium infections have been defined [4,19]. Resistance of the Fusarium genus to the majority of antifungal drugs available in clinical settings is a significant threat for immunocompromised patients and therefore studies of alternative targets and therapeutic approaches that may improve the outcome of these severe opportunistic infections are critical [20]. Given the restricted number of currently available antifungals, drug repurposing has emerged as an intriguing and efficient approach for identifying novel antifungal compounds. Miltefosine is an alkylphosphocholine agent that was initially developed in the 1980s as an anticancer agent, but is currently the only clinically FDA-licensed antiparasitic drug used to treat cutaneous, mucosal and visceral features of leishmaniasis. The CDC also recommends it as a first-line treatment for infections caused by free-living amebae [21]. Miltefosine has been shown to have in vitro activity against numerous clinically significant molds and yeasts including dimorphic fungi, Aspergillus spp., Fusarium spp., Scedosporium spp., Rhizopus spp., dermatophytes, Cryptococcus spp., and Candida spp. [22,23,24,25,26,27]. Given the limited data available on miltefosine’s antifungal susceptibility pattern against Fusarium species, we evaluated this agent’s in vitro activity against a variety of Fusarium species.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Strains, DNA Extraction, and PCR Reaction

This study included 110 Fusarium isolates from the environment and clinical settings. The clinical strains originated from corneas (n = 21), nails (n = 47), and different clinical centers and agricultural colleges, in Iran (Table 1). The environmental isolates were recovered from poultry fodder (n = 2), soil (n = 1), maize (n = 27), wheat (n = 4) and rice (n = 8) (Table 1). All isolates were identified at the species level using the previously described method of sequencing the translation elongation factor 1 (TEF-1) [28]. In brief, a plug of the fresh colony was placed into a 2 mL screw-capped tube filled with 300 μL of lysis buffer (200 mM Tris- HCl (pH 7.5), 25 mM EDTA (Ethylene diamine tetraacetic Acid), 0.5% w/v SDS (Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate), 250 mM NaCl), and crushed with glass beads. 300 μL phenolchloroform (1:1) was added and vortexed in a few seconds. Tubes were centrifuged at 12,000 r.p.m. for 10 min. The supernatant was transferred to a new Eppendorf tube, mixed with chloroform, and centrifuged one more. The DNA was precipitated with 30 μL of 3.0 M sodium acetate and 300 μL of ice-cold iso-propanol at −20 °C for 10 min, then washed with 300 μL of ice-cold 70% ethanol, dried, and suspended in 50 μL of ultrapure water. The quality and quantity of genomic DNA were verified by 1.5% gel agarose and NanoDrop WPA spectrophotometer, respectively. The universal primers EF1 (5-ATGGGTAAGGARGACAAGAC-3) and EF2 (5-GGARGTACCAGTSATCATGTT-3) were used for partial amplification of translation elongation factor 1 (TEF-1) gene [28]. Amplification was performed on T100 (BIO-RAD, Singapore) thermocycler as follows: initial denaturation at 95 °C for 4 min, followed by 45 s at 95 °C, 30 s at 52 °C, and 2 min at 72 °C for 35 cycles and a terminal extension of 72 °C for 7 min. For precise identification at the species level, a similarity search for the sequences of TEF-1α was performed using FUSARIUM-ID (http://isolate.fusariumdb.org, accessed on 22 July 2021), the BLAST tool in NCBI database, and the Fusarium MLST database (http://www.cbs.knaw.nl/fusarium40, accessed on 21 July 2021). For definitive identification, sequences of TEF-1α were aligned with MAFFT program (www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/msa/mafft/, accessed on 21 July 2021) and adjusted in MEGA11.

2.2. Antifungal Susceptibility Testing

In vitro antifungal susceptibility test was determined according to the broth microdilution assay described in the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) M38-A3 document [29]. The final concentration of antifungal drugs in the wells ranged from 0.016 to 16 μg /mL for voriconazole (Pfizer, Sandwich, UK), itraconazole (Janssen, Beerse, Belgium), amphotericin B (Bristol-Myers-Squib, Woerden, The Netherlands); 0.064–64 for miltefosine (Cayman Chemical, Ann Arbor, MI, USA) and 0.008 to 8 μg /mL for caspofungin (Merck Sharp & Dohme BV, Haarlem, The Netherlands) and stored at −80 °C until used. Stock solutions of caspofungin were prepared in distilled water, while other agents were diluted in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). The Fusarium strains were cultured on Sabouraud dextrose agar (SDA, Difco Laboratories, Detroit, MI, USA) supplemented with 0.02% chloramphenicol and incubated at 35 °C for 5 to 7 days for sufficient sporulation. Conidial suspensions were prepared by slightly scraping the surface of colonies with a sterile cotton swab moistened with sterile saline containing 0.05% Tween 80 and then were adjusted to optical densities ranging from 69% to 70% transmission measured at 530 nm and were then diluted 1:50 in RPMI 1640 medium to obtain final inoculum between 0.4 × 104 to 5 × 104 CFU/mL. The results were visually read after incubation of microdilution plates at 35 °C for 48 h. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was determined visually as the lowest concentration of drug that resulted in 100% inhibition of fungal growth while for caspofungin minimum effective concentration (MEC) was determined microscopically as the lowest concentration of drug that resulted in the growth of compact hyphal forms compared with growth control. Aspergillus flavus (ATCC 2004304), Candida krusei (ATCC 6258), Candida parapsilosis (ATCC 22019) and Hamigera insecticola (ATCC 3630) (previously identified as Paecilomyces variotii) served as quality control strains. The differences of the mean values by using Student’s t-test with the statistical SPSS package (version 7.0). p values of ˂0.05 were considered statistically significant.

3. Results

This study evaluated 110 Fusarium isolates from the environment (n = 42) and clinical (n = 68). Fusarium strains were previously using TEF1 partial gene analysis. As a results, the most common isolates belonged to members of the F. fujikuroi species complex (FFSC) which included F. proliferatum (n = 32), F. verticillioides (n = 19), F. thapsinum (n = 2), F. globosum (n = 2), F. fujikuroi (n = 2), F. sacchari (n =1), F. acutatum (n = 1), F. andiyazi (n = 2), F. nygamai (n = 1), and F. anthophilum (n = 1). Members of the other species complexes were also identified as follows: F. solani sensu stricto (FSSC) (n = 25), F. keratoplasticum (n = 5), F. falciforme (n = 4), F. lichenicola (n = 1), and F. petroliphilum (n = 1) in F. solani species complex (FSSC); F. oxysporum (n = 5), in F. oxysporum species complex (FOSC); F. incarnatum (n = 2), F. equiseti (n = 1) in F. incarnatum equiseti species complex; F. lateritium (n = 1) in F. lateritium species complex (FLSC); F. culmorum (n = 1) in F. graminearum species complex (FGSC) and F. redolens (n = 1) in Fusarium redolens species complex (FRSC). Table 1 displays the geometric mean (GM) MICs/MECs, the MIC/MEC ranges, the MIC50/MEC50, and MIC90/MEC90 distributions of the tested drugs. Miltefosine and four comparator antifungals including voriconazole, itraconazole, amphotericin B, and caspofungin, were tested on all Fusarium strains. Miltefosine had MICs/MECs ranging from 0.25 to 4 μg/mL against all Fusarium isolates, compared to 0.032 to 4 μg/mL for amphotericin B, 0.125 to 16 μg/mL for voriconazole, 2 to 16 μg/mL for itraconazole, and 0.125 to 8 for caspofungin. Amphotericin B (0.8 μg/mL) had the lowest geometric mean (GM) MICs/MECs values were found for followed by miltefosine (1.44 μg/mL), voriconazole (2.15 μg/mL), caspofungin (7.23 μg/mL) and itraconazole (14.19 μg/mL), respectively. Interestingly, miltefosine and amphotericin B both demonstrated the same activity based on MIC90 value. While miltefosine had an MIC90 value that was >2-log2 dilution steps lower than that of voriconazole, as well as >3-log2 dilution step lower than that of itraconazole.

4. Discussion

Fusarium species are among the most resistant fungi to many of the antifungal agents licensed for the treatment of fungal infections [1,6]. Although some studies have reported successful treatment with these agents, intrinsic resistance to azoles and high levels of MICs/MECs to polyenes and the echinocandins have been reported [28,30,31,32,33,34]. In the present study, the inhibitory activity of miltefosine and four common antifungal agents namely voriconazole, itraconazole, amphotericin B, and caspofungin were tested against 110 environmental and clinical Fusarium strains. In the present study, the in vitro activity of amphotericin B against all the isolates was more potent than other agents tested. This is consistent with the findings of most studies in which amphotericin B was found to have lower MICs in vitro compared to other antifungals [4,13,35,36,37]. As previously reported [10,31,38], the susceptibility of Fusarium to amphotericin B varied, depending on the species. Surprisingly, we observed miltefosine was found to be the most active agent against resistant and susceptible Fusarium isolates after amphotericin B. Miltefosine was initially developed as an anticancer agent, but it is now a clinically approved anti-parasitic drug against Leishmania species. Miltefosine’s mechanism of action in human tumoral cells and Leishmania is associated with disruption of lipid-dependent signaling pathways and apoptosis [21]. Although many studies on protozoa have been performed, little is known about the effects of miltefosine in fungi. Miltefosine has been shown to have in vitro antifungal activity against numerous clinically significant molds and yeasts, including dimorphic fungi, Aspergillus spp., Scedosporium spp., Sporothrix spp., Cryptococcus spp., Candida spp., dermatophytes and some of the zygomycetes, although the mechanism of action of this compound in fungi is still poorly understood [22,23,24,25,26,27]. Rollin-Pinheiro et al. evaluated the in vitro antifungal activity of miltefosine against Scedosporium species and showed that miltefosine affects Scedosporium and Lomentospora species at the early stages of growth and inhibits them at 2–4 μg/mL as well as reducing biofilm formation [27]. Spadari et al. also confirmed that miltefosine has an antifungal effect against Cryptococcus species with MIC values ranging from 0.5 to 2 μg/mL and fungicidal activity by apoptosis [39]. Borba-Santos et al. investigated the activity of miltefosine against the yeast form of Sporothrix brasiliensis isolates with low susceptibility to amphotericin B or itraconazole in vitro. Their findings suggested that miltefosine with minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values of 1–2 μg/mL was more effective than amphotericin B and itraconazole against all clinical Sporothrix brasiliensis isolates tested [40]. To the best of our knowledge, there are limited data on the in vitro antifungal susceptibility of miltefosine against Fusarium isolates. Vila et al. demonstrated that miltefosine has potent activity against biofilms of Fusarium oxysporum and Candida albicans formed on the human nail in vitro with miltefosine inhibiting Fusarium biofilm formation by 93% at 1000 μg/mL and Candida biofilm formation by 89% at 8 μg/mL [26]. Biswas et al. investigated the in vitro susceptibility pattern of several molds to miltefosine as well as the potential synergy effects of this compound when combined with posaconazole and voriconazole. Their results showed that MICs of miltefosine were high (8 mg/L) for the most isolates compared with amphotericin B, azoles, and echinocandins but it had a good effect against Scedosporium, Lichtheimia corymbifera, and Rhizomucor species. Fusarium oxysporum strains had a higher miltefosine GM MIC than Fusarium solani (13.45 versus 8 mg/L) of the eight Fusarium isolates tested in their study (MICs 4 mg/L). Synergy effects between miltefosine and posaconazole were observed against three of four Fusarium oxysporum strains (FICI range 0.37–0.5), but not against Fusarium solani and five of ten mucormycete strains (FICI range 0.06–0.5). Miltefosine in combination with voriconazole demonstrated synergy against three mucormycetes and one isolate of Scedosporium prolificans [25]. In our study, miltefosine showed good inhibitory activity against all Fusarium isolates with MIC values ranging from 0.25 to 4 μg/mL, making it more potent than voriconazole (0.125-16), itraconazole (2-16) and caspofungin (0.125-8). The MIC values for miltefosine reported here are consistent with the 2 μg/mL value reported for Cryptococcus neoformans and Cryptococcus gatti, C. glabrata, C. krusei, C. albicans, A. fumigatus, and Trichophyton mentagrophytes with this drug [40,41,42,43]. Miltefosine was the most active agent against Fusarium isolates after amphotericin B indicating that miltefosine has the potential to be studied as a novel treatment for Fusarium infections and should be considered for further investigations in efficacy tests in vivo. However, previous studies have shown that good in vitro effects of miltefosine do not always translate into in vivo efficacy, and miltefosine also works better when combined with other antifungal drugs [44]. Although miltefosine has in vitro activity against several fungi [22,23,24,25,26,27,40,41,42,43], there is insufficient evidence of its efficacy in vivo. Our study on Fusarium is in agreement with the above-mentioned studies. In addition, different animal models of cryptococcosis showed little to no activity [45]. Furthermore, while some success has been reported in limited case reports when combined with voriconazole and other agents against some fungal infections, it is always in combination and never alone with miltefosine. Recently, ECMM guidelines advised against conducting Fusarium susceptibility testing because there is no correlation between in vitro activity and in vivo efficacy [46]. However, before in vitro susceptibility for Fusarium can be used in clinical decision-making, a correlation between MIC and clinical outcome must be established.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A., I.H., A.A.-H., A.M.S.A.H., T.S., M.T.H., S.R.A., H.B. and J.A.; methodology, M.N., L.F., M.S., R.M., H.Z., M.J.N., A.A.-H., S.K., R.K., A.M.S.A.H., M.F., M.N.; software, M.A., M.N., M.J.-N.; formal analysis, A.M.S.A.H., M.A. and R.M.; investigation, M.N., L.F., I.H. and H.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, M.N., M.S. and L.F.; writing—review and editing, M.A., A.M.S.A.H., A.A.-H. and H.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by grant number 10319 from Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The current study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences (IR.MAZUMS.REC.1400.423).

References

  1. Al-Hatmi, A.M.; Meis, J.F.; de Hoog, G.S. Fusarium: Molecular diversity and intrinsic drug resistance. PLoS Pathog. 2016, 12, e1005464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Thomas, B.; Audonneau, N.C.; Machouart, M.; Debourgogne, A. Fusarium infections: Epidemiological aspects over 10 years in a university hospital in France. J. Infect. Public Health 2020, 13, 1089–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Alastruey-Izquierdo, A.; Cuenca-Estrella, M.; Monzon, A.; Mellado, E.; Rodríguez-Tudela, J.L. Antifungal susceptibility profile of clinical Fusarium spp. isolates identified by molecular methods. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2008, 61, 805–809. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Bansal, Y.; Singla, N.; Kaistha, N.; Sood, S.; Chander, J. Molecular identification of Fusarium species complex isolated from clinical samples and its antifungal susceptibility patterns. Curr. Med. Mycol. 2019, 5, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rampersad, S.N. Pathogenomics and management of Fusarium diseases in plants. Pathogens 2020, 9, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Al-Hatmi, A.M.; de Hoog, G.S.; Meis, J.F. Multiresistant Fusarium pathogens on plants and humans: Solutions in (from) the antifungal pipeline? Infect. Drug Resist. 2019, 12, 3727. [Google Scholar]
  7. Antonissen, G.; Martel, A.; Pasmans, F.; Ducatelle, R.; Verbrugghe, E.; Vandenbroucke, V.; Li, S.; Haesebrouck, F.; Van Immerseel, F.; Croubels, S. The impact of Fusarium mycotoxins on human and animal host susceptibility to infectious diseases. Toxins 2014, 6, 430–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Ji, F.; He, D.; Olaniran, A.O.; Mokoena, M.P.; Xu, J.; Shi, J. Occurrence, toxicity, production and detection of Fusarium mycotoxin: A review. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 1, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Batista, B.G.; Chaves, M.A.D.; Reginatto, P.; Saraiva, O.J.; Fuentefria, A.M. Human fusariosis: An emerging infection that is difficult to treat. Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop. 2020, 53, e20200013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Al-Hatmi, A.M.; Bonifaz, A.; Ranque, S.; de Hoog, G.S.; Verweij, P.E.; Meis, J.F. Current antifungal treatment of fusariosis. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents. 2018, 51, 326–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Abastabar, M.; Al-Hatmi, A.M.; Vafaei Moghaddam, M.; De Hoog, G.S.; Haghani, I.; Aghili, S.R.; Shokohi, T.; Hedayati, M.T.; Daie Ghazvini, R.; Kachuei, R.; et al. Potent activities of luliconazole, lanoconazole, and eight comparators against molecularly characterized Fusarium species. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2018, 62, e00009-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Tupaki-Sreepurna, A.; Thanneru, V.; Natarajan, S.; Sharma, S.; Gopi, A.; Sundaram, M.; Kindo, A.J. Phylogenetic diversity and in vitro susceptibility profiles of human pathogenic members of the Fusarium fujikuroi species complex isolated from South India. Mycopathologia 2018, 183, 529–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Taj-Aldeen, S.J. Reduced multidrug susceptibility profile is a common feature of opportunistic Fusarium species: Fusarium multi-drug resistant pattern. J. Fungi. 2017, 3, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Góralska, K.; Błaszkowska, J.; Dzikowiec, M. The occurrence of potentially pathogenic filamentous fungi in recreational surface water as a public health risk. J. Water Health 2020, 18, 127–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Aquino, V.R.; Verçosa, E.B.; Falhauber, G.; Lunardi, L.W.; Silla, L.; Pasqualotto, A.C. Distribution of filamentous fungi causing invasive fungal disease at the Haematological Unit, Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Brazil. Braz. J. Infect. Dis. 2010, 14, 277–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Najafzadeh, M.J.; Dolatabadi, S.; de Hoog, S.; Esfahani, M.K.; Haghani, I.; Aghili, S.R.; Ghazvini, R.D.; Rezaei-Matehkolaei, A.; Abastabar, M.; Al-Hatmi, A. Phylogenetic analysis of clinically relevant Fusarium species in Iran. Mycopathologia 2020, 185, 515–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Herkert, P.F.; Al-Hatmi, A.; de Oliveira Salvador, G.L.; Muro, M.D.; Pinheiro, R.L.; Nucci, M.; Queiroz-Telles, F.; de Hoog, G.S.; Meis, J.F. Molecular characterization and antifungal susceptibility of clinical Fusarium species from Brazil. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Gaviria-Rivera, A.; Giraldo-López, A.; Santa-Cardona, C.; Cano-Restrepo, L. Molecular identification of clinical isolates of Fusarium in Colombia. Rev. Salud Publica 2018, 20, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Al-Hatmi, A.; Curfs-Breuker, I.; De Hoog, G.S.; Meis, J.F.; Verweij, P.E. Antifungal susceptibility testing of Fusarium: A practical approach. J. Fungi 2017, 3, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Rossato, L.; Camargo dos Santos, M.; Vitale, R.G.; de Hoog, S.; Ishida, K. Alternative treatment of fungal infections: Synergy with non-antifungal agents. Mycoses 2021, 64, 232–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dorlo, T.P.; Balasegaram, M.; Beijnen, J.H.; de Vries, P.J. Miltefosine: A review of its pharmacology and therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of leishmaniasis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2012, 67, 2576–2597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Vila, T.; Ishida, K.; Seabra, S.H.; Rozental, S. Miltefosine inhibits Candida albicans and non-albicans Candida spp. biofilms and impairs the dispersion of infectious cells. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2016, 48, 512–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Imbert, S.; Palous, M.; Meyer, I.; Dannaoui, E.; Mazier, D.; Datry, A.; Fekkar, A. In vitro combination of voriconazole and miltefosine against clinically relevant molds. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2014, 58, 6996–6998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Rossi, D.C.P.; de Castro Spadari, C.; Nosanchuk, J.D.; Taborda, C.P.; Ishida, K. Miltefosine is fungicidal to Paracoccidioides spp. yeast cells but subinhibitory concentrations induce melanisation. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2017, 49, 465–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Biswas, C.; Sorrell, T.C.; Djordjevic, J.T.; Zuo, X.; Jolliffe, K.A.; Chen, S.C.A. In Vitro activity of miltefosine as a single agent and in combination with voriconazole or posaconazole against uncommon filamentous fungal pathogens. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2013, 68, 2842–2846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Vila, T.V.M.; Quintanilha, N.S.; Rozental, S. Miltefosine is effective against Candida albicans and Fusarium oxysporum nail biofilms in vitro. J. Med. Microbiol. 2015, 64, 1436–1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Rollin-Pinheiro, R.; Almeida, Y.D.C.; Rochetti, V.P.; Xisto, M.I.D.D.S.; Borba-Santos, L.P.; Rozental, S.; Barreto-Bergter, E. Miltefosine against Scedosporium and Lomentospora species: Antifungal activity and its effects on fungal cells. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2021, 11, 698662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Al Hatmi, A.M.S. Phylogeny, Diagnostics and Antifungal Susceptibility of Clinically Relevant Fusarium Species; Universiteit van Amsterdam: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  29. CLSI. Reference Method for Broth Dilution Antifungal Susceptibility Testing of Filamentous Fungi, 3rd ed.; CLSI standard M38; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  30. Al-Hatmi, A.M.; Meletiadis, J.; Curfs-Breuker, I.; Bonifaz, A.; Meis, J.F.; De Hoog, G.S. In vitro combinations of natamycin with voriconazole, itraconazole and micafungin against clinical Fusarium strains causing keratitis. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2016, 71, 953–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Al-Hatmi, A.M.; van Diepeningen, A.D.; Curfs-Breuker, I.; de Hoog, G.S.; Meis, J.F. Specific antifungal susceptibility profiles of opportunists in the Fusarium fujikuroi complex. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2015, 70, 1068–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Vagace, J.M.; Sanz-Rodriguez, C.; Casado, M.S.; Alonso, N.; Garcia-Dominguez, M.; de la Llana, F.G.; Zarallo, L.; Fajardo, M.; Bajo, R. Resolution of disseminated fusariosis in a child with acute leukemia treated with combined antifungal therapy: A case report. BMC Infect. Dis. 2007, 7, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Apostolidis, J.; Bouzani, M.; Platsouka, E.; Belasiotou, H.; Stamouli, M.; Harhalakis, N.; Boutati, E.I.; Paniara, O.; Nikiforakis, E. Resolution of fungemia due to Fusarium species in a patient with acute leukemia treated with caspofungin. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2003, 36, 1349–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Stempel, J.M.; Hammond, S.P.; Sutton, D.A.; Weiser, L.M.; Marty, F.M. Invasive fusariosis in the voriconazole era: Single-center 13-year experience. In Open Forum Infectious Diseases; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015; Volume 2, p. 3. [Google Scholar]
  35. Rosa, P.D.; Heidrich, D.; Corrêa, C.; Scroferneker, M.L.; Vettorato, G.; Fuentefria, A.M.; Goldani, L.Z. Genetic diversity and antifungal susceptibility of Fusarium isolates in onychomycosis. Mycoses 2017, 60, 616–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Gupta, C.; Jongman, M.; Das, S.; Snehaa, K.; Bhattacharya, S.N.; Seyedmousavi, S.; van Diepeningen, A.D. Genotyping and in vitro antifungal susceptibility testing of Fusarium isolates from onychomycosis in India. Mycopathologia 2016, 181, 497–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Oliveira dos Santos, C.; Kolwijck, E.; van der Lee, H.A.; Tehupeiory-Kooreman, M.C.; Al-Hatmi, A.M.; Matayan, E.; Burton, M.J.; Eggink, C.A.; Verweij, P.E. In vitro activity of chlorhexidine compared with seven antifungal agents against 98 Fusarium isolates recovered from fungal keratitis patients. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2019, 63, e02669-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Blaize, M.; Normand, A.C.; Imbert, S.; Al-Hatmi, A.M.; Chryssanthou, E.; Cassaing, S.; Schuttler, C.; Hasseine, L.; Mahinc, C.; Costa, D.; et al. Antifungal Susceptibility of 182 Fusarium Species Isolates from 20 European Centers: Comparison between EUCAST and Gradient Concentration Strip Methods. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2021, 65, e01495-21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Spadari, C.D.C.; Vila, T.; Rozental, S.; Ishida, K. Miltefosine has a postantifungal effect and induces apoptosis in Cryptococcus yeasts. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2018, 62, e00312-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Borba-Santos, L.P.; Gagini, T.; Ishida, K.; de Souza, W.; Rozental, S. Miltefosine is active against Sporothrix brasiliensis isolates with in vitro low susceptibility to amphotericin B or itraconazole. J. Med. Microbiol. 2015, 64, 415–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Vila, T.V.; Ishida, K.; de Souza, W.; Prousis, K.; Calogeropoulou, T.; Rozental, S. Effect of alkylphospholipids on Candida albicans biofilm formation and maturation. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2013, 68, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Tong, Z.; Widmer, F.; Sorrell, T.C.; Guse, Z.; Jolliffe, K.A.; Halliday, C.; Lee, O.C.; Kong, F.; Wright, L.C.; Chen, S.C. In vitro activities of miltefosine and two novel antifungal biscationic salts against a panel of 77 dermatophytes. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2007, 51, 2219–2222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Widmer, F.; Wright, L.C.; Obando, D.; Handke, R.; Ganendren, R.; Ellis, D.H.; Sorrell, T.C. Hexadecylphosphocholine (miltefosine) has broad-spectrum fungicidal activity and is efficacious in a mouse model of cryptococcosis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2006, 50, 414–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Seifert, K.; Simon, L.C. In vitro and in vivo interactions between miltefosine and other antileishmanial drugs. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2006, 50, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Wiederhold, N.P.; Najvar, L.K.; Bocanegra, R.; Kirkpatrick, W.R.; Sorrell, T.C.; Patterson, T.F. Limited activity of miltefosine in murine models of cryptococcal meningoencephalitis and disseminated cryptococcosis. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2013, 57, 745–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Hoenigl, M.; Salmanton-García, J.; Walsh, T.J.; Nucci, M.; Neoh, C.F.; Jenks, J.D.; Lackner, M.; Sprute, R.; Al-Hatmi, A.M.S.; Bassetti, M.; et al. Global guideline for the diagnosis and management of rare mould infections: An initiative of the European Confederation of Medical Mycology in cooperation with the International Society for Human and Animal Mycology and the American Society for Microbiology. Lancet Infect Dis. 2021, 21, e246–e257, Erratum in Lancet Infect Dis. 2021, 21, e81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. In vitro susceptibilities of miltefosine in comparison with four antifungal drugs against 110 Fusarium isolates from different species complexes.
Table 1. In vitro susceptibilities of miltefosine in comparison with four antifungal drugs against 110 Fusarium isolates from different species complexes.
Source and Antifungal AgentMIC/MEC50MIC/MEC90MIC/MEC RangeGMMode
All Fusarium isolates (n = 110) (μg/mL)
Miltefosine220.25–41.442
Voriconazole280.125–162.154
Amphotericin B120.032–40.81
Itraconazole16162–1614.1916
Caspofungin880.125–87.188
Fusarium, clinical (n = 68)
Miltefosine220.25–41.502
Voriconazole480.25–162.914
Amphotericin B120.125–40.741
Itraconazole16162–1614.8916
Caspofungin882–87.298
Fusarium, environmental (n = 42)
Miltefosine120.5–41.341
Voriconazole240.125–81.321
Amphotericin B140.032–40.921
Itraconazole16162–1613.1216
Caspofungin880.125–87.018
Clinical F. fujikuroi complex (n =25)
Miltefosine220.25–41.512
Voriconazole240.5–82.424
Amphotericin B120.125–41.021
Itraconazole16168–1615.1316
Caspofungin884–87.788
Environmental F. fujikuroi complex (n = 38)
Miltefosine120.5–41.291
Voriconazole240.125–81.331
Amphotericin B140.032–40.911
Itraconazole16162–1613.0916
Caspofungin880.125–86.918
Clinical F. solani complex (n = 36)
Miltefosine221–21.462
Voriconazole480.25–163.178
Amphotericin B0.520.125–40.61
Itraconazole16168–1615.3916
Caspofungin882–87.128
Clinical F. oxysporum complex (n = 5)
Miltefosine--1–21.742
Voriconazole--2–165.274
Amphotericin B--0.25–40.750.5
Itraconazole--161616
Caspofungin--888
Clinical F. incarnatum equiseti species complex (n = 1)
Miltefosine 2
Voriconazole 1
Amphotericin B 0.25
Itraconazole 16
Caspofungin 2
Environmental F. incarnatum equiseti species complex (n = 2)
Miltefosine 1–4
Voriconazole 0.5–1
Amphotericin B 0.5–1
Itraconazole 8–16
Caspofungin 8
Clinical F. lateritium complex (n = 1)
Miltefosine 1
Voriconazole 2
Amphotericin B 1
Itraconazole 2
Caspofungin 8
Environmental F. graminearum complex (n = 1)
Miltefosine 2
Voriconazole 2
Amphotericin B 4
Itraconazole 16
Caspofungin 8
Environmental Fusarium redolens species complex (n = 1)
Miltefosine 2
Voriconazole 2
Amphotericin B 0.5
Itraconazole 16
Caspofungin 8
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nosratabadi, M.; Akhtari, J.; Faeli, L.; Haghani, I.; Aghili, S.R.; Shokohi, T.; Hedayati, M.T.; Zarrinfar, H.; Mohammadi, R.; Najafzadeh, M.J.; et al. In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility Profile of Miltefosine against a Collection of Azole and Echinocandins Resistant Fusarium Strains. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 709. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8070709

AMA Style

Nosratabadi M, Akhtari J, Faeli L, Haghani I, Aghili SR, Shokohi T, Hedayati MT, Zarrinfar H, Mohammadi R, Najafzadeh MJ, et al. In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility Profile of Miltefosine against a Collection of Azole and Echinocandins Resistant Fusarium Strains. Journal of Fungi. 2022; 8(7):709. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8070709

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nosratabadi, Mohsen, Javad Akhtari, Leila Faeli, Iman Haghani, Seyed Reza Aghili, Tahereh Shokohi, Mohammad Taghi Hedayati, Hossein Zarrinfar, Rasoul Mohammadi, Mohammad Javad Najafzadeh, and et al. 2022. "In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility Profile of Miltefosine against a Collection of Azole and Echinocandins Resistant Fusarium Strains" Journal of Fungi 8, no. 7: 709. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8070709

APA Style

Nosratabadi, M., Akhtari, J., Faeli, L., Haghani, I., Aghili, S. R., Shokohi, T., Hedayati, M. T., Zarrinfar, H., Mohammadi, R., Najafzadeh, M. J., Khodavaisy, S., Al-Harrasi, A., Javan-Nikkhah, M., Kachuei, R., Salimi, M., Fattahi, M., Badali, H., Al Hatmi, A. M. S., & Abastabar, M. (2022). In Vitro Antifungal Susceptibility Profile of Miltefosine against a Collection of Azole and Echinocandins Resistant Fusarium Strains. Journal of Fungi, 8(7), 709. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8070709

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop